Recruiting rankings for SB 50 starters.

[TDs3nOut]

With both National Signing Day and the Super Bowl just around the corner, here is a piece that I think is topical: How each Super Bowl 2016 starter was rated as a high school recruit

The Panthers seem to have more players on their roster who were highly rated recruits than do the Broncos. For example, five Panther starters were rated five-star recruits, while no Bronco starter rated five stars.

On the other hand, the Broncos will start all of these notable players who were rated two-stars or less:
Emmanuel Sanders, Matt Paradis, Derek Wolfe, Brandon Marshall, Danny Travathon, Aquib Talib, Chris Harris, and TJ Ward.

 

[HuskerinBig10]

Something I learned, that the ratings systems for recruits is a very new thing.

Peyton Manning was a HIGHLY coveted recruit, so he would have been a five star.

 

[TDs3nOut]

Something I learned, that the ratings systems for recruits is a very new thing.

Peyton Manning was a HIGHLY coveted recruit, so he would have been a five star.

I know it is relatively new, but I'm not sure when the ratings system began. The class rankings on 247Sports.com go back as far as 1999.

 

[Codaxx]

I know it is relatively new, but I'm not sure when the ratings system began. The class rankings on 247Sports.com go back as far as 1999.

These come out every year to generate clicks. I am not sure what else they are good for. If we are going back 15 years there are going to be ~6700 more 3 stars than 5 stars, so it isnt shocking that more 3 stars make up SB rosters.

 

[TDs3nOut]

These come out every year to generate clicks. I am not sure what else they are good for. If we are going back 15 years there are going to be ~6700 more 3 stars than 5 stars, so it isnt shocking that more 3 stars make up SB rosters.

I've always thought it kind of interesting just what to make of the recruiting rankings. There are many examples of both highly rated recruits not panning out and lowly rated recruits turning into stars. To me, looking at how current NFL players were rated provides some indication of how meaningful recruiting ratings are, though it obviously an incomplete picture.

 

[Deep Creek]

Saw this in the DMN yesterday and felt it appropriate here.

ESPN analysts: Quarterback key for Charlie Strong, Texas success | SportsDay

"I like this approach from Charlie Strong right now. There is a stigma - right, wrong or indifferent - that there's a lot of finished products in the state of Texas. You've got over-trained kids - Kids that are tapped out. They're the same at 18 that they were at 14 and maybe worst - the same at 22 that they were at 18. If you look previously to Charlie Strong's arrival, you've got a bunch of kids that were committed as freshman, sophomores; they don't get any better ... At least what Charlie's doing here is evaluating to the end."

Some of the 5*s may have already peaked. Especially if they come from top notch HS programs that develop early. Finding the "raw" ones that haven't been developed is a big key.

 

[Codaxx]

I've always thought it kind of interesting just what to make of the recruiting rankings. There are many examples of both highly rated recruits not panning out and lowly rated recruits turning into stars. To me, looking at how current NFL players were rated provides some indication of how meaningful recruiting ratings are, though it obviously an incomplete picture.

Recruiting Matters: Be they ever so humble, the rankings (still) get it right


Additionally, based on the 2014 NFL Draft, a five-star recruit has a 60 percent chance of getting drafted (16 of 27) and a four-star has a 20 percent opportunity (77 of 395). Meanwhile, three-star recruits have just a 5.5 percent chance (92 of 1644) and two-stars/unranked players have less than a three-percent likelihood of getting drafted (71 of 2,434). - See more at: Don't deny climate change: Recruiting rankings matter

Its been proven time and again that 5 stars get drafted more frequently than 4 and 3 stars. The biggest issue is the size of each. There are generally 25-30 5 stars each year and ~500 3 stars. That does not mean there are not a lot of talented 3 stars available, just that if you play the odds you are grabbing the highest rated recruits. I like to say the star rankings mean little on the individual level, but mean a lot a on the aggregate. Which basically means you will find plenty of exceptions that defy the rankings, but overall the rankings will turn out correct

 

[TDs3nOut]

Saw this in the DMN yesterday and felt it appropriate here.

ESPN analysts: Quarterback key for Charlie Strong, Texas success | SportsDay

"I like this approach from Charlie Strong right now. There is a stigma - right, wrong or indifferent - that there's a lot of finished products in the state of Texas. You've got over-trained kids - Kids that are tapped out. They're the same at 18 that they were at 14 and maybe worst - the same at 22 that they were at 18. If you look previously to Charlie Strong's arrival, you've got a bunch of kids that were committed as freshman, sophomores; they don't get any better ... At least what Charlie's doing here is evaluating to the end."

Some of the 5*s may have already peaked. Especially if they come from top notch HS programs that develop early. Finding the "raw" ones that haven't been developed is a big key.

