forums

Super Bowl starters' star ratings from high school

Advertisement
To quote the article: Thirty-nine percent of the Super Bowl starters were four- or five-star recruits. To put it another way, about two in every five Super Bowl starters were four- or five-star recruits, but only about one in every 770 recruits are rated as such. So yes, your odds of starting in the Super Bowl are, unsurprisingly, much higher if you were a superstar recruit in high school.
 
Advertisement
Dwinstitles said:
Whatdoes this have to do with college though....show me bama uga and clemsons roster
Click to expand...

Agreed. I don't see the correlation to winning at the highest level in college...the teams that are dominating in college are the ones who have rosters full of 4 and 5 stars...alabama, Clemson, Ohio st, etc.
 
Coaching matters in college. Not as much in the pros. It's a big variable.

Give golden 5 stars and Satan 3 stars. Who wins?
 
Advertisement
I can't believe we haven't won a super bowl yet

You would think one of these years we would go undefeated and at least play in one
 
Bird4um said:
Coaching matters in college. Not as much in the pros. It's a big variable.

Give golden 5 stars and Satan 3 stars. Who wins?
Click to expand...

Coaching matters more in the pros in my opinion.

To answer your question, I'm not sure who wins that game. Saban hasn't had a team like that since MSU, and Golden never had a team loaded with 5 star talent. If Golden was coaching Alabamas current team I bet he could still beat Satan if he was coaching Boston Colleges current team.
 
Always comical when someone thinks they have indisputable evidence to support a point they are trying to make, only to have said point support the exact opposite.
 
Novacane32000 said:
To quote the article: Thirty-nine percent of the Super Bowl starters were four- or five-star recruits. To put it another way, about two in every five Super Bowl starters were four- or five-star recruits, but only about one in every 770 recruits are rated as such. So yes, your odds of starting in the Super Bowl are, unsurprisingly, much higher if you were a superstar recruit in high school.
Click to expand...

Now don’t go making sense with the stats. If you start look at base lines and weight and such, next thing you know you strat thinking the government is lying about things like inflation and unemployment numbers. Then you end up undoing the entire Clinton presidency and first 7 years for bush jr.
 
Advertisement
knuck1952 said:
This year, 60% of the Super Bowl starters were 3 star or less:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...atriots-eagles-high-school-recruiting-ratings
Click to expand...

Salary cap means you don't get super teams with all the best guys like you can in college. Every team in the NFL should have about the same number of 3* guys.

Also, WTF does this have to do with Miami or college football in general? I can only assume this is a weak *** attempt to say that stars don't matter, whereas for purposes of winning college championships they absolutely do.
 
knuck1952 said:
This year, 60% of the Super Bowl starters were 3 star or less:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...atriots-eagles-high-school-recruiting-ratings
Click to expand...




Oh lord, here we go again. The latest in a long line of moronic posters who bring this ****e up because they don't comprehend the use of logic.

It is already well-established that the greater number of stars, the higher LIKELIHOOD (not certainty) that a player will excel at the collegiate level and go on to be drafted.

Nothing about that truthful statistic prevents lower-rated players from succeeding as well. But it is similarly well-established that the fewer number of stars, the lower the likelihood the player will go on to be drafted.

But, sure, we can pick out 2 teams, focus on a few dozen players who have beaten the odds, and then find some insane way to respond as if the star-ranking system has no meaning.

This crapola happens every year, and the dumbest porsters continue to fall for it.
 
Advertisement
knuck1952 said:
This year, 60% of the Super Bowl starters were 3 star or less:

https://www.sbnation.com/college-fo...atriots-eagles-high-school-recruiting-ratings
Click to expand...

The Superbowl teams are not the best players in the league. They are the group of players that happen to be better than all other groups of players. In this case the pro bowl would be a better indicator because otherwise you're including hundreds of variables in how each team works together, how good their coaching is, roster management, etc.
 
I saw an article a few years ago that the Patriots had the overall highest Wonderlic score in the NFL and it wasn't close.

You think about the Pats and they aren't loaded with past college football stars. The thing they consistently do is reload/replace guys with basically the same player. They know their system and do a better job than anyone at addressing their needs.

Seems like they opponent is loaded at highly regarded recruits. So is the NFL and as it has always played out, your odds of getting drafted are higher the higher your star rating.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top