Looking back a couple years on 247 sports recruiting for our team I wanted to dig a little bit deeper into the recruiting and find out exactly how often these so called "star" ratings and stuff like that panned out. So first I looked back to 2010
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season/2010-Football/Commits
The ratings weren't very accurate in 2010 because in my opinion at least I feel that 4 of the top 5 out of that class production wise were 3 star rated or lower
Chase Williams
Kyle Fuller
Detrick Bonner
Derrick Hopkins
Now lets check out 2011
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season/2011-Football/Commits
I would say for the most part they got the ratings right in 2011 except for the snubs of Luther Maddy and Ryan Malleck who were both rated 3 stars.
to add with Maddy and Malleck to round out the top 5 of this class I would add
Kyshoen Jarrett
Corey Marshall
Ronny Vandyke
Now take a look at 2012
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season/2012-Football/Commits
2012 was a little tougher to read they missed on a couple but at the top Ken has proved his 4 star rating well deserved so far.
AND OBVIOUSLY JC COLEMAN!! I mean come on he has incredible heart he is the true definition of a Hokie he was buried on the depth chart he could have easily shut him self down and not stayed mentally prepared for this shot but man he's helped a lot lately for sure.
Here is a look at 2013
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season/2013-Football/Commits
2013 was really deep some seemed to be better than their ratings and others definitely held true on their's as well
Kendall Fuller 5 star
Wyatt Teller 4 star
Bucky Hodges 4 star
they were the obvious ones and then the hidden gems were
Deon Newsome
Kalvin Cline
Jonathan McLaughlin
all three had 3 star ratings
Lastly we take a look at 2014
http://virginiatech.247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/Commits
If 2014 follows suit like the past 3 classes this class is going to turn out very nice for the Good Guys
A lot of talent for sure Cam Phillips, Isaiah Ford, Marshawn Williams, Shai Mckenzie, and I guess the hidden gem of this class so far would have to be Greg Stroman he's an excellent punt returner, I wish they would find a way to get him more involved in the game he's a gamechanger with that speed.
Comments
I personally think it would be beneficial to compare these ratings to the ratings of other players in the ACC. Sure, we may think these players are great, but does it really mean anything if they aren't getting recognition outside of our realm? Does that make sense? Guys like Kendall Fuller and Bucky Hodges have certainly lived up to their ratings but I would wager to bet most others have kind of fit in right where they were projected. We do have a few guys though that have come to national recognition such as Maddy and Dadi Nicolas (he doesn't even have a rating).
I thought it was interesting reading tonight that Marcus Mariota was a 3 star prospect and only held offers from Oregon and Memphis.
No, they don't always translate. However, they translate often enough that having lots of highly rated players pays dividends if you've got a good coaching staff in place. Miami, for example, can't get their shit together. That's not a star rating problem - that's a culture problem (and kind of a QB issue too, though Kaaya looks much better than MIami has had in a while). Lots of these kids from mediocre Miami teams are going on to have fine NFL careers.
There are lots of variables but let me say this. If VT landed 20 5* players, and 53 4* players from 2012-2015, the way that Alabama did, we'd be in the national title conversation every year. Bet your ass.
Here we go again
Just curious if you made this comment because you think stars are overrated or what? Personally, I think it's an interesting discussion.
It's a topic VT fans have debated for a decade.
But more to the actual wording of the OP: no, rating does not always translate, it's a settled matter. Just as it is a settled matter that this is not the main criterion on which to judge recruiting rankings.
Gotcha. It's probably a topic that fans of a lot of different teams have debated - those hopeful but never-quite-there national championship teams, that is.
I am intrigued, what IS the main criterion on which recruiting rankings are judged?
No disrespect to the OP. It just seems like this comes up every 6 months and the same conclusion is reached. The majority of 5 star recruits are going to be good. There will be busts. There will be 2 and 3 star gems.
I feel like I just teleported to 2005...
I think you mean "Beam"-ed up" heh....
I think the better question to ask is statistically, how often do 5 stars flame out? How often do 4 stars flame out? Yes, we find lots of 3 stars at VT that do great things. We also have several that don't see much playing time and just get a degree and move on with life.
I think it was last NFL draft they went back and looked. A great deal of the first round picks were four and five stars. And yes, there were several two and three star guys.
I look at it this way. The more stars a kid has the higher the odds of doing well. Some staffs are good at upping that probability. Take all of it with a grain of salt though. Some high end programs do generate stars. One kid, Budd Thacker it think it was committed to VT and had two stars. He then flipped to FSU and got 4 stars. Played some, not much, and didn't go to the NFL. Some guy named Cam Chancellor came to VT as a two star and went to the pro bowl.
