The star system

[bevosu]

Latest issue of Forbes...

According to 247sports, a website that keeps track of who’s who in high school sports, both the Seahawks and the Patriots had only four four-star recruits among their starters. As first reported by CBS Sports, the Seahawks had an average rating of 2.4 among its starters, while the Patriots scored 2.3.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2015/02/11/late-bloomers-are-in-peril/

 

[007]

Latest issue of Forbes...

According to No links to 247 allowed on this site, a website that keeps track of who’s who in high school sports, both the Seahawks and the Patriots had only four four-star recruits among their starters. As first reported by CBS Sports, the Seahawks had an average rating of 2.4 among its starters, while the Patriots scored 2.3.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richkarlgaard/2015/02/11/late-bloomers-are-in-peril/

Statistically, this isn't that surprising, as five-stars make up less than 1 percent of all FBS/FCS recruits, four-stars less than 10 percent, and three-stars roughly 37 percent.

Since 1998 every team that has won a national title, except for Oklahoma in 2000, has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. More interestingly, every champion from the past nine years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title.

Even with all the flaws and examples of exceptions, there is no doubt that class rankings do, in fact, correlate highly with winning.

 

[chakka3421]

Statistically, this isn't that surprising, as five-stars make up less than 1 percent of all FBS/FCS recruits, four-stars less than 10 percent, and three-stars roughly 37 percent.

Since 1998 every team that has won a national title, except for Oklahoma in 2000, has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. More interestingly, every champion from the past nine years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title.

Even with all the flaws and examples of exceptions, there is no doubt that class rankings do, in fact, correlate highly with winning.

Ok here is the first time I will speak up on this false assumption. We have not had a true playoff system until this year and its limited in my view. If we had a true 16 team playoff over the last decade or two, your assumptions may - or may not - work out so conveniently.

The only year that is valid to me started this year in 2015. The #4 seed won it all. I rest my case - nuff said.

 

[007]

Ok here is the first time I will speak up on this false assumption. We have not had a true playoff system until this year and its limited in my view. If we had a true 16 team playoff over the last decade or two, your assumptions may - or may not - work out so conveniently.

The only year that is valid to me started this year in 2015. The #4 seed won it all. I rest my case - nuff said.

I know rested your case, but permission to approach the bench your Honor?

Playoff system or not, nearly 90% of the teams to win a NC over the last 10 years have had AT LEAST 3 Top Ten recruiting classes, including, brace yourself, the team that just won the NC in the only year you see as "valid."

The correlation between class rankings and winning NC - hell, winning in general - is about as close to a statistical certainty as you can get.

 

[TheCusian]

I know rested your case, but permission to approach the bench your Honor? Playoff system or not, nearly 90% of the teams to win a NC over the last 10 years have had AT LEAST 3 Top Ten recruiting classes, including, brace yourself, the team that just won the NC in the only year you see as "valid." The correlation between class rankings and winning NC - hell, winning in general - is about as close to a statistical certainty as you can get.

I tend to agree with you - but a system based on polls and eye tests like the BCS did? Some of that is based on perception of recruiting classes.

 

[CuseOnly]

I know rested your case, but permission to approach the bench your Honor?

Playoff system or not, nearly 90% of the teams to win a NC over the last 10 years have had AT LEAST 3 Top Ten recruiting classes, including, brace yourself, the team that just won the NC in the only year you see as "valid."

The correlation between class rankings and winning NC - hell, winning in general - is about as close to a statistical certainty as you can get.

No offense 007 but this article and evidence is based on HS recruiting rankings by the services translated into success in the pros, not at all about the college level.

What it tells me is basically that polls over the years including recently (in college), excluding the recent 4 team tournament, are biased in part to certain schools that recruiting rankings favor. And still are I might add. If SU runs the table next year, what is their ceiling ranking? Will they get to the top 4 to be included, my guess is a resounding No, even though they might be the best team in the country.

In other words, it is very difficult with 2-3 star recruits to get ranked highly enough in pre-season polls to have a shot at the national title or overall at a BCS bowl bid in the previous BCS era.

Will this change...I doubt it.

 

[HOFCeluck]

A Syracuse team that runs the table would have wins over FSU, Clemson, and whoever they played in the ACCCG at least. They'd be a lock for top four.

 

[anomander]

I really appreciate the effort we are making to try and discredit the star system to make us look better, but it's just not possible. In the past decade we've brought in mainly 2 and 3 star kids. During that time we have 3 seasons above 6 wins, topping off at 8, and we've had to scrape and fight just to get to that point. I don't get the point those against the star system are trying to make? We all know there are outliers, but for the most part the programs bringing in the 4 and 5 stars, are the programs winning big. The programs that are winning big with 3 and 4 stars are the ones who have implemented superior schemes.

 

[HOFCeluck]

Stars don't matter...until we land a few four stars...at which point they will.

