I've Come to Realize that Stars Mean Everything

[Crusty]

Individually the star system is highly flawed. But in the aggregate it tends to be somewhat predictive.

The entire sample is too small.

 

[anomander]

Sure star systems factor in production, but it's based a ton on potential. Being able to develop talent is crucial in football. If you give the best coaches in the country kids with the highest ceilings they can develop into teams that look like Alabama and FSU. This Syracuse roster is all 2 and 3 star kids. Even if we maxed out all of our potential we still weren't touching this FSU team, same with Clemson or Alabama.

Look at the size and speed of FSU's wr's. Look at the size and speed of Clemson's linebackers, and secondary. FSU's entire DL is the size of John Raymon, but move like linebackers. There just isn't any way to compete against a roster full of 4 and 5 star kids who are developed properly. They are just too big and fast. Factor in that they are schemed properly and you have a top 5 program.

 

[007]

Individually the star system is highly flawed. But in the aggregate it tends to be somewhat predictive.

It is more than somewhat predictive, there is an overwhelmingly positive correlation.

From a report from CSSsports.com:

On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won almost exactly two-thirds of the time (66.4 percent of the time, to be exact), and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year. (The only exception, if it even qualifies, came last year, when "two-star" teams finished one game below .500 in head-to-head collisions with "one-star" teams. Elsewhere, the hierarchy held across every line.) The gap on the field also widened with the gap in the recruiting scores: At the extremes, "one-star" recruiting teams managed a grand total of six wins over "four-star" and "five-star" recruiters in 59 tries. Where a small handful of teams defied their rankings, none managed to do so as part of a larger group.

Which is, again, about as accurate as we can realistically expect from a system designed to predict an uncertain future.

So What? The evidence is overwhelming: Despite some obvious, anecdotal exceptions, on the whole recruiting rankings clearly are useful for creating a realistic baseline for expectations. But the narrower your focus, the less useful they will become.

The massively hyped, five-star recruit headlining your team's next recruiting class may be an irredeemable bust; he is also many times more likely than a scrappy three-star to pan out as an All-American and move on to the next level. Somewhere, an under-scouted afterthought with a chip on his shoulder will almost certainly go on to defy the odds, become a star and maybe win the Heisman Trophy. But that doesn't change the odds, which are against him becoming anything more than an obscure role player, at best. Inevitably, a team full of afterthoughts at the bottom of the rankings will defy the odds, catch fire, pull a few upsets and storm its way into a BCS bowl. But that doesn't change the odds, which are in favor of the same team dwindling on the edge of bowl eligibility. And just as inevitably, the eventual national champion will emerge from the ranks of the handful of teams that consistently come out on top on signing day.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769

 

[Scooch]

The entire sample is too small.

25 recruits X 120 FBS programs per year is too small?

 

[anomander]

It is more than somewhat predictive, there is an overwhelmingly positive correlation.

From a report from CSSsports.com:

On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won almost exactly two-thirds of the time (66.4 percent of the time, to be exact), and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year. (The only exception, if it even qualifies, came last year, when "two-star" teams finished one game below .500 in head-to-head collisions with "one-star" teams. Elsewhere, the hierarchy held across every line.) The gap on the field also widened with the gap in the recruiting scores: At the extremes, "one-star" recruiting teams managed a grand total of six wins over "four-star" and "five-star" recruiters in 59 tries. Where a small handful of teams defied their rankings, none managed to do so as part of a larger group.

Which is, again, about as accurate as we can realistically expect from a system designed to predict an uncertain future.

So What? The evidence is overwhelming: Despite some obvious, anecdotal exceptions, on the whole recruiting rankings clearly are useful for creating a realistic baseline for expectations. But the narrower your focus, the less useful they will become.

The massively hyped, five-star recruit headlining your team's next recruiting class may be an irredeemable bust; he is also many times more likely than a scrappy three-star to pan out as an All-American and move on to the next level. Somewhere, an under-scouted afterthought with a chip on his shoulder will almost certainly go on to defy the odds, become a star and maybe win the Heisman Trophy. But that doesn't change the odds, which are against him becoming anything more than an obscure role player, at best. Inevitably, a team full of afterthoughts at the bottom of the rankings will defy the odds, catch fire, pull a few upsets and storm its way into a BCS bowl. But that doesn't change the odds, which are in favor of the same team dwindling on the edge of bowl eligibility. And just as inevitably, the eventual national champion will emerge from the ranks of the handful of teams that consistently come out on top on signing day.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/eye-on-college-football/21641769

AMEN. It's tough to accept because unfortunately we are one of those teams that bring in mainly 2 and 3 star kids, but it is what it is. Last year I felt we maxed out our potential, which was good for about 8 wins. Maybe your can tack on a game in seasons where you catch all the breaks. It's also no coincidence we were at our best as a program when we were bringing in the highly regarded kids.

