Star Rating(s)

[Gonegreen68]

I wanted to comment on the obsession with star ratings. I just read a thread where some posters were pretty harsh on a kid because of his star rating while others are content with the fact that UNT just can't get 3 and 4 star recruits.  It's impossible to argue that a 4 or 5 star athlete is not a good pick up but it's also a fact that a kid can be a stud and never even get his name on rivals or 247 let alone get any stars by his name.  Most people don't even know how these players get rated. If a kid plays for a small school. If his parents can't send them to camps or combines then they might fly right under the radar. You've got kids in 2a or 3a playing iron man football both ways in one stoplight towns all over the state. The difference is in coaching/recruiting. I know two players talking to Baylor and TCU weekly.   One is a RB the other a QB.   Neither is star rated. In both cases the Coach wants their speed and athleticism not to play those positions and not for stars next to their name. How did they find them? At a track meet. Do you think TCU or Baylor coaches don't know what they are doing? The days of coaches beating the bushes for talent is just about gone. We live in a Hudl world gone mad where a kid with six pack abs a speed ladder video and a huge vertical jump can find himself the talk of Twitter.  A Coaches ability to size up a prospect for his teams needs far out weighs anyone else's opinion. Houston had DBs at running back and a receiver at QB because their abilities were bigger than their position. A real Coach sometimes sees something in a player a fan can not. Just because previous coaches sucked at sizing these players up doesn't mean Littrell's staff can't until proven otherwise. Until UNT has a better track record a few no stars sprinkled in might be a sign of real recruiting effort not the same old same old. JMHO

 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Gonegreen68

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

@BillySee58 had a really good post on stars rating that I can't find at the moment. He may be able to post it again for clarification. The cliff notes are that we shouldn't be as much concerned about stars as we are about how many offers the recruit has. Much of the dismay about the most recent recruit, if that's who you are referring to, is that he had no other D1 offers. 

[Ben Gooding]

27 minutes ago, Gonegreen68 said:

I wanted to comment on the obsession with star ratings. I just read a thread where some posters were pretty harsh on a kid because of his star rating while others are content with the fact that UNT just can't get 3 and 4 star recruits.  It's impossible to argue that a 4 or 5 star athlete is not a good pick up but it's also a fact that a kid can be a stud and never even get his name on rivals or 247 let alone get any stars by his name.  Most people don't even know how these players get rated. If a kid plays for a small school. If his parents can't send them to camps or combines then they might fly right under the radar. You've got kids in 2a or 3a playing iron man football both ways in one stoplight towns all over the state. The difference is in coaching/recruiting. I know two players talking to Baylor and TCU weekly.   One is a RB the other a QB.   Neither is star rated. In both cases the Coach wants their speed and athleticism not to play those positions and not for stars next to their name. How did they find them? At a track meet. Do you think TCU or Baylor coaches don't know what they are doing? The days of coaches beating the bushes for talent is just about gone. We live in a Hudl world gone mad where a kid with six pack abs a speed ladder video and a huge vertical jump can find himself the talk of Twitter.  A Coaches ability to size up a prospect for his teams needs far out weighs anyone else's opinion. Houston had DBs at running back and a receiver at QB because their abilities were bigger than their position. A real Coach sometimes sees something in a player a fan can not. Just because previous coaches sucked at sizing these players up doesn't mean Littrell's staff can't until proven otherwise. Until UNT has a better track record a few no stars sprinkled in might be a sign of real recruiting effort not the same old same old. JMHO

 

Sure. There are UR gems. There are also overrated 4 and 5 stars. Usually, these are exceptions that find themselves as outliers. UR's are usually UR for a reason and as are 4 and 5 stars. The star system has credibility to it. CW is referring to the offer list theory that Billy created. A+ recruit = x offers and so on. 

Star system kind of goes the same way. More and "better" offers usually increases the stars attached to a recruits name. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by Ben Gooding

[Cerebus]

1 hour ago, Gonegreen68 said:

I wanted to comment on the obsession with star ratings.

I don't have the time to look up the posts again but people have done statistical analysis on star rankings and higher rated recruits tend to do better.  Doesn't mean in specific a five star won't bust or a two star won't become an all B12 player, but in general higher rated kids tend to perform at better levels.  Someone will dig out the old line that there are more 3 star recruits in the NFL (or on all conference teams) than there are five stars, but that is because there are many times more three star recruits than there are five star.  A higher PERCENTAGE of highly rated recruits will become NFL players, a much lower PERCENTAGE of three stars will.

 

48 minutes ago, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

The cliff notes are that we shouldn't be as much concerned about stars as we are about how many offers the recruit has.

