Thank you for the analysis. Its curious that the "stars dont matter mafia" on this site continue to make that argument. I just saw a clip where Dino Babers was talking about the visits he had to Syracuse a few months back and says "we had alot of talent maybe more talent than in a long time at Syracuse multiple 4 star guys up here". A couple of the recruits were 4star Amin Vanover, and 4star Latarie Kinsler. So even Babers qualifies his recruits by star ranking.A quick look at statistical research done over the past 15 years clearly supports the value of Star rankings, even if the metric is FAR from perfect.
A study from 2013 broke the Power "6" conferences recruiting classes into accumulative star rankings from 5 star to 1-star programs. For example, FIVE star programs based on star rankings included: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Texas. SU, was listed as a ONE star program for this time period. Over the same four-year span, those 75 teams played head-to-head 1,488 times. Here are the results of those games, with winning records in black and losing records in red:
To describe those results as "compelling" would be selling them short. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year.
Recruiting Rankings Matter
Then there is this joker:
“It cracks me up when [people] say the ratings don’t matter,” Ohio State coach Urban Meyer told the Big Ten Network, according to 247Sports. “If they’re keeping score, we’d like to win that thing. I do look at that. The recruiting services, although they are not 100 percent correct, they’re very close. A lot of those guys that are highly-rated guys turn out to be great players.
247sports.com
We did go 10-3 and lost in Overtime away to a peer school. So I’d say we did better then the stars said we should have.
Agreed! I think the one thing everybody on here is in agreement on is the fact that stars arent the end all be all. They simply are the global standard for evaluating, comparing, judging and predicting the future success of a incoming recruting class. Its just really ridiculous for folks to say "stars dont matter".
Thanks for posting. Yepp. This proves the sites get more right than wrong. I agree with that. If they get, say, 60% right,then group in tiers of a dozen or so, to spread probability, the list should look like this. Groups help eliminate coaching, but also eliminate whether a percentage of the recruits are actually higher or lower than their grade. Those that question the sites typically refer to the kids that are either over or under graded - a minority that can be capitalized on by a good evaluating staff.A quick look at statistical research done over the past 15 years clearly supports the value of Star rankings, even if the metric is FAR from perfect.
A study from 2013 broke the Power "6" conferences recruiting classes into accumulative star rankings from 5 star to 1-star programs. For example, FIVE star programs based on star rankings included: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Texas. SU, was listed as a ONE star program for this time period. Over the same four-year span, those 75 teams played head-to-head 1,488 times. Here are the results of those games, with winning records in black and losing records in red:
To describe those results as "compelling" would be selling them short. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year.
Recruiting Rankings Matter
Then there is this joker:
“It cracks me up when [people] say the ratings don’t matter,” Ohio State coach Urban Meyer told the Big Ten Network, according to 247Sports. “If they’re keeping score, we’d like to win that thing. I do look at that. The recruiting services, although they are not 100 percent correct, they’re very close. A lot of those guys that are highly-rated guys turn out to be great players.
Is that the same Mike Locksley that has a career .088 win percentage?
This seems to also support my belief that while generally star ratings can err widely on any individual player, they're directionally accurate when it comes to differentiating a program's recruiting class as a whole.A quick look at statistical research done over the past 15 years clearly supports the value of Star rankings, even if the metric is FAR from perfect.
A study from 2013 broke the Power "6" conferences recruiting classes into accumulative star rankings from 5 star to 1-star programs. For example, FIVE star programs based on star rankings included: Alabama, Auburn, Florida, Florida State, Georgia, LSU, Michigan, Notre Dame, Ohio State, Oklahoma, and Texas. SU, was listed as a ONE star program for this time period. Over the same four-year span, those 75 teams played head-to-head 1,488 times. Here are the results of those games, with winning records in black and losing records in red:
To describe those results as "compelling" would be selling them short. It's a landslide. On the final count, the higher-ranked team according to the recruiting rankings won roughly two-thirds of the time, and every "class" as a whole had a winning record against every class ranked below it every single year.
