Stars don't matter**

[HoopsDawg]

5 star recruits have a 40-48% chance of being drafted

3 star recruits have a 3.6% chance of being drafted

2 stars have less than 1% chance.

4 and 5 star recruits combined were almost 1000% more likely to be drafted than 2 and 3 stars.

[BulldogDX55]

5 star recruits have a 40-48% chance of being drafted

3 star recruits have a 3.6% chance of being drafted

2 stars have less than 1% chance.

4 and 5 star recruits combined were almost 1000% more likely to be drafted than 2 and 3 stars.

Alright, now do this data again with our 3 and 4 star recruits.

[Thick]

Who gives a shit? I could care less about drafted players. If they bust their ass in college, they will get drafted.

[Jack Lambert]

80% of all statistics are made up on the spot

[HoopsDawg]

Alright, now do this data again with our 3 and 4 star recruits.

Most of our draft picks were 4 stars: Sherrod, Cox, McPhee, White, Boyd, Mitchell, Norwood, etc.

Gabe Jackson, KJ, Banks, and Slay were 3 star guys.

[msstate7]

Most of our draft picks were 4 stars: Sherrod, Cox, McPhee, White, Boyd, Mitchell, Norwood, etc.

Gabe Jackson, KJ, Banks, and Slay were 3 star guys.

That'll look a little different in April

[dawgs]

That'll look a little different in April

The % of 4-5* we've signed that are drafted will still be much higher than the % of 2-3* we've signed.

[defiantdog]

5 star recruits have a 40-48% chance of being drafted

3 star recruits have a 3.6% chance of being drafted

2 stars have less than 1% chance.

4 and 5 star recruits combined were almost 1000% more likely to be drafted than 2 and 3 stars.

That's why I'm glad we have a bunch of 4* players committed this year.

Some of our players who go to the NFL were 4* and some weren't:

Benardrick Mckinney 2*
Preston Smith 2*
Josh Robinson 3*
Vic Ballard 3*
Chad Bumphis 4*
Fletcher Cox 4*
Pernell McPhee 4*
Josh Boyd 4*
Chris White 3*
Cameron Lawrence 3*
Jonathan Banks 3*
Gabe Jackson 3*
Darious Slay 3*
Charles Mitchell 4*
Derek Sherrod 4*
Kyle Love 2*
Boobie Dixon 2*
Jerious Norwood 5*
Tommy Kelly 4*
Fred Smoot 4* (I believe)
Donald Lee 3*

I probably missed a few, but you get the point. We've put all kinds of stars into the league.

[Really Clark?]

The % of 4-5* we've signed that are drafted will still be much higher than the % of 2-3* we've signed.

This is true. But it's not because of our 5 stars. They have not helped any.

[ShotgunDawg]

Why do people keep throwing out this strawman argument?

Of course Stars matter, and anyone who says differently is an idiot.

However, the question is: how many stars do you need to win an national championship? That's the question.

We are currently recruiting in the top 25 with very little attrition. Ole Miss, on the other hand, is recruiting in the top 15 with high attrition or "miss rates".

The question is, at the end of the day, what's the difference between those two circumstances, and which model provides greater stability for long term winning?

The biggest mistake people make in this argument, is that they assume that because Ole Miss is finishing higher in recruiting, that MSU isn't getting any good players as well.

That is a major mistake. MSU could have 10 or so 4 star recruits in this class. If you continue that level of recruiting and redshirt some guys, it's conceivable that you could have 35-40 former 4 & 5 star recruits on your roster at any given time.

Is that not enough to win a National Title, particularly when you mix in a few McKinneys, Prescotts, and Jacksons, guys that weren't 4 star recruits, but played like 5 stars?

[BulldogDX55]

The % of 4-5* we've signed that are drafted will still be much higher than the % of 2-3* we've signed.

Well, duh, but it is really, really far from the average.

[dawgs]

That's why I'm glad we have a bunch of 4* players committed this year.

