a bit of a jump...

[money3189]

Yep, because if you don’t think it helps with perception, you’re wrong.

Lol. He’s not talking perception though . Totally different thing.

 

[Nahson]

Lol. He’s not talking perception though . Totally different thing.

That’s fine, that’s what I’m talking about. We need all the clout we can get and brown getting that kinda jump is good for us.

 

[kcsu]

Well, they are being compared to out upper class men, right?

No. They were just being measured and the consensus was they are very talented.

 

[chugg21]

Hilarious.

Now that Brown is evaluated, he grades out as a high 3-star.

Guess our coaches knew what they were doing after all

Honestly in regards to the 3 star guys, I think they basically just give anyone that commits to a P5 school 3 stars these days. I did a little project on their ratings a couple years ago after it seemed like our recruiting was getting better because the average rating was higher. Turned out that they just made like an extra 50 kids a year 3 stars as they evaluated more and more so that the average kid in the database was higher and higher. If you go look back at our older classes there are always a few 2 stars mixed in, now they don't really exist.

 

[TheCusian]

This staff really doesnt lose many kids to decommits

This is a huge. We also tend to get out top guys qualified academically

 

[TheCusian]

Ok, but you might want to research some good crow recipes, so you’re ready to go when the time comes.

I know some good recipes lol

 

[TheCusian]

It's a very flawed process for 3 star recruits and below, highly subjective area and the analysts can basically grade those kids however they want. They have a lot less flexibility with the heavy offer kids.

Generally the 4 stars and above follow who's offered them for the most part, 3 stars and below are the wild west.

Guy who's been offered by everyone and is a 4 star - means something. Guy who was offered by D2 schools and is magically a high 3 star - maybe it means something to star gazers but it means nothing to me. End of the day he's still a guy offered by D2 schools with the same film that we all saw a week ago. High end measurables, but a raw recruit with a lot of work necessary to make him a P5 WR.

And I still for the life of me can't understand why 247 would do a composite and that be their lead in recruiting grades. If you're trying to be the top dog as far as recruiting sites, analysis, and grading of recruits, why rely on your competitors to contribute to your product?

I once had the idea of doing an anti-Dohn composite for the Rutgurls and then running a chart with results. Think it would reveal what we already know

 

[money3189]

Honestly in regards to the 3 star guys, I think they basically just give anyone that commits to a P5 school 3 stars these days. I did a little project on their ratings a couple years ago after it seemed like our recruiting was getting better because the average rating was higher. Turned out that they just made like an extra 50 kids a year 3 stars as they evaluated more and more so that the average kid in the database was higher and higher. If you go look back at our older classes there are always a few 2 stars mixed in, now they don't really exist.

There might be more three stars but having a 80 3 star is less weight than a 85 3 star. There still a good difference. Also rivals will dish out 2 stars without a glimse of evaluation of the prospect. Rivals and espn are factored into their overall composite rating.

 

[chugg21]

There might be more three stars but having a 80 3 star is less weight than a 85 3 star. There still a good difference. Also rivals will dish out 2 stars without a glimse of evaluation of the prospect. Rivals and espn are factored into their overall composite rating.

Every one of our current recruits is between 83.6 and 86.7. That's all basically the same. Not sure what kind of difference they try to justify between Bassette the 140th ranked DL at 84.8 and Davis the 159th ranked DL at 83.8.

 

[money3189]

Every one of our current recruits is between 83.6 and 86.7. That's all basically the same. Not sure what kind of difference they try to justify between Bassette the 140th ranked DL at 84.8 and Davis the 159th ranked DL at 83.8.

Im not talking about the difference between the 140th and 159th D Lineman. My point is all 3 stars dont have the same potential and upside. There is a difference between a low 3 star with no FBS offer and a high 3 star with multiple P5 offers. From just a numbers perpective. More high 3 star rankings is going to get you higher in the team rankings. For example Wisconsin is ranked 43rd with almost all 3 star commits. We are ranked 64th. Thats a 20 spot difference in quality of class (or perception of quality lol). So again all 3 stars are not weighted the same.

