'19 FL DE Khris Bogle (UF signee)

[titansvolsfaninga]

You’re right but a lot of recruiting is just a guess. Maybe it should come with a disclaimer saying that it is for entertainment purposes only.

Kind of like fortune tellers or truck stop condom dispensers in the restroom.....

 

[85SugarVol]

You’re right but a lot of recruiting is just a guess. Maybe it should come with a disclaimer saying that it is for entertainment purposes only.

It’s not a “guess” as much as it is a predictive model, in a sense.

The data has been diced and sliced many many times over the years. The most in-depth analysis I have seen was on a 10 year data set of Rivals Rankings.

The rate of collegiate “success” is greater the higher the Star rating.

5Star - 52%
4Star - 33%
3Star - 12%
2Star - 1%

 

[Devo182]

Back when CMU had a decent program, they hired Bonamego. If Botch could win there, that speaks volumes of Bonamego's ineptitude.

Enos bombed there bad after CBJ. Never understood the Enos love.

 

[1974Vol]

It’s not a “guess” as much as it is a predictive model, in a sense.

The data has been diced and sliced many many times over the years. The most in-depth analysis I have seen was on a 10 year data set of Rivals Rankings.

The rate of collegiate “success” is greater the higher the Star rating.

5Star - 52%
4Star - 33%
3Star - 12%
2Star - 1%

How is "success" defined? I would think "success" at the college level would be becoming a starter but surely more than 52% of 5 stars become starters on D1 rosters.

 

[85SugarVol]

How is "success" defined? I would think "success" at the college level would be becoming a starter but surely more than 52% of 5 stars become starters on D1 rosters.

There were multiple thresholds that could trigger “success” in that analysis

Multi-year Starter
All Conference Team
All American Team
NFL Draft Pick
Make an NFL Roster

5 Stars have about a 50% success rate according to the analysis.

Point is, you’re better off rolling the dice with 4&5 Stars than you are with 2&3 Stars.

 

[1974Vol]

There were multiple thresholds that could trigger “success” in that analysis

Multi-year Starter
All Conference Team
All American Team
NFL Draft Pick
Make an NFL Roster

5 Stars have about a 50% success rate according to the analysis.

Point is, you’re better off rolling the dice with 4&5 Stars than you are with 2&3 Stars.

Would agree with that hypothesis but am surprised at how low the "success" rates are across all star ratings. The stats I have seen break down like this >1% of college D1 players are rated at 5 stars, 11% at 4 stars, 38% 3 stars, 50% 2 stars or less. So the overwhelming majority of college players are not successful; by my calculations only about 13% would be considered successful by this analysis.

 

[sjt18]

How is "success" defined? I would think "success" at the college level would be becoming a starter but surely more than 52% of 5 stars become starters on D1 rosters.

It can't just be starters. The majority of starters across Power 5 are 3* or lower. The numbers are even more overwhelming if you include all FBS. There are over 3000 starters. IIRC, Rivals awards less than 500 players with 4/5*. Not all 4/5* will be starters on any given day.

 

[1974Vol]

It can't just be starters. The majority of starters across Power 5 are 3* or lower. The numbers are even more overwhelming if you include all FBS. There are over 3000 starters. IIRC, Rivals awards less than 500 players with 4/5*. Not all 4/5* will be starters on any given day.

Yeah my point is that's a pretty high bar to be considered to be "successful". SugarVol outlined what his analytics considered successful and by my calculations only 13% of college scholarship players make it to "successful".

 

[Sleegro]

Would agree with that hypothesis but am surprised at how low the "success" rates are across all star ratings. The stats I have seen break down like this >1% of college D1 players are rated at 5 stars, 11% at 4 stars, 38% 3 stars, 50% 2 stars or less. So the overwhelming majority of college players are not successful; by my calculations only about 13% would be considered successful by this analysis.

It really Bogles the mind to think about.

 

[85SugarVol]

Would agree with that hypothesis but am surprised at how low the "success" rates are across all star ratings. The stats I have seen break down like this >1% of college D1 players are rated at 5 stars, 11% at 4 stars, 38% 3 stars, 50% 2 stars or less. So the overwhelming majority of college players are not successful; by my calculations only about 13% would be considered successful by this analysis.

There are literally 1000’s of kids every year.

Roughly:
5Star - 35
4Star - 200

There’s no way 11% of the D1 population is 4Stars. They may only be 4-5% of each class. 5Stars less than 1%

 

[Sleegro]

There are literally 1000’s of kids every year.

Roughly:
5Star - 35
4Star - 200

There’s no way 11% of the D1 population is 4Stars. They may only be 4-5% of each class. 5Stars less than 1%

So their measure of success has to be some convoluted version of how much they lived up to their rankings. Like % of 5 stars that are all American, 4 stars that are all conference, 3 stars that are starters or something like that. Obviously that is way to simplistic though.

 

[85SugarVol]

So their measure of success has to be some convoluted version of how much they lived up to their rankings. Like % of 5 stars that are all American, 4 stars that are all conference, 3 stars that are starters or something like that. Obviously that is way to simplistic though.

Sort of. But it is the same measure of “success” across the board.

So out of 1500 3Stars every year, approximately 11% “make it”.

Which is a large number in aggregate each year, but a relatively small %

 

[Sleegro]

Sort of. But it is the same measure of “success” across the board.

So out of 1500 3Stars every year, approximately 11% “make it”.