Recruiting Rankings Matter
Then there is this joker:
“It cracks me up when [people] say the ratings don’t matter,” Ohio State coach Urban Meyer told the Big Ten Network, according to 247Sports. “If they’re keeping score, we’d like to win that thing. I do look at that. The recruiting services, although they are not 100 percent correct, they’re very close. A lot of those guys that are highly-rated guys turn out to be great players.
They did, Kobe Pryor and i love his game. He is rated as the 598 best player in the country.
247sports.com
Its a farce to compare our class to clemson even with our good year. Pitt would be a better comparison. We had a better class then them in 2019. in fact if we go by stars matter then they had to grab a 2-star while we didnt, all the ranking in our part of the ACC are close.They did, Kobe Pryor and i love his game. He is rated as the 598 best player in the country.
Kobe Pace, Virginia Cavaliers, Running Back
Kobe Pace is a 5-10, 211-pound Running Back from Cedartown, GA.
To put that in perspective he is higher rated than every player we signed last year except Kpogba (433)and Mikel Jones(438) He is Clemson's lowest rated recruit (Cooper Dawson wouldve been the lowest for Clemson 930) Here is our entire class from last year 10best in ACC 53rd best in the nation
Its pathetic for us to try to be par or a little better than Pittsburgh. But I quess thats where we are? We have to step it up in recruting. I AM ok with the 2 or 3 high 3star (top 1000 recruits we get) Time to get a few top 400 kids. All the other top 25 teams do. Plenty of room to grow.
Because the truth is that is our peer school right now. Not Clemson or PSU. What was our record the last 4-5 years before this year. One season does not make us better then Pitt/BC and others who string bowl games back to back and are stable 6-7 floor teams most years. If we get another 10 win season or at the least 7 win team it will be a coup for our recruiting. These next 2-3 years are crucial to prove that we can provide bowl games every year. The big Players don’t want to play on a 4-8 to 6-6 team for 3 years with one year going 9-3. They want 7-5/9-3 for 3-4 years.
I don't think you're tracking the roster very carefully. There are hardly any Shafer recruits left.
Yeah, those dudes all committed to Babers. Clausman's career is over.
So my point is enhanced. NOW HCDB recruits are front and center and we will rely on them. I like the offensive scheme but lets see if the talent can hold up
Thanks. I wasn't going to take the time to do that.
Nice post although i could dispute the Dillard boys (Ruff and McKinley) as i know Syracuse was there heavy in 2015, i wont because this backs up my point. In 2019 HCDB recruits will be front and center. Dungy, Custis and alot of HCSS recruits are gone.
If we hit 10-3 with more HCSS recruits then before then we should be better off this year. Our talent under babers has grown and it is thanks to a world class S&C support staff.
Boy i hope so. But wont it be great for the tables to turn at Syracuse. Usually football can use high profile basketball games to bring recruits in. This year that Clemson syracuse game could be massive for recruit visits
Thank you for the analysis. Its curious that the "stars dont matter mafia" on this site continue to make that argument. I just saw a clip where Dino Babers was talking about the visits he had to Syracuse a few months back and says "we had alot of talent maybe more talent than in a long time at Syracuse multiple 4 star guys up here". A couple of the recruits were 4star Amin Vanover, and 4star Latarie Kinsler. So even Babers qualifies his recruits by star ranking.
Again i say to those who make the laughable argument that stars dont matter. Would you, Dino Babers, Brian Ward, rather have our recruiting class from last year which they hail as so talented which finished rated 10 of 14 in ACC or Clemsons class which finished #1 in ACC. The teams literally are judged, rated, evaluated by the STAR count.
2019 Recruit ACC Football Team Rankings
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Dont go on the continual non sense that "as long as we win i am happy", or "I trust our coaches evaluation of talent". The answer is YES you would rather have a team with a higher rated recruiting class because stars simply put represent the expected talent coming to the field
