forums

2023 The books are cooked and the star system is a complete a joke.

Cryptical Envelopment

Cryptical Envelopment

What a long strange trip it's been
Banned
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Messages
8,620
There are now 399 kids ranked 5 and 4-star by 247. I kid you not. This is not a drill. They keep raising it.

There are 37 5-stars and 362 4-stars.

Think about that. If these ranking ever went chalk and were actually right, the entire first round of the NFL draft all the way through the 5th pick of the second round would all be former 5-stars.

But the 4-stars are were the most corruption occurs. Again, there are 362 4-stars. 362!!! And there are about 262~ TOTAL picks in the NFL draft. And think about how irrelevant the last two rounds are. That means that once the 5-stars are taken in the first and top of the second round, there are only 225 picks that remain in the entire NFL draft. That means that, again, if the rankers were correct, and the draft went chalk, 137 4-stars... WHO LIVED UP TO THEIR RATING, AS IN WERE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE TOP 399 KIDS IN THEIR CLASS, would go undrafted!

So the ratings services are telling you that the 38th best player in the NFL draft (early 2nd rounder and instant multi-millionaire) and the 137th best undrafted free agent, who will be lucky to make a practice squad, ARE BOTH 4-STARS!!

It's a joke. They flood the market with 4-stars (and 5-stars for that matter), and then when they hit on one out of four, they crow about it.

And here’s is 2020 NFL Draft breakdown by stars, according to 247Sports.com:
  • Five-star: 19
  • Four-star: 73
  • Three-star: 110
  • Two-star: 32
  • Not Ranked: 21
Only 19 of the 37 5-stars were even DRAFTED!! And they only went 73 for 225 with the 4-stars, but they had 362 chances!

Here is the 2019 first round breakdown btw:
  • 5-stars: 6
  • 4-stars: 15
  • 3-stars: 10
  • 2-stars: 0
  • 1-star: 0
  • Unranked: 1
LOL. They went 5 for 32.

Now, yes, there is of COURSE a correlation between rankings and talent. But as I've said, your near-blind grandmother can point out the 5-stars and most of the top 100 kids on the field and be as right as these wannabe fake scouts. The coaches and talent guys who are actually good at their jobs (and are paid by teams to do them) can tell you the massive game-changing difference between #50 and #350. They don't pile them all together and pray.

Look, this is all entertainment, I get that. And we need to go by SOMETHING when we BS about these kids. Fine, so use the scores. 247 gives a composite 1-100 score on each player.

For example, Malik Muhammad, CB from Dallas has a rating of .9835 while Dylan Edwards, RB from Derby, KS has a rating of .8903 and yes, as you can guess, they are both 4-stars, even with a massive gap in their ratings.

So yeah, one school gets 10 4-stars in the top 100 (mostly projected first three round picks), and another get 10 guys in the top 400 (all projected UFA's) and people point to them as comparable. No.

And yeah, even though these scores are created by 1099 guys who aren't qualified to coach JV girls football or write about sports for a real outlet, if you must give them some credence, don't talk to me about stars.

Me? I look at the OFFERS. Because those are handed out by professional football people.

Fin.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
362 is a ridiculously high number. For argument's sake, you could say the top 18 rosters would average 20 4-stars....a class!

It's dumb as ****. There are not that many very good players in a given year.

More grade inflation than a Forfeit State final.
 
Advertisement
Everything is done to appease subscribers. Everyone wants their guys to get bumps. The only problem is when they give too many guys bumps, the whole thing gets watered down. Still, they have players ranked by position and overall. So if two 4 star player are 300 spots apart, they’re not equal players
 
Cryptical Envelopment said:
There are now 399 kids ranked 5 and 4-star by 247. I kid you not. This is not a drill. They keep raising it.

There are 37 5-stars and 362 4-stars.

Think about that. If these ranking ever went chalk and were actually right, the entire first round of the NFL draft all the way through the 5th pick of the second round would all be former 5-stars.

But the 4-stars are were the most corruption occurs. Again, there are 362 4-stars. 362!!! And there are about 262~ TOTAL picks in the NFL draft. And think about how irrelevant the last two rounds are. That means that once the 5-stars are taken in the first and top of the second round, there are only 225 picks that remain in the entire NFL draft. That means that, again, if the rankers were correct, and the draft went chalk, 137 4-stars... WHO LIVED UP TO THEIR RATING, AS IN WERE ACTUALLY ONE OF THE TOP 399 KIDS IN THEIR CLASS, would go undrafted!

