Do Star Ratings REALLY Matter That Much?

#26
#26
droski said:
i completely agree he'd probably not pick oregon, but i very much doubt oregon woudl turn down the #1 recruit in the country (which i believe peyton was out of high school). florida took brantley. good coaches adjust to their talent.
Click to expand...

not that it matters but I believe he was #2 behind Josh Booty
 
#27
#27
MaehlMan said:
Yeah, and our offense is way more run-oriented than Florida's. Despite that, the Brantley experiment in Florida was a disaster. I'm fairly sure that they wouldn't offer him. They'd probably tell him something like "Kid, you're not going to be successful here. Don't squander your talent playing in this offense. Go play in a pro-style. Best of luck to you."
Click to expand...

Remember, Kiffin didn't offer Cam Newton because he didn't fit the offensive system.
 
#29
#29
MaehlMan said:
Yeah, and our offense is way more run-oriented than Florida's.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. Florida had a top 5 rushing attack in both 07 and 08. The attack has generally remained the same up until this season, when both Jeff Demps and Chris Rainey spent a hefty portion of the season suspended or injured.

Despite that, the Brantley experiment in Florida was a disaster. I'm fairly sure that they wouldn't offer him. They'd probably tell him something like "Kid, you're not going to be successful here. Don't squander your talent playing in this offense. Go play in a pro-style. Best of luck to you."
Click to expand...

And that's more the coaching staffs problem than it is Brantley's. Brantley likely would have been successful under Dan Mullen.
 
#30
#30
MaehlMan said:
The guy who runs the Oregon rivals.com site noted today that Oregon is in the National Title game with 5 starters that were 4 star players, with the rest being 3 star players and below.

That being said, does this help change perceptions about star ratings and their worth? (Especially if Oregon wins.)
Click to expand...
Star ratings matter to people who have nothing to do and have money that is burning a hoe in their pocket. Other than that they are worthless to the success of a college football program.
 
#31
#31
Tux said:
Star ratings matter to people who have nothing to do and have money that is burning a hoe in their pocket. Other than that they are worthless to the success of a college football program.
Click to expand...

then why does every div 1a program subscribe to every recruiting service?
 
#34
#34
BigPapaVol said:
he left Newton alone because he knew the kid was a POS.
Click to expand...
I'd say the claim that he didn't fit the system is valid. It's hard to imagine Cam leading UT to any championships, so I'd say that's not worth changing your system. I'd rather have our current situation now with a quarterback for the future than a situation where we have Cam for one average season and aren't sure about the quarterback going forward.
 
#35
#35
Tux said:
Star ratings matter to people who have nothing to do and have money that is burning a hoe in their pocket. Other than that they are worthless to the success of a college football program.
Click to expand...

i think you have to take penecillin for that.
 
#36
#36
BasketvolsFan said:
Remember, Kiffin didn't offer Cam Newton because he didn't fit the offensive system.
Click to expand...

How was TN's offensive system that much different than Auburns in 2009? Chris Todd was a passing QB who didn't rush for one yard in 2009 then Gus Malzahn changed the gameplan to showcase Cam's running skills this year.

And remember Bear Bryant even switched to the wishbone offense in the early '70's after Namath & Stabler left because the wishbone was a better fit for the players he had.
 
Last edited:
#37
#37
If one is so inclined to take on a guy like Newton in spite of his character flaws, they change the system to fit him.
 
#38
#38
I'll put it likes this. The only people who claim star rankings don't matter are fans of teams who fail to sign elite classes.
 
#39
#39
Bumi said:
I'll put it likes this. The only people who claim star rankings don't matter are fans of teams who fail to sign elite classes.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt these rankings services' ability to identify freakish athletes are quite obviously going to be studs in college. I just love it when I see sites like this rating Maehl as a 2 star DB and Masoli as a 2 star QB. What do they really know?
 
#40
#40
MaehlMan said:
I don't doubt these rankings services' ability to identify freakish athletes are quite obviously going to be studs in college. I just love it when I see sites like this rating Maehl as a 2 star DB and Masoli as a 2 star QB. What do they really know?
Click to expand...

