Lots of discussion frequently occurs on this site about whether stars matter in recruiting. Sure, there are the Luther Maddy's of the world that defy expectations. And Justin Fuente and staff are committed to evaluating the player and not looking at the services reviews the they evaluate talent. However, the Alabama's, OSU's, ND's, etc. of the world constantly get top talent (4/5 *) and therefore constantly are "in the mix." Here's an interesting read from SB Nation - interested in everyone's thoughts on it:
http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2016/2/2/10889856/na...
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
I interpret stars as a measure of how likely it is that a given player will be a strong contributor (2+ years starting). IMO:
The way I see it, you don't get Mike Vick, Kevin Jones, and Tyrod Taylor-type athletes from 2 and 3 stars, no matter how much you develop them. Guys like Dadi or even Cody Grimm have ceilings, and a 5-star's potential ceiling is much higher.
You sure about that?
Obviously there's no hard rule on any of this...
Really. You go Wilson and Watt and not this guy!!!
Check link to see a video of his hands post-Minnesota game.
You can pull the stats anyway you want, there's good arguments on both sides.
I think the premise can only be but so stable, you're trying to anticipate the production of a 17-18 year old kid. Stars are endorsements from people who have a greater perspective of current talent by having a vantage to compare them to. I think a coaches assessment is just as valid.
But it really comes down to how we look at it. Nobody says hey look at how well this group of all 5 stars faired in 3 years against this group of 3, nobody looks at it like that. They just look at one kid on one team so the trends and probabilities no longer hold up. All in all having multiple classes with pools of 4 and 5 stars who the coaches like is never a bad thing.
4-5* guys are what you want, but sometimes those guys just dont translate well at the next level. The same reason some CFB studs dont translate well in the NFL and flame out. Some of its coaching, some of it is on the kid and him growing and maturing as a player. Id much rather have a class with 10 5* players than 10 3* players, but until they step on the field, theres no sure fire way of knowing.
I'm also inclined to suggest that some guys peak at different times.
There's the kid who is a world-beater in high school but then gets to college and doesn't develop any more.
There's the kid who is average in high school and pulls it all together in college and becomes the best player in NCAA.
There's the kid who is just barely good enough out of high school to get an offer, or walks-on somewhere, only to really develop in college into just-draftable or a free agent pickup who then blossoms to a great player in the pros.
This, I think, is the biggest question mark about people. When are they going to peak? If you bring in a 5star guy, is it all downhill from there? If you bring in a 0star guy, will he continue to get better? Tough stuff to project.
Yes
http://m.bleacherreport.com/articles/2613145-do-top-10-recruiting-classe...
Thought this article had some points specifically for your question .
Stars are an indicator but i like to look at the other offers a kid has. If we are competing with the Bama's and OSU's for a kid then to me he's more likely to be good than a same rated kid who we are competing with UVA, ODU, Vandy, and Duke for.
The stars mean 2 things: the probability of a kid translating to the college game and how quickly. Developmental players will be rated lower but could have as high of a ceiling as a highly rated player.
yes, BUT with the right coach. A single recruiting class does not make up a championship team, but PERENNIAL contenders are made up of highly rated recruits. The data shown in the past supports that.
It sucks, but the only way we achieve that is to overachieve with what we have long enough to become a top place for those blue chippers.
That quote should tell you all you need to know.
And you can't get a top class without winning. Everything goes hand in hand. You can win without a top class, but there is a ceiling. The goal is to roll the winning back into recruiting success so that you can then win more. You have to start somewhere though.
Absolutely they matter. Has the devil, Nick Saban won 4 national championships since '09?
No doubt, developmental prospects can be big-time hits. But the overall top-to-bottom class quality is crucial for depth. Stars, as stupid as they sound, are decided by folks with a lot of experience watching high school players and their adjustment to the college game. You are certainly not doing yourself a disservice by signing players who 'the experts' agree are pretty damn good.
Yeah you aren't going to compete annually without getting the top recruits all around. That's why we have to improve with the big time recruits.