re: Proof that stars are very overrated!

quote:

---

You're the typical college fan that believes everything he reads. I'm not saying some 4 and 5 stars don't pan out, but most are very overrated. Remember Russell Shepard and Ryan Perriolloux? These two were can't miss prospects and neither was nearly as good as advertised! There's a list of players like that on every major roster! I put more on coach evaluations than somebody trying to sell subscriptions that you have no clue to their background. Keep sending them your money, they love fans like you!

---

You are the typical loudmouth that speaks without thinking. what facts do you have to show the success/failure of 5 stars vs lesser rated players? RP was not underrated. He was as good as advertised. The stars are in reference to their athletic ability, not their real life decision making skills. Do you know what a half truth is? Russell Shepard was an amazing "athlete" nowhere in the country would he have been allowed to play QB. Maybe he never fulfilled what we thought he would be but he had the ball in his hand on every snap in high school, not catching it. His time here, was greatly limited by the offensive philosophy and coaching. he's still in the NFL right now. You don't get to stay in the NFL if you aren't good. In summary you are full of shite. Come correct with real knowledge about these guys and don't spout nonsense to fulfill your narrative.

quote:

---

Crawfish Anytime

---

After reading this thread you might be the biggest dumbass on this board

quote:

---

when he's the same player he's always been?

---

1. players get better. Some players aren't as good because others have now hit puberty (maybe they hit puberty earlier).
2. players go to more camps as they get older
3. evaulators get to see more film and can better evaluate.

this isn't that hard.

quote:

---

How does someone rate a four star on one site and a three star on another?

---

it's called opinion. No one ever claimed it was an exact science.

quote:

---

It's someone's opinion and they will continue to pump certain recruits because it sells!

---

yes. kids that commit to bigger programs get more attention. There is some bias in recruiting rankings.

quote:

---

And it's apparent from many of the responses a lot of people are buying what they're selling!

---

you're literally on a recruiting site talking to people who follow recruiting.

quote:

---

Remember Russell Shepard and Ryan Perriolloux?

---

Yeah, I remember them. One is in the NFL and the other came off the bench to lead LSU to an SEC Championship.

You win idiot of the year!

quote:

---

I put more on coach evaluations than somebody trying to sell subscriptions that you have no clue to their background. Keep sending them your money, they love fans like you!

---

Never paid for recruiting info. Also, go back and read my post. I specifically said that for individual players, their offer list is more important than their rating. But for a recruiting class the ratings generally tell the tale. The reason for this is that recruiting services largely base their ratings on offer lists, so it's circular.

You made my day, though, with your examples of overrated players.

I don't know why people bring up stuff like this all the time. It shows a severe lack of understanding of statistics. So there were 37 3* or lower. There were 87 players on Pro Bowl rosters.
42.5% 3* or less
57.5% 4/5*

Now how many players are given 4/5* vs 3* or less? A much, much higher % of 4/5* players make it to the NFL and to the Pro Bowl as well.

Your numbers show that stars do matter, and matter a lot.

quote:

---

So there were 37 3* or lower. There were 87 players on Pro Bowl rosters. 42.5% 3* or less 57.5% 4/5*

---

quote:

---

Proof that stars are very overrated! I don't know why people bring up stuff like this all the time. It shows a severe lack of understanding of statistics. So there were 37 3* or lower. There were 87 players on Pro Bowl rosters. 42.5% 3* or less 57.5% 4/5* Now how many players are given 4/5* vs 3* or less? A much, much higher % of 4/5* players make it to the NFL and to the Pro Bowl as well. Your numbers show that stars do matter, and matter a lot.

---

OP made a thread and just got destroyed in one post


LINK

An article worth reading in regards to stars and championships


Blue-Chip RatioPosted on 8/22/17 at 7:34 pm


31

THE 2017 BLUE-CHIP RATIO: YOUR COLLEGE FOOTBALL CHAMP WILL BE ONE OF THESE 10 TEAMS
by Bud Elliott

I have a pretty good idea who will win the national championship this season. The list of true contenders is short.

It’s not based on my opinion, but rather a simple stat I’ve been tracking for a few years: the Blue-Chip Ratio, which shows what percentage of a team’s signees are rated four- or five-stars ("blue chips") as recruits.

It boils down to teams that sign more four- and five-star recruits than two- and three-stars, over the previous four recruiting classes. That’s an exclusive club, usually consisting of the top 10 percent of FBS programs. All of the national champs over the last decade-plus have accomplished it, and often, the team taking home the trophy has signed many more elite players.

Clemson took home the title in 2016 after signing 52 percent blue chips in the 2013-16 classes. In 2015, it was Alabama with a 77 percent mark. In 2014, it was Ohio State at 68 percent. In 2013, it was Florida State at 53. And on and on.

As my colleague Bill Connelly has said, winning in college football takes talent acquisition, development, and deployment. I agree. But Gene Chizik has a national title, while Mark Dantonio and Gary Patterson do not; acquisition is by far the most important element. By NCAA rule, coaches get just 20 hours per week with their players. Only so much development can be done.

(It’s worth it to add a disclaimer. This metric is quite useful for determining which teams have signed elite talent. It is not the most useful for differentiating between bad and below average teams, or below average and average; some teams simply do not have much of a shot of signing elite prospects and instead try to find diamonds in the rough. That’s a strategy that can produce wins, though perhaps not rings.)

THIS YEAR, IN ORDER, IT IS ALABAMA, OHIO STATE, LSU, FLORIDA STATE, GEORGIA, USC, MICHIGAN, AUBURN, CLEMSON, AND NOTRE DAME.
THESE TEAMS MADE THE BLUE-CHIP RATIO CUT

Team Blue-Chip Ratio

Alabama 80%
Ohio State 71%
LSU 65%
Florida State 65%
Georgia 63%
USC 63%
Michigan 61%
Auburn 59%
Clemson 56%
Notre Dame 56%

That’s it. Ten teams. There are no real surprises; it’s all bluebloods. This year features the lowest number of teams meeting the 50 percent threshold since I began tracking. Usually there are two or three more.

LINK

quote:

---

Alabama players get higher rankings just for committing to Bama.

---

and we all have seen how overrated Bama has been year after year.

Crawfish anytime should be banned for stupidity