PLAYER RANKINGS (do they matter?). Let the debate!

[unfrozencvmanvol]

There is an undeniable correlation between recruiting rankings and success. But the services adjust their rankings based on what proven staffs do on the trail. Hundreds of good players are overlooked, and probably just as many are overvalued every year.

But generally speaking, yes, the rankings are useful.

They are valid in the aggregate but individual players can certainly turn out much better or worse than there rankings. No proponent of the rankings argues otherwise.

 

[Winchester73]

Yes and no. Bigger faster stronger quicker all matter on the field. Generally those kids get higher marks and those skills generally translate to a better overall product on the field. What can’t be measured is heart, performing under pressure, and how any individual’s response will be to team culture, competition, and coaching. A team made up of 3 stars with heart, team oriented, and great coaching could out perform a highly ranked team. BUT if all things are EQUAL, you go with the higher ranked recruits. Don’t underestimate the value of good coaching and “team”.

 

[Volmac2022]

Everyone who loves to talk about the theory, practice, competence, manipulation, and effect of the star system and player rankings should have a special place to devoted to this interest imo.

Also, the RF would benefit -- not only by having all the opinions and information on this subject in one place -- but the individual individual player thread would benefit because news specific to recruits would not be overwhelmed by posts about rankings in general.

If someone quoted your post in a player thread and posted and replied to it here, do you think it would help to have everything in one place?

Would some people knowledgeable on and interested in player rankings be willing to take the lead here and explain why how much rankings matter? Ot how they don't?

Yes they do matter!!!!

Yes you can find plenty of highly rated players not living up to their hype and plenty of 3 star players that are playing at a higher lvl than some bad 4star and 5star players.

Majority of highly rated players live up to their hype than not. Ohio State, Bama, GA, etc... the elite teams recruit very little 3 star guys. The majority of their players are in the top 100 of their class. This is why they are constantly in the playoffs, conference championship game, winning 10,11,12 regular season games every year.

Tennessee recruiting is enough to be in the middle of the pack. We recruit mainly 3 star players and bank on them playing at a higher level. Diamonds in the rough type kids. Only issue with that is the fact that we had Dooley, Butch and Jeremy try this method and it not work out.

Fact is if we truly wanna compete for a Natty we simply need 4 years of a top 3 class with all our recruits being in the top 100 to top 250 of their class each year. No more than five 3 star players per class the less the better. No less than three 5 star players in each class and no less that fifteen 4 star players in each class.

Hopefully the past 20 years of being the laughing stock, running the program into the ground, bad hires, bad choices like paying coaches for nothing or hiring bad leadership is over with. Hopefully we are on the right track to becoming a power house again. Until we get back into the SECCG I'll keep saying the tired and old saying "there is always next year"!

 

[Volmac2022]

So you are saying those teams were talented AS A RESULT OF being ranked higher? I just responded to more of BOT's non-sense in another thread. It is pretty easy for them to take a peak at who Saban, Day, Smart, and Swinney are recruiting... look at their measurables then slap a high rating on them. They know those programs are winners, send lots of guys to the NFL, and have a great process for recruiting.

But when the recruiting sites have to go more on their own... they simply DO NOT predict winners. IIRC, only 9 of the final top 25 last year had averaged a top 25 class in the previous 4 years.


Here are the standings from last year and the 4 year composite talent ranking in the SEC according to 247:

UGA- 2
UK- 12
UT- 7
MU- 13
USCe- 8
UF- 4
Vandy- 14

Bama- 1
OM- 9
Ark- 10
MSU- 11
TAM- 5
Aub- 6
LSU- 3

You can attribute part of that to coaching but the West according to the talent 247 says each program has... is essentially upside down. They can take cues from UGA and Bama but when they have to evaluate more on their own... they don't predict winners. Recruiting rankings do not predict winners... except for the really easy predictions.

The issue with you using those stats and trying to make a point is fairly obvious.