Some of our players who go to the NFL were 4* and some weren't:

Benardrick Mckinney 2*
Preston Smith 2*
Josh Robinson 3*
Vic Ballard 3*
Chad Bumphis 4*
Fletcher Cox 4*
Pernell McPhee 4*
Josh Boyd 4*
Chris White 3*
Cameron Lawrence 3*
Jonathan Banks 3*
Gabe Jackson 3*
Darious Slay 3*
Charles Mitchell 4*
Derek Sherrod 4*
Kyle Love 2*
Boobie Dixon 2*
Jerious Norwood 5*
Tommy Kelly 4*
Fred Smoot 4* (I believe)
Donald Lee 3*

I probably missed a few, but you get the point. We've put all kinds of stars into the league.

Everyone puts a variety of stars in the NFL. The thing is, we have signed a lot more 3* over than last decade than 4*. We have higher success rates on 4* signees than we do on 3* signees. That's not saying we can't develop a guy or find a diamond in the rough, it's saying that for every one of those guys we find/develop, we have plenty more than don't develop or turn out to be pumpkins instead of diamonds.

[yjnkdawg]

Stars can be good, but do you want a 4* or 5* who is not a team player, doesn't want to earn his time on the field, doesn't have good work ethics on and off the field, and does not have good character. Dan Mullen doesn't, but Hugh Freeze and OM apparently could care less as long as they can get a so-callled "elite" player to sign with them.

[HoopsDawg]

Stars can be good, but do you want a 4* or 5* who is not a team player, doesn't want to earn his time on the field, doesn't have good work ethics on and off the field, and does not have good character. Dan Mullen doesn't, but Hugh Freeze and OM apparently could care less as long as they can get a so-callled "elite" player to sign with them.

There's not a coach in the country that wants a player like you described.

[Really Clark?]

This is the thing about 5 stars that with the draft argument that I disagree with slightly. After the second or third round, then there is an argument to be made that although they are drafted they did not live up to their potentional. That means they did not live up to the hype when they signed with your school. They are to be the best of the best and only half of them is even drafted. You have nearly 2/3 drafted after the third round or not drafted at all. And when you start breaking down by position groups, you see some other alarming stats. Especially concerning OL, DL, and DB. And one reason I don't get bent out of shape with our OL recruiting when you see only a little over 30% of 5 stars even get drafted. And what about retention rates of the drafted players? Are they out of the league in just a year or two? That is not addressed in the above stats either. Yes stars matter to a degree and they more you get you should have a better chance. That's just the odds but if it is not the right players that will work and fit your program it can still be a mess. See Florida, USC, and Texas in recent years.

[HoopsDawg]

This is the thing about 5 stars that with the draft argument that I disagree with slightly. After the second or third round, then there is an argument to be made that although they are drafted they did not live up to their potentional. That means they did not live up to the hype when they signed with your school. They are to be the best of the best and only half of them is even drafted. You have nearly 2/3 drafted after the third round or not drafted at all. And when you start breaking down by position groups, you see some other alarming stats. Especially concerning OL, DL, and DB. And one reason I don't get bent out of shape with our OL recruiting when you see only a little over 30% of 5 stars even get drafted. And what about retention rates of the drafted players? Are they out of the league in just a year or two? That is not addressed in the above stats either. Yes stars matter to a degree and they more you get you should have a better chance. That's just the odds but if it is not the right players that will work and fit your program it can still be a mess. See Florida, USC, and Texas in recent years.

Oh my gosh man, if you have a player that gets drafted by the NFL, then he wasn't a bust. Plain and Simple.

I will agree that if there is one position where stars don't matter AS MUCH, it's the O-line.

[sandwolf]

This is the thing about 5 stars that with the draft argument that I disagree with slightly. After the second or third round, then there is an argument to be made that although they are drafted they did not live up to their potentional. That means they did not live up to the hype when they signed with your school. They are to be the best of the best and only half of them is even drafted. You have nearly 2/3 drafted after the third round or not drafted at all. And when you start breaking down by position groups, you see some other alarming stats. Especially concerning OL, DL, and DB. And one reason I don't get bent out of shape with our OL recruiting when you see only a little over 30% of 5 stars even get drafted. And what about retention rates of the drafted players? Are they out of the league in just a year or two? That is not addressed in the above stats either. Yes stars matter to a degree and they more you get you should have a better chance. That's just the odds but if it is not the right players that will work and fit your program it can still be a mess. See Florida, USC, and Texas in recent years.

Any player that gets drafted was the cream of the crop in college. So a 5 star that doesn't live up to his potential but is still good enough to get drafted is just more evidence that stars matter.......your margin for error is much higher with recruits that have a lot of natural ability.

