NFL 1st Rounders and their CFB recruiting ranking

[NashVol11]

Solid logic, but you left out the quality factor. If Bill Gates were in a college class of 2,000, his chances of being "most-likely-to-succeed" wouldn't be 1/2,000, it's be much higher, given his obvious talents. So 5-stars should, therefore, be more likely to attain top ranking, if the ranking system were accurate.

And they are. That's my point.

Say there are 10 3*s and 5 5*s taken in Round 1. People go crazy over that, but it only means that a 3* has a 10 in 750 chance of being a first round pick (a little over 1%), and a 5* has a 5 in 25 chance (20%). That supports the ranking system, if anything.

 

[bamawriter]

Solid logic, but you left out the quality factor. If Bill Gates were in a college class of 2,000, his chances of being "most-likely-to-succeed" wouldn't be 1/2,000, it's be much higher, given his obvious talents. So 5-stars should, therefore, be more likely to attain top ranking, if the ranking system were accurate.

Your logic only holds up if each of the star ranking groups had an equal population. But the population of five stars is only 3% of the population of three stars.

So, to argue that a player is just as likely to be drafted in the first round as a three star as he would as a five star, there would have to be 33 three stars taken for every one five. And obviously that's not ever going to be the case since the first round only has 32 selections.

 

[Chris4Vols22]

Why would you not include their ranking just because they're JUCO? They still had one coming out of HS.

 

[bamawriter]

Why would you not include their ranking just because they're JUCO? They still had one coming out of HS.

Probably didn't help his case.

 

[UGADawg4Life]

Your logic only holds up if each of the star ranking groups had an equal population. But the population of five stars is only 3% of the population of three stars.

So, to argue that a player is just as likely to be drafted in the first round as a three star as he would as a five star, there would have to be 33 three stars taken for every one five. And obviously that's not ever going to be the case since the first round only has 32 selections.

O'kay, ......I'll.......talk.......slower......since........you're...........a........Bama............fan (JK). I was actually addressing a statistical anomaly involved in a previous posters statement. If there were 10 players entering the draft, 1 was *****, 2 were **** and 7 were ***, then the NFL 1st round should be represented by a higher number or 1's and then 2's, than 3's. It shouldn't be 1/10, 2/10, and 7/10 odds, if the ranking system were accurate. Which we've seen is not and, thus, my point.

 

[NashVol11]

O'kay, ......I'll.......talk.......slower......since........you're...........a........Bama............fan (JK). I was actually addressing a statistical anomaly involved in a previous posters statement. If there were 10 players entering the draft, 1 was *****, 2 were **** and 7 were ***, then the NFL 1st round should be represented by a higher number or 1's and then 2's, than 3's. It shouldn't be 1/10, 2/10, and 7/10 odds, if the ranking system were accurate. Which we've seen is not and, thus, my point.

If you're saying the 5*s should go ahead of the 3*s within the first round, I don't think analyzing that really gets you anywhere. There's too much that goes into being the #1 pick in the draft. I think the proven fact that being a 5* gets you drafted higher, and makes it several times more likely that you'll be picked in the first round, is proof enough that the ranking system works to an acceptable extent.

 

[bamawriter]

O'kay, ......I'll.......talk.......slower......since........you're...........a........Bama............fan (JK). I was actually addressing a statistical anomaly involved in a previous posters statement. If there were 10 players entering the draft, 1 was *****, 2 were **** and 7 were ***, then the NFL 1st round should be represented by a higher number or 1's and then 2's, than 3's. It shouldn't be 1/10, 2/10, and 7/10 odds, if the ranking system were accurate. Which we've seen is not and, thus, my point.

Actually, the fact that fewer 1s and 2s are drafted despite the fact that those populations are larger indicates that the rankings are accurate. You are focusing only on the number of players when what matters is the percentage of players in each category that get drafted high.

If 15% of five stars go in the first round compared to 7% of four stars and 3% of three stars, then the star rankings are pretty darn accurate.