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

[miket4god]

Ratings do matter. Just not as much as some make it out to be and vice versa. It's not the recruiting services's faults that players don't get developed at some places. They are usually pretty solid. It's really just a reference to give fans an idea of what to expect. The teams that are the top every year show that landing highly ranked is very important to that level of success. Still have to develop the players

One way to say it is that the collectively ratings matter a great deal. Individually, ratings matter very little. There will always be high rated players that don't pan out and lower rated players that out perform their ranking.
But as a whole, collectively speaking, the higher the stars the better the team.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Why do you keep bringing up the draft? How is that comparable to what a kids rating is coming out of HS?

In the context of this discussion, that post is funny as hell. I don't care who you are.

 

[BlinghamptonVol]

So, do we want to count Rickey Gibson as a 4 star or as a 3 star once he commits? I’m not sure which one means he gets drafted anymore.

 

[allvolrecruiting]

One way to say it is that the collectively ratings matter a great deal. Individually, ratings matter very little. There will always be high rated players that don't pan out and lower rated players that out perform their ranking.
But as a whole, collectively speaking, the higher the stars the better the team.

Bingo

 

[MarcoVol]

So, do we want to count Rickey Gibson as a 4 star or as a 3 star once he commits? I’m not sure which one means he gets drafted anymore.

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

 

[tnutater]

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

"silent" comit to bama will do it every time

 

[Devo182]

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

I noted something similar for another player (back when Bradley was a comp 5* but not a 5* on any single service):

It's statistically possible. Just unlikely.

Imagine an extreme (simplistic) case of "top 3 composite players" and you have 3 players across 2 sites, where "player C" is akin to Bradley or Gibson in this case:

Player a:
Site 1 - 1st
Site 2 - 15th
Non-weighted Average: 8.0

Player b:
Site 1 - 15th
Site 2 - 1st
Non-weighted Average: 8.0

Player c:
Site 1 - 4th
Site 2 - 4th
Non-weighted Average: 4.0

So even though player C doesn't have a single top-3 ranking, it looks like he'll likely be a top 3 player in the composite, because his average is better. Others, besides Gibson, may have a higher median, but lower average.

 

[BlinghamptonVol]

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

Voodoo. All I got is voodoo. Or it’s the new math their teaching in school. Or it’s the non-Math they teach here in Memphis schools.

 

[Orange.]

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

We were in on him very early (see how early on the 24/7 timeline, if you want (Rickey Gibson Timeline Events)). It looks to have been a great job of spotting an underrated guy. Very recently, it was said suddenly that GA was going to take him. He went to GA for the day on Aug 1 and On3 bumped him to a 4* about 10 minutes after he walked off campus! So now we are in on a 4* .

If the numbers don't work per the On3 average (which I know is your question), well, it appears that they just overrode their model and declared him 4* on the spot. Maybe they believed it was inevitable that others would follow their lead eventually. Maybe they thought he was going to commit the next day to GA and didn't care, so long as their number was "updated." I know you have been following the thread, but look at: July 31: #342, Aug 1: #385, #383. Gibson looks like he deserves the 4* rating and should have been updated earlier: #700. And this is a primo take: #704!

 

[Volmac2022]

Since 2010 Tennessee has recruited on average 7th in the SEC and Bama has been #1 majority of the time. We all know the results of both teams since 2010. This fact should end the discussion.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Since 2010 Tennessee has recruited on average 7th in the SEC and Bama has been #1 majority of the time. We all know the results of both teams since 2010. This fact should end the discussion.

They are signing properly rated 4 stars to go with their 5 stars... Ratings matter if they are accurate, not so much if they aren't. Signing a bunch of 4 stars that get passed by 2&3 stars on the field during their careers is not a recipe for success. Bama and GA are not wildly throwing darts at the 4 star board. A team could sign 25 4 stars and lose major ground to those two. Accurately pegging where HS kids are in their development cycle is a tough gig. Some early bloomers are pretty much maxed out or have other issues and late bloomers among all the lower rated kids pass them by, you know the ones that get drafted. But many maxed out guys are still P5 or G5 caliber, just not upper crust and are better than those 3 star guys that are also maxed out. It is a crap shoot for them too, just with loaded dice.