Billy isn't saying don't worry about star ratings, he would take any 4 or 5 star kid who wanted to sign with us.  He is saying that recruiting services don't pay much attention to kids that aren't getting a lot of P5 interest.  At the UR/**/low *** ratings it is highly useful to look at the offer list.  

[GrandGreen]

1 hour ago, Gonegreen68 said:

I wanted to comment on the obsession with star ratings. I just read a thread where some posters were pretty harsh on a kid because of his star rating while others are content with the fact that UNT just can't get 3 and 4 star recruits.  It's impossible to argue that a 4 or 5 star athlete is not a good pick up but it's also a fact that a kid can be a stud and never even get his name on rivals or 247 let alone get any stars by his name.  Most people don't even know how these players get rated. If a kid plays for a small school. If his parents can't send them to camps or combines then they might fly right under the radar. You've got kids in 2a or 3a playing iron man football both ways in one stoplight towns all over the state. The difference is in coaching/recruiting. I know two players talking to Baylor and TCU weekly.   One is a RB the other a QB.   Neither is star rated. In both cases the Coach wants their speed and athleticism not to play those positions and not for stars next to their name. How did they find them? At a track meet. Do you think TCU or Baylor coaches don't know what they are doing? The days of coaches beating the bushes for talent is just about gone. We live in a Hudl world gone mad where a kid with six pack abs a speed ladder video and a huge vertical jump can find himself the talk of Twitter.  A Coaches ability to size up a prospect for his teams needs far out weighs anyone else's opinion. Houston had DBs at running back and a receiver at QB because their abilities were bigger than their position. A real Coach sometimes sees something in a player a fan can not. Just because previous coaches sucked at sizing these players up doesn't mean Littrell's staff can't until proven otherwise. Until UNT has a better track record a few no stars sprinkled in might be a sign of real recruiting effort not the same old same old. JMHO

 

No, no, no; this is a version of the same mantra cited every year by great fans who want to justify sub-par recruiting.  You can spend the rest of your life posting about low rated players who became stars and highly rated players who were busts.  It happens all the time, because these ratings are probabilities not absolutes.   The indisputable fact is there is a very strong correlation between ratings of a class and the results.  

Some one else stated that he doesn't look at star ratings but who is recruiting a player.  Basically, that is the same thing; players are ranked based on the interest of those recruiting them.  Anyone who believes that these recruiting sites are actually evaluating players based on their own scouting is mislead.

While it is true, that one staff may be substantially better at evaluating and developing players than another.  Those espousing this point always believe that their team is superior at doing this.   Many thought McCarney was one of those, he just was not.  To believe a rookie coach and a relatively young staff just put together is going to excel in identifying and developing players better than more veteran staffs is at this point just wishful thinking. 

Edited January 20, 2016 by GrandGreen

[Gonegreen68]

I believe star ratings are a good standard. I believe offers are a better indicator and I understand that the two go hand in hand.  I also believe that if you have a coach that believes in a recruit he must have a reason.   If that reason is he is stupid, owes a favor to another coach, player or friend or he just wants to fill a roster, well that's not good and that coaches integrity should be questioned. 

[BillySee58]

45 minutes ago, Cerebus said:

Billy isn't saying don't worry about star ratings, he would take any 4 or 5 star kid who wanted to sign with us.  He is saying that recruiting services don't pay much attention to kids that aren't getting a lot of P5 interest.  At the UR/**/low *** ratings it is highly useful to look at the offer list.  

That is exactly what I meant. Thank you.

Yes, in recent years offer lists have been the best indicator of success for our signees. Especially among our all-conference players.

The ratings are also misleading from a national class rank perspective. For example, I've said how 2014 was by far Mccarney's best class and others have argued that 2015 was rated a higher class on rivals. But the truth is, Rivals gave our 2014 class twice as many 3-stars and still has a player who signed elsewhere listed as a commit and counting toward our 2015 class rating. Which should give it no real credibility.

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

2 hours ago, Cerebus said:

I don't have the time to look up the posts again but people have done statistical analysis on star rankings and higher rated recruits tend to do better.  Doesn't mean in specific a five star won't bust or a two star won't become an all B12 player, but in general higher rated kids tend to perform at better levels.  Someone will dig out the old line that there are more 3 star recruits in the NFL (or on all conference teams) than there are five stars, but that is because there are many times more three star recruits than there are five star.  A higher PERCENTAGE of highly rated recruits will become NFL players, a much lower PERCENTAGE of three stars will.

