The Early Days: what stars of recruits meant.

[MsStateBaseball]

I see everyone talking stars, etc. This is what it meant many years ago.

5 star--can come in and start in year one.
4 star--can come in and play his freshman year.
3 star--will play some his 2nd year, start some in 3rd year.
2 star--will play some his 3rd year, never start.

This is from memory.

[maroonmania]

Its gotten very vague now because its very rare that they leave a 2 star rating on ANY player that signs scholly papers with an SEC school. Four and Five star player are a rather small set of elite players. Then you have this HUGE pool of 3 star players where there is really a wide gap between low rated 3 star guys and high rated 3 star guys. That, to me, is why its sort of useless to just say star ratings when signing someone. For example, signing an 89 rated 3 star player is in no way equal to signing an 83 rated 3 star player.

[HoopsDawg]

Its gotten very vague now because its very rare that they leave a 2 star rating on ANY player that signs scholly papers with an SEC school. Four and Five star player are a rather small set of elite players. Then you have this HUGE pool of 3 star players where there is really a wide gap between low rated 3 star guys and high rated 3 star guys. That, to me, is why its sort of useless to just say star ratings when signing someone. For example, signing an 89 rated 3 star player is in no way equal to signing an 83 rated 3 star player.

Yes, star ranking has been devalued b/c recruiting sites don't want to tick off their members. It's a business. And it's better for business if your customers think their team is recruiting well. Paul and Gene might not have as many subscribers if they listed half our class as 2 stars. Jung jumping from NR to 4 star in 24 hours after his commitment is an example.

[Political Hack]

it was different site to site. there was a limit of how many 5 stars and 2 stars there were each year (e.g., fifty 5-stars & 200 4-stars).

Stars are for people who can't evaluate a player on their own. There's zero reasons for stars unless you're pandering to an audience who can't evaluate talent. And a lot of times the sites are wrong. they've gotten better, but some folks (toot my own horn) were calling Chris jones a freak stud when he was a 2-star and telling everyone our new 2 star LB commit BMac would be a better linebacker than CJ Johnson by the time it was over. But people still blindly trust "stars" over our staff a lot of the time. I don't get it.

Mullen talent eval > Rosie Talent Eval... even Rosie himself will admit that (maybe).

[MetEdDawg]

I still believe there is something recruiting can never fully capture and that's the mental make up of a kid. At their age and the things a lot of these kids go through, this to me is the one factor that can make or break a recruiting class, especially towards the bottom of the class, but can also never be quantified by rankings and stars. Only in person.

Look at a guy like Dillon Day. 2 star athlete (according to the rankings) but if you looked on his tape he gave a 5 star effort on every play. We know how to mold that and work with that and make a kid like that exponentially better than what he looked like when he came because we are willing to put the work in for that kid. And there are countless examples by us. Banks, McKinney, Slay, and many others.

Then look at guys like Nkemdiche, Conner, Tunsil, or Treadwell. They made such an early impact because they were all physically ready right now. But how much better are they going to be when they leave? Very little because OM has proven they can't develop talent and that's the myth that players miss out on. Just because you get good talent doesn't mean you make that talent better than when it got there. There are plenty of schools as examples of that.

[HoopsDawg]

it was different site to site. there was a limit of how many 5 stars and 2 stars there were each year (e.g., fifty 5-stars & 200 4-stars).

Stars are for people who can't evaluate a player on their own. There's zero reasons for stars unless you're pandering to an audience who can't evaluate talent. And a lot of times the sites are wrong. they've gotten better, but some folks (toot my own horn) were calling Chris jones a freak stud when he was a 2-star and telling everyone our new 2 star LB commit BMac would be a better linebacker than CJ Johnson by the time it was over. But people still blindly trust "stars" over our staff a lot of the time. I don't get it.

Mullen talent eval > Rosie Talent Eval... even Rosie himself will admit that (maybe).

No offense, but you didn't have to be Bill Polian to see that Chris Jones was a stud. He was a 2 star for about a week and that was due to transferring high schools. All you had to do was pop in his video and watch about 8 seconds to see that he was a stud. And to the poster in the other thread, Chris Jones was a 4 star well before any of the all star games.

