A Look At Why Recruiting Ratings Matter

Quoner · February 1, 2010

Fortunately, because we've been bestowed by the American education system with the magic of basic arithmetic, we do know better. If you look more closely at the relationship between initial expectations and eventual production, there's a very good reason for the heavy distribution of lower-ranked players among the nation's best, beginning with the distribution of stars at the beginning of the process, according to Rivals' extensive database of signees to I-A schools over the last five year.

I would hope that two and three-star players could acquit themselves well enough to produce a large number of big names, since they account for almost 90 percent of all players nationally.

Edited February 1, 2010 by Quoner

LongJim · February 1, 2010

Can't get the link to work.

Quoner · February 1, 2010

Can't get the link to work.

Should be fixed.

The Fake Lonnie Finch · February 1, 2010

So, a 5-star recruit is 10 times as likely to become an All-American as a 3-star and 25 times more likely than a 2-star...

And, a 4-star recruits is 3 times as likelu to become an All-American as a 3-star and 6 times as likely to become and All-American as a 2-star...

And, a 3-star recruit is 2.5 times more likely to become an All-American than a 2-star....

Yeah, well. We kind of already knew all of this. That's why I pooh-pooh Rivals and Scout for handing out too many 3-star ratings.

Look, it isn't difficult to watch a high school football game and see who are the men playing among boys. To me, what Rivals rates as 3-star guys are those who contributed more than the average high school kid and may have a shot a starting for a couple, maybe three years in college.

I like the Scouts, Inc. numberical rating system better - although, this year, they caved an now show the numberical score and along with a star rating. They've dumbed it down for the salivating masses who may venture over form Rivals and Scout.

Scouts, Inc. says we have two "3-star players"...Rivals says we have 7.

Scouts, Inc. breaks it donw like this:

5-star: Immediate impact starter at what they call "major college level" coming out of high school

4-star: 3- or 4-year starter for at the major college level

3-star: Could develop into a starter at the major college level

2-star: Solid starter a mid-major level

1-star: No skills "at this point" to play at a major college level, could contribute at mid-major or FCS level

This is a more realistic gauge to me that Rivals and Scout giving out a ridiculously high number of 2- and 3-star ratings every year.

Using this guide, here's how the Sun Belt is stacking up, according to Scouts, Inc.:

Arkansas State: 3 3-star players, 6 2-star players, 1 1-star player

Florida International: 4 3-star players, 6 2-star players

Florida Atlantic: 1 3-star player, 3 2-star players

Louisiana: 2 3-star players, 2 2-star players

ULM: 1 3-star player, 4 2-star players

Middle Tennessee: Zero 3-star players, 3 2-star players

North Texas: 2 3-star players, 3 2-star players

Troy: 5 3-star players, 5 2-star players, 1 1-star player

The X factor, as always, is coaching. But, given the hires over the past two years of Deloach, Nelson, Gahagan, and Canales, I'll stack our coaching stack up against anyone else in this conference.

TheTastyGreek · February 1, 2010

Account for the fact that 4 and 5 star players tend to cluster at fewer teams, and that makes the relative odds even more dramatic.

As many here point out each signing day, there are 4 star recruits who sign on for a career of backing up other 4 and 5 star guys. You can't be an All-American if you're on the bench.

Even ignoring that, a 5/4 star guy is more than an order of magnitude more likely to be an All-American than one who isn't. I don't generally pay much attention to rankings, but while they may not be precise in every specific case, they do tend to be accurate in the aggregate.

Quoner · February 1, 2010

Yeah, well. We kind of already knew all of this.

I really don't give two craps about your recurring lecture series on recruiting services. I'm speaking to a number of posters here who find one exception to a rule and pleasure themselves to it while falling asleep every night.

If you have a better system and sudden new-found belief in the power of positive thinking, good for you, but that was one of the most non-essential soliloquies in the recent history of the board.

And yes, I'm having a bad day, but sometimes playing Ike Turner just feels good. I'll still bake you a cake when I calm down, and I might even write you a song.

GrandGreen · February 1, 2010

I think the conclusion is obvious, mainly because the ratings are a self fulfilling prophecy. The ratings are not despite what they tell you an independent analysis of individual players. The rating services don't scout every senior player and assign a rating. What they do is largely base their opinions on who is recruiting who. The best teams are going to get the best players because they have the scouting resources to identify those players and have the pull to sign them. It would be interesting to see for example if a USC or UT recruiting an average Belt class and see the ratings of those players. There is a definite bias in this analysis also as it is much more likely that a great player is going to be selected All American at a name school than from a lower tier conference.

I found it interesting to note the rating inflation that is going on with .289 percent of the players 3 stars in 2005 compared to .374 in 2009. My guess is that 2010 will continue that trend.

GrandGreen · February 1, 2010

So, a 5-star recruit is 10 times as likely to become an All-American as a 3-star and 25 times more likely than a 2-star...

And, a 4-star recruits is 3 times as likelu to become an All-American as a 3-star and 6 times as likely to become and All-American as a 2-star...

And, a 3-star recruit is 2.5 times more likely to become an All-American than a 2-star....

Yeah, well. We kind of already knew all of this. That's why I pooh-pooh Rivals and Scout for handing out too many 3-star ratings.

Look, it isn't difficult to watch a high school football game and see who are the men playing among boys. To me, what Rivals rates as 3-star guys are those who contributed more than the average high school kid and may have a shot a starting for a couple, maybe three years in college.

I like the Scouts, Inc. numberical rating system better - although, this year, they caved an now show the numberical score and along with a star rating. They've dumbed it down for the salivating masses who may venture over form Rivals and Scout.

Scouts, Inc. says we have two "3-star players"...Rivals says we have 7.

