Recruiting rankings thread

#777
#777
Sin City Vol said:
None of these rankings matter if these players don't develop
Click to expand...

images
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#787
#787
SIAP but how does Clemson rank higher than us on Rivals? We have more 5 and 4 star players and a higher overall average.
 
#788
#788
bignewt said:
SIAP but how does Clemson rank higher than us on Rivals? We have more 5 and 4 star players and a higher overall average.
Click to expand...

Been discussed in another thread. Do not remember which one. Basically it comes down to "not all 4-stars are created equally." They have more 6.0 4-stars compared to us having more 5.8 4-stars.
 
#789
#789
therickbol said:
Been discussed in another thread. Do not remember which one. Basically it comes down to "not all 4-stars are created equally." They have more 6.0 4-stars compared to us having more 5.8 4-stars.
Click to expand...

Also an important note is that our we do not get "bonus points" for JUCO players like Kamara. This makes it seem worse than it is.
 
#790
#790
Gotcha. thanks. You would think the star average would win out in that situation. Does the star average come from just the top 20 or the whole class?
 
#792
#792
VegasBaby! said:
Neither Seattle nor New England have a five star recruit starting in today's SuperBowl. There will only be 7 four star starters (4 Seattle and 3 New England). Russell Wilson was a two star recruit.

Super Bowl 49: Not one starter was a 5-star recruit out of high school - CBSSports.com

So much for stars and therefore team recruiting rankings.
Click to expand...

That's cute. Now give me the average team recruiting rankings of the past four years for the playoff teams this year. While you're at it, look up the past 5 or so BCS CG game teams too.

My guess is you will find Oregon is the only outlier. They lost both chances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#793
#793
burntorangeVOLffle said:
That's cute. Now give me the average team recruiting rankings of the past four years for the playoff teams this year. While you're at it, look up the past 5 or so BCS CG game teams too.

My guess is you will find Oregon is the only outlier. They lost both chances.
Click to expand...

Yeah, this is nonsense. A good number were not even in high school when rivals started doing rankings. The rankings, one could imagine, become more reliable over the years as the services gain more funds and cultivate their ability to recognize talent. And 19 starters in the 49ers and Ravens game were 4/5 star recruits, even though a ton of them were in college before Rivals even began ranking players. And 11 Seahawks players from last years Superbowl team were 4 star or better.

This is really just a cute little story that does not serve at all to dispel the belief that stars and rankings mean something. Especially since 5 star recruits make up roughly 1% of all division 1 commitments, and 0% of division 2. And 4 stars make up less than 10% of division 1, and probably roughly 0% of division 2.

It is not surprising that a group consisting of less than, or close to, 10% of all recruits end up constituting a small fraction of Super Bowl starters. But, if we combine the 2013 and 2015 numbers, we find that almost 30% of all starters were rated at 4/5 stars, even though not all starters were even eligible to be rated! The numbers are not far from what we would expect if we believed that 4/5 star recruits were much more likely to pan out, but if we recognized that not all of them will.
 
Last edited:
#794
#794
turambar85 said:
Yeah, this is nonsense. A good number were not even in high school when rivals started doing rankings. The rankings, one could imagine, become more reliable over the years as the services gain more funds and cultivate their ability to recognize talent. And 19 starters in the 49ers and Ravens game were 4/5 star recruits, even though a ton of them were in college before Rivals even began ranking players. And 11 Seahawks players from last years Superbowl team were 4 star or better.

This is really just a cute little story that does not serve at all to dispel the belief that stars and rankings mean something. Especially since 5 star recruits make up roughly 1% of all division 1 commitments, and 0% of division 2. And 4 stars make up less than 10% of division 1, and probably roughly 0% of division 2.

It is not surprising that a group consisting of less than, or close to, 10% of all recruits end up constituting a small fraction of Super Bowl starters. But, if we combine the 2013 and 2015 numbers, we find that almost 30% of all starters were rated at 4/5 stars, even though not all starters were even eligible to be rated! The numbers are not far from what we would expect if we believed that 4/5 star recruits were much more likely to pan out, but if we recognized that not all of them will.
Click to expand...

You could take it a step further and say star rankings are about how high school kids are projected to play in college NOT the NFL.

A 5* dual threat QB may excel in college but not be worth a draft pick in the NFL. *cough*Tebow*cough*
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#795
#795
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#797
#797
VegasBaby! said:
Neither Seattle nor New England have a five star recruit starting in today's SuperBowl. There will only be 7 four star starters (4 Seattle and 3 New England). Russell Wilson was a two star recruit.

Super Bowl 49: Not one starter was a 5-star recruit out of high school - CBSSports.com

So much for stars and therefore team recruiting rankings.
Click to expand...

You picked the wrong place at the wrong time to bring up an argument that has been torn to shreds on this forum multiple times...
 
#798
#798
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#800
#800
Vols 2015 Recruiting Rankings as of 11:26 pm today 2/4/15
Scout - #3
247 - #4
Rivals - #5
Espn - #4
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top