Which is a large number in aggregate each year, but a relatively small %

So a large percentage of the players that "make it" are 3 stars then?

 

[sjt18]

There are literally 1000’s of kids every year.

Roughly:
5Star - 35
4Star - 200

There’s no way 11% of the D1 population is 4Stars. They may only be 4-5% of each class. 5Stars less than 1%

There are 11,000 to 12,000 players on FBS rosters at a full 85. If there are 235 4/5* grades awarded each year then that's roughly 8.5% without counting the 5 year players.

The vast majority though will go to a P-5 school. There are currently 64 of those... or 5,440 players @ 85 per team. Based only on a 4 year cycle of 235 players per year that comes to around 17%... not counting those who completely wash out. So somewhere around 15% or 13 players of players on the "average" P5 roster are 4/5* players according to the recruiting sites.

 

[sjt18]

So a large percentage of the players that "make it" are 3 stars then?

Last time I took the time to check, over half those taken in the NFL draft were rated 3* or lower. Might not have been a typical year though.

Even with the study... 5* only give you a 50% success rate... and there aren't many of them.

Better to trust the paid consultants used by the big programs... and let the recruiting sites sell subscriptions.

 

[85SugarVol]

So a large percentage of the players that "make it" are 3 stars then?

Exactly. It’s a numbers game.

1000’s & 1000’s of 2&3 Stars every year to choose from.

Only about 250 Blue Chip players every year.

You can find 2&3 Star players, but the “hit rate” is much lower.

 

[Catbone]

Statistically, stars matter. They just do.

 

[85SugarVol]

Last time I took the time to check, over half those taken in the NFL draft were rated 3* or lower. Might not have been a typical year though.

Even with the study... 5* only give you a 50% success rate... and there aren't many of them.

Better to trust the paid consultants used by the big programs... and let the recruiting sites sell subscriptions.

5Stars are a 50-50 proposition, yes.

I’ll take those odds over the others though.

 

[85SugarVol]

Statistically, stars matter. They just do.

Yes, especially in the aggregate at the Class level.

 

[ChismsHeadband]

VolNation is to explaining star ratings as NFL announcers are to explaining the difference between "call is confirmed" and "call stands".

If they can't pick it up by now, leave 'em behind.

 

[drylo]

Exactly. It’s a numbers game.

1000’s & 1000’s of 2&3 Stars every year to choose from.

Only about 250 Blue Chip players every year.

You can find 2&3 Star players, but the “hit rate” is much lower.

As I said earlier in the thread, it is clearly correct that the recruiting sites are doing better than blind chance at predicting success (as they should, given the technology and resources available to evaluate talent today). However, it is somewhat astonishing that, after all the evaluations, these sites narrow down a list of the top ~30 high school players in the country and half of them (!) are never even able to become entrenched starters in college. Meanwhile, they completely whiff on identifying guys like Khalil Mack and Antonio Brown.

At the end of the day, if JC Shurburtt was any good at spotting NFL talent, he’d be working in an NFL front office making bank instead of sitting in his basement whining about Crouch going to UT.

Edit: Just to be crystal clear, I’m not suggesting that “stars don’t matter” or that I want a class full of 2-stars.

 

[Sleegro]

Exactly. It’s a numbers game.

1000’s & 1000’s of 2&3 Stars every year to choose from.

Only about 250 Blue Chip players every year.

You can find 2&3 Star players, but the “hit rate” is much lower.

So 3 stars aren't necessarily worse than 4 and 5 stars, it's just that the recruiting sites don't have as much confidence in the projections of their success. So it's definitely encouraging to land the higher rated guys but it doesn't mean we should chief on every 3 star just because the sites assigned less confidence points to them. Especially if the current coaching staff has a track record of being good at player evaluations. Just thinking out loud. I'd rather get higher rated guys too but I don't get mad when we sign lower rated guys.

 

[StoVol]

So 3 stars aren't necessarily worse than 4 and 5 stars, it's just that the recruiting sites don't have as much confidence in the projections of their success. So it's definitely encouraging to land the higher rated guys but it doesn't mean we should chief on every 3 star just because the sites assigned less confidence points to them. Especially if the current coaching staff has a track record of being good at player evaluations. Just thinking out loud. I'd rather get higher rated guys too but I don't get mad when we sign lower rated guys.

Confidence points is a good way to put it. Most of these sites start with all state lists from the top 5 classifications or so and follow the offers of big time programs

 

[SSVol]

Statistically, stars matter. They just do.

Probably more accurate to say that professional evaluation matters. Given that the best effort of the services is only 50% at the extreme, that would suggest room for coaches (also professional evaluators) to have differing opinions. There is a reason that there are decent numbers of 4* with weak offer lists, and decent numbers of 3* with strong offer lists. Coached saying "not so fast..."

 

[85SugarVol]

So 3 stars aren't necessarily worse than 4 and 5 stars, it's just that the recruiting sites don't have as much confidence in the projections of their success. So it's definitely encouraging to land the higher rated guys but it doesn't mean we should chief on every 3 star just because the sites assigned less confidence points to them. Especially if the current coaching staff has a track record of being good at player evaluations. Just thinking out loud. I'd rather get higher rated guys too but I don't get mad when we sign lower rated guys.

I think it’s more accurate to say that you can pull “great” players from all Star levels, but statistically you are more likely to find success fishing for 4&5’s.

For every JJ Watt, there are 7,000 more 2Stars that never did anything remarkable.