LSU lost their coach due to issues
Florida gave up on coach mullen
TAM had injuries
Auburn thought they had a good QB but fact is they didn't
USC played 5 different QBs and had a new coach
Ole Miss has a superior head coach
Arky has a dang good head coach who knows how to get the best of his players
Kentucky has a decent coach who only came in second place in the east bc of the issues mentioned above.

You and others will probably say these are excuses yet that doesn't take away from the fact that everything mentioned above is just facts of what was going on. Context matters

 

[Orange_Crush]

The issue with you using those stats and trying to make a point is fairly obvious.

LSU lost their coach due to issues
Florida gave up on coach mullen
TAM had injuries
Auburn thought they had a good QB but fact is they didn't
USC played 5 different QBs and had a new coach
Ole Miss has a superior head coach
Arky has a dang good head coach who knows how to get the best of his players
Kentucky has a decent coach who only came in second place in the east bc of the issues mentioned above.

You and others will probably say these are excuses yet that doesn't take away from the fact that everything mentioned above is just facts of what was going on. Context matters

"Stars are all that really matter."

"What about the majority of teams, where the star system failed."

"Well, those other things that don't matter...mattered."

 

[Vol8188]

How many 5 star flops have we had, I can come up with many

This is like saying "some people with high credit scores and low debt to income ratios still default on loans".

I agree. Obviously they do. No process is perfect and no one can predict the future. The point is that overall the process works and the data shows that.

 

[Vol8188]

"Stars are all that really matter."

"What about the majority of teams, where the star system failed."

"Well, those other things that don't matter...mattered."

No one is saying it's the only thing. But it's the most important thing for sure. Coaching still matters, but a team of 5* players that are poorly coached will almost always beat a team of 3* guys who are well coached.

Can some people out coach their opponents? Yes and we did that to an extent last season. But coaching can only overcome so much of a talent gap. Give Dooley Alabama's roster and Nick Saban the Vanderbilt roster and I would beat the house on Bama.

 

[Winchester73]

Is this like telling a not-so-pretty girl that “looks don’t matter, it’s what’s on the inside that counts” ???

That’s truth right there, looks aren't everything - but they sure can “help”

Star ratings themselves don’t WIN … but it’s the quickness strength ability, etc. that, generally speaking, gained them those stars. I still think it’s coaching, attitude, intelligence, and experience that will ultimately determine success. Sure there will be kids fly under the radar, or be coached up, and surpass their high rated peers. But I guarantee anyone building a team - all other things equal - will take the quicker, stronger, more athletic kids first.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Is this like telling a not-so-pretty girl that “looks don’t matter, it’s what’s on the inside that counts” ???

That’s truth right there, looks aren't everything - but they sure can “help”

Star ratings themselves don’t WIN … but it’s the quickness strength ability, etc. that, generally speaking, gained them those stars. I still think it’s coaching, attitude, intelligence, and experience that will ultimately determine success. Sure there will be kids fly under the radar, or be coached up, and surpass their high rated peers. But I guarantee anyone building a team - all other things equal - will take the quicker, stronger, more athletic kids first.

Coaching matters definitely, but if the coaching is equal, the Jimmie's and the Joe's win. Classic example from the playoffs this year is the tweet below. #17, the linebacker for Georgia who won the Butkus, Michigan schemes a play where they have their fastest RB on a LB. It's a match-up that on paper, Michigan wants. #17 is too fast though:

 

[Orange_Crush]

No one is saying it's the only thing. But it's the most important thing for sure. Coaching still matters, but a team of 5* players that are poorly coached will almost always beat a team of 3* guys who are well coached.

Can some people out coach their opponents? Yes and we did that to an extent last season. But coaching can only overcome so much of a talent gap. Give Dooley Alabama's roster and Nick Saban the Vanderbilt roster and I would beat the house on Bama.

And the others aren't saying that stars never matter. I think everyone should keep the discussion in context.

