When will we stop hanging on star ratings???

#26
#26
maxxx said:
Every year I say this and every year Volnation downplays it. When will most of Volnation wake up and stop rating the success of a class on star ratings? A string of top ten classes got us to 0-8 on the field. Meanwhile, Wisconsin continues to be a top ten team with classes rated in the 40's-50's.
Click to expand...

I respect what you are saying, but coaching up 3 stars only gets you so far, as Wiscy fans found out when it ran into a team loaded with elite talent and a staff that could coach those elite players up.

Same as Pinkel and Mizzou found out when they ran into Bama.

If you want to win championships then you need elite talent with elite coaching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#27
#27
It's basically playing the odds. Any kid in a vacuum can play beyond or below his star rating. However...ya get 10 5star kid, chances are you'll hit on most of em.
 
#29
#29
LSU-SIU said:
I think its quite the advantage to not be in the SEC, I mean Clemson doesn't have the weekly grind, probably less injuries... can rest players or do with out, etc.

I mean, Mississippi State might not be the best team in the country but does Clemson want to play them during the middle of the year - no way. Its a grind fest and you need depth in the SEC.
Click to expand...

This cannot be overstated. The regular games of the SEC are very tough, much tougher than an Iowa or Northwestern. Just wait and see what UK does to Northwestern, it will be an absolute blow out I believe. The SEC talent is much better than the BIG 10 I'm sorry it is. If Wisconsin played Tennessee's schedule they would have several more losses on their resume.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#31
#31
Biggen said:
Pretty much this. Folks who don't believe in recruiting must also think Planet X exists and the Earth is hollow...

Sure, you can overachieve occasionally with a lower ranked class. Much like Wisconsin is doing with a scheduled packed full of sugar and flour. But at the end of the day, stars do matter.
Click to expand...

Please. Everyone knows the Earth is flat. That's just science.
 
#32
#32
JettVol said:
This cannot be overstated. The regular games of the SEC are very tough, much tougher than an Iowa or Northwestern. Just wait and see what UK does to Northwestern, it will be an absolute blow out I believe. The SEC talent is much better than the BIG 10 I'm sorry it is. If Wisconsin played Tennessee's schedule they would have several more losses on their resume.
Click to expand...

Yup, most probably. The SEC West in particular is a grind feast from hell, ask Texas A&M, they can't even close to surviving November... if you are not injured before November... you will be after November. You just don't need the depth in these other conferences, generally speaking.

Oklahoma
2017 #8
2016 #19
2015 #15
2014 #14
2013 #16
2012 #12
 
#34
#34
I think it’s a lot of factors that most have mentioned. 4 & 5 Star players should outperform 2 & 3 Star players considering everything else is equal but it’s not equal. Better coaching, better player development, better environment, and so on make it impossible for there to be any exact science on recruiting. If CBJ and staff had been leading Alabama, do you think they would be in the playoffs? No way and they are loaded. By the way, AL’s starting corner is a former walk-on.
 
#35
#35
OP you can disregard the obvious correlation between top recruiting classes and winning championships all you want. It just doesnt change the facts. Look at the teams playing in the CFB playoffs right now. Did any of the have recruiting classes ranked in the 30s?

The facts are that the teams that are consistently competeing for championships, recruit high level, 4 and 5* guys. You are not going to routinely beat teams like Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, OSU and Oklahoma with lower ranked classes. Regardless of how good your coaching staff is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#36
#36
If Pruitt can develop players like Barnes then our 3 stars should do fine while we build our talent. Everyone raving about UGA and rightly so but they hit a unique scenario this year with UT, UF, and TaM virtually out of the hunt for any high level guys UGA wanted...on top of them having a great season. Trajectory difference of UT and UGA after 2016 is mind blowing
 
#38
#38
The problem I have with the star system is there could be a 4-5 star player stuck in a under coached no name team that gets overlooked. It should be about ability not media.
 
#40
#40
Offer lists, what position they play, and areas of need are much more important than star ratings more often than not. For example, adding a 5 star receiver is great on a team with a passing offense but adding one to a team that runs the spread option not so much. CBJ was very guilty of star gazing and was less concerned about fit or positions of need. We had top 10 classes that did not address our needs but looked great on paper
 
#41
#41
Butch caliber coach with a 4&5* roster, probably respectable at best.

Great coach with a 3* roster, solid team.

Great coach with a loaded 4&5* roster, watch the F out!
 