So the ratings services are telling you that the 38th best player in the NFL draft (early 2nd rounder and instant multi-millionaire) and the 137th best undrafted free agent, who will be lucky to make a practice squad, ARE BOTH 4-STARS!!

It's a joke. They flood the market with 4-stars (and 5-stars for that matter), and then when they hit on one out of four, they crow about it.

And here’s is 2020 NFL Draft breakdown by stars, according to 247Sports.com:
  • Five-star: 19
  • Four-star: 73
  • Three-star: 110
  • Two-star: 32
  • Not Ranked: 21
Only 19 of the 37 5-stars were even DRAFTED!! And they only went 73 for 225 with the 4-stars, but they had 362 chances!

Here is the 2019 first round breakdown btw:
  • 5-stars: 6
  • 4-stars: 15
  • 3-stars: 10
  • 2-stars: 0
  • 1-star: 0
  • Unranked: 1
LOL. They went 5 for 32.

Now, yes, there is of COURSE a correlation between rankings and talent. But as I've said, your near-blind grandmother can point out the 5-stars and most of the top 100 kids on the field and be as right as these wannabe fake scouts. The coaches and talent guys who are actually good at their jobs (and are paid by teams to do them) can tell you the massive game-changing difference between #50 and #350. They don't pile them all together and pray.

Look, this is all entertainment, I get that. And we need to go by SOMETHING when we BS about these kids. Fine, so use the scores. 247 gives a composite 1-100 score on each player.

For example, Malik Muhammad, CB from Dallas has a rating of .9835 while Dylan Edwards, RB from Derby, KS has a rating of .8903 and yes, as you can guess, they are both 4-stars, even with a massive gap in their ratings.

So yeah, one school gets 10 4-stars in the top 100 (mostly projected first three round picks), and another get 10 guys in the top 400 (all projected UFA's) and people point to them as comparable. No.

And yeah, even though these scores are created by 1099 guys who aren't qualified to coach JV girls football or write about sports for a real outlet, if you must give them some credence, don't talk to me about stars.

Me? I look at the OFFERS. Because those are handed out by professional football people.

Fin.
Click to expand...
How many 4 stars last year? Could just be a loaded year. In terms of 4 stars, you touched upon it yourself. It’s about the rating, such as .9 or .98 like in your example. Then there is the average. That gives you a better idea of the quality as you can’t go by the other was as all four stars aren’t created equal. Another part you leave out are how 3 stars there are, it’s easy to say that 362 4 stars is a lot but but what if there are 1600 3 stars? Lots of football being played all over the country.
 
IIRC,

Used to be a 5-star was an elite kid recruited nationally by all the blue-blood schools. A 4-star was more regional, like throughout the South, or West Coast, or Mid-West. Schools had a few players from across the country, yes, but didn't have huge recruiting budgets and staffs who do little more than watch tape. The big national Nike/Under Armor/Whomever camps weren't a thing yet, and players weren't traveling across country on school camp tours. No one had highlight tapes online.

I might be wrong though.
 
Advertisement
TemplarCane said:
IIRC,

Used to be a 5-star was an elite kid recruited nationally by all the blue-blood schools. A 4-star was more regional, like throughout the South, or West Coast, or Mid-West. Schools had a few players from across the country, yes, but didn't have huge recruiting budgets and staffs who do little more than watch tape. The big national Nike/Under Armor/Whomever camps weren't a thing yet, and players weren't traveling across country on school camp tours. No one had highlight tapes online.

I might be wrong though.
Click to expand...
It’s possible but recruiting is national now.

I was a fan of 247 using the first round of the NFL draft as a gauge for 5 stars. 32 first round picks every year, 32 5 star players
 
Personally i always prefer rivals ranking systems. Also you have to trust the staff to do their due deligence on kids. How can Texas and them have all those top 7 classes under multiple coaches and not even play for a conference title.

That's also why im with our coaches recruiting body types and athleticism
 
bobbydigius said:
How many 4 stars last year? Could just be a loaded year. In terms of 4 stars, you touched upon it yourself. It’s about the rating, such as .9 or .98 like in your example. Then there is the average. That gives you a better idea of the quality as you can’t go by the other was as all four stars aren’t created equal. Another part you leave out are how 3 stars there are, it’s easy to say that 362 4 stars is a lot but but what if there are 1600 3 stars? Lots of football being played all over the country.
Click to expand...

Last year there were actually 426 five and four star players! o_O

I didn't "leave out" the 3-stars. That's an entirely separate conversation about their incompetence. I kept this chat to the 5's and 4's because that takes us past the 12th or 13th round of an endless NFL draft, which is the analogy I was using. And there are only 7 rounds plus compensatory picks.
 
