Recruiting Service Star Ratings

[gator85jd]

It's hard to believe this season is almost over. I'm usually optomistic during the summer and I wish I could say I knew we would be this successful, but this season was a great surprise and a change of direction for UF. Pease was a positive addition and it will be interesting how Joker Phillips develops our WR corps -- if he can make a big impact right out of the gate, that might be a big piece of the pussle.

It's almost time to figure out how to pass the weeks until spring and then next August. I've been thinking about all the attention given to stars assigned to recruits by Rivals, ESPN, Scout and the rest.

So, are recruiting services a load of BS? Does anyone think college programs benefit from relying on the rating of recruiting services? It seems like there's such a high instance of 5 star high school players not living up to their hype. Every school's got them.

Schools were successful at assessing talelnt and recruiting great players well before recruiting services started up. *It seems like the good high school players were on most coaches' list of top prospects. Then the schools targeted less talented players to fill in the gaps in their program. Some of the top prospects lived up to their billing, but many did not. Some of the less talented (and not as highly regarded) players surprised everyone. So has anything really changed now that ratings services are giving their assessment of high school players?

[supagator]

Puzzle

[GatorChamp96]

Look at Texas and how many number 1 recruiting classes they have had. Then look at Texas and see what they do on the field..

I believe all this talent comes down to coaching. If you are not developing these 5 star athletes, then these programs with the 2 or 3 star athletes with great coaching will beat you.

Clemson
FSU
Texas

Good programs, recruit some of the best, sucky coaching..

[halsgator]

Rep Champ

[gator1986]

Rep Champ

Stars don't mean much.... Look at debose...

[StrangeGator]

The draft usually proves the star system to be pretty astute. For every Debose, there is a Harvin and a Tebow.

[fubar1]

I love almost all of my fellow Gators but I'm always left a little stunned this viewpoint is held by so many of them.

The answer is in the math. A very high percentage of 5-star recruits are successful and contribute early in their careers vs. those rated 3-stars or below.

Pointing to one 5-star who flopped or succeeded and saying he did so just like another 3-star is ignoring the denominators under both groups.

The answer is a fairly obvious one in terms of percentages.

[elrongator]

I agree fubar.
Not only that, but people remember the "busts" longer because they often have longer less spectacular, but productive, careers that just don't live up to hype. The ones that go bannanas and do shine as expected go into the NFL earlier and are discounted for that reason.

[xenythx]

Stars matter in the sense that the 5-star players are usually the ones that immediately jump out at you as being a potential elite player.

But as far as the recruiting services go, any coach and his staff worth their salary doesn't need Rivals or Scout to tell them that they want to recruit the likes of Tim Tebow, Percy Harvin, Reggie Bush, Vince Young, etc.

[coldsteel120]

Stars given by the services are a gimmick to sell subscriptions IMO. Stars meansquat to me, coaching and development is what makes players great.

[UGator]

It's like what Coach Muschamp once said, if you've ever seen the sports writers and recruiting gurus who assign *****'s you probably wouldn't consider stars as important as what these folks portray them. It's a 50/50 deal most years and there's $$ to be made in selling the hype!

Coach M wants good people, coachable players, and team chemistry that might mean less 5* and more of the 3-4* type players. Too many 5*'s are not as interested in team as much as their own hype. Thus, a Dillman quote, "Hard work beats talent when talent's not working". This is how we won most of our games this year!

Team chemistry changes every year, even with the same players--Saban preaches this--so building a team concept is the real challenge and recruiting the best players for a system and program who will put the team first.

Texas should be a challenger every year, as many TX kids want to be Longhorns........however, the development and success of UTX players is just the essence of underachievement.

[ofmgator]

Stars mean squat. Many four & five stars are players who have developed physically earlier then most and this makes them able to play very well in HS. However, once on campus there are no players they can out physical (generally) therefore they tend to not play as well as anticipated and cannot perform to the levels they did in HS. That's why coaches may be pointed towards a highly rated player but then they evaluate them based on many other factors. The key to success is in getting really good players who fit the mold of the team needs and then develop them. Look how long it has taken some of our best players to fully develop.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Nature vs. Nurture.

[gymgator]

Who is the most overachieving recruit in modern (star rating) UF history. Louis Oliver is probably the best ever as walk-on to 1st round pick. Every 1st or 2nd round pick I can recall were top rated in HS.

We have had a bunch of 3 star players that were solid starters or contributors. Gus Scott and Brandon James come to mind.