There are a vocal bunch here that continually claim that UT is doomed and will never compete for championships until we're getting all top-rated recruits. In large part, these complaints show up in individual recruit threads bitching that "we'll never improve until we can land better that this type of guy".

So, the response is to point out that statistical correlations aren't proof of causation, and further, can't be used to predict individual results.

If someone posted a study on the correlation between Alzheimer's and the use of aluminum in deodorant, then killed themselves because they had used deodorant with aluminum in it, and they couldn't face the long, slow death that they were guaranteed to face... You'd rightly think they were an idiot.

But there is an entire group here that come in and try to use correlation in the exact same way, yet can't see the misuse of the principles.

I think most here agree that the services do a generally adequate job rating the highly rated, high-visibility players. i.e. if a player is highly rated, they will probably be a high-performing player. The breakdown in the "let's all **** on the below-4-star players" argument is that there are obviously a LOT of less-than-4-star players that fly under the radar.

So, IF a staff does a great job finding/developing talent, as opposed to merely recruiting stars for stars, then they can be competitive. (i.e. What if a team was made up of all the 2-3 stars that get drafted in the NFL? Would they have lack competitiveness because of their HS star rating? Of course not!)

The fact of the matter is that there is a large population of terminal BVS who couldn't rate a player if their lives depended on it, that use the star system and a misuse of statistics as an excuse to jump in recruit threads and talk out of their ass.

That's how we end up with this thread.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I could give you 85 Rudy’s. You’d still go 0-12.

That's a non-issue since Rudy sucked and played a symbolic role in one game.

Give me a team full of those 2-3 stars that get drafted every year, and you'll be having a different discussion.

This is like saying "some people with high credit scores and low debt to income ratios still default on loans".

I agree. Obviously they do. No process is perfect and no one can predict the future. The point is that overall the process works and the data shows that.

That's pretty much the position that has us here. Now go back and tell all the folks ****ing on our recruits and predicting our continued demise. Welcome aboard.

 

[Vol8188]

That's a non-issue since Rudy sucked and played a symbolic role in one game.

Give me a team full of those 2-3 stars that get drafted every year, and you'll be having a different discussion.



That's pretty much the position that has us here. Now go back and tell all the folks ****ing on our recruits and predicting our continued demise. Welcome aboard.

The problem with what you're saying is 2 fold.

1. The guy above that I was responding 2 was arguing that it's not about talent but rather intangibles. That's obviously false. Thus the 85 Rudy's example.

2. You're falsely assuming you or anyone else can accurately predict which 85 2* guys will become elite. You can't. I can't. Nick Saban can't.

 

[Vol8188]

And the others aren't saying that stars never matter. I think everyone should keep the discussion in context.

There are a vocal bunch here that continually claim that UT is doomed and will never compete for championships until we're getting all top-rated recruits. In large part, these complaints show up in individual recruit threads bitching that "we'll never improve until we can land better that this type of guy".

So, the response is to point out that statistical correlations aren't proof of causation, and further, can't be used to predict individual results.

If someone posted a study on the correlation between Alzheimer's and the use of aluminum in deodorant, then killed themselves because they had used deodorant with aluminum in it, and they couldn't face the long, slow death that they were guaranteed to face... You'd rightly think they were an idiot.

But there is an entire group here that come in and try to use correlation in the exact same way, yet can't see the misuse of the principles.

I think most here agree that the services do a generally adequate job rating the highly rated, high-visibility players. i.e. if a player is highly rated, they will probably be a high-performing player. The breakdown in the "let's all **** on the below-4-star players" argument is that there are obviously a LOT of less-than-4-star players that fly under the radar.

So, IF a staff does a great job finding/developing talent, as opposed to merely recruiting stars for stars, then they can be competitive. (i.e. What if a team was made up of all the 2-3 stars that get drafted in the NFL? Would they have lack competitiveness because of their HS star rating? Of course not!)