At the risk of being TERRIBLY redundant, the ON3 data says over the last 3 drafts 246 4 stars got drafted, right at 1000 did not, while 379 3 stars and even 91 2 stars emerged from the masses and were drafted without regard to their service ratings. Talent matters, stars not so much. You will notice the big guys don't deal with the vast majority of the 400 or so 4 stars in every class but do kick the tires on some 3 stars. Just lucky? I think not. The networking defines their targets, not the stars. But it is hard to be on their early in HS radar and not get the attention of star givers.

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

What better documented analysis of the accuracy of the star projections exists?

I grow weary of the stars have significance crowd based on the cherry picking of 4 stars by the recruiting elite carrying the argument. The accurately tagged 4 stars matter, but so do the majority of the draftees which are comprised of 2&3 stars and the high percentage of the 4 stars they pass. Just like signing day the draft sequence is validated by roster composition at a low level and All Pro selections for the elite. The obsession with declaring winners on signing and draft day is what it is. Real winners are defined down the road on the field. Dynasties in pro ball are harder to sustain because cherry picking is regulated by the draft sequence. Good teams can still have better success with better evaluations but unlikely 31 other teams miss on the truly elite players in the early rounds and talent distribution is more equal. Imagine if Vandy got to pick ahead of Bama.

So how can where a guy gets drafted after 3+ years of college level coaching compare to their ranking in their SR year in HS???

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

They are signing properly rated 4 stars to go with their 5 stars... Ratings matter if they are accurate, not so much if they aren't. Signing a bunch of 4 stars that get passed by 2&3 stars on the field during their careers is not a recipe for success. Bama and GA are not wildly throwing darts at the 4 star board. A team could sign 25 4 stars and lose major ground to those two. Accurately pegging where HS kids are in their development cycle is a tough gig. Some early bloomers are pretty much maxed out or have other issues and late bloomers among all the lower rated kids pass them by, you know the ones that get drafted. But many maxed out guys are still P5 or G5 caliber, just not upper crust and are better than those 3 star guys that are also maxed out. It is a crap shoot for them too, just with loaded dice.

At the risk of being TERRIBLY redundant, the ON3 data says over the last 3 drafts 246 4 stars got drafted, right at 1000 did not, while 379 3 stars and even 91 2 stars emerged from the masses and were drafted without regard to their service ratings. Talent matters, stars not so much. You will notice the big guys don't deal with the vast majority of the 400 or so 4 stars in every class but do kick the tires on some 3 stars. Just lucky? I think not. The networking defines their targets, not the stars. But it is hard to be on their early in HS radar and not get the attention of star givers.

Man no disrespect but you just don’t get it. Here is the fact that you and some others just cannot get around and it’s not up for debate. The teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the ones that win at the highest level. That’s it. If you want to win national championships, then your roster and more importantly your starters, need to be comprised mostly of 4 and 5* guys.

The NFL is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[Volmac2022]

They are signing properly rated 4 stars to go with their 5 stars... Ratings matter if they are accurate, not so much if they aren't. Signing a bunch of 4 stars that get passed by 2&3 stars on the field during their careers is not a recipe for success. Bama and GA are not wildly throwing darts at the 4 star board. A team could sign 25 4 stars and lose major ground to those two. Accurately pegging where HS kids are in their development cycle is a tough gig. Some early bloomers are pretty much maxed out or have other issues and late bloomers among all the lower rated kids pass them by, you know the ones that get drafted. But many maxed out guys are still P5 or G5 caliber, just not upper crust and are better than those 3 star guys that are also maxed out. It is a crap shoot for them too, just with loaded dice.

At the risk of being TERRIBLY redundant, the ON3 data says over the last 3 drafts 246 4 stars got drafted, right at 1000 did not, while 379 3 stars and even 91 2 stars emerged from the masses and were drafted without regard to their service ratings. Talent matters, stars not so much. You will notice the big guys don't deal with the vast majority of the 400 or so 4 stars in every class but do kick the tires on some 3 stars. Just lucky? I think not. The networking defines their targets, not the stars. But it is hard to be on their early in HS radar and not get the attention of star givers.

At first glance what you said may have been grounded in truth but when you read it and look at reality you're far from it.

College and the NFL is two totally different animals. What works in college and what works in the NFL is different, it's ran different, there are different rules, different guidelines etc... it's just vastly different especially the speed.

