Here is a question...why does it matter whether a kid

[Reality Man]

is ranked a 5 star or 2 star if you have film?


If I tell you a player is a 1-5 star...why believe me...watch the film and come to your own conclusion.

It's a new era...there is video of every player. Do I need to tell you Peppers is a 5 star or can you see it on film?

I tend to read 'Magnus' who has a football background. Pick a guy you trust rather than some website/magazine or t.v. program (ESPN).





Reality Man

 

[ArrowheadBlue]

there are no star ratings for desire

 

[TheDecker]

The evaluations/ranking is helpful because you usually only have highlights, not real game film.

Beyond that, most fans have a hard time really judging film. That's even more true with non-skill position players.

Finally, there are a lot of considerations beyond just the current film and playing ability of a player. Some would even say that the physical potential that a player has (size, speed, athleticism, frame, etc) is even more important in college football recruiting than that players current ability.

In short, if you can actually get access to all that information on a recruit, you can definitely do your own evaluation. But getting access to that must information is really, really hard.

The idea of the rankings is that the recruiting services have all that information, and they have people who are supposed to be used to evaluating collate it all and put out the summed up opinion (a ranking).

Now those assumptions having varying success, and so do the rankings. But for the most part, they're helpful and a good guideline (especially the composite ranking, which tends to average out the issues/extremes)

 

[Reality Man]

So you are basically saying that it is better to evaluate players in person and that coaches probably have more film on guys that recruiting experts.

I agree. This isn't about UM. It could be any school. Who do I believe....Dantonio or a recruiting site. I believe Dantonio and staff. For all I know there is a 3 star guy that they like the most out of their current commitments.

I believe great coaches/staff over recruiting sites especially when it is 8 months before signing day.



Reality Man

 

[TheDecker]

Yep, it's definitely better to evaluate in person, especially if you can get a lot of in person time (during games, practices, and camps).

The issue with trying to agree with coaches over sites is "How do you know what coaches think of a player?"

In today's recruiting world, a kid listing an offer from a school doesn't mean that the school/coach in question would actually take him (uncommitable offer). Even if they would/do take him, you don't know where they had him in their board, relative to other prospects they might not believe they can land. Finally, a lot of what coaches do is scheme, system, culture, program, etc. fits.

If you could find a good coach that would explain exactly what they're thinking on each prospect to you....that would be a lot better than looking at any recruiting services.

The teality is, that's a very hard (or impossible) thing to find. The whole idea of the recruiting services is that they are supposed to have that information and skill, but they'll actually tell you what they're thinking.

Again, the assumptions are imperfect. But there is a reason that there is SUCH a strong correlation between star ranking and NFL Draft chances, All-Americans, P5 starters, etc.

services are right a lot more often than they're wrong, but they're still far from perfect

 

[Reality Man]

A strong correlation between 'success' and 5 stars...because everyone can see high end talent. It's not that difficult for anyone to look at Peppers or Woodson and say...wow...there is some talent.

It is much harder to take the non-5 stars and then tell me how these guys will do because of work ethic, physical and mental development, desire and positional placement, etc.

The best example of legitimizing Evans and Enis was that MSU wanted both of them. That tells me more than whether they are ranked 2-4 stars.

As someone else stated on another site...why should I defer to some recruiting 'expert' over a proven NFL/college coach who is known to have a good eye for talent. I saw the tape on Johnson and was impressed. The fact that he is a two star tells me recruiting experts are asleep at the wheel.

I will say this...if OSU or other high end football programs want the same players....they can be 1 stars.



Reality Man

 

[jbannan]

I value the schools that offer a recruit more than the star rating. Successful programs have a tendency to do a good job of evaluation and that is one major reason they are good programs. Stars have a lot of camp performances. Coaches look at film and talking to HS coaches and scouts about a player and go much deeper. Looking at the offers is the way to go.

 

[Lake Tahoe Spartan]

QUOTE="Reality Man, post: 292632, member: 2552"]is ranked a 5 star or 2 star if you have film?


If I tell you a player is a 1-5 star...why believe me...watch the film and come to your own conclusion.

It's a new era...there is video of every player. Do I need to tell you Peppers is a 5 star or can you see it on film?

I tend to read 'Magnus' who has a football background. Pick a guy you trust rather than some website/magazine or t.v. program (ESPN).





Reality Man[ QUOTE]

I can't believe you guys are making a argument that stars don't matter.

 

[Heisenburg]

I value the schools that offer a recruit more than the star rating. Successful programs have a tendency to do a good job of evaluation and that is one major reason they are good programs. Stars have a lot of camp performances. Coaches look at film and talking to HS coaches and scouts about a player and go much deeper. Looking at the offers is the way to go.

Offer List >>> Stars

The offer list is made by guys who are making millions, the stars are given by guys making thousands.

 

[tarun262]

Star listings speak to potential versus performance. In the world of social media for instance kids can create their own films and only show all the amazing highlights and their coaches obviously love them (since they have had them for 4 years). Ask any kid and any HS coach and they will think "this is the best player I have ever seen". I think the key is potential, work ethic, etc. I know us Blue fans might hate this but let's look at 2 coaches that manage ratings very well:

Urban - get's the most out of 4-5 star recruits. He recruits talent and that talent shows on the field.
Dantonio - gets the most out of 2-star recruits. He develops them and they perform.

And then there was Hoke where 5-stars came to become 1-stars.

Net net, stars matter but essentially kids need to develop. Look at the NFL draft - it's the same thing.

 

[klemman]

Coaches could care less about Star Ratings. But there's a reason guys with 4-5 Stars get recruited by more coaches and the top programs. Much of the analysis is based on the same criteria: size and speed, game film, performances in games and in camps, and what other schools are recruiting them.

Regarding talent versus coaching, I like Meyer's quote on this, at least from an offensive perspective.

"Coaching gets you the first 3 to 5 yards. Talent gets you the additional yards."

 

[Reality Man]

Great great line by Meyer.


The main point I am making is that it's entirely overrated to say a program with 15 low 4 star guys is somehow much much better than the program with 15 high 3 star guys.

It's laughable. It is. What is the difference? He has better muscle structure at 17 years old? His mother makes better lasagna? He gave a better on camera interview?

If you told me that UM was looking at a player who was a 4 star vs. a 3 star and the 3 star had offers from OSU and MSU whereas the 4 star didn't then I would take the 3 star guy. If you told me Harbaugh loved the 4 star guy over the 3 star guy then I would side with Harbaugh.

That simple. I have absolutely no interest in what 'Rivals' opinion is on the player. None. If I cared then I would ask why the Rivals guy wasn't on the staff.



Reality Man