[dawgs]

No one wants a team full or renardo sidney's. But sometimes you don't know a renardo sidney until he's on campus. Those account for the busts. If you are looking at a 4-5* guy with qualifying grades that seems to not be getting as many high profile offers as some of his peers, that also might be a sign of some rumblings of character issues.

[dawgs]

Any player that gets drafted was the cream of the crop in college. So a 5 star that doesn't live up to his potential but is still good enough to get drafted is just more evidence that stars matter.......your margin for error is much higher with recruits that have a lot of natural ability.

Bingo.

[Really Clark?]

Oh my gosh man, if you have a player that gets drafted by the NFL, then he wasn't a bust. Plain and Simple.

I will agree that if there is one position where stars don't matter AS MUCH, it's the O-line.

I didn't say he was a bust but when that 5 star player signs most people automatically equate him to being 1st round NFL talent. Other than the odd great athelete who would have a hard time finding a position at the NFL, like with some QB's or injuries. But you have about 35 or so 5 stars per year. 32 NFL teams. With the amount of hype and hope pinned on signing that 5 star every year you would think the odds are better than 50% to just get drafted. These are to be the biggest ready or biggest upside players in the land. And you mean to tell me that they are not considered disappointments if they are a 6th round pick? Yeah I think a lot of that school fan base would think that they are. They didn't live up to the hype.

[defiantdog]

I honestly don't care how many stars we get, as long as we win.

[yjnkdawg]

There's not a coach in the country that wants a player like you described.

So Freeze kicked RN, DN, Golson, Stringfellow and MGK off the team? I wasn't aware of that.

[dawgs]

I didn't say he was a bust but when that 5 star player signs most people automatically equate him to being 1st round NFL talent. Other than the odd great athelete who would have a hard time finding a position at the NFL, like with some QB's or injuries. But you have about 35 or so 5 stars per year. 32 NFL teams. With the amount of hype and hope pinned on signing that 5 star every year you would think the odds are better than 50% to just get drafted. These are to be the biggest ready or biggest upside players in the land. And you mean to tell me that they are not considered disappointments if they are a 6th round pick? Yeah I think a lot of that school fan base would think that they are. They didn't live up to the hype.

I'll take 32 or however many 5* and you can hand pick 32 3* from the hundreds (1000+?) 3* guys, and we'll see which group has a higher % of P5 starters, all conference selections, all american selections, 1st round picks, and total NFL draft picks. If you can nail the 32 best 3* guys year after year, you might stand a chance, but picking those 32 out of hundreds of players is damn near impossible.

[HoopsDawg]

So Freeze kicked RN, DN, Golson, Stringfellow and MGK off the team? I wasn't aware of that.

You would want Mullen too???

[TheDogFather]

In the end, are we hoping for NFL draftees or successful college athletes? I don't get the point of this argument (which has been repeated ad nauseam)

[dawgs]

I will say that stressing over the #6 CB v. the #4 CB in the country is a bit tedious. As is getting your panties in a was over being the #11 class instead of the #10 or #9 class. Those marginal differences don't make a roster significantly better, it's about consistently being in the discussion for a top 10 class or landing top 10 players at their position.

[dawgs]

In the end, are we hoping for NFL draftees or successful college athletes? I don't get the point of this argument (which has been repeated ad nauseam)

Well usually NFL draft picks are good college players. And if you want to compete for championships, a good college player with a nfl future is usually gonna be better than a good college player without much of a NFL future, and the correlation gets stronger when you look at entire rosters.

[HoopsDawg]

I honestly don't care how many stars we get, as long as we win.

LOL, obviously.

[sandwolf]

I honestly don't care how many stars we get, as long as we win.

Now this, I can agree with.

[HoopsDawg]

I will say that stressing over the #6 CB v. the #4 CB in the country is a bit tedious. As is getting your panties in a was over being the #11 class instead of the #10 or #9 class. Those marginal differences don't make a roster significantly better, it's about consistently being in the discussion for a top 10 class or landing top 10 players at their position.

Yes, if you want to compete for the SEC West and as a result, the college football playoff, then you need to be stringing together Top 15 classes on average. That's what it takes.

[Political Hack]

more than half of the 50 top players in the nation coming out of high school don't make the NFL?

