Ratings matter...........................hey I am not clueless yah!! Seriously though I think Rhoads has done a fine job getting guys to little ol Ames, Ia.
The ratings definitely mean something; but they don't mean everything.
It's a lot like odds in Vegas. They can tell you who the favorites are (5 stars) and who the long shots are (1 or less stars) but you never know how it will turn out until the game is over.
Teams with higher average ratings usually perform better than low rated recruits. But you also have to look at Texas 2010. They had 4 and 5 star kids up and down the roster, but busts and bad coaching ended up in a losing season.
CPR has proven to be able to get solid but not spectacular classes so far. He has used these to build quality depth at almost every position. The key now is to start getting the cherries on top. The real difference makers. Then we have a good chance to shoot past the 6 win mark consistently.
Look at Baylor. They didn't have great recruiting classes, just solid ones, for a few years. Then RGIII showed up and boom, even with arguably average talent on defense and just a few other weapons on offense, they beat a lot of good teams.
Sure rankings aren't exact but they are a good indicator. You will always have a couple teams that recruit really well that stink, and a couple teams that recruit poorly that are good. But more times than not teams that have higher ranked recruits prove it on the field. The proof is out there.
We are tied for 9th in conference this year. We generally always finish 9th in recruiting rankings. Coincidence? No. Now, I'm also a firm believer that we have to develop depth and mold talent as we can't compete with the big boys and Rhoads is doing a great job of that. But if Iowa State ever wants to truly compete at the top of the league, more stars are needed
I do think it is interesting that you don't hear people giving the "rankings are worthless" line in basketball like they do in football.
No, rankings are not 100% accurate The difference between a four star and a two star can sometimes be by the narrowest of margins. Still there is a coloration that people can't deny. Why do the better programs get better rated athletes? Actually, the reasoning doesn't really matter, what matters is that they do. Is a non ranked player going to be just another player on the bench or is he going to be a star in the program? Who knows, but what we have still does give a good indicator of the class.
Based on the excuse I'm getting in this thread, no one is allowed to call out or defend a coaching staff for recruiting unless they have personally watched all the commits. Of course even that is debatable since that is what recruiting services do and how can we say you are more skilled at rating the player than a company that does it for a living? So I guess that means we have to just wait to see them on the field. No more recruiting info needed CW.
Rhoads has built solid depth across the roster. This team is a few difference makers from having 8-10 wins. A big time receiver and a couple very good defensive linemen would have done the trick this year (if we could manage at least average QB play).
That's why I hope we can keep Wimberley and Bibbs. They seem like very good players that will put up at lot of stats during their two years of playing at ISU.
We are technically 9th right now with the ability to be tied for 7th (actually if Baylor loses we get an outright claim for 8th.)
But I support your statements that recruiting classes are good indicators. The impact player is also likely why Rhoads seems to bring in numerous QBs every season. One has got to be a Collin Klein type guy right?
cyclone recruiting better than Oregon and TCU? TCU is in the heart of great football and Oregon is well Oregon!
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2013 Team Recruiting Rankings
^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^ is a very sensible post imo. As you can see by the amount of posts, I am a newbie to this particular forum. Became an instant ISU fan in late June. Watched every game this year with the exception of the Iowa game. The most glaring things that stood out to me about ISU in the "need improvement" department were what isufan pointed out, in bold. I would argue that we also need that speedy RB who can break off a big run and take it to the house every now and then.
We were not very far off from the afore mentioned 8--10 wins. In fact I think the K-State, West Va and Texas Tech games were all winable. Perhaps only a few key players off from making that a reality.
Also want to acknowledge the poster who said something along the lines of recruiting analysts and the star system being accurate in terms of recognizing really good players (high 4 and 5 star guys) along with those that really aren't that good (1 and low 2 star guys). I think he's dead on. There are just far too many variables and inconsistencies across the board to have an accurate assessment of the many athhletes that are graded each year. I'd take a high 2 star guy who plays 5a ball in Texas over a 3 star guy who plays 3a in Pennsylvania, generally speaking. Just saying.