forums

10 Years Later: A Rankings Look Back

Advertisement
I went to school with Dunkley (#6 WR) on that list. Kid was lightning fast, always a threat any time he touched the ball.

Urban was all over him and got him to commit to UF and then once he got there he pulled that heart attack Sh_t lol

Kid loved to smoke way too much
 
kryptonite said:
Have any of the people who think rankings don't mean much taken any statistics? Or even just have a basic understanding of statistics?

It's not that rankings are perfect or even close, it's that they're the best we have. Here and there you'll find a coach who can find the underrated gems, but mostly the team with the best class average wins the most game.

The problem is that people think rankings are supposed to be perfect, and the truth is they can't be. Take Cook or Rournette. They're as close to sure things as you can get for RBs. But what if one of them had gotten caught with pot too many times, slapped a girl around in public, or killed somebody in a bar fight. Suddenly they don't make the NFL, bust right? No, they're still stupid talented and have great size and all that, but they make the rankings look bad. Same thing with injury, there's no way to predict it.

Rankings aren't perfect, but that doesn't make them worthless.
Click to expand...
A certain percentage always bust. A certain percentage get injured. A certain percentage become ineligible for behavior or grades. Of the ones that make it through, the success rate at each star level is substantially higher than the next level down. They win more awards, they make more all American teams, they get drafted more often and higher on a per capita level. It is about getting as many highly rated kids as possible to increase your odds of hits, knowing that there will always be misses at every eval level.

People that point to 1, or 5, or 10, or 50 poorly ranked players clearly do not have a grasp on how the statistics of this system play out, how averages and representation work. Some positions are easier to evaluate as a teenager than others, but by and large you are correct, there is a very clear correlation between the average ranking of the kids you sign, their individual success rate, and your teams success rate.
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Al Golden could have fielded Jake Heaps. Good thing we fielded Kaaya early so he could skip his Sr. year.
 
Advertisement
Would be interesting to take last May’s 1st and 2nd round NFL picks and look up the player’s recruiting rankings.
 
Advertisement
TemplarCane said:
Would be interesting to take last May’s 1st and 2nd round NFL picks and look up the player’s recruiting rankings.
Click to expand...
I have some of the time on my hands, here is round 1:

1 - Mayfield - 3 star - Composite rank 1029
2 - Barkley - 4 star - rank 119
3 - Darnold - 4 star - rank 148
4 - Ward - 4 star - rank 270
5 - Chubb - 3 star - rank 734
6 - Nelson - 4 star - rank 61
7 - Allen - 3 star - rank 199 (juco)
8 - Smith - 4 star - rank 48
9 - McGlintchey - 4 star - rank 172
10 - Rosen - 5 star - rank 11
11 - Fitzpatrick - 5 star - rank 30
12 - Vea - 3 star - rank 587
13 - Payne - 5 star - rank 29
14 - Davenport - 2 star - rank 2613
15 - Miller - 3 star - rank 371
16 - Edmunds - 3 star - rank 441
17 - James - 5 star - rank 5
18 - Alexander - 3 star - rank 941
19 - Vänder Esch - NR
20 - Ragnow - 4 star - rank 324
21 - Price - 4 star - rank 211
22 - Evans - 5 star - rank 14
23 - Wynn - 4 star - rank 110
24 - Moore - 3 star - rank 354
25 - Hurst - NR
26 - Ridley - 5 star - rank 12
27 - Penny - 3 star - rank 944
28 - Edmunds - 3 star - rank 1109
29 - Bryan - 3 star - rank 533
30 - Hughes - 3 star - rank 411
31 - Michel - 5 star - rank 20
32 - Jackson - 3 star - rank 409


Theoretical analysis using 247 2018 class as a sample data point for volume numbers:
5 stars: 29 (7), 21.9% of 1st round picks, 0.35% of prospects
4 stars: 367 (9), 28.1% of 1st round picks, 4.4% of prospects
3 stars: approx 2200 (13), 40.6% of 1st round picks, approx 26.5% of prospects
< 3 stars: 5720 (3), 9.4% of 1st round picks, 68.8% of prospects

Total prospects in database: 8316
 
westcoastcanes said:
I have some of the time on my hands, here is round 1:

1 - Mayfield - 3 star - Composite rank 1029
2 - Barkley - 4 star - rank 119
3 - Darnold - 4 star - rank 148
4 - Ward - 4 star - rank 270
5 - Chubb - 3 star - rank 734
6 - Nelson - 4 star - rank 61
7 - Allen - 3 star - rank 199 (juco)
8 - Smith - 4 star - rank 48
9 - McGlintchey - 4 star - rank 172
10 - Rosen - 5 star - rank 11
11 - Fitzpatrick - 5 star - rank 30
12 - Vea - 3 star - rank 587
13 - Payne - 5 star - rank 29
14 - Davenport - 2 star - rank 2613
15 - Miller - 3 star - rank 371
16 - Edmunds - 3 star - rank 441
17 - James - 5 star - rank 5
18 - Alexander - 3 star - rank 941
19 - Vänder Esch - NR
20 - Ragnow - 4 star - rank 324
21 - Price - 4 star - rank 211
22 - Evans - 5 star - rank 14
23 - Wynn - 4 star - rank 110
24 - Moore - 3 star - rank 354
25 - Hurst - NR
26 - Ridley - 5 star - rank 12
27 - Penny - 3 star - rank 944
28 - Edmunds - 3 star - rank 1109
29 - Bryan - 3 star - rank 533
30 - Hughes - 3 star - rank 411
31 - Michel - 5 star - rank 20
32 - Jackson - 3 star - rank 409


Theoretical analysis using 247 2018 class as a sample data point for volume numbers:
5 stars: 29 (7), 21.9% of 1st round picks, 0.35% of prospects
4 stars: 367 (9), 28.1% of 1st round picks, 4.4% of prospects
3 stars: approx 2200 (13), 40.6% of 1st round picks, approx 26.5% of prospects
< 3 stars: 5720 (3), 9.4% of 1st round picks, 68.8% of prospects

Total prospects in database: 8316
Click to expand...

I’m impressed.
 
westcoastcanes said:
A certain percentage always bust. A certain percentage get injured. A certain percentage become ineligible for behavior or grades. Of the ones that make it through, the success rate at each star level is substantially higher than the next level down. They win more awards, they make more all American teams, they get drafted more often and higher on a per capita level. It is about getting as many highly rated kids as possible to increase your odds of hits, knowing that there will always be misses at every eval level.

People that point to 1, or 5, or 10, or 50 poorly ranked players clearly do not have a grasp on how the statistics of this system play out, how averages and representation work. Some positions are easier to evaluate as a teenager than others, but by and large you are correct, there is a very clear correlation between the average ranking of the kids you sign, their individual success rate, and your teams success rate.
Click to expand...

This
 
Marcelo2988 said:
This
Click to expand...

NO. You don't try to maximize the number of five-stars. You try to find and evaluate the players you want: the right mentality, who fit your system and needs, kids with upside, etc. If they happen to be five stars, fine. Evaluation is critical and you do it based on how they meet your needs and what you're trying to do.

In our best years we sometimes passed on five stars and took the kids our coaches liked better.

There might be some correlation between our wants and the rankings, but it's still oversold. The guys who do the rankings do seem to be getting better than they used to be.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top