[gator85jd]

Who is the most overachieving recruit in modern (star rating) UF history. Louis Oliver is probably the best ever as walk-on to 1st round pick. Every 1st or 2nd round pick I can recall were top rated in HS.

We have had a bunch of 3 star players that were solid starters or contributors. Gus Scott and Brandon James come to mind.

I agree. It's amazing that nobody saw the raw talent that Louis Oliver had when he was in HS.

UF has had some 3 stars that have been lights out great players. If there's not much difference between the ratings of 4 star players and 3 star players or between 3 star kids and 2 star kids, why even assign recruiting grades?

I'm not limiting this to UF players, just thinking about this in general. *But your comments about Gus Scott is well taken. Brandon James was so small, that I think a lot of services (and coaches too) didn't give him the benefit of the doubt.

[fubar1]

It's like what Coach Muschamp once said, if you've ever seen the sports writers and recruiting gurus who assign *****'s you probably wouldn't consider stars as important as what these folks portray them. It's a 50/50 deal most years and there's $$ to be made in selling the hype!

Coach M wants good people, coachable players, and team chemistry that might mean less 5* and more of the 3-4* type players. Too many 5*'s are not as interested in team as much as their own hype. Thus, a Dillman quote, "Hard work beats talent when talent's not working". This is how we won most of our games this year!

Team chemistry changes every year, even with the same players--Saban preaches this--so building a team concept is the real challenge and recruiting the best players for a system and program who will put the team first.

Texas should be a challenger every year, as many TX kids want to be Longhorns........however, the development and success of UTX players is just the essence of underachievement.

You use quite a few generalizations to arrive at a flawed conclusion and throw in a a bad comparison to boot.

First, sportwriters aren't the ones developing credible recruiting lists. It's the guys who follow this stuff, go to combines, interview the kids, go to their games etc that are developing these rankings. And the process is getting more accurate every year. Sure, they're not coaches. But they're much more informed than sportswriters.

You're also using Dillman's comment out of context. He mentiones when "talent's not working". He didn't say there's not 3, 4 or 5 star talent, just that it's not working. A 3-star hard worker may in fact outperform a 5-star bum, but just by the percentages there are a lot more 3-star bums than 5-star bums. But it's ultimately up to the coaches to pre-screen all these guys before they offer a scholly.

Recuiting for the system is always a priority, but recruiting the best players for any system is an even higher priority. And 5-stars will outperform 3-stars on average any day of the week.

Texas is a very bad comparison and has been discussed ad naseum on this board as to why. They offer schollies way too early in the process and are locked in to these kids even if they have bad junior and senior years. There's a lot of kids on that roster that wouldn't be there if the staff had waited until after their Junior year to offer.

In short, your logic is extremely flawed and comparisons are even worse.

[missourigator]

There are probably less 5 star busts than 3 star super success stories. Stars do matter because of status, PR and attention it brings to the school. All I am saying is if we great a #1 or #2 class. We are all talking about how fantastic our recruiting is. If we get a class ranked 25 or so, then it is, "trust the coaches and stars don't matter. Look at our players than stood out Floyd, Elam, etc. were all 4 or 5 stars.

[coldsteel120]

Who is the most overachieving recruit in modern (star rating) UF history. Louis Oliver is probably the best ever as walk-on to 1st round pick. Every 1st or 2nd round pick I can recall were top rated in HS.

We have had a bunch of 3 star players that were solid starters or contributors. Gus Scott and Brandon James come to mind.

Jabar Gaffney 2*, Terry Jackson 2*, Guss Scott 2*, Brandon James 2*, Travis McGriff 2* thats off the top of my head. Morrison, this year, was rated a 3* and he made biggest impact as a freshman. Honey Badger was a 2/3*. John Brantley was a 5*, Bobby Sabelhouse was a 5*, Steve Shipp was a 5*. Coaching and Hard work and identifying talent is key not mythical * ratings.

[axer13]

Cam Newton was a 5 star, Will Hill and Bryce Brown were 5 stars and made it to the league even without great college careers. I think the higher ranked a player is, the better chance they have to be an elite impact player and make it to the NFL. No system is perfect but there is a reason the 5 stars have offers from every top school. Brantley was a 4 star not 5. I don't understand how people can say stars don't matter at all, just look at the teams that win championships, they have some of the highest rated recruiting classes. Also if Brandon James came in as a 5 star he proally would be considered a bust since he didn't have a huge impact on O, the expectations are a lot higher for the 5 stars.

