re: Per twitter and Tiger Sports World, Willis will visit on the 10th

quote:

---

but how many really pan out?

---

A very high percentage.

White for sure.
Jefferson.
Robinson if he commits.
Cutrer at safety.

quote:

---

Not really.

---

How so?

Considering they are evaluating high school kids, they do a damn good job. Some are busts, sure. But look back at past 5 stars.

Not so well for Texas, did that work.

quote:

---

A very high percentage.

---

A higher percentage than other stars

quote:

---

5* DBs probably pan out better than any other position IMO. Definitely better than QBs and DL

---

sure, like jai eugene and craig loston, both of these guys were legit 5* players, can’t miss, blah, blah, blah - then you have players that were not put on the 5* pedal like Eric Reid and Mathieu and Simon who play like 5* /

quote:

---

2009 Rivals had 33 players ranked as 5 stars. 15 or more of them could be considered wrongfully ranked as 5 star players/recruits. (Dorian Bell, Corey Brown, William Campbell, Davenport, Darius Winston, Patrick Hall, Garrett Gilbert, Jacobbi McDaniel, Devon Kennard, Shep, Vontaze Burfict, Andre Debose, Branden Smith, Mason Walters and the number one player Bryce Brown. Several other haven't lived up to their rankings. I could go through other years and find lots of busts as well.

---

So, it’s incumbent on the LSU staff to work these guys out before they have these supposed 5* commit, while maybe sitting in their own backyard (Matheiu) is a jewel. That’s what is really going on with recruiting nowadays. And it seems LSU has done a pretty good job of it.

quote:

---

I have. A very high percentage panning out would imply that 70%, 80%, or more of all the 5 stars would end up to be more than just solid contributors

---

By sheer #s there are more good 4* than 5*!!!!!

Idiot

quote:

---

quote from whodidthat: 2009 Rivals had 33 players ranked as 5 stars. 15 or more of them could be considered wrongfully ranked as 5 star players/recruits.

---

quote:

---

You mean with perfect 20/20 hindsight?

---

You have a better way to evaluate the correctness of 5-star evaluations than the 32 elite players taken in the 1st round of the NFL draft? Hindsight is the best way to assess evaluations. Why you'd disparage that approach is mystifying. The recruiting services are not to be worshiped; 4 of 32 is pathetic IMO.

quote:

---

quote from whodidthat: This years draft only had 4 players go in the first round that were ranked as 5 star recruits. 4 others were had 2 star rankings and several other 3 stars players were 1st round picks as well

---

quote:

---

Interesting that you mention the draft. Go back and look at how many first round picks don't pan out.

---

Maybe 4 of 32 don't pan out. But even so, your point here is to support the idea that player evaluations are not reliable, which is whodidthat's point! What side of this discussion are you on??

quote:

---

There are usually only about 30 or so 5 stars in each class vs hundreds of 4,3 and 2 stars, so naturally more of the lower ranked guys will be drafted.

---

This oft-repeated argument is bogus. Is the 12.5% success rate better than chance? Sure. Is it good? It means only 1 in 8 5-star prospects will have 1st round-worthy collegiate careers. They cull out 250 or so kids and "evaluate" these in a ranked order. As many kids who missed the 250-player cut will be drafted in the 1st round as those declared 5-star elite players. Once a non-Top 250 kid has signed a LOI and starts his career, he is just as likely to be drafted in the 1st round as any 5-star from the total pool of LOI signers (elaborated on below). And this is true every year; the year cited is not anomalous.

What this means is that worshiping at the alter of the recruiting services is like any other worship: an act of faith. Of course, it is our right to believe in anything we choose, however idiotic or fact-based. Some full-faith folk believe in anthropogenic global warming , some in chemically accessed gods (myself included) , some believe in our coaching staff (ditto)
.

quote:

---

Its not meant as a 100% guaranteed prediction of future success.

---

Not 100%? 12.5% is generally the case, the chance a 5-star prospect will have a 1st round career, be elite. 1 in 8 is not good odds in anything IMO.

quote:

---

Any 1 5* has a better shot at becoming a star...

---

Using 1st round careers as the standard for being a "star," that shot is 1 in 8. 7 of 8 will be non-5*'s. You can stick with your 1 in 8 odds, or trust talent evaluators who have a record of success (e.g., our staff).

quote:

---

...than any 1 3 star.

---

From the pool of LOI signers (as opposed to kids evaluated and labeled), their odds are the same: 4 of the ~3,000 LOI signers will be drafted in the first round as former 5-stars, and 4 of the ~3,000 will have been 2-stars. In other words, whether a player was a 5* or a 2*, his odds are 4 in ~3000 that he will be drafted in the 1st round. It all depends on how you choose to look at it. The 1st Amendment guarantees each of us that choice. My beliefs trend toward deferring to our coaching staff.

quote:

---

A lot will determine if a player develops into a star including his work ethic, coaching, injuries etc.

---

Exactly. But this further devalues the overall import of recruiting services. They are fun, a handy guide, and a source of info, but unreliable predictors of future elite performers (unless one chooses to regard 1 in 8 as reliable).

I can't argue with you. If you think they should be predicting 70-80% of 18 year olds (at the peak of puberty) then believe what you want.

Personally, I think the success rate they have is pretty damn good considering all the factors including intelligence and behavior.

I'm not taking up for the services, but they do what they can with what they have. Yes, they cater to some audiences, but that's how they make money. So, we'll agree to disagree.