At the end of the day you cant seriously believe those two stars and 3 stars that are outperforming the 4 stars and 5 stars isn't the results of the coach for the most part. We know first hand of head coaches trying to force players into positions they aren't that great at just because we need the depth that happened a lot in past regimes. We also recruited players that wasn't a good fit for the system the head coach wanted to run. How many times have we had a good QB leave and turns out they exceeded elsewhere? Way too many times that's how many. If majority of our players can't start or even be the back up for the elite teams like bama, GA, osu, etc... then what makes you think we are recruiting correctly? What makes you think we should compete with them? What makes you think we are heading in the right direction?

You're spot on about not all 4 stars living up to their ranking. Bama, osu, GA, Clemson they all go through that as well and those kids more often than not transfer out. Or sit 3 years to finally become good enough to start for their last season. Every team deals with that. However I'd put money on the coaches messing up rather than the kid not living up to the hype.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Man no disrespect but you just don’t get it. Here is the fact that you and some others just cannot get around and it’s not up for debate. The teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the ones that win at the highest level. That’s it. If you want to win national championships, then your roster and more importantly your starters, need to be comprised mostly of 4 and 5* guys.

The NFL is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

Man no disrespect but you just don’t get it. Here is the fact that you and some others just cannot get around and it’s not up for debate. The teams with the most 4 and 5* players are the ones that win at the highest level. That’s it. If you want to win national championships, then your roster and more importantly your starters, need to be comprised mostly of 4 and 5* guys.

The NFL is completely irrelevant in this discussion.

The teams with the best talent are the ones that win. You think that the big boys would have won those championships with a roster full of 4 stars if all were among the low end of the 80% that do not get drafted? They all have their own pipelines of info trying to maximize their visits by bringing in seeming attainable guys that they expect to be able to play productive minutes as early in their careers as possible. They hope they are signing the guys whose abilities only have them on campus for three years. That is NOT every 4 star, but the cream at the top. They mine a few guys through evaluations, but most are the guys that have way more top 30 visit offers than they can deal with. Not many off the chart guys in their classes. Do that 3-4 years in a row and life can get better.

What other validation tool is there for the accuracy of the services who hand out the stars back in HS other than the draft? Those guys rate them with the big bucks and take it seriously. A more intense and comprehensive rating system with the field really narrowed down. They make mistakes too of course. Three stars in the first round are a pretty serious indictment of the Star process.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's my understanding that the recruiting sites limit the number of 4-5 stars that they give, based on the number of athletes drafted. Is this correct?

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

It's my understanding that the recruiting sites limit the number of 4-5 stars that they give, based on the number of athletes drafted. Is this correct?

The condensed version is that 247,Rivals, and ON3 (ignoring ESPN) all have in the 30-32 range 5 stars, 247 and Rivals have in the neighborhood of 300 4 stars, while ON3 has 418 4 stars... it gets way varied down the star pool. Don't know if the 5 stars are targeting NFL first round number or not. The draft has roughly 250 each year.

Here is a pre ON3 article that kind of helps....

The star systems

 

[Orange.]

Serious question that was prob already asked - why is he a 4* on3 Consensus (which says they weigh the 4 major sites evenly at 25%) when he’s not a 4* on any individual service?

247 - 3*
On3 - 3*
Espn - nr
Rivals - 3*

On3 consensus - 4*

How does this thing work?

On3 Consensus has moved him back to a 3* . I'm glad we have each other and also Rickey Gibson himself as witnesses that they bumped him, coincidentally or not exactly when he visited GA. He was a 4* last night (I checked) and a 3* this morning (I checked).

I suppose they could say the bump was an accident, and they corrected. But it is pretty much impossible to think that a feature that averages numbers is not automated; therefore it would have had to have been two separate manual interventions? Doesn't really matter: he's the same guy. But it's not a good look imo.

 

[sjt18]

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?

Can you defined "matter"?

They matter because fans feel good or bad about them and pay money to the recruiting sites.

They matter because in a very, very general way they indicate that a team has talent.... not so much that another does not have talent... but that a team ranked 11th has talent.

Or are you talking about specific players, teams, or game outcomes?

 

[sjt18]

Low ranked kids can become good players. Teams with mostly high ranked players are winning championships.

But that's a poor test of the recruiting services. They should be much better at predicting success up and down the rankings. They aren't. Some try to focus on a handful of teams that always finish high in the rankings and always win at a high level. However the accuracy of the ratings needs to be supported as you continue down the line. That isn't the case.

For instance, based strictly on recruiting service talent composites... there's no way under any circumstance that UT should have lost to Pitt or Purdue. The talent disparity according to the rankings should have led to a UT win. It is pretty easy to "accurately" report that Bama and a few others are getting a lot of talent. The accuracy fades after that.

people will love to point out the 3 star who had an amazing career and made the NFL but fails to point out that the teams winning it all every year signed majority 4-5 star players.