[Notoriousgator]

Brandon James wasn't a very good RB. Out of HS wasn't he ranked solely as a RB rather in athlete category? He turned out to be an amazing return man but when Urbs tried him in the Percy role or at RB he was awful.

[gymgator]

Morrison was a 4 Star on Rivals. Gaffney was a great call as I recall he was not rated high and ended up being a 2nd round pick.
While the other players were good college starters, non were drafted very high or at all.

[gator85jd]

There are probably less 5 star busts than 3 star super success stories. Stars do matter because of status, PR and attention it brings to the school. All I am saying is if we great a #1 or #2 class. We are all talking about how fantastic our recruiting is. If we get a class ranked 25 or so, then it is, "trust the coaches and stars don't matter. Look at our players than stood out Floyd, Elam, etc. were all 4 or 5 stars.

Star ratings are too susceptible to errors, though. Recruiting services can't factor in work ethic or ability to learn a system. A lot of these HS players get rated when they're 16 or 17 years old, but a lot of what they're rated on is going to change as they grow up. Putting too much emphasis on star ratings doesn't make sense.

[missourigator]

I am not saying they (star ratings) are perfect. OF COURSE the raters will make mistakes. But a great coach will win more games with 5-stars than 3. Yes, there are some great 3-stars players. But on a team of 105 players you expect that 80 of them being 3 stars, some will shine.

[fubar1]

Star ratings are too susceptible to errors, though. Recruiting services can't factor in work ethic or ability to learn a system. A lot of these HS players get rated when they're 16 or 17 years old, but a lot of what they're rated on is going to change as they grow up. Putting too much emphasis on star ratings doesn't make sense.

Do you know anyone on this thread that is saying ONLY look at star ratings when recruiting a kid? That's a false argument.

This fantasy that some of you seem to hold that portrays this mythical college coach that can go out and find all the 2 and 3-star, underrated guys that no other coaching staff can see and then coach them up beyond their natural abilities to overachieve and defeat teams like Alabama and LSU year-in and year-out is just nonsensical.

That said, there will always be lower rated guys that dot Florida's recruiting classes. There's a place for those who haven't quite tapped their potential and were overlooked by the experts.

But for every Brandon James out there, I'll show you several 5-star guys that proved their rankings correct. And I'll take that team of 4 and 5-star guys and beat your ass every time.

[gator85jd]

Do you know anyone on this thread that is saying ONLY look at star ratings when recruiting a kid? That's a false argument.

This fantasy that some of you seem to hold that portrays this mythical college coach that can go out and find all the 2 and 3-star, underrated guys that no other coaching staff can see and then coach them up beyond their natural abilities to overachieve and defeat teams like Alabama and LSU year-in and year-out is just nonsensical.

That said, there will always be lower rated guys that dot Florida's recruiting classes. There's a place for those who haven't quite tapped their potential and were overlooked by the experts.

But for every Brandon James out there, I'll show you several 5-star guys that proved their rankings correct. And I'll take that team of 4 and 5-star guys and beat your ass every time.

Did I say that there's anyone advocating (or any program that recruits) looking at recruiting service star ratings ONLY? Back away from the caffeine, buddy. You're working yourself into a dither over a simple conversation. I had a neighbor once who had a pit bull that would act like that -- working itself into a frenzy. It was pretty annoying!

[gator7_5]

People always use Brandon James as an example of a low rated player succeeding. He was a return man. That's it. Ranking systems don't rank return men. Brandon James had a very unremarkable career on offense. He's definitely not a good example of failed ranking system.

Check out

Harvin
Tebow
Spikes
Hernandez
Dunlap
Harvey

etc etc etc...

Those are guys who dominated on the field all game, and won Championship MVP's. FWIW, if Harvin weren't so valuabe on O, BJ probably doesn't even return a kick.

[rserina]

Just look at the national champions over the last decade and the ranking of their recruiting classes in several years preceding their championship season. You will invariably find one or two classes ranked near the top nationally. It is pretty much axiomatic.

Does that mean every program that recruits well is going to be successful? No. Does it mean that a team without good coaching can be good just because it recruits well? No. Coaching, especially in terms of player development, off-season strength and conditioning, scheme and game plan implementation, etc., will maximize that talent better than a staff which is worse in those regards, but without a high level of talent --especially in our league--the margin for error becomes too thin to overcome without absolutely perfect execution. Put a more talented athlete on the field that can turn a short gain into a long one, make a catch no one else can, get to the second level on a block quicker, beat your man to the quarterback, track down a ball carrier from behind, or close on a receiver, and that margin becomes a little greater.

[phideltdj]

EJ Manuel was the number 2 ranked dual threat QB coming out of high school and he never developed...coaching does matter. On that list of top 25 that includes RG3 and T. Pryor...the other 23 did nothing in college.

[fubar1]

Did I say that there's anyone advocating (or any program that recruits) looking at recruiting service star ratings ONLY? Back away from the caffeine, buddy. You're working yourself into a dither over a simple conversation. I had a neighbor once who had a pit bull that would act like that -- working itself into a frenzy. It was pretty annoying!

No frenzy...but I do get an allergic reaction when folks use platitudes, false arguments, and even more bogus comparisons to defend a position that is easily debunked by using common sense and factual evidence.

[LeafUF]

Every year this type of thread comes up and countless people go on to say how some 5 star bust and 2 star stud proves that rankings do not matter.

Well the numbers tell a much different story.

On predicting team success (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/star-power-in-defense-of-recruiting-rankings?urn=ncaaf,wp13648)

Here is the conclusion of that article:
It's a simple equation: The better your recruiting rankings by the gurus, the better your chances of winning games, against all classes. Emphasis on the word chances — the counterexamples are obvious and legion in both directions. But as far as forming a reasonable basis for predictions, well, it probably goes without saying that you never want to count on being one of the anomalies.

On being an All-American and NFL Draftee. (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-Recruiting-gurus-All-American-track?urn=ncaaf-311830)

The ratio always looks identical on a per-capita basis, and it is not a crapshoot. Four and five-star players are roughly seven times as likely as two and three-star players to land on an All-America team, and the numbers in the NFL Draft tend to be even even more lopsided toward the hyped recruits. All the more reason to want as many of them as you can get your hands on.

It is far better to bet on higher rated players when building your team.

[gator85jd]

No frenzy...but I do get an allergic reaction when folks use platitudes, false arguments, and even more bogus comparisons to defend a position that is easily debunked by using common sense and factual evidence.

Simple solution -- don't click on the link and you won't have your "allergic reaction." I have similar allergic reactions to posters who are bellicose assholes, but I don't go into a dither about them.

[gator07]

Simple solution -- don't click on the link and you won't have your "allergic reaction." I have similar allergic reactions to posters who are bellicose assholes, but I don't go into a dither about them.

LoL

[fubar1]

Simple solution -- don't click on the link and you won't have your "allergic reaction." I have similar allergic reactions to posters who are bellicose assholes, but I don't go into a dither about them.

Not the first time I've been called an a-hole by a drooling simpleton. Makes me smile.

I'm still waiting for you to offer anything of substance to the argument besides knee-jerk blather.

WARNING: Don't read LeafUF's links….they might encourage you to critically think for once.

:)

[gator85jd]

Uh-oh, I've been outed. You're right, I'm a drooling simpleton. Wow, you've hurt my feelings. You're such a keyboard tough guy. I wish I could be just like you. Actually, it's interesting that you're calling for critical thinking while also acting like a four year old.

Again, if clicking on this thread causes you to act like an ass, simply don't click on the thread -- unless acting like an ass somehow makes you feel significant.

In response to your simple-minded ideas on this thread, you might want to give some thought to what Jeff Dillman has to say on the subject. Also go back and look at the initial post on this thread.

[gator7_5]

^ nerdiest internet fight ever.

[rserina]

^ nerdiest internet fight ever.
Like an emo battle of the bands.

[gator85jd]

^ nerdiest internet fight ever.

Funny -- now would you please hand me the tape so I can apply it to my glasses?

Remember John Lombardi's response to The Alligator calling him a nerd? He did it at halftime of the O&B game back in the day.

[irish2u2]

We should know better guys.

Recruiting services exist for the FANS. They make big money selling information to the FANS. I'm not saying the coaches and schools don't use them but they are just one tool in the toolbelt of big time college recruiting.

Coaches know the fans get jazzed over big time recruits. Some coaches play to that aspect entirely too much. They may have more Top 10 Recruiting Class wins but they don't necessarily get more Top 10 finishes when they actually play the game.

That doesn't mean being a 5 star high school player won't get you noticed by all the top programs or that the recruiting gurus are wrong more than right. They know their business and while the assigning of stars is a little arbitrary that system isn't as broken as one might think. It's evolved. Nowadays high schoolers participate in more camps and combines. Competition has become a much more important criteria too but it is paired with the measurables and personal evaluations that camps and combines offer. What was once alchemy has become a science.

