Prospect Star system...Flawed

[The Prowler]

I know this isn't really new, news, but prospect rating system has flaws.  Grillz ratings do not, lol.

Phil Kornblut
Recruiting Buzz
Appears every Monday
gogamecocks.com

USC DEFENSIVE LINE coach Brad Lawing has recruited hundreds of players over his more than 20 years as a college coach. He has signed players rated highly by the recruiting analysts and players whom the analysts ignored.

In Lawing’s opinion, the rating of players and the ranking of signing classes is a scam.

“I can take a three-star and make him a four-star, and I can take a four-star and make him a three- or two-star with the contacts I have,” Lawing said. “That’s how ridiculous recruiting on the Internet is. I took Chris Culliver (USC safety) from a three- to a five-star in three weeks. All you’ve got to do is talk to the right people.”

Lawing added that a danger of the rating systems is the fans are sometimes misled about the talent level of a prospect and a class overall.

“There are a lot of staffs getting fired for unrealistic expectations,” Lawing said.

http://www.thestate.com/gogamecocks/story/799999.html?RSS=gogamecocks

[RWS]

I know this isn't really new, news, but prospect rating system has flaws.  Grillz ratings do not, lol.

http://www.thestate.com/gogamecocks/story/799999.html?RSS=gogamecocks

If he thinks it is so ridiculous.....why does he supposedly call people and have kids' star ratings bumped? Thats like somebody in the food stamp line bitching about government spending. Are the star ratings perfect? No. I'm sure there are certain flaws to it. Nothing in this world is perfect. The entire star system idea in itself is something for the fans. If you have a good coach, they don't give a shit about how many stars Rivals or Scout gives a kid. That should not factor in to a player evaluation. If you are a fan and buy into any part of the star rating system, then you should know you have to take it with a grain of salt, for better or worse.

[JR4AU]

It's not an exact science by any stretch, but the NFL draft says it's a pretty good predictor of individual talent.

[Townhallsavoy]

If he thinks it is so ridiculous.....why does he supposedly call people and have kids' star ratings bumped? Thats like somebody in the food stamp line bitching about government spending. Are the star ratings perfect? No. I'm sure there are certain flaws to it. Nothing in this world is perfect. The entire star system idea in itself is something for the fans. If you have a good coach, they don't give a shit about how many stars Rivals or Scout gives a kid. That should not factor in to a player evaluation. If you are a fan and buy into any part of the star rating system, then you should know you have to take it with a grain of salt, for better or worse.

Coaches do give a shit, and they should.  If Auburn landed Lache Seastrunk, Lattimore, Damien Robinson, and Trovon Reed right now, Auburn would be in better position to land other top recruits.  Kids read this recruiting sites, and if they notice a particular school is landing the "top" prospects according to Rivals or Scout, they're going to show more interest there. 

I attribute Bama's success in 2008 with that.  Saban loaded up on a few top recruits quickly and used that momentum to seal the deal with the ones that committed on signing day. 

[RWS]

Coaches do give a shit, and they should.  If Auburn landed Lache Seastrunk, Lattimore, Damien Robinson, and Trovon Reed right now, Auburn would be in better position to land other top recruits.  Kids read this recruiting sites, and if they notice a particular school is landing the "top" prospects according to Rivals or Scout, they're going to show more interest there. 

I attribute Bama's success in 2008 with that.  Saban loaded up on a few top recruits quickly and used that momentum to seal the deal with the ones that committed on signing day. 

I think you could agree that some of the "top recruits" that CNS landed in 08 had proven their skill on the field in high school and didn't need a recruiting service to deem them elite for kids to know. See: Jerrell Harris, Dont'a Hightower, Julio Jones, Courtney Upshaw, etc. I agree with your point about recruits reading the sites somewhat. We landed pretty damn good classes in 08 and 09, but you still see kids choosing other schools over us. You know better than I do that so many factors decide where a kid goes. While landing "higher rated" prospects may get a school more attention from some other higher rated recruits, its not an automatic correlation or guarantee that they're going to knock your door down to commit. Does it help some? I'm sure it does, but to an extent imo.

[JR4AU]

This says it does matter: http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/13422/nfl-stars-how-recruiting-translates-to-the-draft

[RWS]

This says it does matter: http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/13422/nfl-stars-how-recruiting-translates-to-the-draft

The deal is though, the NFL isn't going to draft some kid somewhere in the top 10 of the first round that was a 5* coming out of high school, but didn't amount to shit in college just because of his stars exiting HS. Its cool for us, as fans, to be able to do the stars thing and say yeah we're beating the shit out of you in recruiting, etc etc. But its like what I've heard alot of AU fans say over the past two years, its what they do on the field that ultimately matters. Phelon Jones for example. He was highly touted coming out of HS, didn't amount to shit at LSU. Assuming he stays, he will be able to play for UA in 2010. If he doesn't amount to shit at UA either, do you think the NFL gives a shit about how good he was coming out of HS? No.