They now that Maehl and Masoli will be hard pressed to make an NFL roster. :ermm:
 
#41
#41
Bumi said:
They now that Maehl and Masoli will be hard pressed to make an NFL roster. :ermm:
Click to expand...

That has exactly what to do with their performance as a college football player?

One example that I clearly remember was Prince Amukamara. He was an unheralded 3 star recruit coming out of high school. He's now the top CB draft prospect in the draft next year.
 
#42
#42
There are aberrations, but saying that recruiting class rankings and sustained success don't correlate is patently false.
 
#43
#43
milohimself said:
There are aberrations, but saying that recruiting class rankings and sustained success don't correlate is patently false.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just think it's not sensible to evaluate a team's talent and potential solely based on star ratings. Obviously, if you pull in a class that is nothing but 2 star players, you probably aren't going to be very good. However, a top ten recruiting class doesn't guarantee you great success.
 
#44
#44
There are exceptions... Your Ducks are one, but how many years would that group honestly make the BCSMNCG? Not very many, they have been benefactors of a relatively weak Pac-10 and a generally down year overall in college football.

Of course, there have been teams loaded with talent that flop and don't even win their conference.

But generally, regularly competing in your conference, making major bowls, etc. means pulling in top classes. In the Big Tweleven, Big XII, SEC and Pac-10, you can't "system" your way into that kind of success with a bunch of 2* and 3*, with the exception of lucking into a conference title once or twice a decade.
 
#45
#45
milohimself said:
There are exceptions... Your Ducks are one, but how many years would that group honestly make the BCSMNCG? Not very many, they have been benefactors of a relatively weak Pac-10 and a generally down year overall in college football.

Of course, there have been teams loaded with talent that flop and don't even win their conference.

But generally, regularly competing in your conference, making major bowls, etc. means pulling in top classes. In the Big Tweleven, Big XII, SEC and Pac-10, you can't "system" your way into that kind of success with a bunch of 2* and 3*, with the exception of lucking into a conference title once or twice a decade.
Click to expand...

We can throw around hypotheticals all day. What if Stoerner didn't fumble in '98? What if Texas doesn't make that field goal in the '09 Big XII championship game?

I don't care what type of "year" for a BCS conference it is. You have to be one hell of a team with a combination of talent, focus, and coaching to go undefeated.
 
#46
#46
milohimself said:
^ And steroids.

It doesn't determine how a team does in each and every case, i.e. finding diamonds in the rough, or finding guys who fit a system a'la Chip Kelly, but the evidence is pretty apparent that top notch recruiting classes lead to great successes, and mediocre recruiting classes tend to lead to mediocrity.
Click to expand...

Yep. The best teams are generally made up of the best players. The best players in college are generally made up of a group of the best players in high school. Star ratings, while sometimes individually imperfect, are a decent overall measure of the best players in high school.

Take a look at the recent national champions and the recruiting rankings that built those teams:

2009:Alabama, ranked #1 in '08, #1 in '09, and #10 in 07
2008:Florida, #1 in '07, #2 in '06
2007:LSU #1 in '03, #2 in '04, #7 in '06
2006: Florida, #2 in '03, #7 in '04
2005: Texas, #1 in '02, #10 in '04

That is as far back as is easy to find in the Rivals rankings, but it is pretty clear that the teams winning crystal footballs are the teams ranked by the recruiting services as bringing in the best talent.
 
#47
#47
MaehlMan said:
We can throw around hypotheticals all day. What if Stoerner didn't fumble in '98? What if Texas doesn't make that field goal in the '09 Big XII championship game?

I don't care what type of "year" for a BCS conference it is. You have to be one hell of a team with a combination of talent, focus, and coaching to go undefeated.
Click to expand...

Or you can play a weak schedule.
 
#48
#48
MaehlMan said:
That has exactly what to do with their performance as a college football player?
Click to expand...

Rivals projections are exclusive to the collegiate level. They do, however, cater to them.

Also, collegiate teams who field eventual NFL players tend to be pretty damn good.

One example that I clearly remember was Prince Amukamara. He was an unheralded 3 star recruit coming out of high school. He's now the top CB draft prospect in the draft next year.
Click to expand...

Exception to the rule.
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top