Red Dwarfs never flame out
My brother (a Big 10 grad) did some broader analysis on this looking at stars and getting drafted. He found that roughly 50% of 5* get drafted, 15% of 4* get drafted and 8% of 3* get drafted.
Looked from the opposite perspective -- NOT getting drafted:
~50% of 5* do NOT get drafted
~85% of 4* do NOT get drafted
~92% of 3* do NOT get drafted
Assuming this data is correct, I take several things from this:
1) There is a considerable difference between 5* talent and the rest
2) Being a 5* is no guarantee of success
3) While 4* have twice the likelihood of 3* of being drafted, the likelihood of neither being drafted is similar and quite high. There is a reason why even Alabama or Ohio State will only have 6 or 8 guys drafted out of a class of 25.
4) Given the lack of granularity in the star system (and thus some 4* are near 5* and some 3* are near 2*), the difference between mid-4* and mid-3* is probably quite small -- and the difference between a low 4* and high 3* is probably negligible.
My conclusion is that handful or so of programs which can consistently recruit a half dozen or more 5* and high 4* talent are going to have a noticeable advantage. Beyond that the differences are fairly small (but not meaningless) -- however variables like player development, system fit, and class breadth (i.e. not over or undersigning at a particular position) are more important to program success than recruiting stars and rankings.
I bet that a lot of those 4 stars that didn't get drafted went to teams loaded with other 4 and 5 star players.
I always look at things from a VT recruiting standpoint. I would hammer home the point that if you don't see the field, no one is going to see you. And if you are a 4 star from Virginia, it will be a whole lot easier for an out of state traditional power to just put you on the shelf once you get there. They have no one to answer to - they don't need to go to the Virginia well like VT does.
I'll bet you're wrong. Only ~36% (125) of 4* went to the Rivals top 10 ranked teams for recruiting in 2014. And only ~63% (220) went to the top 20 schools. So it would be pretty hard for that math to work out.
For the most part, the reason the 4* guys at Alabama or Ohio State don't get drafted is the same reason they don't get drafted elsewhere...they probably don't have the talent and/or size to play an NFL position.
Now a 4* may not be a 4 year starter at one of the elite schools, but if you're good enough to get drafted, you're almost certainly going to find a place on the field at some point. In fact, I'd venture that for every 4* who might happen get buried behind, say, an Amari Cooper, there is one who gets drafted largely on being at Alabama rather than, say, Indiana.
Only looking at things from a VT perspective is almost assuredly going to give you a biased, inaccurate picture.
You may believe that I am wrong about 4 stars languishing away and not getting any exposure, but it appears as though neither of us can actually prove our points without a whole lot of effort.
"Only looking at things from a VT perspective is almost assuredly going to give you a biased, inaccurate picture."
I was just making a point from a recruiting perspective - a VT recruiting perspective, which is all I am really concerned about. I should have probably stayed out of the debate since that is not really what is being discussed. Carry on.
I think you're not framing the argument fairly. Consider a program like Bama, which hauls in well over 15 4-5 stars per year. Given redshirting, that's five classes at once feeding a program that can only field 22 starters. There is simply not room for all that talent to be developed - the best of the best will fill the starting lineup and the rest will have to wait, or languish. It's simply a numbers matter.
At VT, if a 4 star doesn't pan out, it's because he's not worthy. We sign relatively few so he's given ample opportunity. Looking at things from a VT perspective is what gets you into the 'stars don't matter' mode, because often those non-worthy 4 stars get beat out by 3 stars.
Alabama's projected draft numbers aren't significantly different from the overall projected draft numbers by star rating. In 2009, they recruited four 5*, fourteen 4*, and nine 3*. You would project them to have ~5 guys drafted in 2014 (4 x 50% + 14 x 15% + 9 x 8%). In fact, they had 6 drafted.
Granted that's a small sample size, but if a draft worthy 4* going to, say, Alabama was either beneficial or detrimental to being drafted -- wouldn't you see a large difference in those numbers? If that many guys with NFL size and ability are languishing, wouldn't we see more transfers from elite programs? And of those that do transfer, doesn't it seem like the reasons they weren't previously starting become very apparent with a very high percentage of them? (I'd say this is true with a high percentage of transfers in general -- regardless of the school they transfer from).
I'm not going to run the broader numbers, but my gut tells me that there just is little correlation between the likelihood of a 4* getting drafted and whether you go to an "elite" program or not. If you're a draft worthy player, you'll very likely find the field at some point -- even at Bama or OSU or USC or Texas.