See above... which is completely ignored by those who think the recruiting rankings are definitive much less "independent" of cues from particular programs and recruiters.

 

[GUNTERSVOL]

At first glance what you said may have been grounded in truth but when you read it and look at reality you're far from it.

College and the NFL is two totally different animals. What works in college and what works in the NFL is different, it's ran different, there are different rules, different guidelines etc... it's just vastly different especially the speed.

At the end of the day you cant seriously believe those two stars and 3 stars that are outperforming the 4 stars and 5 stars isn't the results of the coach for the most part. We know first hand of head coaches trying to force players into positions they aren't that great at just because we need the depth that happened a lot in past regimes. We also recruited players that wasn't a good fit for the system the head coach wanted to run. How many times have we had a good QB leave and turns out they exceeded elsewhere? Way too many times that's how many. If majority of our players can't start or even be the back up for the elite teams like bama, GA, osu, etc... then what makes you think we are recruiting correctly? What makes you think we should compete with them? What makes you think we are heading in the right direction?

You're spot on about not all 4 stars living up to their ranking. Bama, osu, GA, Clemson they all go through that as well and those kids more often than not transfer out. Or sit 3 years to finally become good enough to start for their last season. Every team deals with that. However I'd put money on the coaches messing up rather than the kid not living up to the hype.

I believe the great discrepancy in college production compared to the stars they enter with is due to the data sets the services have to work with involving the variability of the players maturation clock, the wildly variable levels of competition from the smallest classes to the largest classes, compounded by the discrepancies in high school coaching competence, and the impact of players participation or lack of in camps and 7v7 competitions, etc. Guys shaving in the 6th grade and playing in 1a ball are pretty impressive, a guy not entering puberty until he is a SR and buried on the depth chart at a powerhouse 6a school not so much. On the other hand I think some kids from the smaller schools have their rating devalued because of the competition level., while a kid at the powerhouse can look great in the OL when he is flanked by two impact athletes. The late bloomers take 3-5 years to get it done, the real 5 star and cusp 4 star guys may arrive ready to contribute, but the rank and file 4 stars not so much, some not any more productive than a lot of 3's. Coaching can feature and accentuate the physically talented, and can help a lot of 4 stars play at a high college level, but not make them draft ready, while SOME maturing and talented low star guys pass them by. It is a ton easier to evaluate 20-23 year old guys than 16-18 year old guys and the variance of opposition talent is not as diverse. I don't think staff competence is that varied at top 3hools, but draft success is. See GA last draft.

 

[sjt18]

People get too tied up in one recruit much like teenagers get too tied up with one boy/girl. There are others who are just as talented. You just have to find them, sign them, and develop them. I hope this kid signs with the Vols. It would be nice to create a new pipeline into La. But if he goes with Texas then move on to the next guy.

You might argue that there are a few, true elite HS talents each year. That would explain why about 60% of 5* players get drafted. But after that... it gets ALOT more murky. Only about 20% of 4* players get drafted. The plain meaning is that every year there are A LOT of 3* players who are as good or better than a lot of 4*.

 

[BarnesIsCaliparisDaddy]

People get too tied up in one recruit much like teenagers get too tied up with one boy/girl. There are others who are just as talented. You just have to find them, sign them, and develop them. I hope this kid signs with the Vols. It would be nice to create a new pipeline into La. But if he goes with Texas then move on to the next guy.

You might argue that there are a few, true elite HS talents each year. That would explain why about 60% of 5* players get drafted. But after that... it gets ALOT more murky. Only about 20% of 4* players get drafted. The plain meaning is that every year there are A LOT of 3* players who are as good or better than a lot of 4*.

stars matter fam

 

[Vol8188]

People get too tied up in one recruit much like teenagers get too tied up with one boy/girl. There are others who are just as talented. You just have to find them, sign them, and develop them. I hope this kid signs with the Vols. It would be nice to create a new pipeline into La. But if he goes with Texas then move on to the next guy.

You might argue that there are a few, true elite HS talents each year. That would explain why about 60% of 5* players get drafted. But after that... it gets ALOT more murky. Only about 20% of 4* players get drafted. The plain meaning is that every year there are A LOT of 3* players who are as good or better than a lot of 4*.

You have an entire thread for that