For the star whores

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

People still cant understand why this happens? There are more players that arent 4 and 5 stars by a HUGE margin. But a higher percent of 4 and 5 stars are successful than the lower rated players. That still means you are better off getting the highest rated class possible because you can only choose a small amount of players.

Say you have 10 5 stars and 100 3 stars.

3 of the 5 stars make the nfl and 10 of the 3 stars makemthe NFL. In your mind that makes 3 star better, but in REALITY that makes the 5 stars better.

This.

/lock thread

 

[deleted1998]

There isn't a right or wrong to this. There are a lot of examples of stars living up to the hype, and lots of examples of some of them busting. There are also examples of low ranked kids balling out.

Stars aren't the issue. It's those giving out stars. If your coach is worth his pay, he doesn't rely on these sites to rate his players- he rates them himself. He chooses the guys HE WANTS and believe he can turn into a 5 star player. It's that simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This!

 

[wherrera8]

There isn't a right or wrong to this. There are a lot of examples of stars living up to the hype, and lots of examples of some of them busting. There are also examples of low ranked kids balling out.

Stars aren't the issue. It's those giving out stars. If your coach is worth his pay, he doesn't rely on these sites to rate his players- he rates them himself. He chooses the guys HE WANTS and believe he can turn into a 5 star player. It's that simple.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

History proves the ones giving out the stars are good at their predictions but not perfect. But if you went only by stars, the higher rated players still out perform the lower rated.

Fair but I'm not losing sleep over stars. My point is, we now have a coach who has been evaluating players for 20+years now. If he likes a kid, and that kid happens to be a 3 star, I'm not going to flip out because dudes on some website don't agree. I think our coach is a little more credible than those others. I'm not saying they are always right or wrong. I'm just trusting our coach's eval over these analysts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deleted1998]

I guess it is a major coincidence top 10 classes win national titles. But yeah, stars don't matter.

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

 

[ChosenOne]

Article shows that star rating isn't always the most important indicator of future success.


2017 Super Bowl: How Falcons, Patriots starters were rated as high school recruits - CBSSports.com

What are you looking for as a fan? UM to win NC? or the ability to bag about having UM players NFL making the SB? I much rather be Bama and be a title contender every year and throw out bust in the NFL then having average teams with players who play average here (because that is what 3 stars mean) then have those same players go to the NFL and have success..

 

[iLoveTDs]

People still cant understand why this happens? There are more players that arent 4 and 5 stars by a HUGE margin. But a higher percent of 4 and 5 stars are successful than the lower rated players. That still means you are better off getting the highest rated class possible because you can only choose a small amount of players.

Say you have 10 5 stars and 100 3 stars.

3 of the 5 stars make the nfl and 10 of the 3 stars makemthe NFL. In your mind that makes 3 star better, but in REALITY that makes the 5 stars better.

This. It's quite simple people.

And the reality is the ratio is even greater than 10:1

 

[redcane]

This again . . . .

 

[Hurracanes]

I guess it is a major coincidence top 10 classes win national titles. But yeah, stars don't matter.

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

Alabama, FSU, OSU, Clemson, Florida, USC, Auburn, LSU, have won National titles in the last 15 years and all were consistently in the top 10. Facts are facts.

 

[kendallcanes]

This article should sent sent to all these diva 4 star high school recruits. Your high school rating doesn't mean ****. Only hard work will get you to the top.

 

[caneallday21]

You don't need all 4 and 5* players but unless you have elite coaching it will affect you as a team

 

[DTP]

Our yearly reminder: Why recruiting rankings matter - CBSSports.com


Since 2002, when Rivals and Scout first released recruiting rankings, only one team has played for a title without at least one top 10 recruiting class on it's roster. The teams that recruit the best players tend to have the most success.

 

[deleted1998]

I guess it is a major coincidence top 10 classes win national titles. But yeah, stars don't matter.

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

Alabama, FSU, OSU, Clemson, Florida, USC, Auburn, LSU, have won National titles in the last 15 years and all were consistently in the top 10. Facts are facts.

Also a fact: dozens and dozens of programs that have recruited much worse than Miami have done a lot better than Miami in recent years.

 

[deleted1998]

Article shows that star rating isn't always the most important indicator of future success.


