Here is the challenge. I will give you definitive proof....absolute

[Reality Man]

proof that star rankings are full of you know what...at least on the low level.

Ready?


Here is the challenge....go watch the film on UM recruit Josh Metellus and then go to the link below for a new
Purdue recruit...

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/2995696/highlights/198094376/v2


Now...it looks like the Purdue recruit (from MI) also plays wr but he is a 3 star. The UM recruit is a 2 star. So watch the film on both players and tell me the difference. The both play free safety.

Challenge. Who is the better prospect? What star ranking would you give each player?




Reality Man

 

[TheDecker]

This would be more meaningful if:

1.) the rankings you're so upset about were the final rankings, and not just an interim ranking

2.) the video you were using as evidence was in fact extensive film of actual games and not just briefly highlight film out togehter by the prospects/families themselves

3.) the prospects were playing with the same type of talent around them, against the same type of talent, in somewhat comparable systems


As is, your comparison is pretty meaningless

 

[Reality Man]

Thank You. Thank You. You didn't realize but you just MADE my point for me in what I can honestly say a more convincing manner.

3.) the prospects were playing with the same type of talent around them, against the same type of talent, in somewhat comparable systems


So basically you can't determine who is better since there are so many variables. Exactly. Can you definitively tell me the difference between the higher ranked guy and the lower ranked guy. I would prefer the lower ranked guy if I didn't know which school they were to attend.

Well done. By the way, the rankings were I suppose based on the film/evaluation at the same time which would be last year? See...these star rankings are for the most part....illogical.



Reality Man

 

[wolverines74]

1.) the rankings you're so upset about were the final rankings, and not just an interim ranking
This point is most important to me. We are in the Summer of what will be their last season of FB. A lot can happen during this fall. I can see and hope to see the na and 2-3 star prospects jump up the list. This staff under Jim can see potential and that is what we are all counting on. I don't expect UM to finish in the Top 10 recruiting, but I do expect us to get kids with a lot of future UP SIDE!

God Bless Go Blue and have a Happy Fathers day. "74

 

[Reality Man]

To your point, Yes, I laugh at supposed rankings that are somehow indicative of the next 4 years of a young man's college football career. This is another variable that doesn't pass the laugh test. Would people laugh at rankings of 14 year olds? Of course. Remember...these are rankings of guys who for the most part won't see the field significantly until 2-3 years later.

See how funny this is...people laugh at 15 year old rankings but then take 17 year old rankings to heart when the body, mind and all these other variables have yet to play out.

To my OP...these are virtually identical players and some guy/s at Rivals probably watched 2 minutes of film while they were eating buffalo wings with a beer while on the phone with their girlfriend. I'll bet you they if they did this evaluation 2 hours late after they took a nap then the ratings would be reversed.


Reality Man

 

[TheDecker]

Thank You. Thank You. You didn't realize but you just MADE my point for me in what I can honestly say a more convincing manner.

3.) the prospects were playing with the same type of talent around them, against the same type of talent, in somewhat comparable systems


So basically you can't determine who is better since there are so many variables. Exactly. Can you definitively tell me the difference between the higher ranked guy and the lower ranked guy. I would prefer the lower ranked guy if I didn't know which school they were to attend.

Well done. By the way, the rankings were I suppose based on the film/evaluation at the same time which would be last year? See...these star rankings are for the most part....illogical.


Reality Man

The reality is, that the rankings are (statistically speaking) VERY HIGHLY correlated with success. If you look at the last 10 national champions and the recruiting classes that they had the 4 years leading up to their champsionships....that's obvious

If you look at the Top10 in any given year and look at their recruiting rankings for the 4 prior years...again, it's obviously highly correlated

THere are always exceptions to the rules, both on the individual player and team levels, but the trends are far to strong to be argued with



Futher, your point about "I like our 2* more than their 3*, just look at this little bit of highligh film for their juniors years....and you can't argue against it!!" is the only laughable thing I see in this thread

 

[TheDecker]

To your point, Yes, I laugh at supposed rankings that are somehow indicative of the next 4 years of a young man's college football career. This is another variable that doesn't pass the laugh test. Would people laugh at rankings of 14 year olds? Of course. Remember...these are rankings of guys who for the most part won't see the field significantly until 2-3 years later.

See how funny this is...people laugh at 15 year old rankings but then take 17 year old rankings to heart when the body, mind and all these other variables have yet to play out.

To my OP...these are virtually identical players and some guy/s at Rivals probably watched 2 minutes of film while they were eating buffalo wings with a beer while on the phone with their girlfriend. I'll bet you they if they did this evaluation 2 hours late after they took a nap then the ratings would be reversed.


Reality Man

Yeah......

This post is simply incorrect, uneducated, and goes against very easily available statistical evidence

You should probably read/listen more and post less (at least about recruiting and recruit ranking/evaluation) as it's very obvious that you know little to nothing about it

 

[Reality Man]

Here is a guy I like that committed to Wiscy (from Fla). He is ranked a 4 star but more of a ss.

He has offers from everywhere for good reason..he is a well rounded player but in all honesty...other than his physique being more developed...I don't think he is significantly better than Metellus. I couldn't tell you who would be better but do understand why he is thought of highly.

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/2251550/highlights/163964376/v2


You could throw all 3 of these guys listed in these posts and odd's are they all have a similar level of performance with the probability that the guy with the more prestigious offers (Wiscy commit) excels and that is very hard to quantify in a team oriented sport like football.


Reality Man

 

[TheDecker]

Also, just because you can't tell the difference between prospects doesn't mean they're on thhe same or even similar levels

It really says more about your evaluation abilities than anything else

 

[michigangoblue999]

To my OP...these are virtually identical players and some guy/s at Rivals probably watched 2 minutes of film while they were eating buffalo wings with a beer while on the phone with their girlfriend.

You really think the dorks who come up with these star ratings have girlfriends?

 

[pbrstreetgang]

You really think the dorks who come up with these star ratings have girlfriends?

Do you?

 

[Westcoast24]

Do you?

Pnnylion is back

 

[connsparty]

proof that star rankings are full of you know what...at least on the low level.

Ready?


Here is the challenge....go watch the film on UM recruit Josh Metellus and then go to the link below for a new
Purdue recruit...

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/2995696/highlights/198094376/v2


Now...it looks like the Purdue recruit (from MI) also plays wr but he is a 3 star. The UM recruit is a 2 star. So watch the film on both players and tell me the difference. The both play free safety.

Challenge. Who is the better prospect? What star ranking would you give each player?




Reality Man

RM,
I think coaches would like a secret formula in determining which recruit pans out or fails based on star ratings. It does seem obvious to me that JH puts no emphasis on whether a recruit has 2 stars or 5. This seems in stark contrast to Hoke who seemed to take committments based on Rival rankings. Harbaugh is like Dantonio in that regards. If a kid is athletic and fast, recuit him, redshirt him, and lets see what he does over the 5 yrs. The redshirt year, IMO, is a great equalizer when comparing 2 star to 4 and 5 star talent.

 

[Reality Man]

True Dekker but what does it say that Harbaugh & staff offered a supposed low level 2 star recruit.

I think it says Rivals isn't that reliable. Correct?

 

[ChicagoBlueFan]

Pnnylion is back

Ed is Sandusky's girlfriend. But his heart still belongs to JoePed...