Filiaga announced his final 3
- Thread starter Metalfan
- Start date
Why do you continue using star rankings for professional football? Players that actually make that far were extremely good in college no matter what their star ranking was in high school. Why don't you give examples of college teams winning it all with no star power? It's because you cant....
It is simple
Yes a lot of players are not rated properly and by no means does it guarantee a 5* will be superstar pro-bowler. Here is what you don't get, and you never address in your arguments. If we sign an Andrew Ward or a Lynn Bowden... you are correct their stars don't matter, but they are back up plans. They are not our first choice and that is what I am not liking. Other teams are getting our 1st choice prospects and we are getting the next best thing. That is the shit I don't like!
I am fairly confident no one gives a shit that Daniels in a 3*, because we all know he is high on our board. We need to sign a higher percentage of our #1 targets and it is simple as that. Stop losing DB's to the likes of Utah
http://www.outkickthecoverage.com/want-a-national-title-sign-top-ten-classes-020316
"Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. So while signing a top ten recruiting class doesn't guarantee that you're going to win a national title -- indeed, there are plenty of teams that don't -- for 19 of the past 20 years, you can't win a title without at least two top ten recruiting classes. More interestingly, every champion from the past ten years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title........"
"Since 1996 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title. So while signing a top ten recruiting class doesn't guarantee that you're going to win a national title -- indeed, there are plenty of teams that don't -- for 19 of the past 20 years, you can't win a title without at least two top ten recruiting classes. More interestingly, every champion from the past ten years with the exception of Auburn in 2010 has had at least three top ten recruiting classes in the four years before it won a title........"
You can have a great team with mediocre recruiting, but probably not a championship.
BUT, looking to 2014 with TCU and Baylor, both were very close and who knows, they could have surprised if they made the playoffs.
TCU beat #9 Ole Miss 42-3 in their bowl game while Baylor lost 42-41 to Michigan St.
Baylor's best recruiting class in 5 previous years before was 26th and two 40+ classes.
TCU's best class in previous 5 years was 29th with most in the 30's.
If looking at these two teams in that single year, it looks like it is possible to be a championship caliber team with mediocre recruiting classes, but no one has done it yet. Who knows if it will ever happen though.
BUT, looking to 2014 with TCU and Baylor, both were very close and who knows, they could have surprised if they made the playoffs.
TCU beat #9 Ole Miss 42-3 in their bowl game while Baylor lost 42-41 to Michigan St.
Baylor's best recruiting class in 5 previous years before was 26th and two 40+ classes.
TCU's best class in previous 5 years was 29th with most in the 30's.
If looking at these two teams in that single year, it looks like it is possible to be a championship caliber team with mediocre recruiting classes, but no one has done it yet. Who knows if it will ever happen though.
Well, this certainly has been fun to read. I cant say I have any real clue how players obtain the stars they receive - but I am sure someone can fill me in on that.
What does seem most plausible is the ratings are fairly reliable as long as systems and the people doing the rating stay the same. What also seems to be is that they measure what they can measure at that point in time, not necessarily the future. Can the persons who award ratings predict a kid gaining 40 lbs, dropping their 40 time by .5 second and getting 50% stronger. At 17-18 years of age there is lots of room for change.
All that said, to disregard the rating system is flying in the face of reality. If one doesnt believe in them just recruit all 2 stars then and bring them all back as all americans in 5 years. To say there is alot of talent out there is simply not true. Not when you are getting down to the elite of the elite.
What does seem most plausible is the ratings are fairly reliable as long as systems and the people doing the rating stay the same. What also seems to be is that they measure what they can measure at that point in time, not necessarily the future. Can the persons who award ratings predict a kid gaining 40 lbs, dropping their 40 time by .5 second and getting 50% stronger. At 17-18 years of age there is lots of room for change.
All that said, to disregard the rating system is flying in the face of reality. If one doesnt believe in them just recruit all 2 stars then and bring them all back as all americans in 5 years. To say there is alot of talent out there is simply not true. Not when you are getting down to the elite of the elite.
Last edited:
Similar threads