The fact of the matter is that there is a large population of terminal BVS who couldn't rate a player if their lives depended on it, that use the star system and a misuse of statistics as an excuse to jump in recruit threads and talk out of their ass.

That's how we end up with this thread.

I can't speak to anyone else's arguments regarding any specific player. But I can speak to the law of averages and it very much holds true here. When you say correlation doesn't prove causation you're speaking of the correlation between what two things exactly? Recruiting rankings and wins? You don't believe having higher rated players than Vandy is the reason that game is a win 95% of the time? Rather it's only a "correlation?

No one is arguing that lower rated players cannot develop into elite guys. It obviously happens and will continue to happen. But there's various reasons for why you can't predict that. One of them being growth spurts, it seems every year there's a TE prospect who grows into an OT and goes high in the draft. If the coaches recruiting those 2* guys could predict that development with accuracy, they'd be in the playoffs each year.

So the problem with your entire ideology is that it's based on an impossibility.

 

[Orange_Crush]

The problem with what you're saying is 2 fold.

1. The guy above that I was responding 2 was arguing that it's not about talent but rather intangibles. That's obviously false. Thus the 85 Rudy's example.

2. You're falsely assuming you or anyone else can accurately predict which 85 2* guys will become elite. You can't. I can't. Nick Saban can't.

I'll definitely offer apologies on the first.

I'm NOT saying that I can, nor that coaches will be perfect. I AM saying that I want coaches who can/will find/develop talent and that any staff who recruit based on star ranking need to be fired due to malpractice. We don't pay them to be recruiting site fanboys. We pay them to recognize and develop talent.

Beyond that, it's the people ****ing on our recruits that are the ones claiming that THEY can accurately predict, and that's the issue at hand. No?

 

[Orange_Crush]

I can't speak to anyone else's arguments regarding any specific player. But I can speak to the law of averages and it very much holds true here. When you say correlation doesn't prove causation you're speaking of the correlation between what two things exactly? Recruiting rankings and wins? You don't believe having higher rated players than Vandy is the reason that game is a win 95% of the time? Rather it's only a "correlation?

No. I believe that we beat them because we are more talented. You are assuming that higher rated == more talented. That's the question in discussion, and you're begging it. (ETA: UT may be more highly rated, but that's not what wins it. The talent difference is. I'm decoupling talent/rating in the discussion. More highly rated doesn't necessarily mean more talented. If a less highly rated, but more talented team played, they would generally win, as I'm sure you'd agree.)

No one is arguing that lower rated players cannot develop into elite guys. It obviously happens and will continue to happen. But there's various reasons for why you can't predict that. One of them being growth spurts, it seems every year there's a TE prospect who grows into an OT and goes high in the draft. If the coaches recruiting those 2* guys could predict that development with accuracy, they'd be in the playoffs each year.

So the problem with your entire ideology is that it's based on an impossibility.

You are assuming that the less highly rated players are less highly rated because they are less talented at the time of rating, and "grow" into talent. You are still assuming that rating==talent==rating.

You write it off as "impossible" because you've assumed the answer to the debate. I'm not claiming staffs have to be predictive, you are assuming they have to. I am allowing for talented recruits that the sites just didn't rate highly for some reason--especially considering their practice of falsely limiting the awarding of their 4-5 stars.

 

[Volmac2022]

Is this like telling a not-so-pretty girl that “looks don’t matter, it’s what’s on the inside that counts” ???

That’s truth right there, looks aren't everything - but they sure can “help”

Star ratings themselves don’t WIN … but it’s the quickness strength ability, etc. that, generally speaking, gained them those stars. I still think it’s coaching, attitude, intelligence, and experience that will ultimately determine success. Sure there will be kids fly under the radar, or be coached up, and surpass their high rated peers. But I guarantee anyone building a team - all other things equal - will take the quicker, stronger, more athletic kids first.

