ADVERTISEMENT

What....they fighting over a 3 star....Alabama and Auburn....

So because one 3 star instate kid commits to Bama that means stars are unimportant? Got it! Any idea why those guys are mostly recruiting 4 and 5 star kids then? I mean stars aren't important and all. Probably a fluke that Bama has won three titles recently and been the favorite in every game they have played for about 5 years given they have finished #1 in recruiting last 6 years or so based on purely on stars.

Guess we wasted our time with Marcus, Clowney, Alshon, Ingram, Holloman, Gilmore, Garcia, Quarles, Ellington, Davis, etc. It's an absolute miracle we had our best teams ever when we had the most 4 and 5 stars on our team. If we could just go back to those mid 90's teams that were made up mainly of 2 and 3 star kids we'd have it made.

Yes some 2 stars and 3 stars have unexpected great careers, and some 4 and 5 stars are bust. The rankings aren't perfect. But our coaches have chosen many kids that didn't pan out either. They also are not perfect. The percentages are strongly in favor of the higher rated players though. The teams that recruit the highest rated players year in and year out typically have the teams that are the best.
 
Laziness said:
So because one 3 star instate kid commits to Bama that means stars are unimportant? Got it! Any idea why those guys are mostly recruiting 4 and 5 star kids then? I mean stars aren't important and all. Probably a fluke that Bama has won three titles recently and been the favorite in every game they have played for about 5 years given they have finished #1 in recruiting last 6 years or so based on purely on stars.

Guess we wasted our time with Marcus, Clowney, Alshon, Ingram, Holloman, Gilmore, Garcia, Quarles, Ellington, Davis, etc. It's an absolute miracle we had our best teams ever when we had the most 4 and 5 stars on our team. If we could just go back to those mid 90's teams that were made up mainly of 2 and 3 star kids we'd have it made.

Yes some 2 stars and 3 stars have unexpected great careers, and some 4 and 5 stars are bust. The rankings aren't perfect. But our coaches have chosen many kids that didn't pan out either. They also are not perfect. The percentages are strongly in favor of the higher rated players though. The teams that recruit the highest rated players year in and year out typically have the teams that are the best.
Click to expand...


Truth.
 
Laziness said:
So because one 3 star instate kid commits to Bama that means stars are unimportant? Got it! Any idea why those guys are mostly recruiting 4 and 5 star kids then? I mean stars aren't important and all. Probably a fluke that Bama has won three titles recently and been the favorite in every game they have played for about 5 years given they have finished #1 in recruiting last 6 years or so based on purely on stars.

Guess we wasted our time with Marcus, Clowney, Alshon, Ingram, Holloman, Gilmore, Garcia, Quarles, Ellington, Davis, etc. It's an absolute miracle we had our best teams ever when we had the most 4 and 5 stars on our team. If we could just go back to those mid 90's teams that were made up mainly of 2 and 3 star kids we'd have it made.

Yes some 2 stars and 3 stars have unexpected great careers, and some 4 and 5 stars are bust. The rankings aren't perfect. But our coaches have chosen many kids that didn't pan out either. They also are not perfect. The percentages are strongly in favor of the higher rated players though. The teams that recruit the highest rated players year in and year out typically have the teams that are the best.
Click to expand...
My point was...we all take 3 stars. If you think a kid walks onto a college campus with any stars you are crazy. These are high school kids and trust me they don't get a look at every kid in the country. You try to get the best you can with personal evaluations not stars. If we sign a 2 or 3 star and there are 4 and 5 stars still interested in us then I think we took the kid because they thought he might be better than the 4 or 5 star. Stars are on paper...get the kid here...scout him in game action...and then let the staff grant him their personal star based on what they want or see. That's my point....Alabama should have won the last 10 national championships bases solely on star power....
 
superflyby said:
My point was...we all take 3 stars. If you think a kid walks onto a college campus with any stars you are crazy. These are high school kids and trust me they don't get a look at every kid in the country. You try to get the best you can with personal evaluations not stars. If we sign a 2 or 3 star and there are 4 and 5 stars still interested in us then I think we took the kid because they thought he might be better than the 4 or 5 star. Stars are on paper...get the kid here...scout him in game action...and then let the staff grant him their personal star based on what they want or see. That's my point....Alabama should have won the last 10 national championships bases solely on star power....
Click to expand...