 

[OrangeinBoston]

AMEN. It's tough to accept because unfortunately we are one of those teams that bring in mainly 2 and 3 star kids, but it is what it is. Last year I felt we maxed out our potential, which was good for about 8 wins. Maybe your can tack on a game in seasons where you catch all the breaks. It's also no coincidence we were at our best as a program when we were bringing in the highly regarded kids.

Given this, maybe it's better to recruit JUCOs big time à la KState?

 

[anomander]

Given this, maybe it's better to recruit JUCOs big time à la KState?

imo we can significantly improve our recruiting. Here are a few things we now have going for us that as recently as 2 years ago we couldn't say we had

- our facilities just completed getting renovated last year, so this is our first class where we can show them off. most recruits review of them have been very positive
- if the ipf ever gets going this is another huge positive for us, and gives us something not everyone even in our own conference has
- ACC affiliation
- 2, hopefully 3 bowl games in 4 years

That's some real positive momentum right there. I also feel we have some strong recruiters on this staff. If this class ends how's it looking like it will we have a real weapon with McDonald and his South Florida ties. Not to mention UCONN and Rutgers looking like they are self imploding won't hurt. I think if the core of this staff can stay in place for 3 years we can hope for top 25 recruiting classes on a yearly basis. I predict we will finish this class out around top 40 or s0. If we can get to a point where we are bringing in the talent again, hopefully the wins coincide, and we can use the history of the program to propel us even further.

Obviously this is the perfect picture scenario I am painting, but as a fan I have to believe it's achievable

 

[RCDICK44]

I think all you got to do is look at Notre Dame.They are always in the top ten in recruiting and their records the last 10 or 15 years don't support the publicity they seem to keep getting.

 

[anomander]

I think all you got to do is look at Notre Dame.They are always in the top ten in recruiting and their records the last 10 or 15 years don't support the publicity they seem to keep getting.

they played in the national championship game last season?

 

[storange]

they played in the national championship game last season?

they did although they were lucky and had some big breaks to get there, and before that had several mediocre seasons. ND is a little different and they are part of the discrepancy on the star ratings. thay have such a vast following anybody they recruit is going to jump a star because ND fans will use their service if ND is rated high. Not saying ND does not get highly recruited players but the tail wags the dog in recruiting rankings in some cases.

 

[anomander]

they did although they were lucky and had some big breaks to get there, and before that had several mediocre seasons. ND is a little different and they are part of the discrepancy on the star ratings. thay have such a vast following anybody they recruit is going to jump a star because ND fans will use their service if ND is rated high. Not saying ND does not get highly recruited players but the tail wags the dog in recruiting rankings in some cases.

as for ND i tied a lot of their problems to coaching, and their inability to develop their players. Now that they have Brian Kelly my money is on that changing

 

[007]

imo we can significantly improve our recruiting. Here are a few things we now have going for us that as recently as 2 years ago we couldn't say we had

- our facilities just completed getting renovated last year, so this is our first class where we can show them off. most recruits review of them have been very positive
- if the ipf ever gets going this is another huge positive for us, and gives us something not everyone even in our own conference has
- ACC affiliation
- 2, hopefully 3 bowl games in 4 years

That's some real positive momentum right there. I also feel we have some strong recruiters on this staff. If this class ends how's it looking like it will we have a real weapon with McDonald and his South Florida ties. Not to mention UCONN and Rutgers looking like they are self imploding won't hurt. I think if the core of this staff can stay in place for 3 years we can hope for top 25 recruiting classes on a yearly basis. I predict we will finish this class out around top 40 or s0. If we can get to a point where we are bringing in the talent again, hopefully the wins coincide, and we can use the history of the program to propel us even further.

Obviously this is the perfect picture scenario I am painting, but as a fan I have to believe it's achievable

Agree that the trend is upward. But we do still have a very long way yet to go. I know people are excited by this year's class, and it is a nice bump, especially in the nearly bare cupboard that is our WR talent stock. And yet, as it currently stands, we trail everyone in the ACC except for Wake in terms of class rankings. If this continues, we WILL sink to the bottom of the ACC.

We need to get to 6 wins THIS year and we need to make a bowl in order capitalize on whatever momentum we do have.

 

[anomander]

Agree that the trend is upward. But we do still have a very long way yet to go. I know people are excited by this year's class, and it is a nice bump, especially in the nearly bare cupboard that is our WR talent stock. And yet, as it currently stands, we trail everyone in the ACC except for Wake in terms of class rankings. If this continues, we WILL sink to the bottom of the ACC.