Wisconsin 2022 Football Commits

Wisconsin

247sports.com

 

[chugg21]

Im not talking about the difference between the 140th and 159th D Lineman. My point is all 3 stars dont have the same potential and upside. There is a difference between a low 3 star with no FBS offer and a high 3 star with multiple P5 offers. From just a numbers perpective. More high 3 star rankings is going to get you higher in the team rankings. For example Wisconsin is ranked 43rd with almost all 3 star commits. We are ranked 64th. Thats a 20 spot difference in quality of class (or perception of quality lol). So again all 3 stars are not weighted the same.

Wisconsin 2022 Football Commits

Wisconsin

247sports.com

I get it. I imagine that the dudes at the scouting sites can somewhat differentiate the top 50 or so kids at a position. Once they are trying to differentiate #60 from #90 they are likely just going by specific traits or something else where they are splitting hairs. While Wisconsin's top guys are definitely of a higher quality both in rating and by what we see on the field on a yearly basis, the whole system seems to now be like a lot of things with todays youth and kind of made to not hurt anyone's feelings so it turns into Oprah and you get 3 stars and you get 3 stars...

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'll say it again.

Star ratings for individual athletes? High risk of inaccuracy.

Evaluating recruiting classes by star rankings in the aggregate? Generally pretty directionally accurate.

 

[Crusty]

I'll say it again.

Star ratings for individual athletes? High risk of inaccuracy.

Evaluating recruiting classes by star rankings in the aggregate? Generally pretty directionally accurate.

The data support your statement. The analysis has been done many times.

 

[RF2044]

I'll say it again.

Star ratings for individual athletes? High risk of inaccuracy.

Evaluating recruiting classes by star rankings in the aggregate? Generally pretty directionally accurate.

That's correct, agree 100%.

 

[RF2044]

Honestly in regards to the 3 star guys, I think they basically just give anyone that commits to a P5 school 3 stars these days. I did a little project on their ratings a couple years ago after it seemed like our recruiting was getting better because the average rating was higher. Turned out that they just made like an extra 50 kids a year 3 stars as they evaluated more and more so that the average kid in the database was higher and higher. If you go look back at our older classes there are always a few 2 stars mixed in, now they don't really exist.

Which is why looking at only stars alone doesn't tell the full story.

Building on what OiG states above, the ratings are pretty good for the highest rated prospects [sure, they occasionally "miss" on a five star, but in the main the rating systems are fairly good at identifying the creme de la creme]. It gets increasingly wonky as you progress down from there, because the variance between a four star vs. a high three star, or a three star and a lower rated three star is slim and generally a matter of subjectivity. Kid goes to PSU -- automatic four star minimum, with a bump in the ratings if needed. Same kid picks Pitt or SU, they don't get that bump.

So, stars are an important "metric," but not the only one when you are talking about somewhat lower rated guys. P5 offers also provide data. Physical attributes -- confirmed height, weight, speed, athletic performance at combines, etc. also provides some data. And when you see commits after camps, where the coaches have a chance to work with and evaluate prospects first-hand, also provides some insight.

The problem is, the vast majority of posters on this site only focus on their preferred "metric" -- whether it's stars, offer lists, etc. And they often do so to the exclusionary expense of the other data points.

Which -- given where our recruiting zone has been -- is why you get these knee jerk reactions and sky is falling hand wringing over a guy like Brown, when in actuality his athletic prowess and physical tools were highly impressive. Coaches evaluated him first hand, at both a camp and again later on campus. And now, his star rating "supports" those attributes. He doesn't have the corresponding P5 offers, but he probably will once the season happens this fall. And then his rating -- based upon the preponderance of all data points -- will make holistic sense.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

The data support your statement. The analysis has been done many times.

Yep.

 

[TheCusian]

Which is why looking at only stars alone doesn't tell the full story.

Building on what OiG states above, the ratings are pretty good for the highest rated prospects [sure, they occasionally "miss" on a five star, but in the main the rating systems are fairly good at identifying the creme de la creme]. It gets increasingly wonky as you progress down from there, because the variance between a four star vs. a high three star, or a three star and a lower rated three star is slim and generally a matter of subjectivity. Kid goes to PSU -- automatic four star minimum, with a bump in the ratings if needed. Same kid picks Pitt or SU, they don't get that bump.

So, stars are an important "metric," but not the only one when you are talking about somewhat lower rated guys. P5 offers also provide data. Physical attributes -- confirmed height, weight, speed, athletic performance at combines, etc. also provides some data. And when you see commits after camps, where the coaches have a chance to work with and evaluate prospects first-hand, also provides some insight.

The problem is, the vast majority of posters on this site only focus on their preferred "metric" -- whether it's stars, offer lists, etc. And they often do so to the exclusionary expense of the other data points.

Which -- given where our recruiting zone has been -- is why you get these knee jerk reactions and sky is falling hand wringing over a guy like Brown, when in actuality his athletic prowess and physical tools were highly impressive. Coaches evaluated him first hand, at both a camp and again later on campus. And now, his star rating "supports" those attributes. He doesn't have the corresponding P5 offers, but he probably will once the season happens this fall. And then his rating -- based upon the preponderance of all data points -- will make holistic sense.

I see stars as the probability of success in CFB. 5* = very high certainty, low 3* = no idea

 

[orangepassion]

I have always cared more about offers than ratings

 

[PhatOrange]

If Max Mang turns out to be a player (and he's getting some pretty solid reviews) but he's a kid out of Germany who received Rvls lowest rating. He would not be put into the 'exception' silo. He was another kid who worked out for the staff and they jumped all over him. They have a pretty good hit rate with these type of kids.

 

[money3189]

If Max Mang turns out to be a player (and he's getting some pretty solid reviews) but he's a kid out of Germany who received Rvls lowest rating. He would be put into the 'exception' silo. He was another kid who worked out for the staff and they jumped all over him. They have a pretty good hit rate with these type of kids.

Agree. The kid has already surpassed his rating. He is second on the depth chart as freshman. The way they rated him you will think he would be struggling to get on the field at Maine lol.

 

[RF2044]

If Max Mang turns out to be a player (and he's getting some pretty solid reviews) but he's a kid out of Germany who received Rvls lowest rating. He would be put into the 'exception' silo. He was another kid who worked out for the staff and they jumped all over him. They have a pretty good hit rate with these type of kids.

When we initially brought in Mang, I assumed [based upon no real info] that he was being brought in as a DL candidate -- either at DE, or as a kid they thought could grow into a DT, at 6-6. Made sense to me -- bring in a raw athlete with all the tools and size, and then coach him up. I was surprised when he landed on offense.

We had one poster, who doesn't seem to post anymore, who freaked out because he was from Germany and didn't attend an American HS -- as if him playing at Cazenovia HS or Elbridge HS somehow would trump the physical attributes. Sure, competition level is a barometer, but doesn't tell the whole story.

Agree about him being an exception, though.

 

[PhatOrange]

When we initially brought in Mang, I assumed [based upon no real info] that he was being brought in as a DL candidate -- either at DE, or as a kid they thought could grow into a DT, at 6-6. Made sense to me -- bring in a raw athlete with all the tools and size, and then coach him up. I was surprised when he landed on offense.

We had one poster, who doesn't seem to post anymore, who freaked out because he was from Germany and didn't attend an American HS -- as if him playing at Cazenovia HS or Elbridge HS somehow would trump the physical attributes. Sure, competition level is a barometer, but doesn't tell the whole story.

Agree about him being an exception, though.

I actually meant he would 'not' be an exception because the staff has a pretty good hit rate with kids who work out for them. The Canadians come to mind as does Benson. Brown fits this profile.

 

[money3189]

I actually meant he would 'not' be an exception because the staff has a pretty good hit rate with kids who work out for them. The Canadians come to mind as does Benson. Brown fits this profile.

Good point

 

[RF2044]

I actually meant he would 'not' be an exception because the staff has a pretty good hit rate with kids who work out for them. The Canadians come to mind as does Benson. Brown fits this profile.

I hear what you're saying -- that's why the "staff had a chance to evaluate in person" criteria should also be considered, not just stars, offers, etc.

I meant that he was an exception, because usually guys with very little football experience, foreign players, etc. is a pretty unusual situation to mine for football prospects.

But point taken -- I don't disagree, this coaching staff has done a much better job than the preceding one of adding bigger, stronger, faster players. No question about that.

 

[blizz]

I actually meant he would 'not' be an exception because the staff has a pretty good hit rate with kids who work out for them. The Canadians come to mind as does Benson. Brown fits this profile.

Add Bergeron, LeBrosse