Damn. That's a pretty big "miss" by these sites.

[msstate7]

Yes, if you want to compete for the SEC West and as a result, the college football playoff, then you need to be stringing together Top 15 classes on average. That's what it takes.

I think once you get past the top 5 classes, #6-25 are a crap shoot

[Really Clark?]

I'll take 32 or however many 5* and you can hand pick 32 3* from the hundreds (1000+?) 3* guys, and we'll see which group has a higher % of P5 starters, all conference selections, all american selections, 1st round picks, and total NFL draft picks. If you can nail the 32 best 3* guys year after year, you might stand a chance, but picking those 32 out of hundreds of players is damn near impossible.

That's wasn't my argument and at no point did I go down that road. Why are you trying to change the debate? Do they have a better chance to be drafted? Yes no debating that. The debate should be on multiple levels though. The NFL miss on players every year as well. There are numerous examples of them taking a player late strickly because they were a highly rated player eventhough they did not live up to the hype. And they are gone in a year or two. The question is where is the "bust" line. To me it's not just being drafted because they draft a ton of highly rated busts every year. If you are discussing college then it should stay at the college level. Did they produce for the school at the rate most feel acceptable to their hype? It's as simple as that. But if you are going to use the NFL argument then just getting drafted is not good enough. Too many misses with that as well. It's like a signing class. And why are the teams who are always drafting late good for a long time? Look at the roosters for the teams who have consistantly won at the NFL level. What is their average star rating? That's a much better indicator. What good was a 5 star that underachieved in school drafted in the 4th round and in two or three years is out of the league never really doing anything. The retention rate past the first 3 rounds is horrible. Unless it's TE. They never miss on a 5 star TE. (Although they sometimes change positions but still perform well).

[msstate7]

I do think the recruiting sites get the top 5 classes right more often than not. That said bama is about to have their 6th straight #1 class and haven't won a title the last 2 years (lost both major bowls). Were their classes overranked, saban overranked, or is saban falling off?

[Big4Dawg]

Does everyone realize both Preseton and Benardrick were 3*s? I cant find one site where they were 2*s.

[Really Clark?]

I do think the recruiting sites get the top 5 classes right more often than not. That said bama is about to have their 6th straight #1 class and haven't won a title the last 2 years (lost both major bowls). Were their classes overranked, saban overranked, or is saban falling off?


I agree with this as far as the top classes. I do think that every year is a little different. Some years some change depending on the depth of players. I do break it down to more along top 5, 6-15, 16-35 give or take a few spots. And if you are consistantly in the top 35 then you had better be a winning team nearly every year, in relation to you conference that is.

[defiantdog]

Does everyone realize both Preseton and Benardrick were 3*s? I cant find one site where they were 2*s.

You're right about BMac, but Preston was a 2* according to 247Sports.

http://i58.tinypic.com/6sw7f9.jpg

[Really Clark?]

Does everyone realize both Preseton and Benardrick were 3*s? I cant find one site where they were 2*s.

Uh...Preston was a 2 star 79 for sure. And I think scout had them both as 2 stars. Along with Market, Calhoun and Malone.

http://recruiting.scout.com/topic/players?type=players&start=0&category=%22Football%20Recruiting%22&classYear=%222011%22&team=%22Mississippi%20State%22&minimumInterest=%22SoftVerbal%22&sortBy=CommitDate&size=10

[msstate7]

Uh...Preston was a 2 star 79 for sure. And I think scout had them both as 2 stars.

Day and clausell were both 2*'s and just got invited to senior bowl

[Really Clark?]

Day and clausell were both 2*'s and just got invited to senior bowl

Yeah I was just addressing that year class though.

[HoopsDawg]

I think once you get past the top 5 classes, #6-25 are a crap shoot

nah, there's usually a pretty big difference between #6 and #25. If you had said 20 thru 30 are pretty close, then I would agree. Last year #6 was Texas A&M, they had 3 5 stars and 13 4 stars. #25 was Penn State, they had 0 five stars and only 4 4 stars. Pretty big gap there.

[msstate7]

nah, there's usually a pretty big difference between #6 and #25. If you had said 20 thru 30 are pretty close, then I would agree. Last year #6 was Texas A&M, they had 3 5 stars and 13 4 stars. #25 was Penn State, they had 0 five stars and only 4 4 stars. Pretty big gap there.

