Looking Back At HS All Americans

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

As we approach 2011 signing day, I thought it would be interesting to see how previous high school All Americans fared. Here are the 2007 and 2008 Parade All americam HS teams. You would expect these guys to be stars on their 2009/2010 college teams. looks like some made it but most didn't.

http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2007/Football

http://www.parade.com/news/all-america/2008/All-America

[Ronin 2]

I was looking at USA Today's offensive (Kiehl Frazier) and defensive players of the year and I didn't think there were a lot of misses. They had varying levels of success but few complete whiffs.

[jared52 4,358]

Well, in fairness, these guys are picked based on what they did, not what that are predicted to do in college. There are so many high schools and high school football players and they all play at different levels and against different competition. Ranking HS players and teams is really an impossible task.

[WarEagle84 0]

Ranking HS players and teams is really an impossible task.

Look at NFL draft results and you'll see that judging talent and potential is not at exact science at any level.

I've often thought that some analyst with some extra time during the off-season should compile recruiting and/or draft classes from 3-5 years ago and compare them to current performance.

[dyehardaufan 0]

I've heard many analysts state that projecting kids from H.S. to CFB is alot more difficult than CFB to the NFL . 18-22 is a time most kids are still developing in fact many don't even have a normal nutrition and workout routine until they get to collage and you dont know who may still grow, and you never know how kids will react living away from Home for the first time. Plus many kids dont realize how much time and effort CFB requires than HS FB. CFB does a better job of preparing kids for the NFL than HS does for CFB.

[BeasFan 3]

Ranking HS players and teams is really an impossible task.

Look at NFL draft results and you'll see that judging talent and potential is not at exact science at any level.

I've often thought that some analyst with some extra time during the off-season should compile recruiting and/or draft classes from 3-5 years ago and compare them to current performance.

I'm right there with you. I do know there are some efforts to quantify preseason rankings' accuracy at places like http://preseason.stassen.com/prediction-accuracy/ and it ought to be a requirement for college recruiting and NFL draft rankings as well.

Just a gut feeling would suggest that Mel Kiper's predictions of players' values are considerably less than 50% and he's a key feature of the coverage of the draft. Has there been any semi-serious follow-up on his evaluations?

[Aeronaut 0]

Look at NFL draft results and you'll see that judging talent and potential is not at exact science at any level.

I've often thought that some analyst with some extra time during the off-season should compile recruiting and/or draft classes from 3-5 years ago and compare them to current performance.

That study has been done by somebody for overall NFL draft, however I can't find it right now ( 1 AM here. gotta go clubbing )

here are the last year NFL draft 1st rounders:

5 Stars: 5 -- 18.5%

4 Stars: 15 -- 5%

3 Stars: 7 -- 1 %

2 Stars: 5 -- 0.25 %

To me it looks decent for the 1st round picks. However the opinions vary. Some think that this is not good enough a result. While others think it's a good predictor.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Well, in fairness, these guys are picked based on what they did, not what that are predicted to do in college. There are so many high schools and high school football players and they all play at different levels and against different competition. Ranking HS players and teams is really an impossible task.

I agree but we still go after the 5* and consider it a big deal when we get one. They make a big difference in the recruiting rankings which we all keep up with. It's just interesting that only maybe 50% of them work out for one reason or another.

[peck4au 0]

the proof is in the pudding. Go back the past say 10 yrs and I bet you the NC from that year had a top5-7 recruiting class no more than 2 yrs prior to winning. cause at the end of the day it's not so much x's and o's as Jimmy's and Joe's.

[WarEagle84 0]

Just got reminded by this article that Kodi Burns was a 5-star recruit. As good as he has been for Auburn, it wasn't as much for his athleticism on the field as his character and leadership in the locker room.

ESPN lists the following rankings for recruiting classes for the last 4 years:

  Team       ESPN150 Signees
2007
1. USC 		10 	20
2. Florida 	14 	27
3. Texas 	12 	25
4. S Carolina 	8 	32
5. Tennessee 	7 	31
6. LSU 	        7 	27

2008
1. USC 		10 	20
2. Florida 	14 	27
3. Texas 	12 	25
4. S Carolina 	8 	32
5. Tennessee 	7 	31

2009
1. LSU 		10 	25
2. Alabama 	9 	28
3. Texas 	9 	20
4. USC 		9 	18
5. Florida 	8 	16

2010
1. Florida 	17 	28
2. Texas 	15 	25
3. Alabama 	9 	29
4. Auburn 	7 	32
5. Oklahoma 	7 	29

Note that Florida and Texas are in the top 5 for each of the last 4 years, yet look at their results this year. But also note that each of the last 4 national champions has had a top-6 recruiting class the year they won. You recruit better athletes, and you have a better chance of winning, but there's so much more to coaching than just recruiting the best athletes.