 

[TheCusian]

I really appreciate the effort we are making to try and discredit the star system to make us look better, but it's just not possible. In the past decade we've brought in mainly 2 and 3 star kids. During that time we have 3 seasons above 6 wins, topping off at 8, and we've had to scrape and fight just to get to that point. I don't get the point those against the star system are trying to make? We all know there are outliers, but for the most part the programs bringing in the 4 and 5 stars, are the programs winning big. The programs that are winning big with 3 and 4 stars are the ones who have implemented superior schemes.

Reread the thread - no one has been trying to make us look better.

 

[kcsu]

I really appreciate the effort we are making to try and discredit the star system to make us look better, but it's just not possible. In the past decade we've brought in mainly 2 and 3 star kids. During that time we have 3 seasons above 6 wins, topping off at 8, and we've had to scrape and fight just to get to that point. I don't get the point those against the star system are trying to make? We all know there are outliers, but for the most part the programs bringing in the 4 and 5 stars, are the programs winning big. The programs that are winning big with 3 and 4 stars are the ones who have implemented superior schemes.

Good point which is why coaching is so important to us. It is one variable that we can control

 

[anomander]

Retread the thread - no one has been trying to make us look better.

Ya but that's what every star thread turns into. I'm sure the OP was made in a way to discredit the system, and what is the reasoning for discrediting the system? I'm sure we will eventually have the Jay Bromley example thrown out, which is mandatory for every star system thread. All these threads have the same undertones.

 

[TheCusian]

Ya but that's what every star thread turns into. I'm sure the OP was made in a way to discredit the system, and what is the reasoning for discrediting the system? I'm sure we will eventually have the Jay Bromley example thrown out, which is mandatory for every star system thread. All these threads have the same undertones.

Can't speak for everyone here - but I was specifically avoiding applying it to us.

The system is flawed. It's an impossible job. And I'd rather be ranked in the top 25 with 4 stars than not.

 

[bevosu]

Ya but that's what every star thread turns into. I'm sure the OP was made in a way to discredit the system, and what is the reasoning for discrediting the system? I'm sure we will eventually have the Jay Bromley example thrown out, which is mandatory for every star system thread. All these threads have the same undertones.

My original intent wasn't to discredit the star system. When I read the article it struck me as surprising. I do think it gives credence to the argument that there are a lot of players that don't get 4-5 stars and obviously can play the game at a very high level.

 

[007]

No offense 007 but this article and evidence is based on HS recruiting rankings by the services translated into success in the pros, not at all about the college level.

What it tells me is basically that polls over the years including recently (in college), excluding the recent 4 team tournament, are biased in part to certain schools that recruiting rankings favor. And still are I might add. If SU runs the table next year, what is their ceiling ranking? Will they get to the top 4 to be included, my guess is a resounding No, even though they might be the best team in the country.

In other words, it is very difficult with 2-3 star recruits to get ranked highly enough in pre-season polls to have a shot at the national title or overall at a BCS bowl bid in the previous BCS era.

Will this change...I doubt it.

No offense taken, CuseOnly. In fact, I enjoy the debate (I'm kind of weird like that).

Your point about bias in recruiting rankings is well taken. So is the effect that tradition rich and highly successful schools tend to have their classes artificially elevated. There are a number of studies out there that have done sophisticated analysis of this data, including trying to control for the effect of the variables you are talking about. These studies have consistently found that controlling for between school heterogeneity lowers the estimated effect of recruit quality on wins, but the effect is still statistically and economically significant (appearances in the most lucrative bowl games).

Personal opinion is fine. But empirical studies have consistently concluded that success at the highest levels of college football is much more likely to happen when a team possesses highly rated recruits.

The correlation between class rankings and winning is about as close to a statistical certainty as you can get when measuring human behavior.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/Bergmen_Logan.pdf

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I really appreciate the effort we are making to try and discredit the star system to make us look better, but it's just not possible. In the past decade we've brought in mainly 2 and 3 star kids. During that time we have 3 seasons above 6 wins, topping off at 8, and we've had to scrape and fight just to get to that point. I don't get the point those against the star system are trying to make? We all know there are outliers, but for the most part the programs bringing in the 4 and 5 stars, are the programs winning big. The programs that are winning big with 3 and 4 stars are the ones who have implemented superior schemes.

It's just a chest thumping exercise to talk about how stars don't matter. Everybody wants to take pride in something. The programs that bring in highly rated classes take pride in having highly rated classes. The programs that don't bring in highly rated classes take pride in knowing a lot of lower rated guys pan out and obviously their coaches must be smarter than other coaches to have found so many diamonds in the rough. Either way, you get to feel great.

 

[CuseOnly]

No offense taken, CuseOnly. In fact, I enjoy the debate (I'm kind of weird like that).

Your point about bias in recruiting rankings is well taken. So is the effect that tradition rich and highly successful schools tend to have their classes artificially elevated. There are a number of studies out there that have done sophisticated analysis of this data, including trying to control for the effect of the variables you are talking about. These studies have consistently found that controlling for between school heterogeneity lowers the estimated effect of recruit quality on wins, but the effect is still statistically and economically significant (appearances in the most lucrative bowl games).

Personal opinion is fine. But empirical studies have consistently concluded that success at the highest levels of college football is much more likely to happen when a team possesses highly rated recruits.