It's still an inexact science at best but the more successful coaches have developed CEO type skills in the selection process of high school talent. This where a coach like Muschamp shines because a great attitude and high character always trump questionable attitude and character no matter how highly rated the player might be.

My personal philosophy is always to trust the coaches. They know talent. They know the level of competition that talent has faced in high school. They know the coaches, teachers, parents and even friends of those kids they recruit. Coaches also know they have to try and get better than their fair share of the no-brainer type HS football stars like Tebow, Harvin, Floyd, Nelson and Elam (to name a very few). It didn't take a genius to know Percy Harvin, for example, was going to be a great major college football player. On the other hand had an out of shape grad assistant ever raced Steve Shipp he might not be part of our recruiting lore. :joecool:

To me recruiting is science, psychiatry, magic and lots and lots of hard work. It's also more than a little degrading as Coach Spurrier would often state. Personally it bothers me how much we cater to some of these young people. It bothers me that grown-ups act more adolescent than the kids themselves when it comes to getting their signatures on the line that is dotted on NSD. It bothers me how naturally a 17 year old kid can become a prima donna rock star the moment he finds out some old guy who never played football has assigned him 5 stars in his ratings service.:joecool:

[fubar1]

Uh-oh, I've been outed. You're right, I'm a drooling simpleton. Wow, you've hurt my feelings. You're such a keyboard tough guy. I wish I could be just like you. Actually, it's interesting that you're calling for critical thinking while also acting like a four year old.

Again, if clicking on this thread causes you to act like an ass, simply don't click on the thread -- unless acting like an ass somehow makes you feel significant.

In response to your simple-minded ideas on this thread, you might want to give some thought to what Jeff Dillman has to say on the subject. Also go back and look at the initial post on this thread.


Don't try to be just like me. No need for stretch goals.

You're really bringing up the Dillman quote? I already illustrated on the first page why Dillman's quote offers no empirical evidence about the validity of star ratings.

Again, critically thinking can be a very helpful exercise.

The door is open when you're ready to discuss some of the data already presented in this thread, or any factual evidence for that matter instead of regurgitating uninformed, unoriginal platitudes about star ratings. Or, taking coaches' comments out of context so you don't have to research or think for yourself on the topic.

Just consider this tough love. I have a soft spot for fellow Gators. :)

[Zanso]

Obviously if you're a 1-3 star recruit, it doesn't automatically mean you're not going to the NFL. You're also not automatically going to the NFL if you're a 5 star recruit.

However it's more likely that a higher ranked player will succeed than a lower ranked player. Additionally 5 star=ready to contribute right away vs. 3 star=needs a year to develop 2 star=more than 1 year(may eventually turn into 5 star quality though!)

ALL 3 of our 5 star players were on the freshman all-sec team...we also had a four star player on it. Obviously player development matters and the recruiting services are not always good at judging who will develop better and who won't. But they're pretty good at judging current skill level.

[ofmgator]

# of stars means that a player has the ability to learn and expand his talent.However, he has to buy into his school in every way, has to work hard in a team concept and listen to his coaches. Louis Oliver did and Debose didn't. There are no exceptions to the rule.Coaches evaluste based on their criteria and not the #of stars alongside a players name.

[gator7_5]

ALL 3 of our 5 star players were on the freshman all-sec team...we also had a four star player on it.

This. And all 4 will be high draft picks. Realizing that higher rated players are typically better aint rocket science.

[gator85jd]

Don't try to be just like me. No need for stretch goals.

You're really bringing up the Dillman quote? I already illustrated on the first page why Dillman's quote offers no empirical evidence about the validity of star ratings.

Again, critically thinking can be a very helpful exercise.

The door is open when you're ready to discuss some of the data already presented in this thread, or any factual evidence for that matter instead of regurgitating uninformed, unoriginal platitudes about star ratings. Or, taking coaches' comments out of context so you don't have to research or think for yourself on the topic.

Just consider this tough love. I have a soft spot for fellow Gators. :)

Your ability to detect sarcasm is about as keen as your ability to follow logic. You are further proof that any monkey can type on a keyboard.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_flgoDc9igs


But really, it's good to see that you've progressed past the typewriter era.

Please keep your love life to yourself. Don't tell us about your soft spots, either. That's something you should discuss with your healthcare professional.

You still make as much sense on the recruiting service idea as you did typing on the typewriter.