Do stars matter? Pro-bowlers star rankings

[proudhawkfan21]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ng-star-ratings-actually-predict-nfl-success/
Both Iowa guys are 3*. Article mentions that 43% are from 4 and 5 star category. Roughly 25% come from 2* or no ranking....Brady, Rothliesberger, David Johnson...all un-rated. What I took from the article is that 75% of pro bowlers were 3* and above and that we can attract 3* and a few 4* here and there. Obviously it would be nice to get a few more blue chip recruits, but we can still compete for victories with hard working kids. Everyone on this pro bowl team worked their butt off regardless of star ranking. I don't see many on here that don't out-work other people at their respective positions.

 

[Hawk5656]

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...ng-star-ratings-actually-predict-nfl-success/
Both Iowa guys are 3*. Article mentions that 43% are from 4 and 5 star category. Roughly 25% come from 2* or no ranking....Brady, Rothliesberger, David Johnson...all un-rated. What I took from the article is that 75% of pro bowlers were 3* and above and that we can attract 3* and a few 4* here and there. Obviously it would be nice to get a few more blue chip recruits, but we can still compete for victories with hard working kids. Everyone on this pro bowl team worked their butt off regardless of star ranking. I don't see many on here that don't out-work other people at their respective positions.

What % of recruits are 4 and 5 stars? That would explain this. It's been proven many times over that stars do matter

 

[proudhawkfan21]

Agreed. They do matter. But there are plenty of NFL pro bowlers who aren't 5*. You can win with 4* and less. There aren't enough 5* to go around. We aren't on the pecking list and never will be. We can develop 3* into pro bowlers/all-pro. Since there are so few 5* players, I'd rather have the skill of developing players.

 

[clim3]

How many 4-5 stars end up a bust too. Those really hurt given all the work it takes to land them. I know we've had a few that didn't pan out too great

 

[homes]

Stars matter in the collective. One can point to individual 4 and 5 stars who don't make it, but overall, the more 4/5 star players on a team, the greater the chance for success. If OSU gets 15 4/5 star players, they can afford to have 3-4 (or more) of them not pan out. On the other hand, if Iowa gets 1 or 2, and they don't make it, then it can appear like the number of stars a kid has doesn't matter. Again, individually one can make the case against the importance of the number of stars, but when your pool is filled with them, you can afford to swing and miss on a few.

 

[RobHowe]

Rivals has 30 total 5 stars in the '17 class while 247 has 22. When you add in 4 stars, I would say there are probably about 300 total 4 & 5 stars, depending on the network.

With 128 FBS schools at 85 scholarships, that's 10,880 players. Then you have to add in walk-ons and FCS players. I'll let you guys do the math.

 

[SmokeTownHawk]

How many 4-5 stars end up a bust too. Those really hurt given all the work it takes to land them. I know we've had a few that didn't pan out too great

Which is exactly why schools like 'bama oversign on a yearly basis.

A better question for the op although I believe it's already been discussed is how many 4-5 stars are on teams in contention for the national title?

 

[PCHawk]

43% of them came from a pool of maybe 5% of the total recruits.

 

[Ickehawk]

How did the same teams get the best recruits before 'star ratings'? Lol. Star ratings only serve to extract money from eager HS kids at their 'camps' and to extract money from ignorant 'fans' who sign up on their sites because they have no meaningful life. God, the sheep of this country are just pathetically stupid......And how can you have a 5 star if there is no 1 star in the scale, lol. It's makes it 'sound' better to the ignorant masses, like when most pizza joints did away with 'small' pizza and started calling them 'mediums'...if you don't have a large AND a small, how can you have a medium, lol. But the mindless sheep just keep on 'grazing' and falling for whatever BS they are fed next. I can't wait to hear more about your 'stars' and how important they are, lol.

 

[HawkeyeWalker]

Rivals has 30 total 5 stars in the '17 class while 247 has 22. When you add in 4 stars, I would say there are probably about 300 total 4 & 5 stars, depending on the network.

With 128 FBS schools at 85 scholarships, that's 10,880 players. Then you have to add in walk-ons and FCS players. I'll let you guys do the math.

After the top 15 bluebloods take their 10 each, leaves about 150 4stars. I'd love to be able to get 3-4 of them as needed. Although, I still question how much difference, if any, there really is between a mid level 3 star and lower end 4star.

"Stars" is one tool, but I doubt it used as much as many think. So many more factors...

It's a numbers game for the elite teams, most teams don't have that luxury when a "miss" happens.

 

[deanvogs]

How did the same teams get the best recruits before 'star ratings'? Lol. Star ratings only serve to extract money from eager HS kids at their 'camps' and to extract money from ignorant 'fans' who sign up on their sites because they have no meaningful life. God, the sheep of this country are just pathetically stupid......And how can you have a 5 star if there is no 1 star in the scale, lol. It's makes it 'sound' better to the ignorant masses, like when most pizza joints did away with 'small' pizza and started calling them 'mediums'...if you don't have a large AND a small, how can you have a medium, lol. But the mindless sheep just keep on 'grazing' and falling for whatever BS they are fed next. I can't wait to hear more about your 'stars' and how important they are, lol.

This is the funny part. Some actually think that the top 300 players in the country were all unknown before the recruiting services started to put **** by their names.

Of course teams that get the top 300 players are gonna be good, they are the best talents, and everyone knows who they are. The real trick and the trick that most of the services seem bad at is accurately evaluating the remaining kids. I think Oliver Martin can just who how bad the services are. He was a 2* kid until he goes to the rivals camps and blows up. If he skips that one camp, Martin is still a 2* nobody who probably signed with Iowa at some point. People would be bitching about us signing a White Iowa 2* kid.

Starz matter, but they only matter because even those idiots can see who all the bid dogs are recruiting. After the big dogs, the recruiting services know less than nothing, and I'd take any schools coaches evaluations over them any day.

 

[deanvogs]

43% of them came from a pool of maybe 5% of the total recruits.

The top 300 kids are usually 5* and 4* kids. Even if each P5 team signed the maximum 25 kids, that would mean that the 4* kids represent about 20% of all kids recruited.

I think that point it there are tons and tons of kids outside of the top 300 that become very good college players, and even very good NFL players.

 

[bitmap]

A natural distribution based on quintiles would have the greatest population in the 3 stars, equal, but a lesser, numbers for the 2 and 4 stars and a few 1 and 5 stars. The published distribution is not natural in a purely numerical sense.

What would be really interesting would be the distribution of all of the NFL players that did not make the pro bowl on a percentage basis. Would that percentage mirror the PBs? If it did then stars really don't matter how you perform in the NFL, only on one's chance to get into the NFL. This assumes, of course, that making the Pro Bowl reflects on actual performance but that is another matter.

On the other hand if the percentage of 4 and 5 stars on the Pro Bowl rosters is greater than the NFL at large one could say that stars do make a difference in NFL performance. They mention the limited pool of 4 and 5 star players available which implies that the percentage is higher on the PB rosters but without the actual makeup of rest of the NFL that is just an assumption. A pretty good assumption but an assumption none the less.

 

[PCHawk]

The top 300 kids are usually 5* and 4* kids. Even if each P5 team signed the maximum 25 kids, that would mean that the 4* kids represent about 20% of all kids recruited.

I think that point it there are tons and tons of kids outside of the top 300 that become very good college players, and even very good NFL players.

But you have to count the non power 5 schools too don't you? Who knows what the true numbers are, but let's say 40% of 5 starts make the NFL and 2% of 2 stars make the NFL, it means stars matter.

 

[tksirius]

How did the same teams get the best recruits before 'star ratings'? Lol. Star ratings only serve to extract money from eager HS kids at their 'camps' and to extract money from ignorant 'fans' who sign up on their sites because they have no meaningful life. God, the sheep of this country are just pathetically stupid......And how can you have a 5 star if there is no 1 star in the scale, lol. It's makes it 'sound' better to the ignorant masses, like when most pizza joints did away with 'small' pizza and started calling them 'mediums'...if you don't have a large AND a small, how can you have a medium, lol. But the mindless sheep just keep on 'grazing' and falling for whatever BS they are fed next. I can't wait to hear more about your 'stars' and how important they are, lol.

I'm in awe of your pizza awareness.

 

[deanvogs]

But you have to count the non power 5 schools too don't you? Who knows what the true numbers are, but let's say 40% of 5 starts make the NFL and 2% of 2 stars make the NFL, it means stars matter.

Lets say you expand it to the 128 D1 teams, that still only makes it 10% or so. I mean if you want to take this further PC, why not count kids that go to Simpson and Central and BV?

The point I was making is the everyone has always known who the top 300 kids are. It isn't like it is some secret, and fans wanna bow down to the Starz system because they can pick out the best of the best kids?? They just look who the blue bloods offer, or who are the kids that are getting the early offers and tell us those are the best kids. Well no shit. Rivals just released their top 250 for the 2018 class. Guess what, all those kids who just finished their Jr. year in high school have a laundry list of offers.

Patting the recruiting services on the back for "ranking" the top 300 kids is just stupid. If you went back 25 years, I'd bet that the top 300 kids coming out of High School made up 40% of pro bowls then as well.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

I'm over here smackin' two rocks together hoping to make a fire or music lol I just thought it was interesting to point out the the pro bowl is far from a collection of 4* and 5* players. If there are 100+ per year that would be plenty to fill pro bowl rosters. I see it as a sign that you can win with the talents of 3* players. And that ratings, by and large, are not scientific as much as they are political. There isn't a ton of athletic talent difference on this pro bowl roster yet you have NR-5* range.

 

[deanvogs]

I'm over here smackin' two rocks together hoping to make a fire or music lol I just thought it was interesting to point out the the pro bowl is far from a collection of 4* and 5* players. If there are 100+ per year that would be plenty to fill pro bowl rosters. I see it as a sign that you can win with the talents of 3* players. And that ratings, by and large, are not scientific as much as they are political. There isn't a ton of athletic talent difference on this pro bowl roster yet you have NR-5* range.

I agree with you. I was just pointing out that recruiting services aren't out "uncovering" talent that colleges would have otherwise missed.

Schools can totally win with mostly 3* kids. Wisconsin is doing it, Iowa has done it, MSU built their program on it. As you pointed out, over 1/2 of Pro Bowl players are coming from the 3* and 2* ranks. The talent it out there, and fortunately Iowa is pretty good at spotting the talent that others routinely misses.

 

[AreWeThereYet]

A natural distribution based on quintiles would have the greatest population in the 3 stars, equal, but a lesser, numbers for the 2 and 4 stars and a few 1 and 5 stars. The published distribution is not natural in a purely numerical sense.

What would be really interesting would be the distribution of all of the NFL players that did not make the pro bowl on a percentage basis. Would that percentage mirror the PBs? If it did then stars really don't matter how you perform in the NFL, only on one's chance to get into the NFL. This assumes, of course, that making the Pro Bowl reflects on actual performance but that is another matter.

On the other hand if the percentage of 4 and 5 stars on the Pro Bowl rosters is greater than the NFL at large one could say that stars do make a difference in NFL performance. They mention the limited pool of 4 and 5 star players available which implies that the percentage is higher on the PB rosters but without the actual makeup of rest of the NFL that is just an assumption. A pretty good assumption but an assumption none the less.

It doesn't remotely resemble a natural distribution though, published or not. The P5 conferences may have less 2* than 3*, but the conferences below that have lots of 2* and unlisted players. Your total pool of of high school players is heavy at the unlisted end and thins down at the 5*.

 

[PCHawk]

Lets say you expand it to the 128 D1 teams, that still only makes it 10% or so. I mean if you want to take this further PC, why not count kids that go to Simpson and Central and BV?

The point I was making is the everyone has always known who the top 300 kids are. It isn't like it is some secret, and fans wanna bow down to the Starz system because they can pick out the best of the best kids?? They just look who the blue bloods offer, or who are the kids that are getting the early offers and tell us those are the best kids. Well no shit. Rivals just released their top 250 for the 2018 class. Guess what, all those kids who just finished their Jr. year in high school have a laundry list of offers.

Patting the recruiting services on the back for "ranking" the top 300 kids is just stupid. If you went back 25 years, I'd bet that the top 300 kids coming out of High School made up 40% of pro bowls then as well.

I guess I'm not sure where this is coming from. I don't think anyone cares about how the kids got their rankings. They just know that most 4 and 5 star kids deserve their ranking, and very high percentage of the time, they're better than 2 and 3 star kids.

Of course you can build a program on 3 star kids, but it's a lot more likely and a lot easier to build them off 4 star kids. You would almost have to try not to win if you could get 5-10 5 stars per year.