I wonder how the top 50 recruits in each class do in the first 3 rounds of the NFL draft? Over a 4-5 year cycle:)
 
Advertisement
FWIW the actual ranking per team is composed by the ranking of the players, not the stars but their actual score that you mentioned.

So if one team got 25 "4-stars" and they were all Dylan Edwards, and another team got 25 "4-stars" and they were all Malik Muhammad's, well Team Malik would be much, much higher in the composite score.

Also, doesn't 247 always do this? They start out heavy and then pare the 5-stars down and always just end up with 32 to match up as if it's a first-round draft? Which, by the way, is infinitely moronic in its own right, because every year is different. You don't grade on a curve. Some years there might actually be 50 kids who deserve to be 5-star recruits. Other years there might be 20. But you don't pigeonhole 32 kids into a set number. Again, assuming this is how it still is. I know that's how they used to do it.

Bottom line, as flawed as this all is, is correlates to winning. Collect Top 10 classes, collect trophies. They go hand in hand with as much correlation as literally anything else.
 
OrangeBowlMagic said:
FWIW the actual ranking per team is composed by the ranking of the players, not the stars but their actual score that you mentioned.

So if one team got 25 "4-stars" and they were all Dylan Edwards, and another team got 25 "4-stars" and they were all Malik Muhammad's, well Team Malik would be much, much higher in the composite score.
Click to expand...

No ****, Sherlock.

:)
 
Advertisement
Cryptical Envelopment said:
No ****, Sherlock.

:)
Click to expand...

You'd be surprised how many people don't realize this. Or don't think it's as drastic of a difference maker as it is in the overall score.

For example, I plugged in your dude Malik Muhammad into our class. He's the highest ranked 4-star. Our score jumped from 141 to 164. Adding him would take us from our current ranking of 35th overall to 22nd. A jump of 13 spots off 1 kid.

I did the same for your homie Dylan Edwards. He's the lowest ranked 4-star. Our score jumped from 141 to 155. We'd go from 35th to 28th.

So we got a "4-star" in both scenarios. But one kid jumps us 13 spots, the other jumps us half that amount.

I agree with all of what you posted, I'm just saying that while you're correctly saying how ridiculous as it is that there are so many 4-star recruits, paying attention to the overall score matters much more. Adding Sedrick Irvin, the highest ranked 3-star, basically gives you the exact same impact as adding Dylan Edwards, the lowest ranked 4-star. But if you go purely by "blue-chip ratio", Edwards improves you and Irvin does not. Moral of the story, not all 4-star and 3-star kids are created equally. Look at the class in whole when the ink is dry.
 
DTP said:
It’s possible but recruiting is national now.

I was a fan of 247 using the first round of the NFL draft as a gauge for 5 stars. 32 first round picks every year, 32 5 star players
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware of that calculation but not a fan. What does the number of either have to do with the other? In the draft, there are strong years, in depth of talent, and lesser years. If you looked at multiple drafts from a decade or more ago you might see 15 of 32 players were multi-year all-pros with 2 or 3 HOF talents. With multiple players selected in the second round ‘exceeding’ that value. The following or prior draft, not so much.

The old way I described wasn’t perfect either, because who evaluated 100s, maybe 1,000 or more high school players? Maybe @Liberty City El. :)

And if you want to look back and review player ratings you’ll need to factor out elite players who were injured or did not qualify. The player may have been as talented as hyped, but bad luck or bad habits prevented them from achieving their potential.

The worst corruption is as @Cryptical Envelopment called it, ranking players to sell online subscriptions.
 
TemplarCane said:
I wasn’t aware of that calculation but not a fan. What does the number of either have to do with the other? In the draft, there are strong years, in depth of talent, and lesser years. If you looked at multiple drafts from a decade or more ago you might see 15 of 32 players were multi-year all-pros with 2 or 3 HOF talents. With multiple players selected in the second round ‘exceeding’ that value. The following or prior draft, not so much.

The old way I described wasn’t perfect either, because who evaluated 100s, maybe 1,000 or more high school players? Maybe @Liberty City El. :)

And if you want to look back and review player ratings you’ll need to factor out elite players who were injured or did not qualify. The player may have been as talented as hyped, but bad luck or bad habits prevented them from achieving their potential.

The worst corruption is as @Cryptical Envelopment called it, ranking players to sell online subscriptions.
Click to expand...

I would say that the 32nd pick still gets paid as the 32nd pick whether he's as good as last years 20th or 40th pick. Slotting.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top