I don't disagree with a lot of the things you said. There have been many 3 stars that have turned out well DJ, Shaw, heck I think Rice and Simpson were both 2 stars. That said, for ever 3 star that turns into a star there are 10 others who barely see the field. Of course every team takes some three stars, but if you want your team to excel on the field, history has shown you better be recruiting and signing a high number of 4 and 5 star players. You aren't winning any titles if the majority of your players are 2 and 3 stars.

What this is Saban's 8th or 9th year at Bama? They have won 3 titles, made the playoffs another year, and have finished in the top 10 like 6 straight years. Pretty sure they are strong proof there must be something to those star ratings. I am just always baffled when people try to argue that stars don't matter. Sure not on a player by players basis, but as a whole it is a very good indicator. To think otherwise is a bit naive.
 
What has helped Saban and Alabama almost as much as 4 and 5 stars is that they have played the weakest schedules in the SEC since Saban was hired. Look at LSU, they recruit as well as anyone. If 4&5 stars was the end all, they would win the MNC just about every year. Spurrier has a record the last six years as good or better that Les Miles but not nearly as many stars.
 
MANAFOLD said:
What has helped Saban and Alabama almost as much as 4 and 5 stars is that they have played the weakest schedules in the SEC since Saban was hired. Look at LSU, they recruit as well as anyone. If 4&5 stars was the end all, they would win the MNC just about every year. Spurrier has a record the last six years as good or better that Les Miles but not nearly as many stars.
Click to expand...

I think we all would agree here Spurrier is a much better coach than Miles. I doubt even LSU fans would argue that. So what's Spurrier's record against Miles at LSU? Maybe them having more 4 and 5 star players has a little something to do with the fact we haven't beaten them since Brad Scott coached here. And Spurrier having almost as many wins as Miles the last six years...you mean the years we had our most 4 and 5 star players in our history? Gee, that's hard to explain. Stars matter.
 
Laziness said:
I don't disagree with a lot of the things you said. There have been many 3 stars that have turned out well DJ, Shaw, heck I think Rice and Simpson were both 2 stars. That said, for ever 3 star that turns into a star there are 10 others who barely see the field. Of course every team takes some three stars, but if you want your team to excel on the field, history has shown you better be recruiting and signing a high number of 4 and 5 star players. You aren't winning any titles if the majority of your players are 2 and 3 stars.

What this is Saban's 8th or 9th year at Bama? They have won 3 titles, made the playoffs another year, and have finished in the top 10 like 6 straight years. Pretty sure they are strong proof there must be something to those star ratings. I am just always baffled when people try to argue that stars don't matter. Sure not on a player by players basis, but as a whole it is a very good indicator. To think otherwise is a bit naive.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter because we aren't getting them...bottom line
 
Laziness said:
I don't disagree with a lot of the things you said. There have been many 3 stars that have turned out well DJ, Shaw, heck I think Rice and Simpson were both 2 stars. That said, for ever 3 star that turns into a star there are 10 others who barely see the field. Of course every team takes some three stars, but if you want your team to excel on the field, history has shown you better be recruiting and signing a high number of 4 and 5 star players. You aren't winning any titles if the majority of your players are 2 and 3 stars.

What this is Saban's 8th or 9th year at Bama? They have won 3 titles, made the playoffs another year, and have finished in the top 10 like 6 straight years. Pretty sure they are strong proof there must be something to those star ratings. I am just always baffled when people try to argue that stars don't matter. Sure not on a player by players basis, but as a whole it is a very good indicator. To think otherwise is a bit naive.
Click to expand...
Ko Simpson was a 2*, Sidney Rice was a 3* and that was because they thought he's was going to focus on basketball.
 
Laziness said:
So because one 3 star instate kid commits to Bama that means stars are unimportant? Got it! Any idea why those guys are mostly recruiting 4 and 5 star kids then? I mean stars aren't important and all. Probably a fluke that Bama has won three titles recently and been the favorite in every game they have played for about 5 years given they have finished #1 in recruiting last 6 years or so based on purely on stars.

Guess we wasted our time with Marcus, Clowney, Alshon, Ingram, Holloman, Gilmore, Garcia, Quarles, Ellington, Davis, etc. It's an absolute miracle we had our best teams ever when we had the most 4 and 5 stars on our team. If we could just go back to those mid 90's teams that were made up mainly of 2 and 3 star kids we'd have it made.

Yes some 2 stars and 3 stars have unexpected great careers, and some 4 and 5 stars are bust. The rankings aren't perfect. But our coaches have chosen many kids that didn't pan out either. They also are not perfect. The percentages are strongly in favor of the higher rated players though. The teams that recruit the highest rated players year in and year out typically have the teams that are the best.
Click to expand...
I always found this funny. There are close to forty five star players in a given year, another two hundred fifty four star's, with the rest being two/three star players. With that many more chances, you'd hope a three star player developed.