We need to get to 6 wins THIS year and we need to make a bowl in order capitalize on whatever momentum we do have.

i am mostly forecasting the finish to our class. we have a solid per player rating right now, we just don't have the quantity of recruits almost everyone ahead of us have. we should bring in 8-10 more kids on top of who we have committed right now. based on who these kids may be, and our current per player rating, we should finish around 40 or so, which would be about middle of the pack, maybe slightly better in the ACC

 

[007]

i am mostly forecasting the finish to our class. we have a solid per player rating right now, we just don't have the quantity of recruits almost everyone ahead of us have. we should bring in 8-10 more kids on top of who we have committed right now. based on who these kids may be, and our current per player rating, we should finish around 40 or so, which would be about middle of the pack, maybe slightly better in the ACC

Understood. I should have been a lot clearer in my post. I think/hope that GM is going to pull a couple more rabbits out of a hat, like the Edouard - who I really think has a shot at being special. We need to make it to a bowl...

 

[All4SU]

Maybe it is related to the reason why we got them

I believe that's true.

 

[PhatOrange]

I am not sure that is the metric to use. What I think is important is the number of 4 and 5 stars on ranked teams not the overall recruiting rank.

They had top 25 classes in each of the last 3/4 years. There's only about 25 - 5 Star kids though, it's like seeing where the McD's hoopsters are. It's usually spread out. I can't recall how many '4 star' kids there are - but really IMHO you have to measure the whole body. A good consistent team is usually solid 1-85. And every team is predominantly made up of 3 star kids because there are 10x as many 3 Star kids out there.

I hear what you’re saying but it should reason that if you have a so called top 25 recruiting class – every year – you should have a top 25 team. 3 weeks ago the top 25 poll that was only true for about 50% of the teams. Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, ND these are teams solidly in the top 25 recruiting polls every year. They're not ranked right now, neither is Miami, Nebraska or VT.

I think in general it’s easy to rate the top 100 or even 200 kids but after that it’s a crap shoot. It’s also not hard to see that if Bama offers a high school junior or even a sophomore he’s probably a 5 star kid (so you have the chicken or the egg theory). What comes first – the 5 star rating or the schools recruiting a kid?

I watched about 5 minutes of the NFL game last night and the Chief’s starting right tackle they said was the number 1 pick? (wasn’t sure if they meant top drafted lineman or the actual #1 pick) but the kid was from Central Michigan. So made me wonder what the NFL rosters look like, where were these guys rated when they signed LOIs.

 

[PhatOrange]

Agree that the trend is upward. But we do still have a very long way yet to go. I know people are excited by this year's class, and it is a nice bump, especially in the nearly bare cupboard that is our WR talent stock. And yet, as it currently stands, we trail everyone in the ACC except for Wake in terms of class rankings. If this continues, we WILL sink to the bottom of the ACC.

We need to get to 6 wins THIS year and we need to make a bowl in order capitalize on whatever momentum we do have.

We're only last in the ACC because we only have 13 kids. When our class is complete - which I think will end up between 20-25 we'll see where we stand. I agree with Anomander we'll be somewhere from 40-45, but even so I also believe the class top to bottom will be real solid talent wise.

 

[Chip]

The system is there for entertainment purposes, kind of like college football's Top 25 polls. It works because it gives people something to talk about, rate against.

There's really no accountability. People rarely do look-backs, and even if they do it's not a story that ever gets much attention.

So it becomes pretty simple. You want to figure out the 5 star, 4 star guys, look at the guys who are getting offers from multiple heavyweights. Work your way down from there.

Honestly, when Bob L said he was doing this in 30 seconds, I thought that was always our cue not to put too much stock in the actual analysis of the film. It was mine anyway.

 

[PhatOrange]

So it becomes pretty simple. You want to figure out the 5 star, 4 star guys, look at the guys who are getting offers from multiple heavyweights. Work your way down from there.

<<This>>

 

[SmilinBob]

I could give a guy that is 6' 4" 225 lb's that runs a 4.4 40 5 stars too. You can't teach that no matter how good of a coach you are.

 

[Townie72]

Sure star systems factor in production, but it's based a ton on potential. Being able to develop talent is crucial in football. If you give the best coaches in the country kids with the highest ceilings they can develop into teams that look like Alabama and FSU. This Syracuse roster is all 2 and 3 star kids. Even if we maxed out all of our potential we still weren't touching this FSU team, same with Clemson or Alabama.

Look at the size and speed of FSU's wr's. Look at the size and speed of Clemson's linebackers, and secondary. FSU's entire DL is the size of John Raymon, but move like linebackers. There just isn't any way to compete against a roster full of 4 and 5 star kids who are developed properly. They are just too big and fast. Factor in that they are schemed properly and you have a top 5 program.

Seems like Anomander actually understands what the "Star System" is and how it is computed and what it means.

The Star system is not an objective measure of ability. It is used to assess the readiness of high school athletes based on their performance in high school to compete and contribute at the college level. It's all about "potential".