Pretty much all that article says to me is that maybe recruiting services are getting more accurate in their evaluations of players. Half of the top 10 draft picks in 2008 weren't even in the Rivals100 coming out of HS, although four of them were 4* and one was a 3* (Matt Ryan). While perhaps they are becoming more accurate, it still is not an exact science. Are the evaluations by recruiting services somewhat reliable? Sure, hell I can look at somebody like Julio Jones, Trent Richardson, Dont'a Hightower, etc and tell you they are bad motherfuckers.

[JR4AU]

2009 NFL Draft


1 Matthew Stafford 5*
2 Jason Smith 2*
3 Tyson Jackson 3*
4 Aaron Curry  2*
5 Mark Sanchez 5*
6 Andre Smith  5*
7 Darrius Heyward-Bey 4*
8 Eugene Monroe 5*
9 B.J. Raji  2*
10 Michael Crabtree 4*
11 Aaron Maybin 4*
12 Knowshon Moreno 4*
13 Brian Orakpo  4*
14 Malcolm Jenkins 3*
15 Brian Cushing 4*
16 Larry English 2*
17 Josh Freeman 4*
18 Robert Ayers 4*
19 Jeremy Maclin 4*
20 Brandon Pettigrew 2*

5* players make up 1% of any given year's class.  4* players make up roughly 10%, yet in the top 20 of the 2009 NFL draft 65% are 4 and 5 star players.  Auburn people have been duped lately in to believing recruiting rankings don't matter.  They do.  
 

[JR4AU]

The deal is though, the NFL isn't going to draft some kid somewhere in the top 10 of the first round that was a 5* coming out of high school, but didn't amount to shit in college just because of his stars exiting HS. Its cool for us, as fans, to be able to do the stars thing and say yeah we're beating the shit out of you in recruiting, etc etc. But its like what I've heard alot of AU fans say over the past two years, its what they do on the field that ultimately matters. Phelon Jones for example. He was highly touted coming out of HS, didn't amount to shit at LSU. Assuming he stays, he will be able to play for UA in 2010. If he doesn't amount to shit at UA either, do you think the NFL gives a shit about how good he was coming out of HS? No.

Pretty much all that article says to me is that maybe recruiting services are getting more accurate in their evaluations of players. Half of the top 10 draft picks in 2008 weren't even in the Rivals100 coming out of HS, although four of them were 4* and one was a 3* (Matt Ryan). While perhaps they are becoming more accurate, it still is not an exact science. Are the evaluations by recruiting services somewhat reliable? Sure, hell I can look at somebody like Julio Jones, Trent Richardson, Dont'a Hightower, etc and tell you they are bad motherfuckers.

Obviously you have to perform in college, but like I showed above, when the numbers shake out, the rankings are a fair predictor of individual talent.  They can't measure heart, maturity, future injuries, etc, etc.  You have to look at percentages, not numbers.  There's only @ 30 5 star players in the entire country in any given year, but statitically they have about a 50-50 shot at being drafted.  Whereas that number is about 10% for 4 stars, and 3% for 3 stars. 

In that NFL draft link, it shows you that while 5* players make up approx 1% of a years recruiting class, it makes up 12% of the NFL drafts first 99 picks.  4 stars make up 10% of a years recruiting class, but make up a full 1/3 of that year's first 99 picks. 

Cherry picking players that under or over performed compared to their rankings doesn't disprove the rule.

[Hogwally]

     Typically this is where I go on my rant about recruiting rankings only being good for selling magazines.  There is no correlation between recruiting rankings and success, or if there are they are merely coincidental.  Frankly, I am just too tired for it today. 
     I will post just one example of the irrelevance of recruiting rankings - from 2000-2005, Tennessee's recruiting classes were all ranked in the top 10.  5 top ten classes in a row.  Their record:  5-6.

[JR4AU]

     Typically this is where I go on my rant about recruiting rankings only being good for selling magazines.  There is no correlation between recruiting rankings and success, or if there are they are merely coincidental.  Frankly, I am just too tired for it today. 
     I will post just one example of the irrelevance of recruiting rankings - from 2000-2005, Tennessee's recruiting classes were all ranked in the top 10.  5 top ten classes in a row.  Their record:  5-6.

It's a big peice of the puzzle, but not the whole thing.  Coaching factors in too.  Recruiting rankings don't matter, but getting top recruits does.  Then you have to coach them.  You have to put them in a position to win. 

[#2Bammer]

It's a big peice of the puzzle, but not the whole thing.  Coaching factors in too.  Recruiting rankings don't matter, but getting top recruits does.  Then you have to coach them.  You have to put them in a position to win. 