Look at the success rates on your all conference teams, look at your All-American teams, then look at the first three rounds of the draft. You'll see why stars mean so much.

Almost forgot every team that has won the National Championship has had a top class within their last four years. BCS Era
 
  • Like
Reactions: Laziness
Les Miles gets all the talent he want out of La. where there are more prospects than our state. They are also located next to Tx. and cherry pick national recruits. Miles and Saban ought to win more. Put SOS at LSU or Bama and I think he would do equally well. He opted for the hard road. SC is a much tougher sell job to recruits.
 
Lex1471 said:
Wrong again manafold. Spurriers record the past 6 years is 56-23. Les miles record the last 6 years is 61-18. So your just spewing out nonsense as usual. And spurrier has never beaten les miles either. Les miles also has a conference championship and an appearance in a national championship in the last 6 years. So stars do matter.
Click to expand...
I don't think the argument is that stars don't matter. The argument is that stars aren't always the end result when it comes to talent. I think anyone in his right mind would want a roster of 4 and 5 star kids. There may be a few that don't work out but you are really taking less of a chance. The fact that we do take our fair share of three stars (as do many ) then you have to be good at your evaluations and this staff has proven to be good at that.....end of story....lol.
 
Lex1471 said:
Wrong again manafold. Spurriers record the past 6 years is 56-23. Les miles record the last 6 years is 61-18. So your just spewing out nonsense as usual. And spurrier has never beaten les miles either. Les miles also has a conference championship and an appearance in a national championship in the last 6 years. So stars do matter.
Click to expand...

Isn't that less than 1 win per year?
 
mistad3 said:
Almost forgot every team that has won the National Championship has had a top class within their last four years. BCS Era
Click to expand...

That's a brilliant deduction there.
But on further deduction don't you believe that there's laziness within those rankings recruits too? I mean practically every ranking service automatically gives players attention and credibility when they hear that Bama is offering, or SoCal, or OSU, Auburn, Mich, LSU, etc. I would venture to guess that most 5 star players aren't known until they start receiving offers from the bigs.

And as to your comment on national champions, how many years did OSU have top 10 classes but didn't make a BCS bowl. How about Texas? How about SoCal, UTK, Mich??? Care to explain those cases where teams are raking in those 4 and 5 stars annually but under-perform?
Besides that, how many of those 4 and 5 stars players never see the field at those schools, or end up transferring? Yeah, the rate of 3 star players not panning out is high but only because their is 500x the number. But there are a lot of these 4 and 5 star "ranked" players out of the 270-300 never live up to their hype too...and again were only rated so high because of receiving an early offer from one of the bigs and getting more attention.

And btw, you're talking BCS which was nothing but another "ranking" system in my opinion...and they had to divide the games up equally between all the power conferences to avoid conflict. So yeah, there's that too.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
That's a brilliant deduction there.
But on further deduction don't you believe that there's laziness within those rankings recruits too? I mean practically every ranking service automatically gives players attention and credibility when they hear that Bama is offering, or SoCal, or OSU, Auburn, Mich, LSU, etc. I would venture to guess that most 5 star players aren't known until they start receiving offers from the bigs.

And as to your comment on national champions, how many years did OSU have top 10 classes but didn't make a BCS bowl. How about Texas? How about SoCal, UTK, Mich??? Care to explain those cases where teams are raking in those 4 and 5 stars annually but under-perform?
Besides that, how many of those 4 and 5 stars players never see the field at those schools, or end up transferring? Yeah, the rate of 3 star players not panning out is high but only because their is 500x the number. But there are a lot of these 4 and 5 star "ranked" players out of the 270-300 never live up to their hype too...and again were only rated so high because of receiving an early offer from one of the bigs and getting more attention.

And btw, you're talking BCS which was nothing but another "ranking" system in my opinion...and they had to divide the games up equally between all the power conferences to avoid conflict. So yeah, there's that too.
Click to expand...
Evaluating players has become easier than ever before, with all the camps The Opening, Rivals five star, seven on seven. All the top players are playing each other, player's that are under the radar are getting their due. There's that portion.

Now let's talk about the teams that have recruited well but haven't won. I want you to go through your list, and tell me how many of those coaches have gotten fired? If you recruit well you're expected to win and you should be.