Coaching matters for sure but when you have kids that are more naturally talented than others on your team coaching becomes less of a percentage of what it takes to win. For example Joshua Dobbs masked a lot of issues of butch who clearly couldn't coach at the SEC level. However Dobbs made butch seem better than he was.

 

[Volmac2022]

I'll definitely offer apologies on the first.

I'm NOT saying that I can, nor that coaches will be perfect. I AM saying that I want coaches who can/will find/develop talent and that any staff who recruit based on star ranking need to be fired due to malpractice. We don't pay them to be recruiting site fanboys. We pay them to recognize and develop talent.

Beyond that, it's the people ****ing on our recruits that are the ones claiming that THEY can accurately predict, and that's the issue at hand. No?

Who said they can accurately predict talent? You still fail to realize it's easier to develop a kid who is more talented (5 star) than a kid who is far less talented (3 star)

 

[Orange_Crush]

Who said they can accurately predict talent? You still fail to realize it's easier to develop a kid who is more talented (5 star) than a kid who is far less talented (3 star)

No. I don't fail to realize that. You fail to realize that I've decoupled rating from talent, and I'm arguing in favor of talent over arguing in favor of rating. So I've been fairly explicit in affirming the benefit of talent.

 

[Vol8188]

I'll definitely offer apologies on the first.

I'm NOT saying that I can, nor that coaches will be perfect. I AM saying that I want coaches who can/will find/develop talent and that any staff who recruit based on star ranking need to be fired due to malpractice. We don't pay them to be recruiting site fanboys. We pay them to recognize and develop talent.

Beyond that, it's the people ****ing on our recruits that are the ones claiming that THEY can accurately predict, and that's the issue at hand. No?

No one is claiming we do or should recruit based on the rankings of any site. No one is saying we want coaches who can’t find/develop talent.

What we are saying is we do have to recruit at an elite level and that level will be reflected within the recruiting rankings.

I do agree with your frustration regarding people trashing recruits. But I think you’re letting the trolls get to you. The law of averages cannot predict the success of any particular player, but it can be applied at a larger level (the roster) and it does work

 

[Volmac2022]

No. I don't fail to realize that. You fail to realize that I've decoupled rating from talent, and I'm arguing in favor of talent over arguing in favor of rating. So I've been fairly explicit in affirming the benefit of talent.

Yet they go hand in hand that's why your point isn't being made very effectively lol

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet they go hand in hand that's why your point isn't being made very effectively lol

And yours isn't made very effectively when it's the fallacy of a begged question.

 

[Volmac2022]

No one is claiming we do or should recruit based on the rankings of any site. No one is saying we want coaches who can’t find/develop talent.

What we are saying is we do have to recruit at an elite level and that level will be reflected within the recruiting rankings.

I do agree with your frustration regarding people trashing recruits. But I think you’re letting the trolls get to you. The law of averages cannot predict the success of any particular player, but it can be applied at a larger level (the roster) and it does work

Crazy how we were at one point ranked 5th now we are ranked 11th. Our 11, 3 star recruits is what will keep us out of a top 10 recruiting class for 2023 and that means we will be ranked around 7th through 5th in the SEC again... middle of the pack...

 

[Volmac2022]

And yours isn't made very effectively when it's the fallacy of a begged question.

Actually my point is very effective just look at the elite teams.

 

[unfrozencvmanvol]

Actually my point is very effective just look at the elite teams.

Like I said man, flat earthers. They evade, obfuscate, outright deny reason and set up numerous straw men. They want to hang on, at any cost, to the hope that it's reasonably possible, in major CFB, to find 25 2 and 3 star diamonds in the rough every year and beat everyone. Not much point in arguing with them really.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Yet they go hand in hand that's why your point isn't being made very effectively lol

Coaching matters for sure but when you have kids that are more naturally talented than others on your team coaching becomes less of a percentage of what it takes to win. For example Joshua Dobbs masked a lot of issues of butch who clearly couldn't coach at the SEC level. However Dobbs made butch seem better than he was.

Or Baker Mayfield.