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]

Originally Posted by halsgator

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.