I'm not saying stars don't matter. I'm just saying that once you get beyond 5* and high 4*, they matter a lot less. It's not linear; the difference between 5* & 4* is much greater than the difference between 4* and 3*. That's why a number of schools in the 15-40 recruiting rankings that evaluate talent well and recruit to their systems and needs (Oregon, Michigan St, TCU, Wisconsin, etc...and, yes, VT) can have pretty good and sustained success -- and occasionally have runs where they are better than their blue-blood rivals. Even though the blue-bloods get most of the 5* talent, there just aren't that many of those guys. They still mostly rely on 4* talent -- which far more often than not does not "succeed" (for a number of reasons) and isn't so much better than the 3*/4* talent at non-elite schools.
For every elite school like Bama that's had tremendous success in the last 6 or 8 years, there's also Florida or Texas who have recruited on par with Bama during this time frame, but with much less success.
Look up phil Steeles research. I can't remember the acronym he uses, but he averages all the recruiting services to create a class of the best players by position. He updates their draft status every year. There is a correlation.
Very nice analysis. It would be interesting to compare the %'s by team versus the national average, but so few teams have enough 5*'s to get a good sample. A lot of people will talk about players being better by being in the system, but nothing beats experience for learning, and I would think as an over-all thing you would have a better chance of developing into a draft-able player in a smaller program because you get earlier playing team. This does not mean the NFL doesn't see talent, but if two players have equal talent you take the guy who has developed more with it because he is a better player now.
This is pure educated guesswork, but with such low draft rates overall for 4* and 3*, I'd venture that it doesn't differ significantly. Perhaps you might find a sweet spot in the 11-25 ranked teams that have talent on their rosters but not so much to restrict the ability to offer early playing time and have the facilities, coaching, visability, etc. to best develop a 4* player, but I'd still guess it's only a marginal difference.
I suspect that, in general, the competition in practice and for a playing spot plus the better facilities, coaching, etc at an elite program would offset any advantage of being on the field earlier at a "non-elite" program. I would think that, depending upon the individual, one could flourish better in one system than the other and vice versa.
The other thing here is that the star system isn't just intended to measure pro potential. It's also a measure of potential to have an impact at the college level. While these aren't mutually exclusive, they're aren't the same thing either. There are guys who are quite good at the college level whose skill set simply doesn't translate to the next level. Is that success or failure?
You did a great job of highlighting a lot of different variables. At the end of the day, based off this analysis and just my general observation, star ratings matter quite a bit for any team that wants to compete for a Natty Title consistently.
Haven't seen anyone dispute this directly, but I sense there are some doubters out in TKP world.
Isn't there a very, very small number of 5 star players in any given recruiting cycle?
I know 247 has somewhat supplanted Rivals as the de facto gurus of recruiting, but I seem to remember back when I followed recruiting more closely about ten years ago or so, there were typically only a dozen or so 5 stars in any given year. Sometimes not even ten. Does this still ring true? Has that number gone up?
Reason I ask, if the number of 5 stars is still tiny, that tells me that the recruiting services have done their homework and, yes, there is something special about this kid. 5 stars is a more meaningful, concrete declaration of ability than 4 stars. And I don't mean a 5 star is better than a 4 star (duh), I mean you can trust that a 5 star player really IS a 5 star player. As someone else pointed out, a player can bump from 3 stars (or even 2) to 4 stars by virtue of who recruits them. There's way more guesswork when we get down to 3 and 4 star players, and the line dividing those two categories is pretty nebulous.
it varies some years obviously but yeah usually around 10-15 5 stars a year.
Incorrect. Rivals & 247 are usually around 30 five stars each year.
Depends. Did they commit to lolUVA?
First of all, I appreciate your interest and energy shown.
This is obviously a small sample size study and would not be relevant as an assessment of the rating system itself. But I'm not sure that is what you are implying. This seems like a simple study of how VT recruits have performed relative to their rankings. That is interesting and useful.
I would recommend you assign tangible goals for each tier. 5*s may be deemed successful if they are all conference players. 4*s, multi year starters. 3*s, single year starters or key reserves. 2*s, special teams players.
2011 might be one of the least productive recruiting classes we've ever had (at least at every position other than defensive line). I cringed a little seeing RVD listed as one of our best players from that class and looking at the list didn't ease that feeling.
Thought it might be relevant to link to a related piece Sammy Eanes penned on the site nearly two years to add to the discussion.