Another assignment, like I said earlier. There are close to forty five star players each year. Most times there are thirty five or less. Rivals has the data, all you have to do is look at the rankings going back to 1998, and you will see that the vast majority of them pan out. In my opinion, panning out is all conference, they aren't projecting draft status, but even when you take that into account, if you're a five star player you're some like 600% more likely to be drafted in the first four rounds.

The science is there, it's no denying that five star players are better. That's why they get all the offers, they're easier to identify as well. That's why we pay for services like rivals, me insidethegators, and you this board.
 
mistad3 said:
Evaluating players has become easier than ever before, with all the camps The Opening, Rivals five star, seven on seven. All the top players are playing each other, player's that are under the radar are getting their due. There's that portion.

Now let's talk about the teams that have recruited well but haven't won. I want you to go through your list, and tell me how many of those coaches have gotten fired? If you recruit well you're expected to win and you should be.

Another assignment, like I said earlier. There are close to forty five star players each year. Most times there are thirty five or less. Rivals has the data, all you have to do is look at the rankings going back to 1998, and you will see that the vast majority of them pan out. In my opinion, panning out is all conference, they aren't projecting draft status, but even when you take that into account, if you're a five star player you're some like 600% more likely to be drafted in the first four rounds.

The science is there, it's no denying that five star players are better. That's why they get all the offers, they're easier to identify as well. That's why we pay for services like rivals, me insidethegators, and you this board.
Click to expand...

LMAO, you're still using backwards logic and trying to assign me to a task? I strongly urge you to rethink that line of thought.

"Evaluating players has become easier than ever before, with all the camps The Opening, Rivals five star, seven on seven. All the top players are playing each other, player's that are under the radar are getting their due. There's that portion"
Yes, I agree with you on this that players have more opportunities to showcase themselves...and it's so easy to evaluate them a caveman can do it! But you seem to forget that a lot of these kids are getting help, as there are a lot more people involved these days with helping to promote players (hs coaches, asst hs coaches, college and pro runners...providing them with transportation, lodging, food, etc.) to attend these camps. But not all players...thousands of players throughout the US and abroad...aren't fortunate enough to enjoy that luxury. That doesn't always have anything at all to do with talent and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know that...since you appear to know some much about the entire process. But you keep trying to support your argument with the top 35-40 players in the country, and I'm telling you those are the players that enjoy these luxuries.

Now let's talk about the teams that have recruited well but haven't won. I want you to go through your list, and tell me how many of those coaches have gotten fired? If you recruit well you're expected to win and you should be.
Well, now it's that a great none answer. What does it matter who the coach was at the time or whether or not they got fired, and what does that have to do with their recruiting rankings...and you know those teams I listed WERE highly ranked, yet under-performed based on their talent level. You're only helping to prove my point that even when they had shytty coaches the players they recruited were still rated by these services to be top players. Maybe you can give this enigma of the recruiting rankings world another stab?

Another assignment, like I said earlier. There are close to forty five star players each year. Most times there are thirty five or less. Rivals has the data, all you have to do is look at the rankings going back to 1998, and you will see that the vast majority of them pan out. In my opinion, panning out is all conference, they aren't projecting draft status, but even when you take that into account, if you're a five star player you're some like 600% more likely to be drafted in the first four rounds.
You're talking about the success of the top 35-40 players ranked by these services. This thread started out talking about a 3 star player...remember? And I really hope you misquoted that stat about those 35-40 being 600% more likely to make the top 4 rounds. That's not really all that impressive.

If you believe there is a science to all of this, I'd like to know what you're smoking and where I can get some. But don't let me deter you. I know your probably spending a ton right now wondering how your lizards are gonna be this year, and I can't really blame you.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
LMAO, you're still using backwards logic and trying to assign me to a task? I strongly urge you to rethink that line of thought.

"Evaluating players has become easier than ever before, with all the camps The Opening, Rivals five star, seven on seven. All the top players are playing each other, player's that are under the radar are getting their due. There's that portion"
Yes, I agree with you on this that players have more opportunities to showcase themselves...and it's so easy to evaluate them a caveman can do it! But you seem to forget that a lot of these kids are getting help, as there are a lot more people involved these days with helping to promote players (hs coaches, asst hs coaches, college and pro runners...providing them with transportation, lodging, food, etc.) to attend these camps. But not all players...thousands of players throughout the US and abroad...aren't fortunate enough to enjoy that luxury. That doesn't always have anything at all to do with talent and I'm sure you are intelligent enough to know that...since you appear to know some much about the entire process. But you keep trying to support your argument with the top 35-40 players in the country, and I'm telling you those are the players that enjoy these luxuries.