2017 Super Bowl: How Falcons, Patriots starters were rated as high school recruits - CBSSports.com

What are you looking for as a fan? UM to win NC? or the ability to bag about having UM players NFL making the SB? I much rather be Bama and be a title contender every year and throw out bust in the NFL then having average teams with players who play average here (because that is what 3 stars mean) then have those same players go to the NFL and have success..

The two aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[DTP]

The most consistently successful programs all are consistently successful on the recruiting trail. It's not hard to see. Yes, good coaches can coach up a three star players, that doesn't mean you just forget about recruiting four and five star players. If a coach can make a three star player good, imagine what he can do with a five star player?

Also, a lot of the recruiting sites factor in program interest when determining star rankings. If Nick Saban and Urban Meyer are all over a player, they'll bump up that player's rating. Likewise, if a kid looks good on film but isn't getting any offers from big programs, he won't get rated as high.

 

[52CANES]

People still cant understand why this happens? There are more players that arent 4 and 5 stars by a HUGE margin. But a higher percent of 4 and 5 stars are successful than the lower rated players. That still means you are better off getting the highest rated class possible because you can only choose a small amount of players.

Say you have 10 5 stars and 100 3 stars.

3 of the 5 stars make the nfl and 10 of the 3 stars makemthe NFL. In your mind that makes 3 star better, but in REALITY that makes the 5 stars better.

This. It's quite simple people.

And the reality is the ratio is even greater than 10:1

Absolutely, I just used those imaginary numbers for simplicity.

 

[DTP]

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

Alabama, FSU, OSU, Clemson, Florida, USC, Auburn, LSU, have won National titles in the last 15 years and all were consistently in the top 10. Facts are facts.

Also a fact: dozens and dozens of programs that have recruited much worse than Miami have done a lot better than Miami in recent years.

Can you name two dozen teams who consistently recruit worse than Miami that are better? It's no secret that Miami underachieved with Al Golden but that's a gross exaggeration.

 

[John77]

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

Alabama, FSU, OSU, Clemson, Florida, USC, Auburn, LSU, have won National titles in the last 15 years and all were consistently in the top 10. Facts are facts.

Also a fact: dozens and dozens of programs that have recruited much worse than Miami have done a lot better than Miami in recent years.

No team has won a national title in the past 15 years without having at least two of their previous four classes rated in the top ten. Having a top ten class levels the playing field and from that point on it's on the coaches IMO.

As for your point, no one has said that having top classes garuntees success. In fact there are many cases of teams with top classes having poor years after those years. What the data shows is that having top ten classes is one of the pre-requisites for winning a NC. Washington could have disproven it this year if they had won.

 

[JimmyJohnsonsHair]

Our yearly reminder: Why recruiting rankings matter - CBSSports.com


Since 2002, when Rivals and Scout first released recruiting rankings, only one team has played for a title without at least one top 10 recruiting class on it's roster. The teams that recruit the best players tend to have the most success.

Okay, now we can really lock the thread.

 

[Hurracanes]

Yea they matter, but don't act like there hasn't been non-top ten clashes that have competed for national titles or high level bowl games. I'm too lazy to check but did Washington have recent top ten classes?

Washington and Oregon are the exceptions to this rule because the Pac 12 sucks, and they haven't won squat. Stars matter in the bigger scale of things.

They've done a whole lot more than Miami. Star ores just love bringing up Alabama. Stars matter, but to some of you, they matter so much we shouldn't even play the games. We should have it where whoever signs the most stars, should be given the national title.

Alabama, FSU, OSU, Clemson, Florida, USC, Auburn, LSU, have won National titles in the last 15 years and all were consistently in the top 10. Facts are facts.

Also a fact: dozens and dozens of programs that have recruited much worse than Miami have done a lot better than Miami in recent years.

Now you are changing the subject. Dozen's and dozen's? This is more of an indictment on Miami's coaching staff. Miami was not in the top 10 consistently under Golden.

 

[caneambassador]

stars only matters when that player is a blue chip. and most of those players like a devonte freeman play with a chip on his back because i remember luke bringing him to the u and not get a scholarship, and these sites have miami players at three stars most of the time. so if you dont have a coach who can evaluate talent they will be watching those stars and miss a lot.