A 5-Star is someone that that recruiters feel will be able to play and contribute meaningfully immediately. They are "Can't Miss" guys based on demonstrated performance, speed, size, athleticism, etc.)

A 4-Star guy is someone that will play and contribute somewhat later. They need to improve their size or speed or toughness or they need to gain experience.

Three-Stars are guys that are going to be good college football players but not when they first show up. These are guys who recruiters feel have the potential to be starters as RS Jrs or RS Seniors.

And the whole system is overlaid with the imprecision of the evaluation and recruiting process. Recruiters can spot 5-Stars. Understanding the potential of kids is an art form.

Florida State and other Southern schools have the luxury of being surrounded by 4 and 5 star kids. While there may not be a single 5 Star in Onandaga County in a year, some of these Florida counties could have dozens.

Years ago ---- before FSU got good --- a high school friend of mine from NJ moved to Florida and began ref'ing high school. He wrote me raving about the quality of athletes he saw in these small town high school games. He had played high school basketball in NJ at a relatively high level so I knew he knew. He use adjectives like "incredible" to describe these kids as athletes.

They weren't great basketball players. The games were "rough" and the coaching was poor. But the kids as athletes --- size, strength, speed, agility, jumping ability --- was superior to anything he had seen "Up North".

 

[Crusty]

They had top 25 classes in each of the last 3/4 years. There's only about 25 - 5 Star kids though, it's like seeing where the McD's hoopsters are. It's usually spread out. I can't recall how many '4 star' kids there are - but really IMHO you have to measure the whole body. A good consistent team is usually solid 1-85. And every team is predominantly made up of 3 star kids because there are 10x as many 3 Star kids out there.

I hear what you’re saying but it should reason that if you have a so called top 25 recruiting class – every year – you should have a top 25 team. 3 weeks ago the top 25 poll that was only true for about 50% of the teams. Michigan, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas, ND these are teams solidly in the top 25 recruiting polls every year. They're not ranked right now, neither is Miami, Nebraska or VT.

I think in general it’s easy to rate the top 100 or even 200 kids but after that it’s a crap shoot. It’s also not hard to see that if Bama offers a high school junior or even a sophomore he’s probably a 5 star kid (so you have the chicken or the egg theory). What comes first – the 5 star rating or the schools recruiting a kid?

I watched about 5 minutes of the NFL game last night and the Chief’s starting right tackle they said was the number 1 pick? (wasn’t sure if they meant top drafted lineman or the actual #1 pick) but the kid was from Central Michigan. So made me wonder what the NFL rosters look like, where were these guys rated when they signed LOIs.

If the hypothesis is that 4 and 5 star kids make the difference, then that is what needs to be measured and nothing else. Adding anything else is just noise and might prove something else but not the subject hypothesis.

 

[PhatOrange]

If the hypothesis is that 4 and 5 star kids make the difference, then that is what needs to be measured and nothing else. Adding anything else is just noise and might prove something else but not the subject hypothesis.

That's fair. I don't agree with the hypothesis because there are far more 3 star kids and than 4/5 star kids. BUT:

Rvls has:

(24) 5 star kids – of these 13 are committed to 10 different schools

(324) 4 star kids

(1084) 3 star kids

I’d might buy into the 4 star hypothesis by itself but I’ll have to break that down.

 

[Lou_C]

Star ratings are not EVERYTHING because poor coaching, development, strength and conditioning, and even recruiting strategy will still allow you to fail. In FSU's down years, I think we had a highly rated recruiting class that I think had one OL one year. Seriously messed up our team for multiple seasons.

Highly rated recruiting classes do not mean that you are going to be consistently elite. However, low-rated recruiting classes do mean that you will NOT be consistently elite.

That's not to say that even with low rated classes a team can't put together a magical season occasionally, when they get a few gems, have an excellent coach, have a nice schedule draw and get some injury and game luck. Look at Duke. It absolutely happens. Probably the best I've ever seen in my time watching was the prime of Virginia Tech when Beamer was very successful with classes that just never rated well.

But over the long term, nobody is going to overcome low rated recruiting classes to compete with and overcome programs with high rated recruiting classes if the power programs have their house in order.

 

[Crusty]

That's fair. I don't agree with the hypothesis because there are far more 3 star kids and than 4/5 star kids. BUT:

Rvls has:

(24) 5 star kids – of these 13 are committed to 10 different schools

(324) 4 star kids

(1084) 3 star kids

I’d might buy into the 4 star hypothesis by itself but I’ll have to break that down.

To really test the hypothesis we would need to know the 4 and 5 star recruits at each school over a long period and then observe their rank on some systematic basis either lagged for RS or not.

Even then there is some noise in the data. Each year the number of 5 and especially 4 stars changes and I presume the evaporators change as well. On top of that coaches change, seniors graduate, teams change conferences etc.

I suspect that there will be a correlation but I have no idea how strong. It sure would be interesting to know.