And it's silly to pull out individual examples, of course there are going to be many 2 or 3 stars that end up better than 4 or 5 stars. Consider that 33% of players selected in the FIRST round of the NFL draft end up being busts. And that's from college to the NFL when the bodies are developed, 3 or 4 more years of tape to look at, and the best talent evaluators in the world making the decisions. Not to mention the combine. High School to College you are talking about well over 3,000 kids from across the country signing D1 scholarships.

I'll say it again. This is how you evaulate a recruiting class:

1) How many of our coaches top targets are you signing
2) Power 5 offers
3) HUDL video
4) Stars

[MsStateBaseball]

You shouldn't really worry about stars, worry first about the size of the player at that certain position and then will he work hard to get better. Bottom line is, just get 25 quality kids in that will develop. Make sure you get a competant QB though.

[Political Hack]

No offense, but you didn't have to be Bill Polian to see that Chris Jones was a stud. He was a 2 star for about a week and that was due to transferring high schools.

no offense taken, but when the sites still thought he was a 2 and a 3 and a 4, and our fans were bitching about "taking another 2 star during the summer" it seemed relevant to try to point out that he was a stud.

[Really Clark?]

No offense, but you didn't have to be Bill Polian to see that Chris Jones was a stud. He was a 2 star for about a week and that was due to transferring high schools. All you had to do was pop in his video and watch about 8 seconds to see that he was a stud. And to the poster in the other thread, Chris Jones was a 4 star well before any of the all star games.

And it's silly to pull out individual examples, of course there are going to be many 2 or 3 stars that end up better than 4 or 5 stars. Consider that 33% of players selected in the FIRST round of the NFL draft end up being busts. And that's from college to the NFL when the bodies are developed, 3 or 4 more years of tape to look at, and the best talent evaluators in the world making the decisions. Not to mention the combine. High School to College you are talking about well over 3,000 kids from across the country signing D1 scholarships.

I'll say it again. This is how you evaulate a recruiting class:

1) How many of our coaches top targets are you signing
2) Power 5 offers
3) HUDL video
4) Stars

Dude he was a 2 star and then mid 3 star on 247 until mid Sept. He was the same player then with the same talent as when he became a low low 4 star. Amazing how one allstar game mvp and an Alabama offer and five days later he is a 5 star. The point, as correctly pointed out to you, was the fact he was the same Talent when he committed in June as a 2 star, which the majority of the fans lost their mind over it, and the recruiting sites that you are willing to swear by as the end all be all of player rankings only had him as a mid 3 star with their initial re-ranking in mid Sept. They still didn't have it right so maybe Bill Polen and our coaches are more correct than the recruiting sites. So either his talent wasn't as obvious as you think or maybe, just maybe rankings are not as cut and dry as you make it to be.

Yes stars matter but only if they are properly evaluated and the star rankings most of the time is dependent on that the true experts are thinking about a player....the coaches.

[HoopsDawg]

Dude he was a 2 star and then mid 3 star on 247 until mid Sept. He was the same player then with the same talent as when he became a low low 4 star. Amazing how one allstar game mvp and an Alabama offer and five days later he is a 5 star. The point, as correctly pointed out to you, was the fact he was the same Talent when he committed in June as a 2 star, which the majority of the fans lost their mind over it, and the recruiting sites that you are willing to swear by as the end all be all of player rankings only had him as a mid 3 star with their initial re-ranking in mid Sept. They still didn't have it right so maybe Bill Polen and our coaches are more correct than the recruiting sites. So either his talent wasn't as obvious as you think or maybe, just maybe rankings are not as cut and dry as you make it to be.

Yes stars matter but only if they are properly evaluated and the star rankings most of the time is dependent on that the true experts are thinking about a player....the coaches.

Too much wrong and too much hyperbole in this post to even reply to.

[Really Clark?]

Too much wrong and too much hyperbole in this post to even reply to.

Nothing I said about the timeline of his recruiting is wrong. Your statement is what someone says when they don't have any definite facts to discredit what someone states. Then to reply to basically say I'm not going to reply. Very weak.