 

Billy isn't saying don't worry about star ratings, he would take any 4 or 5 star kid who wanted to sign with us.  He is saying that recruiting services don't pay much attention to kids that aren't getting a lot of P5 interest.  At the UR/**/low *** ratings it is highly useful to look at the offer list.  

I thought I implied that, my bad. 

[FirefightnRick]

Good post 68.  

I could care less about stars or offer lists for the most part.  I'm more worried about our coaches evaluating the talent they need and getting the most out of the guys they bring in.

 

Rick

[NTXCoog]

18 hours ago, Gonegreen68 said:

A Coaches ability to size up a prospect for his teams needs far out weighs anyone else's opinion. Houston had DBs at running back and a receiver at QB because their abilities were bigger than their position. A real Coach sometimes sees something in a player a fan can not. Just because previous coaches sucked at sizing these players up doesn't mean Littrell's staff can't until proven otherwise.

 

To be fair, the WR at QB was a high school QB and was a QB at UH before being moved to WR when he got beat out for the starting QB spot.  He was just too talented an athlete to sit on the bench so they made him a WR. When the other QB tanked due to bad coaching, Ward went back to his original position.

And the CB at RB, that was mostly an injury situation. The first 3 RBs on the depth chart were injured and we didn't want to pull redshirts late in the season.  The only game he played solely at RB was against Navy where having a RB was more important than having 3-4 CBs against an option running team who rarely passed.  He did play both sides against FSU when the starting RB tweaked his original injury.  Besides, he was a RB in HS who rushed for 1800 yards and 21 TDs his senior season.  Not exactly new to the position.  But if you want to use him for your point, he was a HS RB converted to CB who just happened to play a couple of games at RB this year.

So your point of talented athletes can be made to fill positions they might not have started at is shown by these examples, but not exactly as you described.  There are even more examples at UH this year such as a DL converted to OL midseason due to loss of 4 OL starters with injuries and a FB being converted to TE since we didn't have any on the roster and the new offensive scheme needed one.

[untjim1995]

There are many problems with the ratings game--those sites want subscriptions for their views. Hence, the most egregious example being UT, these outlets rank these recruits based on the school recruiting them. With UT, for example, kids were getting 4 and 5 star ratings because Mack Brown was recruiting them and the guys doing the ratings just happen to be the ones making money off of subscribers to their newsletters (see Geoff Ketchum). On the same token, when a player chose A&M, Baylor, or TCU over UT, they often got downgraded. In the end, when these classes turned out to be more or less busts, Mack Brown took the blame for coddling them (which was true) and fell on the sword eventually. But nobody ever asked Bobby Burton or Geoff Ketchum why they ranked Tyrone Swoopes as the #1 QB in Texas even though he played 2A ball on a bad team. Instead, he got the "Next Vince Young" comparisons. Its my opinion that these rankings were inflated because UT fans buy subscriptions on a monthly basis to hear how things are going in their program. People like good news, so that is what these guys give them. A&M has their guy, Billy Liucci, who does the same thing, too. Sumlin is already seeing the effects of highly-rated talent not being able to be meshed into a cohesive team, meaning his job is probably on the line in the next year if things don't get better in Aggieland.

As for us, the star ratings are what they are. As was mentioned, offers tell you a lot about who you are getting at a G5 level. When you have a brand new coach taking over the worst program in the country from the previous season, who has never been a head coach before, nor does he have any name recognition in Texas, the fact that having one winning season in the last 11 all combines to the reality that Littrell's first class is just going to be full of a lot of P5 transfers, low G5-offer high school recruits, and a few recruits that you beat out because of our location. There's a reason we will be near the bottom in these rankings at the end of the 2016 Recruiting Season--other than playing time, we have very little else to offer that other G5s in our region cannot also offer. Our saving grace, at this point, is that UTSA and Texas State are in even more transition than we are, and UTEP isn't someone we usually battle a lot for recruits, like we do for the other CUSA West schools and the Western AAC and SBC schools.

Its gonna take time here, folks. Southern Miss didn't turn it around in a couple of years. SMU hasn't, either. When you hit rock bottom (hopefully, Portland State represents that point), its usually takes a few years just to get back to competitiveness. It took USM 4 seasons to go from CUSA Champs to CUSA West Champs, winning all of 4 games in between. SMU went from a 4-year bowl run to winning a total of three games in the last two seasons. Next year, realistically getting to 4 or 5 wins would show solid improvement under Morris. These are the two G5 programs we are basically following. USM made their way back up. SMU hasn't, but its early. Time will tell if Littrell can do something here that would grab the attention of the college football world. And make no mistake about it, just as Monken at USM will see, P5s are going to be salivating at hiring a young coach who has turned around an awful situation at a G5. Morris, if he can continue to improve SMU, will be the same. That's why I expect Littrell's time here to be no more than 3-4 years--its an either/or deal...he either gets hired away for a bigger job or he gets fired for not making this thing get better. And if it doesn't get better, at all, as in the team doesn't win more than 3 games in any season in the next three, the UNT 17 have already shown that they will pay up to rectify the situation, instead of waiting on the university to deem it affordable. That's quite a safety net we finally have here, as fans, that never existed before at UNT.