Now let's talk about the teams that have recruited well but haven't won. I want you to go through your list, and tell me how many of those coaches have gotten fired? If you recruit well you're expected to win and you should be.
Well, now it's that a great none answer. What does it matter who the coach was at the time or whether or not they got fired, and what does that have to do with their recruiting rankings...and you know those teams I listed WERE highly ranked, yet under-performed based on their talent level. You're only helping to prove my point that even when they had shytty coaches the players they recruited were still rated by these services to be top players. Maybe you can give this enigma of the recruiting rankings world another stab?

Another assignment, like I said earlier. There are close to forty five star players each year. Most times there are thirty five or less. Rivals has the data, all you have to do is look at the rankings going back to 1998, and you will see that the vast majority of them pan out. In my opinion, panning out is all conference, they aren't projecting draft status, but even when you take that into account, if you're a five star player you're some like 600% more likely to be drafted in the first four rounds.
You're talking about the success of the top 35-40 players ranked by these services. This thread started out talking about a 3 star player...remember? And I really hope you misquoted that stat about those 35-40 being 600% more likely to make the top 4 rounds. That's not really all that impressive.

If you believe there is a science to all of this, I'd like to know what you're smoking and where I can get some. But don't let me deter you. I know your probably spending a ton right now wondering how your lizards are gonna be this year, and I can't really blame you.
Click to expand...

Probably one of the better articles out there on it. You can read about it here.http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

If you don't want to read the whole report, here is the summary:

The evidence is overwhelming: Despite some obvious, anecdotal exceptions, on the whole recruiting rankings clearly are useful for creating a realistic baseline for expectations. But the narrower your focus, the less useful they will become.

The massively hyped, five-star recruit headlining your team's next recruiting class may be an irredeemable bust; he is also many times more likely than a scrappy three-star to pan out as an All-American and move on to the next level. Somewhere, an under-scouted afterthought with a chip on his shoulder will almost certainly go on to defy the odds, become a star and maybe win the Heisman Trophy. But that doesn't change the odds, which are against him becoming anything more than an obscure role player, at best. Inevitably, a team full of afterthoughts at the bottom of the rankings will defy the odds, catch fire, pull a few upsets and storm its way into a BCS bowl. But that doesn't change the odds, which are in favor of the same team dwindling on the edge of bowl eligibility. And just as inevitably, the eventual national champion will emerge from the ranks of the handful of teams that consistently come on signing day.

The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure – injuries, academics, even coaching – individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies.
 
mistad3 said:
Probably one of the better articles out there on it. You can read about it here.http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

If you don't want to read the whole report, here is the summary:

The evidence is overwhelming: Despite some obvious, anecdotal exceptions, on the whole recruiting rankings clearly are useful for creating a realistic baseline for expectations. But the narrower your focus, the less useful they will become.

The massively hyped, five-star recruit headlining your team's next recruiting class may be an irredeemable bust; he is also many times more likely than a scrappy three-star to pan out as an All-American and move on to the next level. Somewhere, an under-scouted afterthought with a chip on his shoulder will almost certainly go on to defy the odds, become a star and maybe win the Heisman Trophy. But that doesn't change the odds, which are against him becoming anything more than an obscure role player, at best. Inevitably, a team full of afterthoughts at the bottom of the rankings will defy the odds, catch fire, pull a few upsets and storm its way into a BCS bowl. But that doesn't change the odds, which are in favor of the same team dwindling on the edge of bowl eligibility. And just as inevitably, the eventual national champion will emerge from the ranks of the handful of teams that consistently come on signing day.

The exceptions prove the rule: Overwhelmingly, setting aside every other conceivable factor that determines success and failure – injuries, academics, even coaching – individual players and teams tend to perform within the very narrow range their initial recruiting rankings suggest. Some percentage of both groups will not. But when it comes to forming expectations, it should go without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies.
Click to expand...

Well thx for the link. Don't have time tonite but I will read it.

This still doesn't address the few teams I listed (and there are many more) and the correlation with rankings...and whether or not some of those kids garnered more attention and a higher ranking due to the school they committed to.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
That's a brilliant deduction there.
But on further deduction don't you believe that there's laziness within those rankings recruits too? I mean practically every ranking service automatically gives players attention and credibility when they hear that Bama is offering, or SoCal, or OSU, Auburn, Mich, LSU, etc. I would venture to guess that most 5 star players aren't known until they start receiving offers from the bigs.