Let's ask ourselves what the stars mean. NFL success and star ratings are not necessarily related. A great college player can go undrafted. A mediocre to good college player can be a mediocre NFL talent and play for 15 years. My view of stars:
* player is probably a career backup
** player is expected to be able to contribute after being coached and conditioned a few years
*** player should be an average contributor for a college team.
**** player should be an above average to excellent contributor
There isn't much difference in the **** and ***** guys except that the ***** are viewed as being able to contribute instantly. The **** guys may be just as talented but need to put on a little weight or change positions.
My view of contributor is a starter or highly used backup. Above average would be all-conference caliber players. When viewing the success of the recruits, keep in mind that there are many less ***** than **** and so on. So percentage of success may be higher for higher rated guys, but there is probably a higher number of *** guys on all conference teams and in the NFL than **** guys (this may not be true, I'm guessing). There are always sleepers and busts that come out of systems in high school that were either so good, bad, or unique that they are hard to evaluate. It's also hard to evaluate success. A solid player may not be flashy or full of big play potential, but still be an excellent talent.
I would add that the sports world has gotten very good at being able to evaluate pure athletic potential. However, we're not so good at evaluating football IQ, situational awareness, personality, etc. A great player has to be able read, react, and do. The doing is where the atheticism usually comes in, but the reading and reacting comes with coaching and maturity.
I just illustrated above that there is, in fact, a big difference between 4* & 5*. It's 3* & 4* that aren't that different.
The results based analysis by percentage may indicate that. But I would say that from a pure athletic standpoint, the **** and ***** guys are all superior. The ***** grades aren't handed out unless they seem to be a can't miss type of talent and ready to play right now. So by that standpoint, if the recruiting service is saying that a ***** guys is can't miss, and 50% miss, that might be the category with the highest rate of error by the recruiting service. The **** guys are expected to have some flaws.
But I get what you are saying. Since the question was do they translate, I would agree that the *** and **** guys translate similarly. And, if the question is do the stars matter? Yes and No. The probability of success goes up the higher rated class you have. But, a lower rated class CAN do better than a higher rated class. So my conclusion is that recruiting isn't an exact science. I would strive to get the highest rated most talented guys I can, but not necessarily be discouraged when I miss and need to fill the gap with a *** guy that I am personally high on.
I think another related point is that a 5* guy is probably already identified as having a distinct position. Kendall was rated a 5* corner, but he also played receiver in high school. No one talked about him as a receiver during recruitment because he was clearly a corner. Some of those ridiculously athletic guys are probably 4* because they don't have a perfect positional fit.
Thinking of Joel Caleb?
I was thinking Logan Thomas.
So was I, but the Joel Caleb comparison above applies just as well
Josh Sweat would be a very good TE.
Having debated this topic for years and years, I find the debater's position is heavily influenced by whether they're a 'talent' guy or a 'coaching' guy or a 'system' guy. The talent guy believes you win by having the most talent. The coaching guy believes you win by having the best coaching. The system guy believes you win by having the best system. Each has examples that support their philosophy. Since VT never has the best talent our fans tend to be 'coaching' guys or perhaps 'system' guys since we are defense-first. Miami fans are definitely 'talent guys.
There is probably truth in each side which is why it is so darn hard to be successful at the elite level.
Excellent point. Here's where VT stands historically in my opinion:
Coaching = good enough to win (if Les "The Mad Hatter" Miles can win a NC, anybody can)
System = defense has been there for years, offense may be on the way, IMO, or at least the program recognizes that it must be so for us to take the crystal ball.
Talent = Deficient on O-line and WR in general, Deficient in sizeable D-line and LB prospects (Bud makes up for pretty much all of it)
to clarify, I think Beamer is a guy who COULD coach a team to a NC.....our offensive coaching has been atrocious at times.
As for talent, add the fact that we simply are not DEEP enough across the board to win a NC. Some of our first string is as good as any team in the nation, but in several spots we're one injury away from hitting the panic button. And I don't just mean this season, I mean as a trend.
POP QUIZ: Since Rivals and 247 recruiting class rankings were created, name the last National Champion who didn't have a Top-10 class in the three years prior to winning the trophy. I truly don't know the answer, but I'd bet a shit-ton of money the answer is zero.
Oops, meant for the post below you to be a reply.
Per rivals:
In 2006, Alabama had the 11th ranked class. Three years later they won in 2009.
In 2005, Florida had the 15th ranked class, VT was 14th btw, and Florida won three years later in 2008.
Those were the only two times that the champ won it without a top-10 class three years before.