How does a team like mizzou win the east the last 2 years over teams severely outrecruiting then?

[defiantdog]

How does a team like mizzou win the east the last 2 years over teams severely outrecruiting then?

Coaching

[Big4Dawg]

You're right about BMac, but Preston was a 2* according to 247Sports.

http://i58.tinypic.com/6sw7f9.jpg

That was when 247 just came out. Its crazy looking at that list and looking at this year list. Are we recruiting at such a higher level now or do they just rate people higher?

We haven't had a 2* in a long time. Everyone is pretty much thrown a 3* nowdays.

[msstate7]

Coaching

Or maybe after you get past the 5 stars, the 4's and 3's difference isn't that great

Or 3's in certain systems are closer to 4's

[HoopsDawg]

How does a team like mizzou win the east the last 2 years over teams severely outrecruiting then?

There's always going to be a couple of exceptions to every rule. How does Ben Roethlisberger end up at Miami of Ohio? Or how does Tony Romo end up at Eastern Illinois.

Specifically on Mizzou:

1) They play in the SEC east is the main reason and they got the 2 worst teams from the West. And it just so happens that UF and UT are both really down. Mizzou got waxed by UGA and they got waxed in the championship game. They even lost to Indiana.
2) I also don't think they get the recruiting coverage that the other Top 25 teams get b/c their fans just aren't as passionate. That can make the difference in being ranked 22nd and 32nd.

[Really Clark?]

That was when 247 just came out. Its crazy looking at that list and looking at this year list. Are we recruiting at such a higher level now or do they just rate people higher?

We haven't had a 2* in a long time. Everyone is pretty much thrown a 3* nowdays.

Or to complete the circle, has the winning on the field and seeing our low rated players pan out more than average made the sites change their perception of our recruiting? We get more benefit of the doubt on a player. Just like when they get wind that Bama is following a freshman or sophomore closely then when they get their first ranking, low and behold they are a high 4 star. It's the chicken or the egg argument. Also, technolgy and camps have helped change a lot though. And I do believe because of the money pumped into the sites that they do rate players easier now at times. The number of three stars have increased a good bit. Some of that could be better evaluations, but I think some of it is just the relaxing of the lower ratings.

[defiantdog]

That was when 247 just came out. Its crazy looking at that list and looking at this year list. Are we recruiting at such a higher level now or do they just rate people higher?

We haven't had a 2* in a long time. Everyone is pretty much thrown a 3* nowdays.

Ronald Cochran was our lone 2* last year.

[HoopsDawg]

That was when 247 just came out. Its crazy looking at that list and looking at this year list. Are we recruiting at such a higher level now or do they just rate people higher?

We haven't had a 2* in a long time. Everyone is pretty much thrown a 3* nowdays.

247 has juiced up their rankings. Traver Jung went from complete unknown to a 4 star the day after he committed to us. Paul sees to it that we have almost no 2 stars. I actually think Scout has the most accurate ranking system.

[maroonmania]

That was when 247 just came out. Its crazy looking at that list and looking at this year list. Are we recruiting at such a higher level now or do they just rate people higher?

We haven't had a 2* in a long time. Everyone is pretty much thrown a 3* nowdays.

My understanding now is that you have an offer from a major conference school you are automatically a 3 star. I guess Cochran didn't get bumped because he was taken on signing day and didn't have an offer before that.

[Really Clark?]

247 has juiced up their rankings. Traver Jung went from complete unknown to a 4 star the day after he committed to us. Paul sees to it that we have almost no 2 stars. I actually think Scout has the most accurate ranking system.

Scout doesn't show any 2 stars either. And we are ranked about the same on each site I believe.

[dawgs]

That's wasn't my argument and at no point did I go down that road. Why are you trying to change the debate? Do they have a better chance to be drafted? Yes no debating that. The debate should be on multiple levels though. The NFL miss on players every year as well. There are numerous examples of them taking a player late strickly because they were a highly rated player eventhough they did not live up to the hype. And they are gone in a year or two. The question is where is the "bust" line. To me it's not just being drafted because they draft a ton of highly rated busts every year. If you are discussing college then it should stay at the college level. Did they produce for the school at the rate most feel acceptable to their hype? It's as simple as that. But if you are going to use the NFL argument then just getting drafted is not good enough. Too many misses with that as well. It's like a signing class. And why are the teams who are always drafting late good for a long time? Look at the roosters for the teams who have consistantly won at the NFL level. What is their average star rating? That's a much better indicator. What good was a 5 star that underachieved in school drafted in the 4th round and in two or three years is out of the league never really doing anything. The retention rate past the first 3 rounds is horrible. Unless it's TE. They never miss on a 5 star TE. (Although they sometimes change positions but still perform well).