Agree 100%.

[Snaggletiger]

Agree 100%.

Post #73 is the most rational, well thought out contribution you've made to the X.   

[Hogwally]

Recruiting rankings don't matter, but getting top recruits does.

     You are exactly correct.  But the thing about recruiting rankings, the way they rate a kid is as much influenced by the schools recruiting them as it is by the kid's talent.  In other words, it doesn't matter if a kid is pretty good or too stupid to tie his own shoes, if Texas and Oklahoma are fighting for the kid, he is going to be rated a 4 star recruit.  Likewise, a kid with 4 star talent, if he grows up in backwater, can be a fan of a smaller school, commit there early, not send tapes out, and he'll be either unranked or given 2 stars.
     The magazines don't care, or at least only care as it relates to sales, because ranking Texas, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida with the top recruiting classes every year is close enough to look like they know what they are doing.  Plus, it sells the most magazines possible without having to do a lot of real work, because those are the teams with the biggest fan bases.  
     Meanwhile, a team like Boise St, who has never had a class ranked in the top 50, continues to make them look like total jackasses to anyone who pays attention.  I mean, how can a team go 35-4 over the last 3 years, including a BCS bowl win, without a class in the top 50??
    
     Sorry, didn't mean to go on a rant there, but the importance some people place on recruiting rankings is #3 on the list of things I just don't understand.

[Buzz Killington]

Post #73 is the most rational, well thought out contribution you've made to the X.   

Don't get used to it.

[JR4AU]

    You are exactly correct.  But the thing about recruiting rankings, the way they rate a kid is as much influenced by the schools recruiting them as it is by the kid's talent.  In other words, it doesn't matter if a kid is pretty good or too stupid to tie his own shoes, if Texas and Oklahoma are fighting for the kid, he is going to be rated a 4 star recruit.  Likewise, a kid with 4 star talent, if he grows up in backwater, can be a fan of a smaller school, commit there early, not send tapes out, and he'll be either unranked or given 2 stars.
     The magazines don't care, or at least only care as it relates to sales, because ranking Texas, USC, LSU, Oklahoma, Alabama, and Florida with the top recruiting classes every year is close enough to look like they know what they are doing.  Plus, it sells the most magazines possible without having to do a lot of real work, because those are the teams with the biggest fan bases.  
     Meanwhile, a team like Boise St, who has never had a class ranked in the top 50, continues to make them look like total jackasses to anyone who pays attention.  I mean, how can a team go 35-4 over the last 3 years, including a BCS bowl win, without a class in the top 50??
    
     Sorry, didn't mean to go on a rant there, but the importance some people place on recruiting rankings is #3 on the list of things I just don't understand.

It's not an exact science, but it's fairly accurate in predicting individual talent.  And again, coaching factors in heavily.  Yes some services only look at who is recruiting them but others actually have evaluators on staff that are former football scouts or coaches.  They miss on both ends at times.  Sometimes a kid is a late bloomer and evolves in to a 4 star, and sometimes the 5 star kids has no heart or a bad attitude.     

Boise State?  They don't play a tough schedule.  Granted they play them with mostly 2 and 3 star talent, but they beat up on the likes of New Mexico State, Utah State, Wyoming, Idaho...the teams Auburn would schedule for a sure OOC win.  They're the class of the fuckin' WAC.  I know they beat OU.  Utah beat bammer.  8 out of 10 times they'd lose to those teams.

[Hogwally]

It's not an exact science, but it's fairly accurate in predicting individual talent.  And again, coaching factors in heavily.  Yes some services only look at who is recruiting them but others actually have evaluators on staff that are former football scouts or coaches.  They miss on both ends at times.  Sometimes a kid is a late bloomer and evolves in to a 4 star, and sometimes the 5 star kids has no heart or a bad attitude.     

Boise State?  They don't play a tough schedule.  Granted they play them with mostly 2 and 3 star talent, but they beat up on the likes of New Mexico State, Utah State, Wyoming, Idaho...the teams Auburn would schedule for a sure OOC win.  They're the class of the fuckin' WAC.  I know they beat OU.  Utah beat bammer.  8 out of 10 times they'd lose to those teams.

     After the top 100 or so, which anyone can predict are going to be good, I don't think it's any more accurate than a guy sitting looking at the offers a kid has could be.

     Boise looked bad a couple years ago getting beat by Georgia, but they are an excellent program.  In recent years, besides Oklahoma, Boise has also beaten Oregon, Oregon St, BYU, S. Miss, and they've owned media darling Fresno St.  Again, all without ever having a single class ranked above 50.  There are 5 classes on campus at a time.  The lowest rated class on the Oklahoma team that Boise beat was 7.     My point is, if a team without a single class in the top 50 can beat a team with no class rated below 7, what is the point of the rankings?