And as to your comment on national champions, how many years did OSU have top 10 classes but didn't make a BCS bowl. How about Texas? How about SoCal, UTK, Mich??? Care to explain those cases where teams are raking in those 4 and 5 stars annually but under-perform?
Besides that, how many of those 4 and 5 stars players never see the field at those schools, or end up transferring? Yeah, the rate of 3 star players not panning out is high but only because their is 500x the number. But there are a lot of these 4 and 5 star "ranked" players out of the 270-300 never live up to their hype too...and again were only rated so high because of receiving an early offer from one of the bigs and getting more attention.

And btw, you're talking BCS which was nothing but another "ranking" system in my opinion...and they had to divide the games up equally between all the power conferences to avoid conflict. So yeah, there's that too.
Click to expand...

If ranking services inflate player stars just for big schools, then why do Florida St, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St, etc. win some many conference championships? Why do they have so many players getting drafted every year? If Bama, FSU, Ohio St, etc. recruits are just given stars, and really aren't better than anyone else's recruits, why are they the teams winning national titles? Their players aren't better than anyone elses they are just getting more promotion correct?

How many years did OSU miss a BCS bowl? I don't know, but I know they have played in more BCS bowls than anyone else has. How many BCS bowls did we play in without a top 10 class? Pretty sure those same teams that have a bunch of top ten classes make a bunch of trips to BCS bowls. Funny how that happens, must not just be inflated recruiting rankings.

And of course some players never live up to the hype. But think back to our best players in last 5 or 6 years, you know, when our team was really good. Clowney, Quarles, Holloman, Alshon, Ingram, Cooper, Ellington, Gilmore, Davis, Sanders, Culliver, Garcia, Cann, Lattimore...know what they all have in common? 4 or 5 stars. Sure Shaw and DJ were great as well and were 3 stars, but they are the exceptions not the rule. Pretty much all our other star players were 4 or 5 stars. I think everyone understands individually a player may be ranked with the wrong amount of stars, but as a whole if your team isn't getting a lot of 4 and 5 star players, your teams isn't going to be winning anything of importance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lex1471
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
Well thx for the link. Don't have time tonite but I will read it.

This still doesn't address the few teams I listed (and there are many more) and the correlation with rankings...and whether or not some of those kids garnered more attention and a higher ranking due to the school they committed to.
Click to expand...
Laziness said:
If ranking services inflate player stars just for big schools, then why do Florida St, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St, etc. win some many conference championships? Why do they have so many players getting drafted every year? If Bama, FSU, Ohio St, etc. recruits are just given stars, and really aren't better than anyone else's recruits, why are they the teams winning national titles? Their players aren't better than anyone elses they are just getting more promotion correct?

How many years did OSU miss a BCS bowl? I don't know, but I know they have played in more BCS bowls than anyone else has. How many BCS bowls did we play in without a top 10 class? Pretty sure those same teams that have a bunch of top ten classes make a bunch of trips to BCS bowls. Funny how that happens, must not just be inflated recruiting rankings.

And of course some players never live up to the hype. But think back to our best players in last 5 or 6 years, you know, when our team was really good. Clowney, Quarles, Holloman, Alshon, Ingram, Cooper, Ellington, Gilmore, Davis, Sanders, Culliver, Garcia, Cann, Lattimore...know what they all have in common? 4 or 5 stars. Sure Shaw and DJ were great as well and were 3 stars, but they are the exceptions not the rule. Pretty much all our other star players were 4 or 5 stars. I think everyone understands individually a player may be ranked with the wrong amount of stars, but as a whole if your team isn't getting a lot of 4 and 5 star players, your teams isn't going to be winning anything of importance.
Click to expand...

Fact is, the only people who have a problem with the star system, are the people who aren't getting the stars.

If you're getting four/five star players, going to conference title games, going to BCS bowls, winning National Championships. Sure some miss, but the vast majority follow that same time line.
 
Laziness said:
If ranking services inflate player stars just for big schools, then why do Florida St, Alabama, LSU, Ohio St, etc. win some many conference championships? Why do they have so many players getting drafted every year? If Bama, FSU, Ohio St, etc. recruits are just given stars, and really aren't better than anyone else's recruits, why are they the teams winning national titles? Their players aren't better than anyone elses they are just getting more promotion correct?