I listed a multitude of measurements of success and I'll take the 5* group in every one of them.

[dawgs]

How does a team like mizzou win the east the last 2 years over teams severely outrecruiting then?

There's always gonna be a couple of programs vastly underachieving. Right now florida is one of them. Texas and michigan are 2 others of the last few years. For whatever reason they string together some classes filled with a lot of busts, have a higher than normal rate of attrition, and combine it was a bad HC/over the hill HC and you get what they've been lately. Tennessee is still building back up from their own downfall. Uga has slightly underachieved and manages to choke away 1-2 big games a year costing them the east, but keeps winning 10+ games otherwise.

No one says look at recruiting in a bubble. Starzzzz won't win you a title alone, but lack of starzzz can cost you a title before stepping on the field.

[TheDogFather]

Well usually NFL draft picks are good college players. And if you want to compete for championships, a good college player with a nfl future is usually gonna be better than a good college player without much of a NFL future, and the correlation gets stronger when you look at entire rosters.

True, but why correlate high school stars to NFL success, which is what the original post does? NFL drafters don't look at stars. And high school stars are not a prediction of NFL success. Why try to connect two sets of data which are not intended for one another?

It's a very strange argument dressed up in statistics.

[sandwolf]

True, but why correlate high school stars to NFL success, which is what the original post does? NFL drafters don't look at stars. And high school stars are not a prediction of NFL success. Why try to connect two sets of data which are not intended for one another?

It's a very strange argument dressed up in statistics.

No one is correlating high school stars to NFL success. We are correlating high school stars to the NFL draft......and the NFL draft is indicative of a players performance in college.

[HoopsDawg]

No one is correlating high school stars to NFL success. We are correlating high school stars to the NFL draft......and the NFL draft is indicative of a players performance in college.

correct. and it's a response to the ridiculous and imo, non-story that drew so much attention about none of the NFL starters being 5 star players.

[Really Clark?]

I listed a multitude of measurements of success and I'll take the 5* group in every one of them.

No you didn't. You stayed mainly that just being drafted is good enough. And past the 3rd round that's not true at all. The draft is a crap shoot as well and when the best the sites (where the point of this fallacy should lie) can do is hit on 50% just being drafted then they are missing too many players that are supposedly sure fire talents. Especially on the OL. You only have 30% 5 star players even getting drafted. Give me solid 3 & 4 star OL everyday. Yes it's the best percentage but when only 30% are actually any good past 3 years in the NFL then the numbers shrink. But let's look at this another way. We should be only talking about college. The top blue chip schools (4 & 5 star players) over the last 4 years are Bama, Ohio State, USC, Notra Dame, LSU, Texas, Florida State, Michigan, Florida, Auburn, Georgia. That's 11 schools half have won or played for the national title. The other half have not and 4 have played well below their rankings. And ND is iffy to me because they were pretty outclassed in their title run year. And that is in order of percentages as of last year. So the two best Bama and OSU did deliver the next 4 teams, not so much. 50/50 odds, again.

[Really Clark?]

No one is correlating high school stars to NFL success. We are correlating high school stars to the NFL draft......and the NFL draft is indicative of a players performance in college.

That's not always true at all. Especially in the bottom of the draft. The league take chances on players who were highly touted coming into college but under preformed. Happens all the time. If you really want to break it down you have about 15 players (the top half of the 5 stars) that really perform and their draft placement and NFL retention is noticably higher than even the other 5 star players. It's about 20% higher draft rate and retention rate in the NFL and about 10% higher than draft placement. Thats where the most accurate success rates are found. And that's still about 60% being drafted. Or 8-9 players a year.

[Big4Dawg]

True, but why correlate high school stars to NFL success, which is what the original post does? NFL drafters don't look at stars. And high school stars are not a prediction of NFL success. Why try to connect two sets of data which are not intended for one another?

