But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
...... But if you believe your coaches are good at evaluating talent, then a coach taking a 3 star player is not an indication that they are failing at recruiting. Now if they are trying to get 4 and 5 star players and fall back at the last second on a 3 star, then yeah, it is like picking the player at random.
Not sure if intentional or not, but you just described players 7-25 in Sark's classes.
But if you looked at the % of 3,4,5s that make the NFL...I think you would see 5s and 4s hit at a way higher rate than 3s.
You do, it's not even close. Percentage-wise, something like 10% of 5-stars get picked in the first round... it's like .005% of 3-stars. I did the analysis once. I wrote an academic paper on a subject very related, so I had to really know. I could go back and dig it up if people were dying to know. I did it also for all conference accolades.
It's just confusing two different points...
a) "Is a 5-star likely to be better in college than a 3-star?" YES OBVIOUSLY. b) "Does being a 3-star preclude you from being picked in the first round?" NO.
Those are very separate questions and have no conditional effects on each other probability-wise.
Have your UW report card in your holster then pop off
It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year.
It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year.
If that were true, USC would be killing it now and Boise state would win 6 games a year. Not to mention, Nebraska wouldn't have spent the better part of the 2000s as a top 25 team. To name some examples.
It's been said multiple times but there is definitely a correlation of stars to wins. Ohio State, Bama, FSU etc are dominating because of great coaching and talent being superior.
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year.
If that were true, USC would be killing it now and Boise state would win 6 games a year. Not to mention, Nebraska wouldn't have spent the better part of the 2000s as a top 25 team. To name some examples.
The last class Petersen had was a 3.2 and this one figures to come in around 3.25. When Stanford and Oregon broke through on the field in 2009-2010, they started recruiting at a 3.4-3.5 average. With those classes they have contended for national championships and have a handful of major bowl wins.
This current class could have been a 3.4 had we got Eletise and Eason. The difference between that and a 3.2 seems small but it isnt. The difference is almost 1 all league guy per class. That starts to add up after a couple of classes and that can be the difference between a good, top 20 team and a loaded team that contends for Pac12 titles yearly.
Next year we should a breakthrough on the field and if that happens then for recruiting we want to see +3.3 going forward. Get +3.35 classes consistently and you will be contending for Rose Bowls almost every year (as Oregon and Stanford have done for the past 5 years).
The last class Petersen had was a 3.2 and this one figures to come in around 3.25. When Stanford and Oregon broke through on the field in 2009-2010, they started recruiting at a 3.4-3.5 average. With those classes they have contended for national championships and have a handful of major bowl wins.
This current class could have been a 3.4 had we got Eletise and Eason. The difference between that and a 3.2 seems small but it isnt. The difference is almost 1 all league guy per class. That starts to add up after a couple of classes and that can be the difference between a good, top 20 team and a loaded team that contends for Pac12 titles yearly.
Next year we should a breakthrough on the field and if that happens then for recruiting we want to see +3.3 going forward. Get +3.35 classes consistently and you will be contending for Rose Bowls almost every year (as Oregon and Stanford have done for the past 5 years).
This is the realest shit ever poasted here about recruiting.
We could still end up around 3.3-3.4 this year if things go really well, but I think they are unlikely to.
Oregon and the Tree are great comparisons because they are teams that did a great job of developing talent as well. So we will need to be about where they were to develop kids in the way they did.
Does anyone know what percentage of recruits are five stars? It has to be less than five.
I'm not going to ask Fetters or Kim because I hate them and they need to jump off the Aurora Bridge, plus they probably wouldn't give a good answer.
Scout gives between 40 and 50 5-stars per year. They are bloating 3-stars but holding steady on 5-stars.
So you figure 120 D1 teams. signing classes of 22 on average that's 2,640 recruits. 45 on average are 5-stars...less than 2%.
I agree, there is way to much discrepancy between recruiting services to even validate star rankings, besides even remotely forgoing player development, inflation of rankings by recruiting a ton of skill players and no one in the trenches. We out recruited Oregon for so many years while they were on their rise. It sure the didn't transition into win loss, because Oregon took players that fit their system, and didn't chase stars.
Comments
Now that isn't to say you can't dominate with 3 star players... But you won't be consistently battling for Natties every year.
This current class could have been a 3.4 had we got Eletise and Eason. The difference between that and a 3.2 seems small but it isnt. The difference is almost 1 all league guy per class. That starts to add up after a couple of classes and that can be the difference between a good, top 20 team and a loaded team that contends for Pac12 titles yearly.
Next year we should a breakthrough on the field and if that happens then for recruiting we want to see +3.3 going forward. Get +3.35 classes consistently and you will be contending for Rose Bowls almost every year (as Oregon and Stanford have done for the past 5 years).
We could still end up around 3.3-3.4 this year if things go really well, but I think they are unlikely to.
Oregon and the Tree are great comparisons because they are teams that did a great job of developing talent as well. So we will need to be about where they were to develop kids in the way they did.
I'm not going to ask Fetters or Kim because I hate them and they need to jump off the Aurora Bridge, plus they probably wouldn't give a good answer.
So you figure 120 D1 teams. signing classes of 22 on average that's 2,640 recruits. 45 on average are 5-stars...less than 2%.