The correlation between class rankings and winning is about as close to a statistical certainty as you can get when measuring human behavior.

http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/Bergmen_Logan.pdf

The OP was posting about star ranking and the pros, not success in college.

While I agree with you that the data you are presenting proves the point somewhat that stars translate into winning at the college level. The original point was that it does not always translate into success at the pro level. Hence there were only 4 totat 4 star kids on 2 NFL rosters that played in the Super Bowl out of a total of 110 person 2 team's rosters.

The majority of NFL Starting QB's were not 4 or 5 star kids out of HS. I would think that this translates to just about every position somewhat.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/02/current_nfl_qbs_werent_all_big.html

 

[007]

The OP was posting about star ranking and the pros, not success in college.

While I agree with you that the data you are presenting proves the point somewhat that stars translate into winning at the college level. The original point was that it does not always translate into success at the pro level. Hence there were only 4 totat 4 star kids on 2 NFL rosters that played in the Super Bowl out of a total of 110 person 2 team's rosters.

The majority of NFL Starting QB's were not 4 or 5 star kids out of HS. I would think that this translates to just about every position somewhat.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2015/02/current_nfl_qbs_werent_all_big.html

No, I get that. I replied to "the Seahawks had an average rating of 2.4 among its starters, while the Patriots scored 2.3" part by pointing out that those average ratings are consistent with what would be expected statistically given that less than 1% of the available pool that could be drafted were 5 stars, and less than 10% were 4 stars. So...if, on average, there are approximately 5.5 guys on ANY NFL roster that were either a 5 or 4 star, it is really that surprising that the average rankings for a 55 man roster is less than 3 stars?

The rest of my posts were addressing the superficial conclusion that most are going make when they first read that, namely "see, rankings don't mater for college recruits." The data indicates that there is a statistically significant correlation between class rankings and winning in college.

 

[oldpinepoint]

I just want to say as a former six star athlete coming out of high school, I did not make it in the NFL

 

[CuseOnly]

No, I get that. I replied to "the Seahawks had an average rating of 2.4 among its starters, while the Patriots scored 2.3" part by pointing out that those average ratings are consistent with what would be expected statistically given that less than 1% of the available pool that could be drafted were 5 stars, and less than 10% were 4 stars. So...if, on average, there are approximately 5.5 guys on ANY NFL roster that were either a 5 or 4 star, it is really that surprising that the average rankings for a 55 man roster is less than 3 stars?

The rest of my posts were addressing the superficial conclusion that most are going make when they first read that, namely "see, rankings don't mater for college recruits." The data indicates that there is a statistically significant correlation between class rankings and winning in college.

Understood. I am in the camp that believes that the star rankings are a money grab for the businesses built around them and are the most biased subjective things in sports. After the 40-100 5 star kids that are physically dominant at the HS level, the rest is pure opinion and speculation.

 

[ImperialOrange]

It's interesting to try and find both the correlation, and sometimes lack there of, between being a great college player and being a great pro. Certainly, whether or not you put a lot of emphasis on stars, we don't mind seeing them next to a commits name. I certainly prefer to took at opposing interest/offers but again thats my preference.

One can certainly be a highly touted recruit and a great college player without sniffing the pros. One can also be a marginal recruit, average or above college player, and hash out a long pro career. You'd only have to look as far as out basketball team to see as much. The college and pro games are quite different which is why we see heisman trophy winners consistantly flame out in the pros and fair amont of all conference and all american hoops players struggle to make nba rosters.

 

[TheCusian]

No, I get that. I replied to "the Seahawks had an average rating of 2.4 among its starters, while the Patriots scored 2.3" part by pointing out that those average ratings are consistent with what would be expected statistically given that less than 1% of the available pool that could be drafted were 5 stars, and less than 10% were 4 stars. So...if, on average, there are approximately 5.5 guys on ANY NFL roster that were either a 5 or 4 star, it is really that surprising that the average rankings for a 55 man roster is less than 3 stars?

The rest of my posts were addressing the superficial conclusion that most are going make when they first read that, namely "see, rankings don't mater for college recruits." The data indicates that there is a statistically significant correlation between class rankings and winning in college.

007: 1
Strawman: 0

 

[HOFCeluck]

Understood. I am in the camp that believes that the star rankings are a money grab for the businesses built around them and are the most biased subjective things in sports. After the 40-100 5 star kids that are physically dominant at the HS level, the rest is pure opinion and speculation.

Well, you also think that an undefeated Syracuse would be left out of the top four. So there's that.

And, I do believe there are only about 20-25 five stars a year. I may be mistaken though.

 

[ImperialOrange]

Well, you also think that an undefeated Syracuse would be left out of the top four. So there's that.

And, I do believe there are only about 20-25 five stars a year. I may be mistaken though.

25 sounds correct I think. So over a 4 year cycle there would be 100 total, many of which end up at the same school, so there will be attrition in the ranks because 5 stars will end up being behind 5 stars on depth charts in some cases.

 

[NineOneSeven]

Stars don't matter...until we land a few four stars...at which point they will.

We land the best 3* recruits out there though. This is what I'm told reading this board sometimes