Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Question about Stars with regards to rankings.

Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:47 am
Posted by Random LSU Hero
2014 NFL Survivor Champion (17-0)
Member since Aug 2011
9433 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:47 am
Should a kid's star level be based in relation to every prospect or should it based on his skill set within his position?

Ex: the #1 FB David Ducre is a 3* on rivals. But should he be a 5*FB?

another example is most #1 kickers will max out at 3*, but they are the absolute best at their position in the country. Shouldn't that mean they are a 5* kicker.

It's just seems like team rankings could be skewed when a team signs the #1 kid at certain postions.


I know stars aren't worth much in the grand scheme of things. I simply want yalls opinions. Please dont flame thinking that I live and die by stars lol.
This post was edited on 3/4/14 at 9:48 am
Posted by dgnx6
Baton Rouge
Member since Feb 2006
68377 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:53 am to
I'm just going to say its because those positions aren't valued highly. To LSU they are, but most schools not so much. Plus I guess its hard to project those guys on the next level. Kicker spots don't open up much in the pros. Usually it just seems like the sane recycled names.
Posted by LSUTIGER#1fan
Baton Rouge, Louisiana
Member since Dec 2012
1230 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:59 am to
Technically if they did that lsu would be tough to knock of as the #1 class because we have the 1cb 1ls 1 fb
Posted by redfieldk717
Alec Box
Member since Oct 2011
28117 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 10:02 am to
star ratings are based on NFL draft stock...for instance, a kicker rarely gets drafted no matter how good he is...hence the 3 star ranking. same for fullbacks.

Stars have little to do with how good a player currently is and more to do with how he projects in 4 years in the draft.
Posted by VictoryShipSailor
Member since Dec 2012
136 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:19 am to
quote:

dgnx6:

I'm just going to say its because those positions aren't valued highly. To LSU they are, but most schools not so much. Plus I guess its hard to project those guys on the next level. Kicker spots don't open up much in the pros. Usually it just seems like the sane recycled names.


This. The services' rankings do not value classes well of teams with LSU's style of play and priorities.

quote:

star ratings are based on NFL draft stock...for instance, a kicker rarely gets drafted no matter how good he is...hence the 3 star ranking. same for fullbacks.

Stars have little to do with how good a player currently is and more to do with how he projects in 4 years in the draft.


And this is entirely on point; 5-star recruits are the services' best guess of who will be drafted in the first round of the draft when the recruits come out. A review of how well those guesses have panned out in the past shows they are consistently correct on about 4 out of 32. Sometimes a little better. That performance strikes me as pathetic. So their poor evaluations of teams like LSU comes at the expense of doing an even poorer job achieving their goal of predicting the first round.

Another way of looking at this is that services ignore the team with which the players choose to sign. Their ranking of a player is independent of the team for which he will play. If Ducre signed with aTm, his 3-star FB rating would be an effective 2-star. At LSU, Ducre's 3-star rating is an effective high 4 or even 5.

So take the services with a grain of salt. They are the second best thing we have as recruiting fans. The best thing we have is our coaches' evaluations, which insiders leak out.
Posted by cheesesteak501
The South
Member since Mar 2014
3152 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:25 am to

quote:

Stars have little to do with how good a player currently is and more to do with how he projects in 4 years in the draft.


Is there a link to show thats true. I feel many prospects in high school who are high caliber are very undersized for NFL standards.

Posted by boxcar willie
kenner
Member since Mar 2011
16035 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 11:40 am to
star rankings are based on how much of an impact the recruit will have at the college level relative to the other recruits regardless of position. For example, Ducre is the highest ranked FB but they feel he will have less impact than say the 10th ranked RB who is a 4 star.
Posted by JimmyHDeridderhigh
Boosies free... Now what?
Member since Jul 2013
1171 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 12:33 pm to
quote:

Stars have little to do with how good a player currently is and more to do with how he projects in 4 years in the draft.
Posted by oldschoolgreats
Member since Nov 2012
1902 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 1:01 pm to
kicker are grossly undervalued as a whole, not so much so for fullbacks. the game is in the hands of the field goal kicker a lot of times.
Posted by Bill77379
Spring, TX
Member since Aug 2012
229 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 3:51 pm to
Star ranking does not reflect anything about the NFL at all. Star rankings reflect when the player will be able to contribute to a college team.

For example a 5* player is expected to make meaningful contribution as a freshman.

A high 4* like a Top 100 player may also make a meaningful contribution as a freshman but is expected to make a meaningful contribution in 2nd year.

Lower ranking 4* and top 3* are expected to make a meaningful contribution as a 3rd year and 4th year player.

Since the evaluation and ranking system are less than perfect and it is done before the player is fully physically, emotionally and mentally mature, the results are less than perfect.

The NFL scouts do a complete new evaluation of the potential of a player based on his college playing history and his physical, mental and emotional development after he matures. Nothing about his development or any ratings at the end of HS is considered. This is why many of the lower ranking players become NFL draft choices. It is a whole new ball game by the time a player is 21.
Posted by Suntiger
BR or somewhere else
Member since Feb 2007
32856 posts
Posted on 3/4/14 at 9:24 pm to
Rivals has always said what they base it on. I think most of the other sites are similar.

quote:

The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

Posted by Purple Lion
Member since Feb 2013
633 posts
Posted on 3/5/14 at 9:37 am to
So each of those categories corresponds to a star ranking for rivals, 6.1 being the 5-star?
Posted by CapitalCityTiger
Red Stick
Member since Feb 2011
2705 posts
Posted on 3/7/14 at 3:01 pm to
Hell no, because a lot of FB recruits are players who played RB in High School and just do not have the high end speed or shiftiness of their RB counterpart. They are often talent-inferior and should not be a 5* alongside the likes of a Leonard Fournette. It is totally misleading.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram