- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Star Rankings are BS
Posted on 1/10/10 at 9:12 pm to Rockerbraves
Posted on 1/10/10 at 9:12 pm to Rockerbraves
Well of course it isn't an exact science. But do you know what every BCS champion since 2003 has had in common? They were top 3 in the average star rating directly before that time period.
0
Posted on 1/10/10 at 11:01 pm to Rockerbraves
quote:
You mean measurables?
No idea what you are asking.
Posted on 1/10/10 at 11:04 pm to GeauxGriz
quote:
When you watch the AAA game, I have a real hard time seeing where the experts pull their ratings from.
Yeah, watching one all star game on TV = studying film on players for many year, interviewing coaches etc.
I love how people think if 100% of the 5* don't pan out it shows the rankings are wrong.
Posted on 1/10/10 at 11:41 pm to CRAZY 4 LSU
the star system is an attempt to evaluate.
some players improve other time and some dont.
Some two star guys are taken in the early rounds.
Most are not.
Someone took the time a few years ago to post the SEC west correlated to the rating system. They provided stats showing the correlation of stars to finishing at the top of the SEC west.
It was not a 100% sure thing, but having the highest rating for a class was predictive of excellence on the field.
some players improve other time and some dont.
Some two star guys are taken in the early rounds.
Most are not.
Someone took the time a few years ago to post the SEC west correlated to the rating system. They provided stats showing the correlation of stars to finishing at the top of the SEC west.
It was not a 100% sure thing, but having the highest rating for a class was predictive of excellence on the field.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 2:40 am to ottothewise
The 4 and 5 Star guys are really good, get early interest and offers and get the Stars. Beyond that, they are a joke. There is a receiver, Maurice Harris, with offers all over the country, yet no STARS. I think Scout is more fair than Rivals, but both systems are terrible. Lots of kids with 0 stars have simply never been ranked and are better than guys with 2 or 3 Stars, or even 4 sometimes. The services don't have time to rank every recruit..they deal with thousands. Last year Rivals gave B. Bailey 3 Stars, Scout 0 (well 1 star, but everyone Scout thinks deserves admitance into their database gets one Star). Look at the LA QB's list in both and you see many differences....in many cases 1, 2 or 3 Stars means nothing....very subjective. Taylor Bullock, who I think is a Top recruit QB/Athlete in LA this year, had offers from LA Tech, Tulane, ULL, Rice and others, but has 0 Stars. Coaches don't refer to these sites at all....they are strickly fan sites.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:05 am to metafour
quote:Was refering to your comment that the practices mean alot more than the game itself. I assumed you meant things like what they do at combines like timing the 40 etc.
No idea what you are asking.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:20 am to GeauxGriz
quote:every single team that has won a BCS national championship disagrees with this
Star Rankings are BS
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:34 am to GeauxGriz
yea, ranking players is not a science. also, ranking a player in high school does not necessarily translate to his worth as a player in college. it is a different game. overall, it is one tool and one only. a players measurables and coaches evaluation (high school and the college looking at him) are also important. the stats reveal 5 stars have a better chance to succeed in college than 4 stars and so forth, but the difference isn't as marked as you would think. also, things like grades, character and desire are very important. some kids are winners and some just don't have that heart. recruiting is a crapshoot. however, teams that sign mostly 4 and 5 star guys are generally better than teams that sign mostly 3 star and 2 star guys.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 8:46 am to LSU GrandDad
I agreed with your comments until you said "things like grades, character are very important" While they are important they arn't VERY important.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:16 am to Rockerbraves
I think the whole star things and fascination with recruiting is directly attributible to the NCAA football games on playstation, etc...
I also think that's the reason why when a player does not make a huge impact by his sophomore year he is considered a bust. Just my .02
It's just another scheme for somebody to make a buck on, and to give something for folks on message boards to talk about.
I also think that's the reason why when a player does not make a huge impact by his sophomore year he is considered a bust. Just my .02
It's just another scheme for somebody to make a buck on, and to give something for folks on message boards to talk about.
Posted on 1/11/10 at 9:22 am to redwar
Go look at the recruiting rankings the last 10 years, then look at who consistently plays in BCS bowls and NC's....I promise you you'll see a lot of the same names.
It's not perfect, guys get over/under rated some times......But in large part they're right.
It's not perfect, guys get over/under rated some times......But in large part they're right.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News