Keep talking to me about these super stud 5 stars.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ing-star-rankings-for-first-round-selections/
https://www.cbssports.com/college-f...ing-star-rankings-for-first-round-selections/
5 stars.... 7 of the first 32 picks.....
- Thread starter Rip_E_2_Joe_PA
- Start date
To be clear, those numbers support the superiority of five star recruits.
The hit rate for 4 and 5 Stars is so much higher - rankings matter a lot. Here’s another look:
I don't know how some of these people continue posting stats they think refute the rankings and act proud of it when it does the opposite.
7 out of 32 being 5 stars is incredible considering how few 5 stars there are annually compared to the other stars.
Considering 5 stars make up probably a tiny % of NFL prospects, 7 is a ton.
I'm pretty sure less than 2 percent of all college players were five star prospects. So, if more than 20 percent of first round picks were five star prospects, that says a lot about how much better they are.
The same people will probably tell us Somoans are crappy football players because they are such a minority in the NFL.
or how the same people use it for a self fulfilling prophecy .." the star system works because we hand em out"
if any of them watched the barkley chubb feature and they listened to what westbrook and taylor said then I would think the correct assessment of a 5 star (cant miss player) is did he become a tenured NFL player that was above avg. Making the league, while a great accomplishment, doesnt mean much in the grand scheme if you piss it away especially with the "lofty grade/expectations"
I understand the stats
Still, my main takeaway is that a 5-star status guarantees nothing, not stardom in college nor a decent NFL career; there are plenty of guys who become outstanding pro football players despite a low evaluation when they were 17 or 18 years olds....it is an inexact process
Still, my main takeaway is that a 5-star status guarantees nothing, not stardom in college nor a decent NFL career; there are plenty of guys who become outstanding pro football players despite a low evaluation when they were 17 or 18 years olds....it is an inexact process
I agree, although a higher percentage of 5 stars make it, they are also supposed to be the "can't miss" players, and nearly half of them didn't even make an NFL roster. Don't get me wrong, I'll take all the 5 stars we can get, but "stars" aren't everything.
Anybody who labeled anyone a "can't miss" prospect is full of shit. Even top 5 nationally ranked prospects flop all the time. But it is true that every year the total population of 5 star guys ends up better than the total population of 4 star guys, who ends up better than the total population of 3 star guys and down the line.
Just because Tom Brady was drafted in the 6th round doesn't mean 6th round QBs are just as good as 1st round QBs.
You're right of course, but anyone who has been saying it's a guarantee is a fool. You'll understand if people are more excited when they're handed a lottery ticket with a 1/3 chance of striking it rich than a ticket with a 1/100 chance.
Let me help you out. Rivals rates players based on the chances they will be an impact player at the college level. It is not a predictor of NFL success.
A five-star prospect is considered to be one of the nation's top 25-30 players, four star is a top 250-300 or so player, three-stars is a top 750 level player, two stars means the player is a mid-major prospect and one star means the player is not ranked.
Run the math and come back to us about the percentage of 2, 3, 4, and 5, star players who were first round picks.
As additional assistance, here is how rivals defines each number rating
- 6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
- 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
- 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
- 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
- 4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about
Skip the scolding, heckmans. I understand the system fine. I've followed college football and recruiting for many years.
I have never understood why people pay to belong to recruiting sites but then mock recruiting rankings.
I love when I thread is started to prove a point but it proves that person just how wrong they are.
Yeah, recruiting 4 and 5 star players hasn’t worked out very well for Alabama.
So of the ~250,000 kids playing football as seniors in HS, 33 are rated 5 stars. And you are saying that of those 33 seven were within the first 32 picks of the NFL draft?
That is an absolutely incredible hit ratio. Rivals really knows their stuff.
LdN
SEVEN is an AMAZINGLY high percentage given there are so few five Stars, a ton of four stars and a HUGE number of three stars. That result is no doubt statistically significant and a big endorsement of the STAR system.
How can you think otherwise???
Take any stat courses in college??? Seemingly not, you made an incredibly compelling case for the star system.
I sure did and aced them. There are a lot of 3 stars and that is your complelling argument? However this huge number of 4 stars your reference makes me laugh. Furthermore, the statistics regarding male growth and physical maturity (strength) from age 17 to 20 are the important statistics here. The most important and critical information about recruits at age 16 and 17 are the numbers which allow projection of what they are capable of becoming at age 19-20. Case in point, our 4 star lb recruit from last year that pointed to the fact that he most likely would grow into a 4+ to 5 start DE...... Seriously, what are the ratings of the athletes that don't go to camps?
Last year's National champion Alabama had 18 composite 5stars and 51 composite 4stars on their roster. That is 69 out of 85 scholarship players that are a 4star or higher. They were number one in team talent and number one on the field. Their national championship opponent georgia was ranked 4th in team talent.
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
That is a strawman argument if there ever was one. Who ever said there were guarantees? A: Nobody, ever. Who ever said it was an exact process? A: Nobody.
It's all about the odds. Chickman's table tells all you need to know about the information contained in the ratings -- a strong and positive correlation. The last line -- 11% of unrated players make the NFL is interesting -- it means that unrated scholarship guys are more likely to make be drafted than most lower rated 2 and 3-star players. Coaches know something about the unrated players they give scholarships, imagine that, sleepers exist...
Just because you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. No offense, but do the math on the percentage of 5, 4, 3, 2 star recruits drafted in the first round and then defend the assertions you made in this thread about player ratings. It don't add up.
You failed to add that each of their recruits are on the cusp of being rated higher! And their 3-Star kids from Florida are the equivalent of a 5-Star from Pennsylvania!
Not sure why you persist here.
What are the assertions I made about player ratings that are wrong?
that is well said. it is the probabilities are much higher for 4* and 5* players.
you want to look at another piece of research I saw on NFL network before the draft - and that is the odds of a 5* player getting invited to the combine and being drafted even though their actual college career may have been pedestrian. it was shockingly high (around 30% of the odds of a 5* AA player).
I think Franklin should only recruit 2-3 stars. We’d be a much better team apparently.
Why does he need to spend any time scouting and judging talent?
He can just use Rivals and go after 5 stars and a few 4 stars, apparently.
Yep. There really isn’t any other way to spin the data here. That’s an amazing hit rate by Rivals.
Look at guys such as Jordan Hicks and Bryce Brown. Both were 5-stars coming out of HS, but had middling college careers for different reasons. Both were drafted and played well (esp Hicks) for NFL teams. Brown was great (esp for a 6th round pick) in Philly before being traded and fizzling out in Buffalo.
I go back and forth on this. Yes 5 stars are more likely than 4 stars to make the NFL, but their impact on college football is limited because there aren't that many of them, and if they're successful, they're only attending school for the absolute mininum time, maybe 3 semesters. About half of them never live up to the hype, which is very painful because of all the attention they receive.
If the 5 star player is Cam Newton, he puts a good team right immediately in the national championship picture, there's that.
But Cam Newton is also a great example of the trouble that follows a lot of the 5-stars. They're celebrities from an early age, they haven't had the normal maturation process, most of the time they have no interest in being college students. They are worth millions to schools but they tend to generate corruption and arrests and distractions.
Penn State hasn't had many 5 stars come through and I wouldn't say any of them has had a huge impact. In terms of winning football games, not one of them had even a small fraction of the impact that Mr. McSorley (2 star? no star?) has had.
Derrick Williams -- had a big psychological impact on the program but more by just committing to Paterno than for what he actually did on the field. Good solid college player but not dominant at all.
Dan Connor was a terrific LB but really just one of maybe 10 really terrific LBs in his era at PSU -- I'd certainly put Poz, Lee and Bowman well above him for the impact they had on the field. Justin King was a good player but not high impact, Morelli and Hack were very good QBs with ups and downs but certainly not all-American type talent.
Maurice Evans was a great talent who had one good season at PSU and left for the NFL as soon as he could. And Chris McKelvy for a lot of reasons, I think largely injuries, never had much impact.
Now we're seeing a new generation of 5 stars (Sanders, Slade, Shorter and Parsons) and we'll see how it works out.
If it follows past pattern, one of these players will have one fabulous season and then leave for the NFL immediately, one will have an ok career nagged by injuries, one will be an OK, not great college player but a good solid four year member of the team, and one will have a career shortened by off the field/academic issues.
If the 5 star player is Cam Newton, he puts a good team right immediately in the national championship picture, there's that.
But Cam Newton is also a great example of the trouble that follows a lot of the 5-stars. They're celebrities from an early age, they haven't had the normal maturation process, most of the time they have no interest in being college students. They are worth millions to schools but they tend to generate corruption and arrests and distractions.
Penn State hasn't had many 5 stars come through and I wouldn't say any of them has had a huge impact. In terms of winning football games, not one of them had even a small fraction of the impact that Mr. McSorley (2 star? no star?) has had.
Derrick Williams -- had a big psychological impact on the program but more by just committing to Paterno than for what he actually did on the field. Good solid college player but not dominant at all.
Dan Connor was a terrific LB but really just one of maybe 10 really terrific LBs in his era at PSU -- I'd certainly put Poz, Lee and Bowman well above him for the impact they had on the field. Justin King was a good player but not high impact, Morelli and Hack were very good QBs with ups and downs but certainly not all-American type talent.
Maurice Evans was a great talent who had one good season at PSU and left for the NFL as soon as he could. And Chris McKelvy for a lot of reasons, I think largely injuries, never had much impact.
Now we're seeing a new generation of 5 stars (Sanders, Slade, Shorter and Parsons) and we'll see how it works out.
If it follows past pattern, one of these players will have one fabulous season and then leave for the NFL immediately, one will have an ok career nagged by injuries, one will be an OK, not great college player but a good solid four year member of the team, and one will have a career shortened by off the field/academic issues.
Last edited:
