How meaningful are STARS? Player evaluations

they are ranked in a star system based on athletic ability, size, and potential at the next level. Statistically, the best teams have had the best recruiting classes so it gives a decent representation of the talent coming in. They can't predict who will succeed in college because they don't know what drives an 18 year old to push themselves. Thats why you see some 5 star talents flop and 2/3 stars blossom.

quote:

---

I personally don't think it mean much of anything talent is talent

---

Not to sound like a smart arse or Bill Clinton, but it depends on what you mean by meaning. A ranking doesn't guarentee anything, its just an evaluation at certain time. There are a million and one factors that will determine whether a 5 * RB becomes B Brown or Trent Richardson. Certainly some 5 stars will bust and some 3 or 2 stars will become stars, but a higher percentage of 5* are stars than 3's. One problem is, there is no where to go but down for a 5 *, so if he's not a star player, people lash out at the rankings using 20/20 hindsight.

quote:

---

......Should we care if Alabama is ranked ahead of us in these dam recruiting ranking?

---

The top 2 classes in 2009 were Alabama and LSU. Look at the past team rankings and you see a lot of teams in the top 5 recruiting rankings competeing for the NC 2-3 years down the line. Again, its not a guarentee, a top ranking team can flop and a lesser ranked team can do well. But overall, a higher percentage of teams ranked in the top 5 had top 5 classes than #35 classes.

1. there IS a correlation between success on the field and higher stars ratings.

2. not all 5 stars pan out. 20% make it in the NFL. That's WAY higher than 4 star and orders of magnitude higher than 3 and 2 star.

3. a few two star linemen and a very very few two star skill position players make it to the NFL.
The correlation to the NBA is that Dennis Rodman, who grew a foot taller after he turned 16, was not rated out of high school but he later turned into an NBA rebounding machine.

you're saying exactly what I said. I know the % of 5 stars succeeding/getting drafted is higher than 2/3/4 star players. I was just saying that 2/3 star players CAN blossom...doesn't mean they will more likely than 5 stars

quote:

---

Talent is talent

---

Yep and all 5 * have talent. That doesn't mean they will all become great players at the next level, just that they have the talent to do so.

quote:

---

I'm not buying as much into these ranking and star systems as everyone else.

---

The problem is the way you are looking at it. Its not meant to be a guarenteed fact. Its just an evaluation at a certain point in time. As someone else mentioned the difference between a high 4 (like Ried or Montgomery) and a low 5 is insignificant.

quote:

---

I think these rivals and scout class rankings are meaningless 1-10.

---

Look at the top 10 classes over several years and compare it top 10 rankings 2-3 years later.

quote:

---

some of the most unproductive players in the past 5 years have been 4 and 5 stars.....shepard, loston, davenport, dickson, allen, copeland (DT to FB), and cant forget JJ

---

And Clayton, Spears, PP7, Doresy, Landry, Bowe and countless other 4-5 stars have been some of the most productive players.

Its not 100%, think that it should be is why you think its meaningless. Its not meaningless, its a guide. nothing more, nothing less.

this guy could be taken in the top 10 of the nba draft

quote:

---

Certainly some 5 stars will bust and some 3 or 2 stars will become stars, but a higher percentage of 5* are stars than 3's

---

i've never understood this angle. if you only have 15 five stars and 200 3 stars. then, of course, you will have a higher %. Only 7 have to turn out worth a damn for 50%, where as 100 have to turn out worth a damn for 50%.

I think the stars and rankings are for fans. I think they do the best they can. It's not a exact science for sure.

Au has a n.c. and wasn't in the top 10 for the four years prior to it.

Oregon has been one of the better programs and hasn't been in the top 10 on a consistant basis.

T.C.U. has been one of the better progams, never in the top 15.

texas is a regular top 5 and they haven't been able to produce.

UGA is a consistant top 10 who hasn't finished in the top 10 in a while.

Florida has been top five for a while and hasn't showed the last two seasons.

There are ton's of five star bust from the brown's (bryce and Arthur to al woods, t. toliver, to gilbert, to shepard, to loston and on and on and on.

then you have t.m., to mo, to logan, to Marcell Dareus, rg III, to blackmon, and on and on and on.

accept them for what they are. it's a interesting guide. however, as time go's on, you'll notice they are hit and miss.

louisiana had it's lowest ranked class in many years in 2010. That class, in my opinion, has been the best in many years. It produced tyran m, Reid, Blue, simon, and wing who are regular starters with Wright, welter, porter, set to be future starters, and allen, jacobs probably receiving playing time.

not even considering Travon reed who went out of state.

That's a thorpe winner/heisman finalist, all american punter in wing, all american in Reid, probably a first day selection in the n.f.l. draft in simon.

anyone care to guess who rivals had as the #1 player in the state? Ronnie Vinson. And, none of those guys were "five star".

quote:

---

anyone care to guess who rivals had as the #1 player in the state? Ronnie Vinson

---

According to this, Vinson was ranked 4th.

LINK

quote:

---

louisiana had it's lowest ranked class in many years in 2010

---

Where are you getting that from? It wasn't considered as good as 2009 or 2011, but was still a pretty good class. LSU finished ranked 6th on rivals that year. Many of the players you listed: Mathieu, Simon, Ried were all 4 stars, Wing was a 3 and the #5 kicker, all of them were 3*.

Let me ask you a question. do you think Les Miles and Nick Saban are star gazers? Did they both offer Robert Nkimdiche because he is a 5 star, or because they watched the tape and think he will be really good?

For that matter, do you think they signed any of the 5 star flops you mention because they don't know what they are doing or is it because its an inexact science?

I'm not saying that these recruiting sites are a the bible for player analysis, all I'm saying is that we shouldn't care if ALA is ranked #2 in recruiting and we're #6. It seems that many get caught up in where LSU is ranked recruiting wise in comparisons with ALA. I believe that Frank Wilson know what hes doing and we should leave it at that. I only use rivals and scout mainly to get an idea of their size and to watch their film. Very rarely do I come across a guy who has a really good highlight tape, decent size, and locate somewhat locally that doesn't have an LSU offer. We are consistently one of the best player evaluators in the country year in and year out, so I tend to trust Wilson's analysis more so than rivals.

I never understood why they have a fixed number of five stars. You cannot tell me that there are only 25 elite football player in the WHOLE united states