3* vs 4/5* in Super Bowl

[RadtechBulldog]

With signing day coming up I thought this was an interesting tweet.....

@KippLAdams: 34 out of 7353 3-star HS prospects from 2002-2010 are in Super Bowl, 24 of the 2815 4 & 5 stars playing. Percentage doubled.

[angusyoung]

How many in each group are starters?

[RadtechBulldog]

Didn't list that in the tweet so no clue honestly

[Jack Lambert]

It's all in the numbers. Those stars are given by some sports magazine and I don't think they really care. All they want is to sell subscriptions. They miss on three stars and they miss on four and five stars. The fact is there are many three stars who should have been four or five. There are four and five stars who should have been three. Since there are more two and three stars then four and five there is just more of them that they missed on.

Thats why this recuriting thing is all BS. It works out for Bama and many of the others because they sign so many more of the four and five stars then everyone else.

A school like Miss State has to evaluate a lot better when looking at the three and two stars kids simply because they are not going to sign 18 four and five stars kids like Bama. I think Mullen has done a good job at that.

[#660000]

KJ Wright being one of those three stars.

http://scoutcombines.scout.com/a.z?s=450&p=8&c=1&nid=2394195

[Goat Holder]

So in essence you have double the chance of the player panning out if he's a 4/5 star compared to a 3 star, but you have 3 times more 3 star players to choose from. Damned if you do damned if you don't.

Bottom line, you have to get good players, no matter how or where you get them. Hard part is actually getting them, at least for MSU. We can't just go 'out-work' Alabama and LSU like so many think we can. Instead, you work smart, like Mullen is doing. I'd personally like to see him do better in JUCO, but in the end you can't really complain too much about his recrootin.

[RadtechBulldog]

Mullen has done a good job of finding gems in the 2* and 3* players out there. Hopefully recruits will see what Mullen can do when he has players that can run his system like Dak and that will only build the excitement around the program which may translate into "stronger" recruiting classes. I'm just excited about the future.

[smootness]

It's all in the numbers. Those stars are given by some sports magazine and I don't think they really care. All they want is to sell subscriptions. They miss on three stars and they miss on four and five stars. The fact is there are many three stars who should have been four or five. There are four and five stars who should have been three. Since there are more two and three stars then four and five there is just more of them that they missed on.

Thats why this recuriting thing is all BS. It works out for Bama and many of the others because they sign so many more of the four and five stars then everyone else.

I definitely think they care. They know they'll lose readership and money if they don't do their work and their rankings are a joke.

And you're contradicting yourself to some degree. You say it's BS, then say it works for Bama because they get more 4- and 5-stars...basically saying that it isn't BS. 4- and 5-star players, on average, are more likely to be good college players than 2- and 3-stars. It's a fact based on past history.

But sure, they 'miss' on guys. There are some 2-stars who end up as much better players than some 5-stars, and that will always be the case. You can't ever develop a system that projects with 100% accuracy what someone will be on the next level, and it is up to coaches to determine who they think will project best and who best fits their system. But that doesn't make it all BS. It just makes it what it is - some guys who are paid to evaluate (and some are definitely better than others) and give their opinion on who has the best chance to succeed at the next level. It's all just people's opinions.

So nothing is concrete and set in stone. It won't ever be because it can't ever be. If you understand this and think it has no merit, then don't pay attention to it, but you're wrong, at least to some degree. If you understand this and think it has some merit, ok.

But anyone trying to determine once and for all whether recruiting rankings are 100% fact or 100% fiction is always going to be wrong. It isn't 100% fact and it isn't 100% fiction.

[defiantdog]

The 3 stars I can think of that start are Demarius Thomas (GT), KJ Wright (MSU), Richard Sherman (STAN), Russell Wilson (NC ST / WIS), and I'm not sure about Wes Welker

[ckDOG]

I'd rather know if these players were evaluated poorly. I'm going to assume that the majority were really 4/5 star talent that didn't get the extra star for various reasons like not camping much, being from a small town, or committing to a non-elite program early in the process.

[dawgs]

I'd rather know if these players were evaluated poorly. I'm going to assume that the majority were really 4/5 star talent that didn't get the extra star for various reasons like not camping much, being from a small town, or committing to a non-elite program early in the process.

or they could have been hard workers, late bloomers, went to a program/coach that best fit their style of play and mental approach to the game, etc.

recruiting rankings are like vegas. they are right more than they are wrong. doesn't mean they are always right, it means they are right more often than wrong. 4*/5* guys pan out at a higher rate then 2*/3* guys. doesn't mean in every instance they do. so many of you want to look at the exceptions and use it to discredit the whole rule. this is just the wrong approach. the rule can be right and there still be exceptions. that's the very definition of an exception.

[Goat Holder]

^^ what this guy said

[smootness]

The best way I can think of to summarize the recruiting rankings as succinctly as possible is to say, 'It isn't scientific, it's an opinion. You want more 4s and 5s than 2s and 3s, but if you end up with the right 2s and 3s, you can still beat the team with 4s and 5s.'

[Coach34]

or they could have been hard workers, late bloomers, went to a program/coach that best fit their style of play and mental approach to the game, etc.

recruiting rankings are like vegas. they are right more than they are wrong. doesn't mean they are always right, it means they are right more often than wrong.


probably the best description I've heard. That and "60% of the time they are right every time"

[ckDOG]

or they could have been hard workers, late bloomers, went to a program/coach that best fit their style of play and mental approach to the game, etc.

recruiting rankings are like vegas. they are right more than they are wrong. doesn't mean they are always right, it means they are right more often than wrong. 4*/5* guys pan out at a higher rate then 2*/3* guys. doesn't mean in every instance they do. so many of you want to look at the exceptions and use it to discredit the whole rule. this is just the wrong approach. the rule can be right and there still be exceptions. that's the very definition of an exception.

No, I'm definitely of the opinion that you want as many of the players the evaluators are classifying as 4/5 stars as possible. They do a good job, as a general rule. The more of these guys you sign, the better talent you will have and more competitive you will be, as a general rule.

You are right, some of these guys are late bloomers etc and fall into the "exceptions" bucket. However, we are taking about NFL roster talent and that's a premier group of player. My assumption is that for a lot of the 3 star guys that made it to the NFL, most of them should have been ranked a 4/5 had they been evaluated properly. They were very likely misses by the evaluators in these cases. Some might have developed later, but most must have been premier athletes when they were 17/18. Having this opinion doesn't that I believe 3 star talent is no worse than 4 star talent, as a general rule. I'm just saying these guys should have stuck out in HS and for whatever reason, didn't get the recognition.