#42
#42
The star ratings are based on how ready a player is to contribute to a college program. A 5* player should be able to immediately contribute and possibly start. A 4* should contribute and a 3* probably needs a couple of years to fully develop. The advantage to having more 4 & 5* is the immediate depth they provide. As mentioned above, that is vitally important in the SEC. If a team can keep a consistent roster of equal Fr, So, Jr, & Srs and avoid the injury bug, they can compete with anyone. An example is Missouri's first couple of years in the SEC and winning the EAST. They had dominating DE's for 2 or 3 yrs because they could allow the younger players to mature. Missouri's recruiting was no where close to the rest of the East during those years, but they had mostly upperclassmen starting. As long as all goes smooth this works, but it is much harder to avoid injuries, suspensions, transfers, etc. I'm not saying top classes are not important but if given time very good teams can be built on 3 & 4* teams. As examples already mentioned Wissconsin, Boise, Iowa, Northwestern, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma, TCU, etc
 
#43
#43
a vol n tears said:
The star ratings are based on how ready a player is to contribute to a college program. A 5* player should be able to immediately contribute and possibly start. A 4* should contribute and a 3* probably needs a couple of years to fully develop. The advantage to having more 4 & 5* is the immediate depth they provide. As mentioned above, that is vitally important in the SEC. If a team can keep a consistent roster of equal Fr, So, Jr, & Srs and avoid the injury bug, they can compete with anyone. An example is Missouri's first couple of years in the SEC and winning the EAST. They had dominating DE's for 2 or 3 yrs because they could allow the younger players to mature. Missouri's recruiting was no where close to the rest of the East during those years, but they had mostly upperclassmen starting. As long as all goes smooth this works, but it is much harder to avoid injuries, suspensions, transfers, etc. I'm not saying top classes are not important but if given time very good teams can be built on 3 & 4* teams. As examples already mentioned Wissconsin, Boise, Iowa, Northwestern, Stanford, Washington, Oklahoma, TCU, etc
Click to expand...

A good portion of the time... its the averages that work out. I think I remember doing something a few years ago that showed on a percentage basis the 3-stars work out at a higher rate, but usually the ones that do make it at 5-star rating really can do well.

Leonard Fournette was a 5-star that worked out. Every heard of Chris Davenport, probably not, 5-star that couldn't even make it on special teams for LSU... literally was a squad player. At the end of the day, some will work out, others won't.

LSU has finished with some good classes on paper, but a few of the classes were more like Paper Tigers. Last year was not considered great, yet, it might have produced the most amount of productive players in year #1.
 
#44
#44
maxxx said:
Every year I say this and every year Volnation downplays it. When will most of Volnation wake up and stop rating the success of a class on star ratings? A string of top ten classes got us to 0-8 on the field. Meanwhile, Wisconsin continues to be a top ten team with classes rated in the 40's-50's. It's about getting kids that fit into the coaches system and kids who can develop. 90% of a freshman class should be redshirted, IMO. I want to see kids that understand the game, know their assignments, and are physically ready for big boy football.
I think people should study a program that can turn two high school quarterbacks into all conference, NFL ready LB and OT respectively.



I don't give a damn were our class ranks, I want be able to see those kids in two years helping the team compete for titles.
Click to expand...

I will quit worrying about stars when the teams with the highest ones quit winning at a very high level consistently.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#45
#45
BigOrangeTrain said:
OP you can disregard the obvious correlation between top recruiting classes and winning championships all you want. It just doesnt change the facts. Look at the teams playing in the CFB playoffs right now. Did any of the have recruiting classes ranked in the 30s?

The facts are that the teams that are consistently competeing for championships, recruit high level, 4 and 5* guys. You are not going to routinely beat teams like Alabama, Georgia, Clemson, OSU and Oklahoma with lower ranked classes. Regardless of how good your coaching staff is.
Click to expand...

You're missing the point homie. Wiscy is just an example, not what we should be shooting for. We should be shooting for the top talent, but we need to emphasize talent development as well. The best teams are developing there talent. We are not. WE can be top 20 recruiting and win titles with a staff that can develop for their system.
 
#47
#47
maxxx said:
You're missing the point homie. Wiscy is just an example, not what we should be shooting for. We should be shooting for the top talent, but we need to emphasize talent development as well. The best teams are developing there talent. We are not. WE can be top 20 recruiting and win titles with a staff that can develop for their system.
Click to expand...

No we can’t since Bama and now UGA are top 5 recruiting and developing their talent. Going forward Kirby won’t have less than 9 wins/season at UGA. We are behind two 8 balls and it’s not going to get better any time soon
 
#48
#48
While not practical, wouldn't it be great if they as freshmen went through a combine to give statistical data points on their strengths/weaknesses as they enter college? They'd certainly be more accurately measured than stars and worthy of ''press conference announcements of school choice''.
 
#49
#49
Cant believe Saban wastes his time with all those 5 stars when he could be just as good with 3 star players. Anybody that believes recruiting rankings dont matter better be prepared to accept 6-6 as being successful. Just because were not ranked highly , dont go trying to justify it as being ok. Ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#50
#50
If you won't to compete for title you got to be in the top 10 year in and out or you will be playing in the MUSIC CITY BOWL a lot, quick trip for me 45 minutes.:thud:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top