That is interesting. Never really thought about it, but it certainly stands to reason that the ability to project how recruits will develop is critical to recruiting success. Have to think that the guy who recruited Panthers CB Josh Norman, for example, was pretty astute to recognize that a zero-star recruit could develop into an FCS All-America, before then becoming one of the best CBs in the NFL.

The ability to project how players will develop might also account for why there are consistently teams that finish high (low) in the recruiting class rankings, only to then underachieve (overachieve) on the field.

 

[TDs3nOut]

I like to say the star rankings mean little on the individual level, but mean a lot a on the aggregate. Which basically means you will find plenty of exceptions that defy the rankings, but overall the rankings will turn out correct

That makes sense. If I understand correctly, I think that is an example of the Central Limit Theorem in statistics.

 

[Codaxx]

That is interesting. Never really thought about it, but it certainly stands to reason that the ability to project how recruits will develop is critical to recruiting success. Have to think that the guy who recruited Panthers CB Josh Norman, for example, was pretty astute to recognize that a zero-star recruit could develop into an FCS All-America, before then becoming one of the best CBs in the NFL.

The ability to project how players will develop might also account for why there are consistently teams that finish high (low) in the recruiting class rankings, only to then underachieve (overachieve) on the field.

It is a lot of things.
#1 there are just a lot of kids playing football. No way the recruiting services are going to find them all.
#2 Positional ambiguity is another huge one. Lot of times kids without an easy position projection are unvalued
#3 Moving positions. OU had a OT that was a top 10 pick. Guy played QB in HS and went JUCO and put on a 100 LBs. Hard to blame that on services.

Teams that generally underperform their rankings are teams that generally have a lot of Turnover. I can say in Year 1 of Strong's coaching at Texas every senior on offense and defense had 3 different coordinators. Not a very good environment for development. On the offensive side they were major philosophical changes.

 

[Codaxx]

That is interesting. Never really thought about it, but it certainly stands to reason that the ability to project how recruits will develop is critical to recruiting success. Have to think that the guy who recruited Panthers CB Josh Norman, for example, was pretty astute to recognize that a zero-star recruit could develop into an FCS All-America, before then becoming one of the best CBs in the NFL.

The ability to project how players will develop might also account for why there are consistently teams that finish high (low) in the recruiting class rankings, only to then underachieve (overachieve) on the field.

I actually agree with this. Texas HS football is the best in the nation. That is also the reason the recruits tend to have higher floors than recruits in other regions. Texas is HS football crazy and throw more money at it than other states. The facilities and coaching are on average much better here. Many of the kids have had 4 years with a S&C in HS. The exception is East Texas. That is also where the best recruits generally come from.

 

[Texas Jefe]

I actually agree with this. Texas HS football is the best in the nation. That is also the reason the recruits tend to have higher floors than recruits in other regions. Texas is HS football crazy and throw more money at it than other states. The facilities and coaching are on average much better here. Many of the kids have had 4 years with a S&C in HS. The exception is East Texas. That is also where the best recruits generally come from.

'BEastTexas'

 

[Deep Creek]

That is interesting. Never really thought about it, but it certainly stands to reason that the ability to project how recruits will develop is critical to recruiting success. Have to think that the guy who recruited Panthers CB Josh Norman, for example, was pretty astute to recognize that a zero-star recruit could develop into an FCS All-America, before then becoming one of the best CBs in the NFL.

The ability to project how players will develop might also account for why there are consistently teams that finish high (low) in the recruiting class rankings, only to then underachieve (overachieve) on the field.

Many of the perennial Texas high school powers likely "max out" many of their kids early. (Hell, some of them have weight/nutrition/medical training programs equal to or better than some of the colleges.) They are fully developed or nearly fully developed...which is why they win in HS. Very few of them have "raw" talent that hasn't been fully developed.

 

[Codaxx]

'BEastTexas'

Is that you, Coach Traylor?

 

[Texas Jefe]

Is that you, Coach Traylor?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I've always thought it kind of interesting just what to make of the recruiting rankings. There are many examples of both highly rated recruits not panning out and lowly rated recruits turning into stars. To me, looking at how current NFL players were rated provides some indication of how meaningful recruiting ratings are, though it obviously an incomplete picture.

I don't think it really translates at all. Look at it this way, each class only has less than like 50 five star players. So naturally there will be a limited number of five star players that end up succeeding in college to the point where the'll be an NFL starter. Conversely, there are like 3000+ three star players each class. So it's very likely that the majority of CFB teams are comprised of these players. And while they are less likely to turn out to be a great player in college, there's just going to be more of them because of pure numbers. So when it comes down to success in the NFL, just like college, it makes sense that more 3 star players on on NFL rosters than 5 star players because there's drastically less to begin with.