How many years did OSU miss a BCS bowl? I don't know, but I know they have played in more BCS bowls than anyone else has. How many BCS bowls did we play in without a top 10 class? Pretty sure those same teams that have a bunch of top ten classes make a bunch of trips to BCS bowls. Funny how that happens, must not just be inflated recruiting rankings.

And of course some players never live up to the hype. But think back to our best players in last 5 or 6 years, you know, when our team was really good. Clowney, Quarles, Holloman, Alshon, Ingram, Cooper, Ellington, Gilmore, Davis, Sanders, Culliver, Garcia, Cann, Lattimore...know what they all have in common? 4 or 5 stars. Sure Shaw and DJ were great as well and were 3 stars, but they are the exceptions not the rule. Pretty much all our other star players were 4 or 5 stars. I think everyone understands individually a player may be ranked with the wrong amount of stars, but as a whole if your team isn't getting a lot of 4 and 5 star players, your teams isn't going to be winning anything of importance.
Click to expand...

Man, you're really struggling through this, aren't you? Let me try to clarify, OK?

1)The top 10 traditional teams in the country get the best talent EVERY year. That's no secret. They always have and they always will. I never said they did't so please don't take my words out of context.
2)Recruiting services are FOR PROFIT services. So in their quest to be accurate and appear legit to help them remain profitable, what's is their easy path? Follow the top teams in the nation and pick their self imposed pool (to be safe and lower the risk of being inaccurate) number of 4* and 5* players.
3)Even the top 10 teams in the nation are wrong on some players, but that doesn't stop the recruiting services from standard procedure. So when the top teams miss on a player, the recruiting service usually do too.
4)My reference to those teams that were ranked in the top 10-15 in years that they didn't make it to a major bowl isn't a fairytale, it happened. Some were ranked in the top 10 for 2-3 years and didn't come close to winning their conference. I've posted it before so I'm not going to relist them. It would take you less than 1/2 an hour to look it up yourself if you are interested enough.
5)The BCS era sucked, so I don't care how many times ANY school that was 2nd in their conference was reward with a BCS bowl game. It's totally irrelevant so I'd appreciate you not trying to use that as some sort of reference of success on the national scale.
6)Just last season there were 4-5 teams that finished in the top 25 they were no where near the top 25 in recruiting rankings by recruiting services. And again, I've posted it before so I'm not going to relist them. This shouldn't take you but about 5 minutes or less to look up.

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out but I'm growing apathetic.

For a better example of why so many are loosing interest in these recruiting services read Superflyby's link.
 
Last edited:
I will continue to edit as time permits. I want to list the total number of five star players, and top ten teams from each year. We'll take the bust rate. We can also look and see if a team has won a BCS bowl game, a conference championship, or a national championship. Is that fair, or do we need more data?
 
Last edited:
mistad3 said:
I will continue to edit as time permits. I want to list the total number of five star players, and top ten teams from each year. Wells take the bust rate. We can also look and see if a team has won a BCS bowl game, a conference championship, or a national championship. Is that fair, or do we need more data?
Click to expand...

Depends on what you're trying to prove.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
Depends on what you're trying to prove.
Click to expand...
I want to prove establish the bust rate of five star players, I want to see the percentage that make All Conference teams, I want to see the bust rate of top ten classes. (I'm going to deferre to you so we can agree on the criteria.) Would you like me to add draft status? If so what round is the cut off for you?

Is this fair analysis in your opinion?

Right now the class of 2002 had 38 5* players.
Vince Young, Haloti Ngata, Ciatrick Fason, Jerious Norwood, Maurice Clarett, Trent Edwards, Devin Hester, Mercedes Lewis, Ahmed Brooks, Rodrique Wright, Justin Blalock, Gabriel Watson.

They won't let me copy and paste the freaking page!!!!
 
Last edited:
popcorn-and-drink-smiley-emoticon.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gamecockalypse325 and mistad3
mistad3 said:
I want to prove establish the bust rate of five star players, I want to see the percentage that make All Conference teams, I want to see the bust rate of top ten classes. (I'm going to deferre to you so we can agree on the criteria.) Would you like me to add draft status? If so what round is the cut off for you?

Is this fair analysis in your opinion?

Right now the class of 2002 had 38 5* players.
Vince Young, Haloti Ngata, Ciatrick Fason, Jerious Norwood, Maurice Clarett, Trent Edwards, Devin Hester, Mercedes Lewis, Ahmed Brooks

They won't let me copy and paste the freaking page!!!!
Click to expand...

You must have missed this in my previous post...

