re: Don't let anyone tell you that 5* recruits don't matter.

quote:

---

And before the next guy comes in saying “duh that’s because there are significantly more 4 stars and below than 5 stars…”. That just proves my point.

---

What this proves is you don’t understand the simple concept you couldn’t be more wrong in your assessment because you are devoted to a narrative. His stats literally prove you 100% wrong.

quote:

---

It’s all in the development.

---

I’ll ask this question again but you won’t answer because can’t. If this is true why do they recruit top rated players? You are essentially say Nick Saban doesn’t know what he’s doing

The real problem with people like you that see every thing in only 2 dimensions. Because rankings are not 100% accurate you completely dismiss them.

This preserve guy keeps bringing up the heisman. That’s why it is being referenced. He is ignoring the fact that offensive lineman and defensive players don’t win the heisman. So roughly 75% of the 5 stars don’t stand a chance. So 8 5 stars a year have a chance. Of those 8 guys you better be on a national championship contending team.

quote:

---

when the entire rest of the team was completely sleepwalking.

---

. Wow, Josh Williams 122 yards on 19 carries (6.4 yds avg) and 1 TD was just standing there eh?

(no message)

How many of them have?

quote:

---

Five-star players are way over-represented in that Heisman sample relative to the numbers. There are 10x more four-star players in a given year than five-star players. There are over 50x more three-star players. You insist it’s all in development - why do you think it is that three-star players are so much less likely to “develop” into NFL draft prospects?

---

Because, once again, it’s all in the development and the situation of the team surrounding the recruit player.

quote:

---

This preserve guy keeps bringing up the heisman. That’s why it is being referenced

---

I know, he keeps saying it’s “development”. Of course he doesn’t/can’t define what “development” even means.

Most avg fans and this definitely applies to him, seem to have a grudge against recruiting services (or with the pros the draft “gurus”) because they are not 100% accurate and just writes them off a “wrong” and claims some nebulous magic called “development” is the reason some players preform better than others. He’s basically arguing there is no such thing as natural talent. As if we can’t see some players are bigger, stronger faster etc. Though it’s not his intention, he’s also arguing Nick Saban is wasting his time by recruiting top players from around the country. Why waste time flying to Los Angeles (a what 6 hour flight) to recruit Bryce Young when he could just take a 3*Qb from nearby and “develop” him

Well that’s not how math works. If the stats on 5 star players was because there are so few then that means the majority of 5 stars go to the nfl. According to you if we looked at 3 stars ranked between 700 and 732 we should see the same amount of players drafted. I mean 32 player sample size right? Same as 5 star.

quote:

---

The only reason there is a higher percentage of 5* that go on to good careers is because there so many less 5* players.

---

In what world does this make any sense? There are fewer 5* players because those are the elite few who have been evaluated to have a higher percentage chance of success. The process isn’t perfect, but it is good enough to have statistically significant difference in star rankings.

There is no team outside the top 10 in composite talent rankings that has won a national championship. Outside of Clemson, there is no team outside the top 5 that has won a championship. You don’t get to be in the top 10 talent rankings by recruiting 3* players and hoping they develop.

End of the day the stars don't matter if the players aren't developed. That much is clear and what also allows 3* to play like 5*, development.
What is also clear is that a developed 5* talent is going to be head and shoulders above the 3* that develops well also.(as always there are outliers) The reason, talent. 5* and 3* both maxed to their fullest potential is gonna leave you with one star and 1 good player. Production may even be on par but you'll be able to notice the difference between the 2.
The biggest argument against stars mattering imo is that the 5* have a set number in the rankings, 32. That alone tells you it's a grift. As with anything there are up years and down years meaning that some years would have 10-15 5* and others would have 30 plus legit ones. The current model for rankings doesn't allow for reality. That reality is that all 5* are not the same. Some are 4* that happen to rank in the top 32(most imo). If rankings really were legit why not rate them as they truly rate and not based on an arbitrary number? It all leads to inaccurate results based on inaccurate rankings in discussions like this. Same goes for position ranking slotting leading to jumps in rating(100-0 system). Every year explanations for rises or falls in overall rating, not necessarily ranking, come down to position slotting causing the rise or drop. Just rate the players on what they rate legitimately not based on slotting. They make it much more difficult and confusing that's it needs to be therefore causing all the arguments come new rankings time. Gives them outs because it's too confusing to base a solid argument. It's like it's all part of the plan or something. The rankings systems are opinions and a grift not a science no matter how much those in the industry try to convince you it's scientific in some way. Right up there with COVID science. People around my way call it bullshite