Scouts, Inc. breaks it donw like this:
5-star: Immediate impact starter at what they call "major college level" coming out of high school
4-star: 3- or 4-year starter for at the major college level
3-star: Could develop into a starter at the major college level
2-star: Solid starter a mid-major level
1-star: No skills "at this point" to play at a major college level, could contribute at mid-major or FCS level

This is a more realistic gauge to me that Rivals and Scout giving out a ridiculously high number of 2- and 3-star ratings every year.

Using this guide, here's how the Sun Belt is stacking up, according to Scouts, Inc.:
Arkansas State: 3 3-star players, 6 2-star players, 1 1-star player
Florida International: 4 3-star players, 6 2-star players
Florida Atlantic: 1 3-star player, 3 2-star players
Louisiana: 2 3-star players, 2 2-star players
ULM: 1 3-star player, 4 2-star players
Middle Tennessee: Zero 3-star players, 3 2-star players
North Texas: 2 3-star players, 3 2-star players
Troy: 5 3-star players, 5 2-star players, 1 1-star player

The X factor, as always, is coaching. But, given the hires over the past two years of Deloach, Nelson, Gahagan, and Canales, I'll stack our coaching stack up against anyone else in this conference.

Is not Scouts the one that rated Edwards who arrived at about 150 lbs and Jenkins who arrived at over 370 lbs 4 stars?

I was informed that this was wrong below. Edwards was a three star rated athlete, the four star was Adryan Adams who did play.

Edited February 2, 2010 by GrandGreen

Mean Green 93-98 · February 1, 2010

Is not Scouts the one that rated Edwards who arrived at about 150 lbs and Jenkins who arrived at over 370 lbs 4 stars?

Doesn't look like it. If I remember right, Rivals rated Jenkins a 3-star while Scout (not Scouts) rated Hollivay higher than Jenkins. If you are talking about Justin Edwards, he never made it here.

Graddean · February 2, 2010

I don't have a problem with the star ratings. My concern is with the team totals. Last year both Arkansas and Mississippi had great team standings because they signed everyone they could. Troy seems to do this too. You could have more highly rated players, not sign as many, and wind up with a lower standing than the other team simply because they outpoint you. It is kind of like track meets where a school wins simply because they outpoint you by having so many entrants.

GrandGreen · February 2, 2010

Doesn't look like it. If I remember right, Rivals rated Jenkins a 3-star while Scout (not Scouts) rated Hollivay higher than Jenkins. If you are talking about Justin Edwards, he never made it here.

You are correct it was not Edwards but Adams. Jenkins and Adams were scout 4 stars, NT has never signed a rival 4 star. Edwards was a three star athlete that was at NT only a short time.

Edited February 2, 2010 by GrandGreen

GrandGreen · February 2, 2010

I don't have a problem with the star ratings. My concern is with the team totals. Last year both Arkansas and Mississippi had great team standings because they signed everyone they could. Troy seems to do this too. You could have more highly rated players, not sign as many, and wind up with a lower standing than the other team simply because they outpoint you. It is kind of like track meets where a school wins simply because they outpoint you by having so many entrants.

The star ratings are one thing but I don't get all the bonus points they hand out for a variety of reasons. If you look at rivals and/or scout you will see that the average stars awarded per recruit at NT is higher than a lot of schools further up on the list. As an aside, Scout currently has NT rated 119 out of 120 schools.

FirefightnRick · February 2, 2010

I'm always interested in what recruits we sign each year and try and make the video show(if there is one)when I can. And when I can I go see them play in high school and why I always try and make the Oil Bowl each June if we have a player playing in it. But really, I find there's much less stress to ignore the rating systems and simply wait and see who shows up in August and compare how they do against college players the first two weeks of practice. When we saw Booger for the first time, we just knew he was going to play very soon. Same for Scott Hall, Johnny Quinn, Darius Carey etc.

Rick

Edited February 2, 2010 by FirefightnRick

eulessismore · February 2, 2010

I really don't give two craps about your recurring lecture series on recruiting services. I'm speaking to a number of posters here who find one exception to a rule and pleasure themselves to it while falling asleep every night.

If you have a better system and sudden new-found belief in the power of positive thinking, good for you, but that was one of the most non-essential soliloquies in the recent history of the board.

And yes, I'm having a bad day, but sometimes playing Ike Turner just feels good. I'll still bake you a cake when I calm down, and I might even write you a song.

The Ike Turner reference reminds me of the headline the morning after he died, "Ike Turner Beats Tina to Death". So, hey, I gave you a point for making me grin.

Edited February 2, 2010 by eulessismore

LongJim · February 2, 2010

Interesting article. One thing I've observed about these "services" is that some of them not only use scouts (real ones, not Scouts) to help with their evaluations. I have a Rivals sub, and some sites are better than others, because the bigger ones with more resources (read: subscribers) actually have some influence on how/where these kids are slotted. The bigger sites also have (usually) more professional scouting sources, and those sources IMO can have an impact on how many *'s a player receives.

Grand Green is right in some of what he says, particularly that the bigger programs have resources to find the best players--which comes from fully developed pipelines to HIGH SCHOOL COACHES/PROGRAMS THAT WILL PICK UP THE PHONE AND CALL THE HEAD COACH AT THE UNIVERSITY WHEN THEY HAVE AN ELITE ATHLETE. THIS COMES FROM DEVELOPING AND NURTURING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS LIKE TENDER, SUCCULENT PEACHES, OR A PRETTY FLOWER.

Tom Lemming to the Denver Post in the DMN today: “It’s good to have coaches with Texas connections on your staff, because Texas is a very clannish state. The high school coaches down there tend to push players toward college coaches they know.”

Edited February 2, 2010 by LongJim