It's a very strange argument dressed up in statistics.

False.

http://appalachianstate.247sports.com/Article/247Sports-Rating-Explanation-81574

247Sports Rating Explanation
Each recruit we evaluate is assigned a numerical rating as well as a star rating. Ratings are determined by our recruiting analysts after countless hours of personal observations, film evaluation, and input from our network of scouts.

Players are first grouped qualitatively with a star rating, then given a numerical rating based on their future potential, and finally ranked according to these numerical ratings.

110 - 101 = Franchise Player. One of the best players to come along in years, if not decades. Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can’t miss" talent.

100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 30 players in the nation. This player has excellent pro-potential and should emerge as one of the best in the country before the end of his career.

97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. One of the top 300 players in the nation. This prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. He is an All-American candidate who displays pro-potential.

89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country.

79 - below = Two-star prospect. This player makes up the bulk of Division I rosters. He may have little pro-potential, but is likely to become a role player for his respective school.

[sandwolf]

No you didn't. You stayed mainly that just being drafted is good enough. And past the 3rd round that's not true at all.

Just being drafted isn't good enough?? Really Clark? I will say it again.....only the cream of the crop gets drafted.


Yes it's the best percentage but when only 30% are actually any good past 3 years in the NFL then the numbers shrink.

What does their tenure in the NFL have to do with anything we are talking about?

[Really Clark?]

Just being drafted isn't good enough?? Really Clark? I will say it again.....only the cream of the crop gets drafted.



What does their tenure in the NFL have to do with anything we are talking about?

No just been drafted is not good enough. The players drafted late are just a big of a crap shoot and the NFL miss on a ton of those players. Not to mention there is a significant number of highly rated players taken late that did not perform to their hype in college. Crap some of these guys never even make a roster. It's about perspective and the 5 star guy is suppose to be a can't miss, no doubt NFL guy. And half the time they are not and 70% of the low drafted players are cut inside of three years, some never getting of the practice squad. Some never even making that. 5 star guys getting drafted late or not drafted usually did not perform or have character issues that drop them that low.

[TheDogFather]

No one is correlating high school stars to NFL success. We are correlating high school stars to the NFL draft......and the NFL draft is indicative of a players performance in college.

This is so far fetched.

Stars are a means to evaluate high school talent. That evaluation is used in recruiting at the college level.

There is so much separation between a senior in high school and an NFL draftee that the connection is illogical at best.

[Madisonmd]

Here is another issue to consider. These recruiting sites use the star system to sell subscriptions. At the end of the day these sites are businesses with profit/loss results to account for.

[dawgs]

I listed a multitude of measurements of success and I'll take the 5* group in every one of them.


No you didn't.


I'll take 32 or however many 5* and you can hand pick 32 3* from the hundreds (1000+?) 3* guys, and we'll see which group has a higher % of P5 starters, all conference selections, all american selections, 1st round picks, and total NFL draft picks. If you can nail the 32 best 3* guys year after year, you might stand a chance, but picking those 32 out of hundreds of players is damn near impossible.

i didn't do what now?

[dawgs]

This is so far fetched.

Stars are a means to evaluate high school talent. That evaluation is used in recruiting at the college level.

There is so much separation between a senior in high school and an NFL draftee that the connection is illogical at best.

but it's not far fetched because the higher rated a player is coming out of HS corresponds with the likelihood of success at each next step in his career. do NFL teams look at stars when they make their picks? no. but they do look at a player's college career and tools, and the higher a guy is rated out of HS corresponds with the likelihood that he has the tools and production to ultimately get drafted in the NFL.

[TUSK]

5 star recruits have a 40-48% chance of being drafted

3 star recruits have a 3.6% chance of being drafted

2 stars have less than 1% chance.

4 and 5 star recruits combined were almost 1000% more likely to be drafted than 2 and 3 stars.

Hoops,

It's really too simple to argue...

I'm all down with "developing talent" or "finding diamonds" or "recruiting to needs"... and all that...

However, I'm feeling super comfortable saying that UTEP would swap classes with Florida... who would, in turn, swap classes with Miss. State... and they'd certainly swap with FSU or Bammer...

No one alive Honestly believes "stars don't matter"... they parrot that shit...