The fallacy of recruiting star ratings

But I welcome another recruiting/stars debate.

Stars are over-rated. Bring it on, bitches.

Many of the teams at the top each year produce on the field (USC, Bama, LSU, Ohio State etc…).

However, Notre Dame, Miami, and Tennessee are usually right up with those listed above, and have produced nothing worthwhile for quite some time (not to mention Michigan, who had plenty of 5 star D recruits over the past six years). Perhaps most notably, UCLA has been ranked by scout as a top 10-15 class for most of the past 6 years.

Then take Utah, BYU, Boise State, TCU, Iowa and Wisconsin, which rarely crack the top 25 of the rankings but find themselves well entrenched among the winningest programs this past decade. (BYU and Iowa each have one top 25 class on scout since 2002, while the others combine for 0).

I am not looking to also start an argument over Utah/BSU v. Bama/BCS fight here (though I believe Utah killed em), but the Utah-Wisco group has certainly outperformed the Notre Dame to UCLA group, and it is not even close. And it is not all due to the coaches and systems, as all of the Utah/BSU squads have sent many two to three star recruits to good pro careers at various positions.

What I love about this class at PSU is that they seem like the "right’ kids. Intelligent, dedicated and coachable. Alas, we will have to wait 3-4 years to see if we have a Utah/Boise class full of Ryan Clady’s and Kellen Moores, or if we just have a solid Louisville or ASU class.

Note: “bribe” ≠ illegal. “bribe”=saying things that might not be true, but that a 18-yr old will believe.

shows a decided lack of interest in understanding how recruiting services evaluate players. Anyone could just as easily pick a dozen 5* players who became legit NFL starters then put up 1000 2* players no one has ever heard of. And what conclusion would we draw? Nothing, still.

Recruiting services more than anything else are looking at athleticism. This doesn’t account for guys who mature physically later or for the intangibles. But guess what, football players are athletes! Athleticism matters. If developing under the radar guys trumped raw athleticism Penn State would beat the pants off OSU every year. The recent results show a definite edge for OSU and their 4 and 5 star players.

The bottom line is this. The raw number of 2* star guys succeeding is likely larger than the number of 5* flops. But the probabilities definitely favor the hyped athletes. A betting man doesn’t go all in on a 2* prospect over a 5* prospect. Playing the odds, the hyped athletes deliver more often.

a squad of 2* & 3* recruits are going to be equal to a squad of 4* & 5* recruits. The “cherry picked” examples are merely evidence of just what a crap shoot recruiting is and how wide the margins of error are. The same can be said of the NFL draft.

It certainly means something, especially for the top guys (check this out…most top recruits the past 10 years do well and many have made a living playing football: http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/college/s_778927.html). But it’s just a PART of evaluating a recruit.

I’ve always put the most stock in WHO (what schools) is recruiting a kid. And that’s what scares me the most about PSU’s recent recruits – they are not being recruited by top schools. But I understand this year is unique and I’m giving the staff a complete pass. But next year there are no excuses. They’d better not still be beating the Rice and Temples of the college football world for recruits or the program will be in trouble.

I agree with most, the ratings are basically judgements. The amount of stars simply focuses on size, strength, speed, athlectic ability. It cannot judge a kids mental toughness or heart. More often, when you see a kid with just 2 stars or no stars that kid improves based on inner desire and drive. There is a place for rankings, most of those services get paid based on their evaluations. They watch a lot of tape and are in contact with a lot of HS coaches. I know I coach HS football and have also coached as a GA in college and we used them occasionally so there is a lot of validity to their ratings. Again, that doesn’t mean the player will develope to his potential. Some schools do better jobs at developing their players – Utahs,Boise,Iowa TCU etc. They also do a very good job recruiting for their needs. They specifically target a kid that they feel will fit their system, where as Alabama, Texas, USC recruits kids that will fit in any system. There is a reason that teams battling for National Championships frequently win the recruiting wars. Just look at the SEC teams, they are winning recruiting battles and playing in BCS games LSU, AUBURN, ALABAMA Florida and OSU usually wins the Big 10 recruiting and ( it pains me to say ) they usually either win or are playing for the Big 10 Title. Oklahoma usually wins the Big 12 recruiting and they usually play in their championship. VA Tech usually battles Fla St in recruiting and those 2 usually win their conference. So there is a big correlation between recuiting and winning.