STARS/Ratings

[jbug]

PChad stated this on another board:
" we have argued the star ratings ad nauseam, but the fact that no one can dispute is that ON THE WHOLE a higher percentage of 4-star recruits turn out to be big-time players than 2-star recruits. Yes some 2-star recruits turn out very well (and OSU has found several), and some 4-star recruits turn out to be busts (and OSU seems to find a lot of these too). The fact of the matter is that the Elite schools (OU, Texas, Georgia, Florida, USC, etc.) sign a LOT of 4 and 5 star players and those schools consistently win."

Have to say Chad is making a lot of pretty good 'dot connections'
isn't he?

[CaliforniaCowboy]

I think it was disputed quite well by a whole bevy of posters...

Based on expectations, one would expect that the 4+ Star kids would show up in greater numbers in the NFL than the 2- Star kids, but the facts refute that assertion.

The trick is to get a solid mix of both highly rated talent and kids with potential (if you're not so fortunate to attract all highly rated kids).

See Boise, Utah, TCU, TTech, etc.

[Lewis the Pike]

I have noticed the teams that win the most games, more often than not, score more points than their opponents.

[OSUFan]

My problem with the stars/ratings is that they don't include GPA. I think ratings should include GPA and ACT test scores along with 40 times and touchdowns scored or tackles made. A two-star athlete who is intelligent enough to grasp a complex defense or can react quick enough is going to be more valuable to your team than a five-star athlete who has gazelle-like speed but can't remember what route to run. OSU has recruited/signed some dumbass three and four star athletes in my lifetime and for the most part they did not contribute to the team -- some were only eligible for one year or semester. Thankfully, the OSU staff over the years have recruited better students who were better athletes.

[Lewis the Pike]

My problem with the stars/ratings is that they don't include GPA. I think ratings should include GPA and ACT test scores along with 40 times and touchdowns scored or tackles made. A two-star athlete who is intelligent enough to grasp a complex defense or can react quick enough is going to be more valuable to your team than a five-star athlete who has gazelle-like speed but can't remember what route to run. OSU has recruited/signed some dumbass three and four star athletes in my lifetime and for the most part they did not contribute to the team -- some were only eligible for one year or semester. Thankfully, the OSU staff over the years have recruited better students who were better athletes.

Actually with QBs and Linebackers their game IQ is actually figured into good rating systems, with line players and skill players/ not so much.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

I don't have any problem with the star system or what those "services" try to do; my beef is with the fans that take their word blindly, and with the "team" ranking which are very subjective where they "guesstimate" team need, etc.

If they just listed them by average star it would seem to add more credibility... as it is, they just adjust the "team need" to get the teams they like toward the top.

[OKState918]

I've never understood why people put so much stock in player rankings. The only thing recruiting hype is good for is Mom's scrapbook.