- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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: Too many 4 stars rating are being handed out
Posted on 1/9/23 at 1:15 pm to astonvilla
Posted on 1/9/23 at 1:15 pm to astonvilla
quote:This is a stupid take. This is football not basketball. You're telling me that within a high school senior year period there can't be at least 350-400 really good players?
i dont have the exact stats but 4 stars that end up being a bust seems quite a few. it should just be restricted to 100 real quality 4 stars. if 5 star is elite, 4 star should be very good only and the rest 3 stars
This is an excerpt from a 2016 SB nation article on the percentage of star rated kids in a given senior class
quote:even at nearly 400 students it's barely over 0.10 of a percent.
The NCAA said in 2013 there were 310,000-some seniors playing football. Here’s how long their odds are to reach various recruiting ratings, using class of 2018 data from Rivals, if we settle on 300,000 football-playing seniors as a fair estimate.
30 five-stars, or 0.01 percent of the class
380 four-stars, or 0.13 percent of the class
1,328 three-stars, or 0.44 percent of the class
1,859 two-stars, or 0.62 percent of the class
296,403 unrated, or 98.88 percent of the class
Sure a lot of kids will be overated, but a lot will be underrated too. Do you know how many 3 star kids become stars either as freshman or redshirt freshman?
0
Posted on 1/9/23 at 1:17 pm to lynxcat
Now here’s a name I haven’t seen in forever.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 1:18 pm to BigSlick
quote:
I've always doubted that 95% of fans could tell the difference between a 4* and 5* watching both in a live game.
I mean it depends. Not all 4* (or 5*, even) are created equal, and it's not as if the universe conspires to make precisely 32 high school kids per year with a certain level of physicality and then drops a full, easily-distinguishable tier down to make the next ~350 kids. There's obviously very little distinction between the 32nd best player in a class and the 33rd best.
All that being said, though, if you took an average 5* and an average 4* (of the same position and close to the same distribution of polish vs tools), I actually DO think most people would be able to tell them apart, even without a trained eye.
This actually relates to a theory i have about prospect evaluation. It kind of relates to a bell-curve idea. I think that at the low end, the gap between a total non-prospect and a potential prospect can be pretty easily discerned even with an untrained eye, just by seeing "what they look like". I think the same is true for the very tip top ends--the top 20 or so guys in a class generally just LOOK different. You don't have to be a trained scout to be able to pick out those guys. It's really the big chunk of guys in the middle for whom you need to know what you're looking for.
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 1:19 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 1:51 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
They just follow the offer lists, Group then together, then rank. It why you don’t see many G5 players as 4 stars. Despite many being 1st rd picks every year.
Every single recruiting site has their own evaluators also. They just don’t go off of offers and commitments. They usually match up because it is the same caliber of people that evaluate recruits on staffs. Some guys would prefer to evaluate for a website than deal with the volatility of being on coaching staffs.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 2:18 pm to geauxtigers33
quote:
They just don’t go off of offers and commitments.
Yes they pretty much do. And they should because it’s fool proof & safe.
And underclassmen evals are mainly through word of mouth. That’s why most sites only rank like 10-12 JR’s at the moment. If they did their own evals they’d have a better idea on who to rank. But those lists won’t grow until summer camps & offers start to roll in.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 4:13 pm to Cadello
quote:
Cadello
I'm more of a lurker on the RB now. Decade ago...I was knee deep in the gossip
Posted on 1/9/23 at 4:29 pm to dstone12
quote:
I’d suggest trusting Brian Kelly. If he offered a 2 star, be fine with it.
Agree, he and his staff seem to do a better job than paid scouts. They do a great job with player development.
We got the 3* TE, the 5* went to aTm. No where close on the production of those two.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:38 pm to astonvilla
I think if you look at the numbers of how many high school football players there are in the US in any given year, and then you look at how many 4 stars there are……you realize that a 4 star rating is really quite elite and selective
Posted on 1/9/23 at 7:53 pm to lynxcat
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:47 pm to Tigershine
quote:
The star system should not be related to draft position at all. It should all be related to their potential in college, because that's what matters.
They use NFL draft results as a benchmark for a couple of reasons:
1. Teams with a lot of draft selections tend to perform well on the field, since players who go pro are usually better than those who do not.
2. Draft results are a fairly easy, objective measure to grade against. In fact, I don’t really know what else they could use. Seriously - how else can you possibly determine whether the services’ evaluations of individual players were “good” in a given year without it being entirely subjective?
Ultimately it’s a matter of semantics. The services are trying to project college success, it’s just that they are using the NFL draft as a benchmark.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 8:57 pm to LifeAquatic
quote:
This actually relates to a theory i have about prospect evaluation. It kind of relates to a bell-curve idea. I think that at the low end, the gap between a total non-prospect and a potential prospect can be pretty easily discerned even with an untrained eye, just by seeing "what they look like". I think the same is true for the very tip top ends--the top 20 or so guys in a class generally just LOOK different. You don't have to be a trained scout to be able to pick out those guys. It's really the big chunk of guys in the middle for whom you need to know what you're looking for.
I think this is absolutely true. There’s always a bell curve. In the case of CFB recruiting, we are only seeing right half of the curve (since the guys on the left half don’t even get interest from college programs). But the principle still holds.
It’s a lot easier to identify a freak athlete who is just different, as you said, than to project how an average P5 athlete will develop with good coaching.
Posted on 1/9/23 at 10:23 pm to astonvilla
Star ratings are potential, not a rating for how good they will be.
This post was edited on 1/9/23 at 10:25 pm
Posted on 1/9/23 at 11:08 pm to Tigershine
quote:
The star system should not be related to draft position at all. It should all be related to their potential in college, because that's what matters
That's not the path recruiting sites chose to take. They've been very clear since the beginning that they forecast for the NFL not college. Forecasting them purely for college takes into account far too many factors and if based on college potential this thread would be mentioning 5-600 4stars instead of 3. Clyde Helaire was a star for 1 year in college. Based on that 1 year should we consider him a 5* though he rarely touched the field for the 4 years prior and it took the perfect system and situation to make it possible?
The fact of the matter is the star system is a sham. It has no true applicable standard. If these rankings are judged on accuracy long term wouldn't it make sense to give a true rating instead of an arbitrary one based on a random number chosen prior? Scout used to limit 4* to their top 300 randomly making #301 a 3* even if he's an equal or possibly better talent than #300. Same goes for this top 32 5* number. #33 is penalized based purely on slotting not evaluation. The rankings are just opinions based off different standards depending who the evaluator is. Human error is to be expected but not programmed in.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 6:57 am to SportTiger1
quote:What? Both played a lot in LSUs system this year & both seemed to play well.
does not take much to see the difference in a Harold Perkins vs a demario tolan
While Perk40 got a lot of press (& deservedly so) BUT Tolan actually picked up the Defensive system quicker which allowed him to play the MLB position while Perkins played EDGE (just had 2 “Get the QB”) almost exclusively.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 7:04 am to lynxcat
quote:
Run those percentages versus a randomized model and it’s clear they have predictive insight.
Obviously they are better than picking high school kids at random. But let’s also not pretent what they are doing is rocket science, you see a kid who is twice the size of everyone else built like a tank running over/by everyone and you give him some stars.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 12:24 pm to bayou85
Wtf?
Posted on 1/10/23 at 1:32 pm to BigSlick
That’s because 90% of the time the only difference in a 4* and a 5* is the maturity of the player and the drive of the player to be a badass. At least the players we get here at LSU. That’s why I don’t mind landing a 4* or 3* player who has similar athletic ability but also has those confident traits to be a bad arse out there. Who loves contact, wants to be the baddest dude and takes failure well. That’s not always easy to find.
There are so many players out there who have all the athleticism of a 5* player who are simply lazy, are too young to know what they can do, or just don’t care and go through the motions.
I see that all the damn time, especially from Louisiana. That’s why if you have the right coach here at LSU, it’s one of the best places to be.
There are so many players out there who have all the athleticism of a 5* player who are simply lazy, are too young to know what they can do, or just don’t care and go through the motions.
I see that all the damn time, especially from Louisiana. That’s why if you have the right coach here at LSU, it’s one of the best places to be.
Posted on 1/10/23 at 1:42 pm to Coach C
quote:
Wtf?
How good they could be vs how good they will be.
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News