Another example of 5* not panning out....

[Spiderman]

Leaf and marinovich were good college qb's.

And wackos.

They should have been better than they were. They should have made millions and played in the league for years.

But character always comes thru.

I said at the time, any team was an idiot for taking Leaf over Peyton .

[msstate7]

And wackos.

They should have been better than they were. They should have made millions and played in the league for years.

But character always comes thru.

I said at the time, any team was an idiot for taking Leaf over Peyton .

No argument there...

[Reason2succeed]

I don't mind when national recruiting guys or analysts do it but when will we as a fanbase ever give Mullen the benefit of the doubt in recruiting? (I know y'all don't think that he has earned it on the OL. I'm talking about for other positions.)

[Todd4State]

I don't mind when national recruiting guys or analysts do it but when will we as a fanbase ever give Mullen the benefit of the doubt in recruiting? (I know y'all don't think that he has earned it on the OL. I'm talking about for other positions.)

Probably when we stop having the MSU recruiting moments like the Army AA game debacle. We have had a few big moments in recruiting like Chris Jones and Leo Lewis but too many Scott Lashley, AJ Brown's and then not being even in on Cam Akers moments. And yes I know why Akers isn't coming here and I'm not getting into it but it was possibly something Dan should have considered IMO.

[Reason2succeed]

Probably when we stop having the MSU recruiting moments like the Army AA game debacle. We have had a few big moments in recruiting like Chris Jones and Leo Lewis but too many Scott Lashley, AJ Brown's and then not being even in on Cam Akers moments. And yes I know why Akers isn't coming here and I'm not getting into it but it was possibly something Dan should have considered IMO.

This is EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It's pretty obvious that if guys or their reps are looking for hand outs and agreements we're not paying that game. Let those players go. Most of them won't be worth the trouble in the long run. Some will personally but can have catastrophic affects on the rest of the program.

[Spiderman]

Probably when we stop having the MSU recruiting moments like the Army AA game debacle. We have had a few big moments in recruiting like Chris Jones and Leo Lewis but too many Scott Lashley, AJ Brown's and then not being even in on Cam Akers moments. And yes I know why Akers isn't coming here and I'm not getting into it but it was possibly something Dan should have considered IMO.

The Akers deal is way beyond Dan's control.

Be like trying to turn lead into gold. And it was pre Peterson, so just drop all that crap

[Percho]

The Akers deal is way beyond Dan's control.

Be like trying to turn lead into gold. And it was pre Peterson, so just drop all that crap

Where do you believe he will wind up?

[dawgs]

I did some research probably a year ago on 5* qb's. The last 10 years (not exactly sure if it was 10 or a little less), 5* qb's have panned out to be good ~ 50% of the time

And what's the ratio of 3* QBs?

[dawgs]

No circular logic. You missed the point. The point is that a large portion of these guys assigning rankings have never seen the kid in person and bump their rankings by who offers as opposed to comparison wth other players. Please listen to boneyard from yesterday. If we offer a kid he rarely gets a bump. But if Bama offers same kid after us he gets a bump. This goes for other so called "power programs" when they offer a kid. If he was a 3 star when MSU offers, what makes him a 4* now that Bama/Ohio State/LSU are now suddenly interested? Nothing changed with regard to the player except offer list. No circular logic. Just the same logic that has us picked last in west every year, although we haven't finished there in 6 years, and we have more talent now than we've ever had. Perception is we will always be last and that same perception bleeds over to recruits. If MSU offers a kid he must not be any good. If bama offers a kid he's got to be tetter than we thought originally. Compound this by each subsequent offer and year over year and you have established a perception that may not be true. On top of that, None of these recruiting gurus actually keeps up with what 4-5 star players are actually on roster or field in years 2-3.

Yeah but if bama, lsu, Ohio st, etc want him and they have their pick of the litter every year and they've proven to consistently offer NFL talent, shouldn't that effect the way a guy is viewed when those programs start offering him?

[msstate7]

And what's the ratio of 3* QBs?

93%**

Given the choice of a 5* qb or a 3*, I'm taking the 5* every time. Just saying that qb is a lot like oline in that they're not easy to project

[Dawg-gone-dawgs]

My thoughts as well but their are idiots on the other board that pretend like they are in the know and are pretty dead set on Peterson love triangle being the reason Cam is not considering State. Do they not realize how stupid that sounds?

[dawgs]

93%**

Given the choice of a 5* qb or a 3*, I'm taking the 5* every time. Just saying that qb is a lot like oline in that they're not easy to project

Maybe so, but I just think the way you framed you analysis was that recruiting rankings are worthless. Every time there is a bust or a unknown kid blows up, it's cited as evidence that the recruiting rankings don't know what they are doing. That's simply wrong though, teams consistently recruiting in the top 10-15 overwhelmingly compete for conference titles, big bowls, playoffs, etc. at a much higher rate than teams consistently outside of those rankings. Top tier is consistently top 10-15, 2nd tier is consistently top 15-35 where you can get a little lucky on 2-3* combined with your handful of 4-5* to compete some years, and bottom tier is consistently outside the top 40, where there's almost no chance of competing over a full season in a major conference.

Yes there's always exceptions. But historically, the stats support this general analysis.

Recruiting rankings are like the NFL draft. Some 1st rounders bust, and some 7th rounders turn into Tom Brady, but no one is going to trade their first round pick for a 7th round pick because the ratio of hits in the 1st round is far higher than hits in the 7th round. Even though by the draft, these guys have 3-5 years of development and game tape and experience to better project how these guys will pan out, there are still busts. No projections is ever perfect, but the numbers say that recruiting rankings on the whole, are fairly accurate. Whether because they do their own analysis or because they give guys the bama bump, at the end of the day, would anyone argue bama has not had the most talented roster and been the best team in the country over the last 7 years?

[Spiderman]

Where do you believe he will wind up?

In a normal year I'd say OM. There is a reason they are still up there high with him.

Question is, in the atmosphere of the day up there, are they willing to still "recruit" him as hard as they have the last 2 years?

Kinda weird he has Auburn in his top 10 too, isn't it?

Hmmmm.....

[scottycameron]

Spider, as far as OL goes, here's something to look at. Not as much center and guard as tackle but still applies for me.

Can they dominate on the basketball court? If a kid is 6'4" 6'5" or up pushing 300 lbs and can't destroy low level high school basketball then you have a project on your hands. Not to say he won't be good but he's not can't miss.

[scottycameron]

No circular logic. You missed the point. The point is that a large portion of these guys assigning rankings have never seen the kid in person and bump their rankings by who offers as opposed to comparison wth other players. Please listen to boneyard from yesterday. If we offer a kid he rarely gets a bump. But if Bama offers same kid after us he gets a bump. This goes for other so called "power programs" when they offer a kid. If he was a 3 star when MSU offers, what makes him a 4* now that Bama/Ohio State/LSU are now suddenly interested? Nothing changed with regard to the player except offer list. No circular logic. Just the same logic that has us picked last in west every year, although we haven't finished there in 6 years, and we have more talent now than we've ever had. Perception is we will always be last and that same perception bleeds over to recruits. If MSU offers a kid he must not be any good. If bama offers a kid he's got to be tetter than we thought originally. Compound this by each subsequent offer and year over year and you have established a perception that may not be true. On top of that, None of these recruiting gurus actually keeps up with what 4-5 star players are actually on roster or field in years 2-3.

Well then you tell me, who do you trust evaluating these HS kids, he scout, rivals, ESPN, 247, nerd guys watching "film" or the college staffs? You know where these recruiting service guys come from, don't you? Think about who is doing the evaluations. You act like they are the equivalent of NFL scouts.

Here's a little mental exercise. You watch tons of film on HS kids, spend hours evaluating and rating them. I'll do nothing, just rate the players that Bama et all offer high and we'll see who ends up being more accurate. Point is .... I'll let the million dollar staffs do my evaluations for me. It's there job just like the scout etc guys. But they get fired if they aren't good at it.

Now here's the circular logic part. Kids get a bump because they get the Bama etc offer. So that inflates Bama's recruiting ranking, right? So Bama has an overrated class every year because all their recruits got a bump by the offer. And we see this false over evaluation on the field and later in the draft? You should see a gap between recruiting ranking and team ranking later. Does that happen?