Recruiting ratings are not all they're cracked up to be

We should cut Fournette and replace him with a couple 2-3 stars that really know how to play!

quote:

---

Not one starter on either the Patriots or Seahawks was a 5 star and the majority were 2 or 3's.

---

Hmmm. . . I wonder why that might be.

Maybe because there are about twenty 5*s each year, but thousands of 2* and 3*s?

No. I know we should go after really good players. My point is, that more often than not, a 2 or 3 star who works his arse off turns out to be better than a 5 star who has always relied on God given talent and never had to work hard.

Fournette is an exception. A 5 star who works very hard to get better.

The Law of Averages

That list is wrong in some cases. For example, Earl Thomas was a 4-star. LINK

quote:

---

more often than not, a 2 or 3 star who works his arse off turns out to be better than a 5 star who has always relied on God given talent and never had to work hard

---

I don't think you know what "more often than not" means. More often than not 5 stars are better than their 4, 3, 2, or 0-star counterparts (ETA: a one-to-one comparison). This has been proven in any number (probably hundreds) of articles. Still, every year people post the first exception-to-the-rule example that pops into their head and refuses to listen to reason.

Stars for high school players is an inexact science no doubt. Yes some 5 and 4 star players will not do well in college and some 3 star guys will be All Americans. However, as many have pointed out it is a percentage game. I'll take the 4 and 5 stars and take my chances every time.

Look at the last few college Champs and get back to us on whether stars matter or not

isnt this the same thread from yesterday?

How about this one for you?
Let's starting recruiting Tulane talent instead of trying to keep up with AL, AU, GA, Atm, Ole Miss, etc.
Sure our coaches can coach them up to do better than that recent 8 - 5 season that was out of the Top 25 ..........