Recruiting services

[aujeff11 6,243]

Ok, let's ignore the fact that the top teams get the most stars.

Baylor, TCU and Oregon have overachieved based on player rankings.

Add Utah, Northwestern, Temple, Miss St, Stanford, and others to this overachieved list.

You have a loose definition of overachieve.

[17-16 21]

Ok, let's ignore the fact that the top teams get the most stars.

Baylor, TCU and Oregon have overachieved based on player rankings.

Add Utah, Northwestern, Temple, Miss St, Stanford, and others to this overachieved list.

You have a loose definition of overachieve.

I have not studied their rosters but, they may be like Auburn in Tubby years. Tubby had a locker room full of 2 and three stars but a starting line-up of 4 year juniors and 5 years seniors..... well coached as well. There are still programs out there that take this approach, probably because they have to. Well coached, well conditioned, red shirted senior, 3 stars will usually fair well against 4 and 5 star true freshman. At least hold their own.

[1auburn1 1,120]

You don't notice when a 2-3 star doesn't pan out, but you do when it's a 5 star...b/c of frequency and expectations. 4-5 stars are far, far, far more successful (in college and in the NFL) on average than 2-3 stars (which there are thousands of). The recruiting services do a pretty good job and are much better at identifying and ranking talent today, than 15 years ago.

Oregon, Baylor, and TCU are by far the exceptions to the rule...but how many schools have won titles with 2-3 star talent? None. Those 3 have only been in the title conversation. You can't build a successful team in the SEC by assembling a bunch of blue-collar diamond-in-the-rough guys...you'll be an at-best occasional 8-9 win team, with a bunch of 4, 5, and 6 win seasons in between.

If all the coaches are wrong, and you're right...then go ahead and get into coaching and prove them wrong.

TRUTH. Finally.

[AU64 10,122]

You don't notice when a 2-3 star doesn't pan out, but you do when it's a 5 star...b/c of frequency and expectations. 4-5 stars are far, far, far more successful (in college and in the NFL) on average than 2-3 stars (which there are thousands of). The recruiting services do a pretty good job and are much better at identifying and ranking talent today, than 15 years ago.

Oregon, Baylor, and TCU are by far the exceptions to the rule...but how many schools have won titles with 2-3 star talent? None. Those 3 have only been in the title conversation. You can't build a successful team in the SEC by assembling a bunch of blue-collar diamond-in-the-rough guys...you'll be an at-best occasional 8-9 win team, with a bunch of 4, 5, and 6 win seasons in between.

If all the coaches are wrong, and you're right...then go ahead and get into coaching and prove them wrong.

TRUTH. Finally.

I don't know...makes it sound like a lottery ....the more kids in a ranking group the better the odds of them making it to the big time. I have to wonder though......kinda like saying because there are more C students than A students it would be natural to expect most doctors to have been C students?

Seems that most of the 4 and 5 star kids are more mature in HS, sometimes a year older, usually bigger, faster and stronger and are able to dominate their smaller rivals. When they come up against guys their own size...or larger, or faster, or just plain tougher, they learn a lot about themselves....from a mental toughness angle perhaps.

Perhaps what we are seeing is that the further a guy gets away from HS (and his HS rating) the less valid was his HS rating and instead, other things are more reliable indicators of his prospects.....like his play on the field or in practice. I think it's a pretty steep curve. Which is why it might be that 5* or 4* kids who don't make it right away as freshmen will probably end up fighting for playing slots against 3 star kids or younger 4* or 5* kids......or being beat out by Jucos who were not highly rated. I laugh when people talk about how great JJ was in high school...as if that truly has anything to do with playing in the SEC three years later.

JMO but by the time a guy is a soph in college, his HS rating has become mostly irrelevant and is no longer a good predictor of his success. It's not the percentage of 5* on all star teams that validates the system...it is the percent of 5* HS athletes who never make an all star team in college or beyond that matters. That's too many numbers for me to crunch but just looking at the 2014 NFL team. one would have thought the number of 4* and 5 star players would be higher.

[McLoofus 35,182]

64, you don't have to crunch the numbers as it's already been done many times. A 4-5* player is far more likely to end up in the NFL than a 2-3* player. It's a frequent argument here, but I'm not sure why, as it's not a matter of theory. It's a mathematical fact. And while there are less talented teams that occasionally get close, the most talented teams- as rated by the recruiting services- win championships. Oregon is the only team outside the top 10 in recruiting to have even played for a title in 15 years, and they're just outside the top 10. Again, this isn't my opinion. It's a matter of fact.

[ellitor 33,093]

Recruiting services rank programs. Not classes

Ole Miss and their concensus top 7 2013 class disagrees w/ you.

[Rednilla 5,391]

Look, guys, the fact of the matter is that evaluating talent is, was, and always will be an inexact science. That's because we're dealing with human beings, not androids. To great extent, the energy put into getting better is what makes a player get better, and no matter how naturally gifted that player might be, there's always going to be someone who is good enough to beat him out...unless he works hard at it.

Ask Kevin Greene if you can build yourself into an NFL caliber player with heart, motivation, and sweat. Ask Michael Jordan if he became His Royal Airness because of natural talent. Ask Cam Newton how much better he is for spending a year in the middle of nowhere in Texas learning how the other half lives.

But all other things being equal, the teams that have the most players with the prototypical types of measurements are typically the ones with the most creme rising to the top. That's just the way it is. It doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, but it DOES mean that no amount of logic outweighs the truth of which teams have been left standing at the end of the season.

[ellitor 33,093]

Look, guys, the fact of the matter is that evaluating talent is, was, and always will be an inexact science. That's because we're dealing with human beings, not androids. To great extent, the energy put into getting better is what makes a player get better, and no matter how naturally gifted that player might be, there's always going to be someone who is good enough to beat him out...unless he works hard at it.

Ask Kevin Greene if you can build yourself into an NFL caliber player with heart, motivation, and sweat. Ask Michael Jordan if he became His Royal Airness because of natural talent. Ask Cam Newton how much better he is for spending a year in the middle of nowhere in Texas learning how the other half lives.

But all other things being equal, the teams that have the most players with the prototypical types of measurements are typically the ones with the most creme rising to the top. That's just the way it is. It doesn't mean there aren't exceptions, but it DOES mean that no amount of logic outweighs the truth of which teams have been left standing at the end of the season.

Where's a like button when you need it. Good stuff Nilla and good job keeping the length in my attention span. lol

I will add one other note that I think many people including myself, sometimes forget. These ratings are strictly a measure of potential. The ratings in themselves are not true predicted outcomes (even though the sites themselves say otherwise). It is up to each individual player and the coaches developing them to reach, surpass, or not live up to the potential the services see or don't see in them. Things like heart, attitude, work ethic, & hunger are sometimes hard to see on film at the high school level. Also growth from 16-20 as well as how each player's body handles college and pro football workouts is hard to foresee with real accuracy. These things make measuring potential a very inexact science. Sites will always miss on many individuals each year but they do good with overall classes as a whole. Every national champion going back to Tennessee in 1998 has had at least 2 top 10 classes a part of their nation title run. Most had at least 3. Every national title game losers has had at least 2 top 13 classes a part of their title game appearance, most again had at least 3.

[Potatooooooes!! 1,375]

Recruiting services rank programs. Not classes

Last time I checked they ranked players