[MeanGreen_MBA]

The Star rating is way OVER-Rated (see what I did here)  HS does not always translate to college or Pro.  Take a look at the attached article.  Last years SB, not a single starter was a 5 Star HS player....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25011464/super-bowl-49-not-one-starter-was-a-5-star-recruit-out-of-high-school

 

[Mean_Green09]

13 hours ago, FirefightnRick said:

Good post 68.  

I could care less about stars or offer lists for the most part.  I'm more worried about our coaches evaluating the talent they need and getting the most out of the guys they bring in.

 

Rick

Evaluate and then develop develop develop.

[Cerebus]

21 minutes ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

The Star rating is way OVER-Rated (see what I did here)  HS does not always translate to college or Pro.  Take a look at the attached article.  Last years SB, not a single starter was a 5 Star HS player....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on-football/25011464/super-bowl-49-not-one-starter-was-a-5-star-recruit-out-of-high-school

 

 

Sigh, I wish  I could use my future sight to pick lotto numbers:

On 1/20/2016 at 3:42 PM, Cerebus said:

Someone will dig out the old line that there are more 3 star recruits in the NFL (or on all conference teams) than there are five stars, but that is because there are many times more three star recruits than there are five star.  A higher PERCENTAGE of highly rated recruits will become NFL players, a much lower PERCENTAGE of three stars will.

Rivals usually gives out about 25-35 five star rankings per year.  Let's look at the 2014 draft, which is primarily 2010 recruits:

***** Recruits  27 total, 16 drafted  (60% drafted)

**** Recruits 395 total, 77 drafted   (19% drafted)

*** Recruits 1644 recruits, 92 drafted (6% drafted)

**/less Recruits 2435 recruits, 71 drafted (3% drafted)

 

If you look at raw numbers, you can make the error of saying rankings don't matter, there are many more ***'s than *****'s in the NFL!  However a ***** is much more likely to be a player that gets drafted, ten times more likely.

We can all think of ***** busts and ** kids who become all conference, it's just that the a higher rated kid is much more likely to become a success than a lower rated one.    

 

 

[HarringtonFishSmeller]

On 1/20/2016 at 3:42 PM, Cerebus said:

I don't have the time to look up the posts again but people have done statistical analysis on star rankings and higher rated recruits tend to do better.  Doesn't mean in specific a five star won't bust or a two star won't become an all B12 player, but in general higher rated kids tend to perform at better levels.  Someone will dig out the old line that there are more 3 star recruits in the NFL (or on all conference teams) than there are five stars, but that is because there are many times more three star recruits than there are five star.  A higher PERCENTAGE of highly rated recruits will become NFL players, a much lower PERCENTAGE of three stars will.

 

Billy isn't saying don't worry about star ratings, he would take any 4 or 5 star kid who wanted to sign with us.  He is saying that recruiting services don't pay much attention to kids that aren't getting a lot of P5 interest.  At the UR/**/low *** ratings it is highly useful to look at the offer list.  

Agree.  The fact is, some kid "unranked" or with a star or two might become a superstar.  No one denies that.  But, you can't have a whole roster full of kids that you are "hoping" will overachieve. 

I mean, a few kids might get overlooked in high school or be late bloomers.  But, you can't count on finding 85 of them.  At some point, if you are going to compete well and consistently, you are going to have to be able to get the bigger, faster, "already bloomed" athletes. 

If you've watched tons of pro and college football, you can pretty much sit and watch a high school game and see whether any of them have the size and speed to do it at the FBS level.  Very, very few do.

And, 99 times out of 100, those very, very few who do end up choosing to go to the best "football schools" that offer them a scholarship.

It's like people talking about Tom Brady being drafted in the 7th Round, so everyone drafted has an equal chance.  Well...not exactly.  Give me some other examples of 7th Rounders with as many Super Bowl rings as Brady.  Lightning does strike; but, not often enough to change the regular pace of life. 

[Got5onIt]

I know we've seen star ratings change based on where a kid committed. That's how ridiculous the rating system can be sometimes. 

[Cerebus]

23 minutes ago, Got5onIt said:

I know we've seen star ratings change based on where a kid committed. That's how ridiculous the rating system can be sometimes. 

Where do you think the star ratings come from?  Serious question.

Do you think the ranking sites have a ton of experts who run complex analysis to come up with them?  If they did, they would make a lot more money by selling this information to the coaches, not the general public.  If there was some sort of algorithmic analysis that could predict future success at a high level the person who created it would be buried by the amount of money the NFL and the rich programs like UT and Michigan.  

They sell to the public because... *drumroll* ... they get their info from coaching staffs.  The real experts at talent evaluation are the best recruiting coaches.  The ranking sites buddy up with some of them and then share that info.  They might not get all the info, but they will get enough to know that four or five big P5 programs are after this one DT, that makes him one of the best in the nation, and he should probably be a *****.  Social media has also made their job easier, because the recruits themselves often broadcast who is recruiting them.

So yes, the rating are effected by the P5 coaching staffs.  The good ones are there for a reason, the big schools can hire the best performers.   Yes, we get usually killed by P5 schools in recruiting rankings, and guess what, we usually get killed by the P5 programs on the field.  Have we ever walked into a paycheck game and "out athleted" anyone?   Wouldn't that happen ever once in a while if the rankings really didn't matter.  

ETA: Which is also why @BillySee58's system of looking at offers is a good one.  The recruiting services aren't going to spend a lot of time with NT coaches when they can sell a lot more subscriptions to Baylor and TCU fans.  Baylor and TCU coaches are going to pickup the top kids most of the time.   We won't get them.  

When it comes down to recruiting the rest, looking at how many coaching staffs are after a kid is a real good yardstick.    Development is also key, but if someone is starting a 40 yards dash with a 20 yard lead (*****) then most of the time they are going to finish better.

What NT coaches need to do is dominate the CUSA schools in recruiting, do that and we go bowling almost every year.  No reason we can't do what Marshall does and and USM has done for most of their existence.  

Edited January 21, 2016 by Cerebus

[GangGreen]

This whole argument is silly. You can apply the same logic to the draft in any sport. The "experts" sometimes whiff and guys bust. Baseball is probably the most applicable. How many HS first round picks have never made it to the show? It's all speculation, trying to develop science and science is oftentimes proven not to be fact.

[Got5onIt]

For any sport, the best talent is easiest to evaluate.....

[97and03]

Over 1600 three-star recruits and we only get 4 or 5 a year. Kind of tells you all you need to know about our program, right?

[UNT90]

Everyone knocks the star system when their team is barely able to sign 3 stars, much less 4 and 5 stars.

These same people would be the first to trumpet 4 and 5 star recruits if we ever signed one. 

Dumb arguement

7 hours ago, 97and03 said:

Over 1600 three-star recruits and we only get 4 or 5 a year. Kind of tells you all you need to know about our program, right?

Leaving a failed AD in place whose revenue sports hires' record is over 100 games below .500 the last 10 years tells you all you need to know about UNT athletics.

Winning isn't important, so why should recruiting be important? 

Edited January 22, 2016 by UNT90

[casual fan]

Offers usually trump stars.  

Be concerned about a 2 star with no other offer but yours.

Bussey and Henson are not too highly rated but have 17 D1 offers between them.

If Littrell and company can keep finding players that are a little under the radar, this could turn out to be a pretty strong class.

Getting English is a huge as he had 14 D1 offers last year.

[NTXCoog]

1 hour ago, casual fan said:

Offers usually trump stars.  

Be concerned about a 2 star with no other offer but yours.

And of course there are exceptions to that too.  For example Case Keenum, the holder of almost every NCAA passing record and NFL QB, was a 2 star that had no other scholarship offers.  But that's an exception...

[MeanGreen_MBA]

Aaron Rodgers played a CC before signing with Cal because he did not have any D1 offers......there is talent to have....you just have to find it.  Mayfield at OU is a prime example....

Carson Wentz was not on anybody's radar when he came out of HS....possible 1st rounder now  We just have to shake the bushes harder than most....

[Cerebus]

2 minutes ago, MeanGreen_MBA said:

Aaron Rodgers played a CC before signing with Cal because he did not have any D1 offers......there is talent to have....you just have to find it.  Mayfield at OU is a prime example....

Yes, but the stats are pretty clear.  Higher rated kids strongly tend to perform better in CFB and get drafted into the NFL.  There is just no denying that.  Yes, every once in a while you get a * who becomes Aaron Rogers, but the vast majority stay buried on CFB benches.  

Look at all the */** star QBs North Texas has brought in since we returned to the top division, any of them Aaron Rogers?