Recruiting services are FOR PROFIT services. So in their quest to be accurate and appear legit to help them remain profitable, what's is their easy path? Follow the top teams in the nation and pick their self imposed pool (to be safe and lower the risk of being inaccurate) number of 4* and 5* players.

Why do they limit the number of 5* players...and even 4* players to an extent? Think about it.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
You must have missed this in my previous post...

Recruiting services are FOR PROFIT services. So in their quest to be accurate and appear legit to help them remain profitable, what's is their easy path? Follow the top teams in the nation and pick their pool of self imposed (to be safe and lower the risk of being inaccurate) number of 4* and 5* players.

Why do they limit the number of 5* players...and even 4* players to an extent? Think about it.
Click to expand...
They are for profit, but it'd also be in their best interest to be as accurate as possible. Like I have said before 5* star players are easy to identify. You can see that with the naked eye, now with the Internet, YouTube, and camps they're easier to evaluate.

Recruiting is the life blood college football, the best recruiters, with the best resources win. It's evident in Spurrier's rise at South Carolina. Steve Spurrier signed the top players in South Carolina at the time when those players were also some of the top players in the nation, and the Gamecocks program rose. Before that, there was some success, but nothing spectacular. After those players left even though the sample size is small (one year) they came back to earth. Did Steve Spurrier all of a sudden become a better coach at South Carolina in year six? In fact there were people, tons of them who were vocal about him not getting it done. This was the year before the nine win season. You personally have that Gilmore to thank for that. He made coming to South Carolina cool to the top talent in the state.
 
Just finished 2002 twelve players fit into the category of being a non bust. Make it thirteen, I forgot to add Chris Davis. Four either never qualified, or had to quit football because of injuries. I didn't count them but if you want to I can. (2/2)

So that puts the bust rate at 62%. You're going to say it should be higher, but I'd ask you to look at the NFL bust rate for comparison, then look at the bust rate of two/three stars.

I'll get started on 2003, I live in Portland, Oregon so I can put a few minutes into this.
 
Bigger_Stronger_Faster said:
Man, you're really struggling through this, aren't you? Let me try to clarify, OK?

1)The top 10 traditional teams in the country get the best talent EVERY year. That's no secret. They always have and they always will. I never said they did't so please don't take my words out of context.
2)Recruiting services are FOR PROFIT services. So in their quest to be accurate and appear legit to help them remain profitable, what's is their easy path? Follow the top teams in the nation and pick their self imposed pool (to be safe and lower the risk of being inaccurate) number of 4* and 5* players.
3)Even the top 10 teams in the nation are wrong on some players, but that doesn't stop the recruiting services from standard procedure. So when the top teams miss on a player, the recruiting service usually do too.
4)My reference to those teams that were ranked in the top 10-15 in years that they didn't make it to a major bowl isn't a fairytale, it happened. Some were ranked in the top 10 for 2-3 years and didn't come close to winning their conference. I've posted it before so I'm not going to relist them. It would take you less than 1/2 an hour to look it up yourself if you are interested enough.
5)The BCS era sucked, so I don't care how many times ANY school that was 2nd in their conference was reward with a BCS bowl game. It's totally irrelevant so I'd appreciate you not trying to use that as some sort of reference of success on the national scale.
6)Just last season there were 4-5 teams that finished in the top 25 they were no where near the top 25 in recruiting rankings by recruiting services. And again, I've posted it before so I'm not going to relist them. This shouldn't take you but about 5 minutes or less to look up.

I'm sure I'm leaving some things out but I'm growing apathetic.

For a better example of why so many are loosing interest in these recruiting services read Superflyby's link.
Click to expand...
Class of 2003 had 25 five-star players. My goodness, if you look at the entire Rivals 100. That was a great evaluation year. There are house hold names from top to bottom of that one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Alan Cole

Meechie Johnson and B.J. Mack React To Auburn Loss

Replies
1
Views
521
The Insiders Forum
Alan Cole
Alan Cole
Alan Cole

South Carolina Men's Basketball Open Locker Room Report (Post-Auburn)

Replies
0
Views
496
The Insiders Forum
Alan Cole
Alan Cole
D

Miss State Game- Good, Bad,and ugly

Replies
8
Views
584
Gamecocks Forum
detective29
D
Alan Cole

South Carolina Men's Basketball Open Locker Room Quotes (Post-Arkansas)

Replies
0
Views
490
The Insiders Forum
Alan Cole
Alan Cole
D

Really miss Heath Cline on 107.5- such a mess now

Replies
20
Views
1K
Gamecocks Forum
cockn'fyr
cockn'fyr
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back