I think this group of coaches will bring in our first 5star player

[CaliCuse]

And four stars is n't going to be a rarity either This class continues to move upward despite the kick in the groin from Marrone. Its not premature to give these coaches a pat on the back for their efforts and accomplishments to date

 

[Marroniac]

That's ambitious! I'm not holding out hope for a 5 star, but a class with multiple 4 stars is now a realistic goal.

 

[jvbj01]

I hope you are right.

 

[bnoro]

Don't care about the stars as long as they contribute while they are here.

 

[RF2044]

Don't care about the stars as long as they contribute while they are here.

Agree 100%. We're never going to be a selector school on the recruiting trail, and we'll need to win consistently in order to attract 4-star recruits.

Let's hope the new coaching staff is up to the task!

 

[CaliCuse]

That's ambitious! I'm not holding out hope for a 5 star, but a class with multiple 4 stars is now a realistic goal.

If these coaches get the job done during the season in guiding the team to consistent winning in the ACC there isn't a limit on how far the program can go. I think that 2013 will be better than expected considering the Marrone exodus and his coach grabbing.he only real question is theQB position. Sure its a big ?but if Charlie comes back it isn't going to be a down transition year.

 

[TheCusian]

It's going to take sustained success, that new indoor practice facility, and getting on kids early. Possible I guess...

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Don't care about the stars as long as they contribute while they are here.

Well, guys with more stars are more likely to contribute to bigger things than guys with fewer stars, so put me in Cali's camp now and forever.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[xc84]

Well, guys with more stars are more likely to contribute to bigger things than guys with fewer stars, so put me in Cali's camp now and forever.

I don't think it is that simple...nothing ever is. I think the ratings are mostly based on high school careers and not about potential. Football is a game where potential can develop ...even from very raw talent. Sure, some guys may not contribute until their 2nd-3rd year but I am fine with that. It could be a good judge of potential ends up getting better overall 3rd-year talent with 3 stars v. 4. Of course, there are no studies to back that up or refute it.

 

[Yegorange]

The star system may be overrated, but it does mean something. It represents the general consensus of a given player's talent/ability/potential, etc. Subjective and often uninformed as it may be when it comes to lower rated players, the 4's and especially the 5's are clearly very good to excellent players. The argument that plenty of them don't become college stars or make it to the pros, or that lots of 2's and 3's do is kind of moot. Recruiting seems to mostly be about perception, and getting a 5 star to pick your school's hat on national TV looks maaaavelous.

 

[xc84]

Recruiting seems to mostly be about perception, and getting a 5 star to pick your school's hat on national TV looks maaaavelous.

Agree, RECRUITING is a lot about perception. WINNING is not.

 

[OrangeMojo]

I don't think it is that simple...nothing ever is. I think the ratings are mostly based on high school careers and not about potential. Football is a game where potential can develop ...even from very raw talent. Sure, some guys may not contribute until their 2nd-3rd year but I am fine with that. It could be a good judge of potential ends up getting better overall 3rd-year talent with 3 stars v. 4. Of course, there are no studies to back that up or refute it.

for any one specific kid that is true - but there's no denying the correlation between consistently landing top 25 recruiting classes leading to a much greater chance of ending up in the top 25 year in and year out

 

[Yegorange]

Agree, RECRUITING is a lot about perception. WINNING is not.

Well, this thread is about recruiting and stars. Of course recruiting and winning are closely related. But it sure is a lot easier to win with higher rated players, isn't it? Constantly having to rely on your ability to develop "underrated", "under the radar", "diamonds in the rough" players to win is much much harder. Just look at our basketball program.

 

[xc84]

Well, this thread is about recruiting and stars. Of course recruiting and winning are closely related. But it sure is a lot easier to win with higher rated players, isn't it? Constantly having to rely on your ability to develop "underrated", "under the radar", "diamonds in the rough" players to win is much much harder. Just look at our basketball program.

I'd say it is easier to win with good players. So, if a coach can better evaluate players than e.g. Scout and he judge that a "3-star-rated" is actually better (after a couple years) than a "4-star", then it's easier to win with 3 star talent in that case. It's not about stars. It is about talent. Labeling kids does not make them better. I think coaches need to develop talent no matter who they recruit. And basketball is a much different animal... not applicable here. I get the simplicity of the star system and why some people like it and want to hold onto it and not let go. It makes thinking about this stuff easier. I know we disagree...and probably a lot of people disagree with me on this...but honestly, I won't care if we get a "top 25 recruiting team". It won't matter to me at all. I care that we get the kids the coaches want and more importantly, we win.

