In partnership with CBSSports.com
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I am going to put a spreadsheet together today comparing a recruits star ranking to their impact on the field. The debate about 5***** vs 3*** is always a heated discussion, so I'm going to see if I can provide some real insight on the situation. I will update this as soon as it's done, and I hope everyone enjoys it.
**p.s.: I understand every VOL fan wants 5***** recruits beating down the door to commit, but when a kid commits to UT we need to show that kid how much we appreciate them wanting to fight for our program. It doesn't matter if the kids a 5***** or a 1*, they are committing the next 4 or 5 years of their life to bring championships back to UT and that deserves a Thank You.
This is the kind of thread where LWSVOL would be of some help. He may have some of the info that you might need. He's into this kind of thing.
Well said... didn't want to qote the entire OP, so I pulled the above peice out because I couldn't agree with it more.
Great idea....It won't make any difference though.............Quite a bit of proof for and against......Bama( 4 star heaven)....USC(5 star hell)...........Louisville(3 star WOW)....Florida(4 star WHAT?). This just in........JOHNNY FOOTBALL 3 star runs rough- shod over the great defensive minded Bob Stoops..........
Star gazers are star gazers..........nothing can be done to change that. And yes i agree with you, we need to support any kid that commits. We need the best we can get to compete, no doubt........But whoever does commits and represents UT in the proper manner certainly deserves our support.
I agree on the second section of your post completely! Well said! +1
There is about 50 3 stars to every 1 5 star. Might want to include that in your equation.
Isn't the "impact on the field" side of the story highly subjective? How do you compare a 3* RB vs. a 5* RB in different systems, situations, conferences, etc.?
Seems like you could make this exercise say whatever you want it to say.
Not trying to be a jerk, but you can only quantify so much. At some point it inevitably turns to opinion.
"When we step on that football field, everyone flips a switch. And it's on..." - Butch Jones
**EDIT** Crap, Denver Vol beat me to the point!!
This post was edited by Nick 1 18 months ago
I'll save you the time. 4-5 star players are better than 2-3 stars. Look at our best players for a small sample. Best players were all highly rated recruits - AJ Johnson, hunter, CP, Tiny..etc..
Let me help you save from getting your bloodpressure out of sight....Those 2* - 3* players were also not being coached, and were in a scheme they had no clue of how to run. Plain and simple. Had they been coached, we might be having a different discussion about a different season outcome.
For kicks and giggles, I took the list of all players drafted in the 2012 NFL draft and researched their Rivals star rating as a high school prospect. The chart below is the result of that work. I don't know how many total players are considered to be 4 stars or 3 stars, etc. except I believe Rivals only has 25 5 stars. Anyway, make of it what you will. There doesn't appear to be a significant difference between 3 and 4 star players in this compilation, however there is a drop off below that....though 8.7% of those drafted were unrated as a high school player.
2012 NFL Draft Using Rivals Ratings of Players as High School Seniors
High School star ratings versus NFL draft position
# Stars RD1 RD2 RD3 RD4 RD5 RD6 RD7 TOTAL
5 4 2 1 1 1 0 1 10
4 13 10 12 16 8 9 10 78
3 10 11 9 13 10 11 16 80
2 4 7 8 7 11 10 16 63
N/R 1 1 2 3 5 7 3 22
32 31 32 40 35 37 46 253
I can't get the columns to line up (it's a copy and paste), but I think you can interpret.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by GAVFL 18 months ago
Nice post...I guess the proof is in the perverbial "pudding" lol....Thanks! +1
Thanks for the work +1
There is nothing wrong with change, if it is in the right direction. - Winston Churchill
I was N/R, so you are telling me I have a chance?!
I did an analysis a few years ago actually when p we were looking for a coach to replace CPF. I took the average stars of recruiting classes for a three year period and then charted the finish by the team in the polls. In other words who did the mostt with what they had. The hands down winners were mike Leach at TX tech and the coach at Air Force. Obviously there was some correlation between highly rated classes and their performance but that didnt always guarantee success. Texas under Mack Brown comes to mind as an underachiever.
Just curious, but who was the not rated prospect that went in the first round?
Great work by the way! +1
Gringo Mafia Director of Recruiting Analysis // POTW --> 5-16-11 / 5-30-11 / 3-5-12 / 12-30-12 / 2-24-13 / 9-1-13 / 9-22-13
Brandon Weeden, qb, taken 22nd by the Browns out of Oklahoma State. Though he was an all-state qb in high school, graduating hs in 2002, somehow he wasn't rated by Rivals, probably since he was heading down the path to play baseball. I don't know if that's the case, but couldn't find him in Rivals database.
Yes!!!!!!!! I wish some fans would remember these are kids, trashing them cause of perceived lack of talent is gutless and sorry. We should support them as long as they represent the program in a proper manner whether on or off the field. Remember that really old saying saying treat others how you want to be treated.
It's opinion from about the ninth grade on.
Yes!!! Exactly! I'll admit that it's fun to make a guess at things like this, but no one can accurately predict how a player will influence a team. The analysts can rate the players' athleticism, but it depends so much on the team they go to and how they are coached.
this doesn't have the stats but shows how most finished up their careers in college. it is rivals top 100 or top 250 players starting in 2002.
Hall FG, 1998
interesting argument. So, if it's all about coaching, then we should expect a winning record in the SEC next year, correct? Otherwise, CBJ must not be that good of a coach if he cant coach our talent to play up to Bama, or UF, or UG or SC level, right? Because stars and talent dont matter. Really looking forward to next season now knowing this.
Of course, you have to remember, as you point out to an extent, not only are there far fewer 5 star players, but there are many less 4 stars than 3 and 2 stars as well, so from a proportionality standpoint, your graph points out what we all should have known, that the higher rated players have a much greater probability of getting drafted in the NFL.
This post was edited by frostyvol 18 months ago
Didn't say we are gonna just breeze thru the competition, and never remotely said anything that would lead you or anyone else to believe that talent doesn't matter! You can try your best to put words in someone's mouth all you want. When it's all said and done,.....in plain words so you can potentially understand it, a well coached team loaded with 3* talent can be as competitive as a 4 and 5* team if they are in the right system. Every 1,2,3,4,5* star talent on the planet will not come close to reaching their full potential if they have bad coaching. They must be well coached, mature, and play in a system they know and understand. This is not an argument of 3* are as good as 4+*, rather that a very solid roster of 3* talent can win games and play at a higher level in the right system. Has been proven time and time again. Doesn't mean they'll win championships, just that they can play above their *rankings. Louisville cardinals are one of the many who have proved that point.....
"Give him six" "We don't give a damn about the whole state of Alabama" "Grit N Grind"
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports