A few NON 5 star recruits to watch tonight

[rcrrcr]

It's amazing how people point out a handful of underrated recruits and think the exception is the rule. You play the percentages, it's really not that hard to understand.

exceptions NOT the rule

You want to let a few exceptions make you feel better about our recruiting.. do your thing.

Wrong! Recruiting is the life blood of any school. But coaches can not rely on the star system to evaluate good recruits. To prove this I have went back and looked at rivals 2002-2010 recruiting. I consider someone a success if they start at least one year and contribute two years without quitting or getting kicked off the team. Here are the results:

2 Star Players total 21 Success 8 39%

3 Star Players total 88 Success 35 41%

4 Star Players total 83 Success 41 49.5%

5 Star Players total 20 Success 6 30%


A lot of 5 stars did not pan out, quit, or was removed off the team by the coach.


4 Star players our best but still under 50% success rate! 2 star is higher than 5 star for the Vols. This is Tennessee Luck!

 

[plentygood]

Wrong! Recruiting is the life blood of any school. But coaches can not rely on the star system to evaluate good recruits. To prove this I have went back and looked at rivals 2002-2010 recruiting. I consider someone a success if they start at least one year and contribute two years without quitting or getting kicked off the team. Here are the results:

2 Star Players total 21 Success 8 39%

3 Star Players total 88 Success 35 41%

4 Star Players total 83 Success 41 49.5%

5 Star Players total 20 Success 6 30%


A lot of 5 stars did not pan out, quit, or was removed off the team by the coach.

At last . . . someone who got my point! Thanks

 

[Grude_Dude]

Having a group of Eric berry's would suck

This!

 

[brianlsanders]

Every program has to have those 3star recruits, but you also have to have a few high 4/5 star guys too.

 

[plentygood]

Every program has to have those 3star recruits, but you also have to have a few high 4/5 star guys too.

I agree, but sometimes the only difference between a 2 star and a 5 star is one writers opinion.

 

[brianlsanders]

I agree, but sometimes the only difference between a 2 star and a 5 star is one writers opinion.

I disagree there. Maybe the difference between a 4 star and a 5 star, but not a 2 star and a 5 star.

 

[Orange to the Bay]

It's amazing how people point out a handful of underrated recruits and think the exception is the rule. You play the percentages, it's really not that hard to understand.

exceptions NOT the rule

You want to let a few exceptions make you feel better about our recruiting.. do your thing.

This guy had the best point of the night, which 99gator sort of restated in a way. & all you guys are missing it. It's the law of averages, folks. More great players on avg come out of a group of 4 & 5 star players than a group of 2 & 3. Period.

 

[xpsyclonex2002]

U can have a team full of 5 stars and still suck. If the coaching staff doesn't get them to buy in to the team concept and can actually help those 5 stars perform at a level above their opponent whomever it maybe be they aren't going to be any better than a bunch of 2 stars. GBO!!!

USCw is a prime example. All 4 and 5 star talent with nothing to show for it.

 

[GBOVOLS]

Before we get lots of 5 and 4 star player we have to start winning first. Bottom line not highly rated player wants to committ to a team who has had 3 consecutive sub .500 seasons

 

[pualsline]

I bet a higher percentage of 4 and 5 stars succeed on both college and nfl levels then percentage of 2 and 3 stars...

 

[InVOLuntary]

if you really want to go this route, put a list of programs together that consistently recruits well in comparison to their competition, yet puts a poor product on the field.

GA and FL come to mind

 

[crusse10]

USCw is a prime example. All 4 and 5 star talent with nothing to show for it.

Last year, if it weren't for sanctions, they'd have played for the Pac 12 Championship

 

[orangebloodgmc]

I bet a higher percentage of 4 and 5 stars succeed on both college and nfl levels then percentage of 2 and 3 stars...

... and yet some 2's (and especially 3s) do have success. You can bet that if an SEC coach takes a 2-star, he will have a pretty good reason for taking that one, pretty certainly one of the better 2-stars, not just reaching into the toy box of 2-star players and randomly drawing one. :question:

Name this 2-star ... 5-10, 235, 4.6/40 white boy runnin back in the SEC, ran for 1100 yds and 12 tds his senior season in SEC ...

 

[crusse10]

... and yet some 2's (and especially 3s) do have success. You can bet that if an SEC coach takes a 2-star, he will have a pretty good reason for taking that one, pretty certainly one of the better 2-stars, not just reaching into the toy box of 2-star players and randomly drawing one. :question:

Name this 2-star ... 5-10, 235, 4.6/40 white boy runnin back in the SEC, ran for 1100 yds and 12 tds his senior season in SEC ...

Probably Jacob Hester

 

[plentygood]

This guy had the best point of the night, which 99gator sort of restated in a way. & all you guys are missing it. It's the law of averages, folks. More great players on avg come out of a group of 4 & 5 star players than a group of 2 & 3. Period.

I agree, I was just saying that it's not the end of the world if you end up with a 3 star QB instead of the 5 star you wanted.

 

[crusse10]

I agree, I was just saying that it's not the end of the world if you end up with a 3 star QB instead of the 5 star you wanted.

Again, this is the exception, not the rule

19 times out of 20 I'd take the 5* I want instead of the 3* for whom I settled.

 

[87Vol]

Why you so mad?