 

[Yegorange]

Absolutely, but we are really talking about 5 stars here. Those usually work out OK regardless of the sport. Getting one often leads to getting more, which only increases your chances of winning. Wouldn't a good coach be able to get more out of an excellent player than simply a good one? Sure there are intangibles and all, but certain physical attributes can't be developed. Getting players that highly regarded nationally definitely helps improve your school's image and prestige, and that is not to be discounted either.

 

[SoBristol]

Next year's recruiting through July will be telling.
Program coming off a bowl win (Marrone's achievement, but still); in the ACC; new staff having time to work on the rising seniors.

This past July, coming off a 0-5 finish, we had only a small class (with 2 gems who have now de-committed) and lots of excuses. Then, the JUCO scramble in December.

By next July, will we be seeing this staff creating some buzz in the recruiting wars? I don't know about 4 or 5 stars, but would sure like to see a top RB, DE, OT and LBs.

 

[xc84]

Wouldn't a good coach be able to get more out of an excellent player than simply a good one?

I agree 100% and I think it is consistent with my prior comments. The disagreement we may have is you defining "an excellent player" by stars. I also agree that certain physical attributes can't be developed. But skills can be. So, let's take kids from NY. e.g. Mike Williams. 2 stars, right. But the measurables were there. The athleticism was there. He's 2 stars because he is not at the level of say, a FL kid out of H.S. However, his potential is there and good talent evaluating coaches see it. He's in the NFL now. Out of h.s. he was a 2 star. Turns out, he was a 5 star in the making.

 

[Yegorange]

It's not "me" defining an excellent player by stars - it's the other way around. And the stars are generally assigned by national recruiting services based on many factors. Yes, excellent players may slip through the cracks, or turn into 5 stars down the road. But generally the 5 stars are creme de la creme. So what's wrong with wanting some? Anyway, my OP in this thread wasn't a response to you, but a general observation. Feel free to completely ignore 5 star rankings as meaningless, if you'd like. ;-)

 

[xc84]

It's not "me" defining an excellent player by stars - it's the other way around. And the stars are generally assigned by national recruiting services based on many factors. Yes, excellent players may slip through the cracks, or turn into 5 stars down the road. But generally the 5 stars are creme de la creme. So what's wrong with wanting some?

I think we both want good players. Probably can leave it at that.

 

[Yegorange]

Agreed on all counts, just note - perception is reality.

 

[javadoc]

The star system may be overrated, but it does mean something. It represents the general consensus of a given player's talent/ability/potential, etc.

Whose consensus? Amateur (even that word is too generous) talent scouts.

Scholarship offers from actual coaches is a better metric. Which is why I wonder how Corey Cooper can be "a 3-star guy." I actually get angry now when writers start stories, or refer to recruits, as "N-star RB so-and-so." On the P-S site, no less.

 

[Yegorange]

The star rankings are often based on the caliber of actual offers from actual coaches/schools. We often like to complain when a kid gets a ratings bump once he receives an offer from a name school, but again it comes back to perception. The 5 star types generally have lots of high profile offers, so the consensus apparently comes not only from amateurs.

 

[xc84]

Whose consensus? Amateur (even that word is too generous) talent scouts.

Scholarship offers from actual coaches is a better metric. Which is why I wonder how Corey Cooper can be "a 3-star guy." I actually get angry now when writers start stories, or refer to recruits, as "N-star RB so-and-so." On the P-S site, no less.

The star formula also factors in who landed the kid. Syracuse in this case "then = 3 stars".

 

[TheCusian]

Time for our bi-weekly discussion on the star system.

 

[rrlbees]

People who give no credence to stars do so because we don't get a steady diet of 4 and 5 star players. When we do get a 4 star, people immediately go gaga. If next year we get more 4 stars, you watch people tout that and tout our recruiting. It's funny.

While a 2 star may become a stud and a 5 star a dud, one thing is true...

Give me twenty-two 4 and 5 star players and you take twenty-two 2 and 3 star players and I'll kick your ass every time.

Sent using my Commodore 64 on Tapatalk 5.3