Does anyone ??? the fickleness if these *star* rankings?

[cmhawks99]

In another thread I was in someone pointed out to me that Shonn Greene was 3 star. Which he was coming out of Prep School, but the year before he was a 2 coming out of high school. Does that seem a little ambiguous to anyone else. Money Reynolds looks like a super prospect yet some how he was a 2 star coming out of High School. Same with Bellamy.

Or how about Steve Burch for Iowa from years back. Came in as 2, left for a Juco and materialized at K-St as 4 and didn’t do much there either. These aren't just exceptions but only what I can immediately think of.

Or how about the mysterious late star addition. So all year they were a 2 and at the end of the season they say hey lets toss an extra star his way. It makes no-sense and further jades my perception of the star rankings. I suppose we could assume that they "revaluate" them all, but how do they miss so many kids. The NFL is literally half-FULL of these kids.

Not to even mention my belief that the stars are jaded more towards the recruiting "hot beds" so-to-speak. Not the certain teams get better rankings conspiracy, but that the players in the South or Cali are the beneficiary of somewhat biased treatment to begin with.

Just curious and thought maybe we could all get behind a common theme of us against the "rankers"

Chad

PS……..By the by if this doesn't belong here I apologize,I just thought it belonged on the football board. We aren't really all so different and we honestly recruit similar "ranked" players.

[CrossCyed]

Stars aren't the best, but they paint a pretty good picture. More stars = greater chance at an impact.

I'd be interested to know how many 2/3 stars contribute immediately as freshmen compared to 4/5 stars.

The 2/3 stars that end up becoming impact players, more often than not, have developed through a program.

Sure, part of the way they are ranked is who has offered them. It's part of the equation. But it's ridiculous to totally dismiss them as an early indicator of talent.

[CycloneJoe]

USC gets alot of 5 stars who turn out to be all americans and a few that bust

[Clones21]

I think stars are somthing that the board does to show who can recruit the best athletes in the country

[ajk4st8]

You can almost look at it as a % chance of a player being really good.

5* about 70%
4* about 60%
3* about 50 %
2* about 40%

Thats how I take it.

[Omaha Cy]

Ugh another stars rating thread.......

All I care about is that ISU is recruting positions of need. are they addressing weak areas and bringing in bodies? If so great!

I also hope the staff has the fore-sight(is that even a word?) to at not only adress the '09 needs with this class, but to look ahead to 2010 with this class. To not wait till the '10 class to adress some key future needs as well. Had we gotten marry and mars i think those needs in '10 would have been adressed but it didnt happen.

I was surpised by all the WR commits this year. I felt that position was stocked pretty well for '09 and '10.

[dunar]

Or how about the mysterious late star addition. So all year they were a 2 and at the end of the season they say hey lets toss an extra star his way. It makes no-sense and further jades my perception of the star rankings.

There was a recruiting "expert" (I seem to remember him being from CBS, but I may be wrong) on Cotlar yesterday. He addressed the late star additions, specifically related to the hold-outs and unsigned guys. Recruiting services sole purpose it to sell more subscriptions, so he speculated that a lot of those late star additions were trying to generate interest, in turn, selling more subscriptions. Makes a lot of sense to me. I put little stock in the "star" system, that part is a business. It's not like they do one pre-signing combine (there are many, right?) and use it to evaluate and rank. And of course, ranking work ethic, determination, and heart are all speculative...

[CarolinaCy]

Umm, maybe they got better after a year at a prep school or 2 years at a JUCO. Is that so hard to believe?

Also, cmhawks99, please look up the word "brevity" in the dictionary. I feel this will benefit you greatly. Most people zone out after paragraph 4 or 5.

[cybsball20]

Alot of these guys get their tapes evaluated again once their season is over, thats why the star value will move...

[anticyclonic]

It is a fickle system. I would like to see someone that can grade coaching staffs over the years in their ability to find a "diamond in the rough". Iowa has done real well there, and we haven't done so bad.

CMHAWKS99: this would be a good assignment for you since you have a lot of statistics. Can you put something together easily?

[cycloneworld]

Stars aren't the best, but they paint a pretty good picture. More stars = greater chance at an impact.

I'd be interested to know how many 2/3 stars contribute immediately as freshmen compared to 4/5 stars.

The 2/3 stars that end up becoming impact players, more often than not, have developed through a program.

Sure, part of the way they are ranked is who has offered them. It's part of the equation. But it's ridiculous to totally dismiss them as an early indicator of talent.

Good post. On the flip side of that, it's been all to common to have 3-start Recruit X commit to USC and become a 4-star. In the Denver Post article someone posted talking about it, Dan Hawkins is quoted telling a story about how he offered a 2-star QB while at Boise State. The kid committed to USC and became a 4-star.

[Cyclonesrule91]

Stars are worthless and I put absolutely no creedance in any of it. All it ends up being is an opinion of some so called expert. I'll take a lower rated player who knows he has to work for the position over a 5 star who comes in assuming the position is his because some so called "expert" said he was a 4 or 5 star.

The competition for positions increases exponentially going from high school to college, so why do we put so much into somebody ranking a player based on whatever competition he played against in high school when about every facet of the game changes on a huge scale?

[cmhawks99]

Umm, maybe they got better after a year at a prep school or 2 years at a JUCO. Is that so hard to believe?

That is the obvious answer but I'm not buying it. So in one year or 2 years they jump up 1 to 2 full stars? What happened to the need to develop thing. One year?!??! Even 2?!?!?!

That is actually my major pet peeve as I have seen just as many (not by percentage but in totality) play and excel as 2 in their 1st year or RS Frosh years as I do 4’s. Even Crabtree and Maclin sat a year.

Contrary to popular belief there aren't that many 4 star guys that walk right in and play. In theory thats supposed to happen but it doesn't all that often. I’d guess out of 300-4 stars maybe 50-60 (which is good by percentage of course) but I'd wager between 100-150 plus (maybe more) 2 stars end up making a major impact in their 1st year. Albeit many at lower level teams. Iowa alone had 3, 2 stars play as Frosh last year. I’d bet ISU has several examples as well.

Chad

[cybsball20]

Most of those 4-5 star guys go to better programs where they are behind 4-5 star guys so there is no need for them to play right away... I completely buy that guys can improve in 2 years at a JUCO. You see your biggest strength and football increases in that first year. These kids are able to PLAY that first year and work on the S&C alot more than they were able to in high school...

[cmhawks99]

You can almost look at it as a % chance of a player being really good.

5* about 70%
4* about 60%
3* about 50 %
2* about 40%

Thats how I take it.

Good call and I've always subscribed to this theory as well. Though I'd probably go more like...........

5* about 60%
4* about 50%
3* about 40 %
2* about 20-30%

.............. Showing that yes, by % the higher the ranking the higher the success rate. But being there are actually way more 2 star kids out there. It is then likely there are more potential studs out there if you can find and evaluate them. Therefore placing a major emphasis on evaluation skills for a staff. Which is why some teams flourish and others don't.

West Va nor Va Tech sign very high ranking classes. West Va finished 27 which is said to be their best ever as they usually finish between 30 and 60 and Va Tech was 24 which is solid for them being usually between there and 45th or so.

Still the major head scratcher to me is the fluidness of said rankings per player.

Chad