He's probably mad because our recruiting absolutely sucks and Butchy is showing very little early sign that he can recruit at the level necessary for us to compete in the SEC.

Beating out Ball State for low level 3 star guys or stealing guys from Cincinnati ain't gonna cut it. NO IFS ANDS OR BUTS PERIOD !!!

 

[Tenacguy50]

opcorn:

 

[SSVol]

Star ratings are a scouting service's opinion based on a combination of performance, inherent talent, and physical attributes. Size and speed are pretty objective. Performance is objective, but is often governed by factors outside the player's control (e.g. wide receiver who can catch everything thrown at him, but has no quarterback who can throw). Talent is very subjective.

When physically elite players, with talent, play at schools where they are coached to their potential, they end up as 4 and 5 stars. But what happens when they are not coached well? Or play on teams where they cannot demonstrate their ability? How are they ranked?

Good coaches see potential and develop it. As a result, they win. Eventually they get to add some elite members to their team. Some coaches can't win with 4 and 5 stars (see: Kiffin). Other coaches can develop talent (see: Strong). Our currently coaching staff has demonstrated that they are far closer to a Strong, Kelly, or Petrino than they are to a Dooley or Kiffin. It will be fine guys. Honestly.

And for those that think that 3 stars have no role: The top 10 on rivals is currently 6% 5 star, 55% 4 star, and 40% 3 star. The current number 10 is only 68% 3 star.

Put down the straight razor, and step back from the ledge...we will be fine.

 

[plentygood]

Again, this is the exception, not the rule

19 times out of 20 I'd take the 5* I want instead of the 3* for whom I settled.

Again, I agree! The 5 is the one you should want!

 

[plentygood]

Star ratings are a scouting service's opinion based on a combination of performance, inherent talent, and physical attributes. Size and speed are pretty objective. Performance is objective, but is often governed by factors outside the player's control (e.g. wide receiver who can catch everything thrown at him, but has no quarterback who can throw). Talent is very subjective.

When physically elite players, with talent, play at schools where they are coached to their potential, they end up as 4 and 5 stars. But what happens when they are not coached well? Or play on teams where they cannot demonstrate their ability? How are they ranked?

Good coaches see potential and develop it. As a result, they win. Eventually they get to add some elite members to their team. Some coaches can't win with 4 and 5 stars (see: Kiffin). Other coaches can develop talent (see: Strong). Our currently coaching staff has demonstrated that they are far closer to a Strong, Kelly, or Petrino than they are to a Dooley or Kiffin. It will be fine guys. Honestly.

And for those that think that 3 stars have no role: The top 10 on rivals is currently 6% 5 star, 55% 4 star, and 40% 3 star. The current number 10 is only 68% 3 star.

Put down the straight razor, and step back from the ledge...we will be fine.

BRAVO :clapping: Said it better than I did. Good coaching is more Important than a 5 star ranking by sports writer Joe Bagodonuts!

 

[99gator]

GA and FL come to mind

Just for fun, i ran the numbers for these two schools in the last 10 years.

They are 7th and 8th nationally in wins and are averaging just short of ten wins a year during that stretch.

So, yeah, they arent really doing much

 

[87Vol]

Star ratings are a scouting service's opinion based on a combination of performance, inherent talent, and physical attributes. Size and speed are pretty objective. Performance is objective, but is often governed by factors outside the player's control (e.g. wide receiver who can catch everything thrown at him, but has no quarterback who can throw). Talent is very subjective.

When physically elite players, with talent, play at schools where they are coached to their potential, they end up as 4 and 5 stars. But what happens when they are not coached well? Or play on teams where they cannot demonstrate their ability? How are they ranked?

Good coaches see potential and develop it. As a result, they win. Eventually they get to add some elite members to their team. Some coaches can't win with 4 and 5 stars (see: Kiffin). Other coaches can develop talent (see: Strong). Our currently coaching staff has demonstrated that they are far closer to a Strong, Kelly, or Petrino than they are to a Dooley or Kiffin. It will be fine guys. Honestly.

And for those that think that 3 stars have no role: The top 10 on rivals is currently 6% 5 star, 55% 4 star, and 40% 3 star. The current number 10 is only 68% 3 star.

Put down the straight razor, and step back from the ledge...we will be fine.

The teams that are consistently competing for championships in the SEC (and that is the key, it's the SEC) are filled with 4 & 5 star guys with some 3 stars mixed in. That is an irrefutable fact. If we aren't getting comparable talent we won't be competing for the SEC. Getting mostly 3 star guys (or less) with just a couple of 4 star guys mixed in ain't gonna get the job done PERIOD !!! Butchy has got to start doing much much better than he has shown thus far. That's all there is to it !!!

 

[thebjd]

USCw is a prime example. All 4 and 5 star talent with nothing to show for it.

Bad example. They were the best team last decade and under pretty heavy sanctions now.

 

[thebjd]

... and yet some 2's (and especially 3s) do have success. You can bet that if an SEC coach takes a 2-star, he will have a pretty good reason for taking that one, pretty certainly one of the better 2-stars, not just reaching into the toy box of 2-star players and randomly drawing one. :question:

Name this 2-star ... 5-10, 235, 4.6/40 white boy runnin back in the SEC, ran for 1100 yds and 12 tds his senior season in SEC ...

Were 2 star athletes blocking for him.