Saw an SI article (you'll have to find it, I'm traveling) that said in the recent Super Bowl, Seattle players averaged 2.4 stars out of high school and New England averaged 2.3. No doubt everyone wants those 5 star players but aside from those, it seems below the almost guaranteed college stars to be (the 5 star players), the lower rated players require development. This is what gives me confidence we can compete.

(02-24-2015 03:54 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Saw an SI article (you'll have to find it, I'm traveling) that said in the recent Super Bowl, Seattle players averaged 2.4 stars out of high school and New England averaged 2.3. No doubt everyone wants those 5 star players but aside from those, it seems below the almost guaranteed college stars to be (the 5 star players), the lower rated players require development. This is what gives me confidence we can compete.

Careful, some people are sensitive about this subject.

There aren't nearly as many 5 and 4 star recruits in a given class compared to 3 stars and lower. There are literally thousands of the latter every year while there are only 25-30 5 stars. A much higher percentage of the blue chippers tend to pan out in college and/or make the NFL.

https://www.toledoblade.com/Ohio-State/2...ystem.html

Data is only as good as the relevance to which it is revealed. Clearly on the top end highly rated players yield the greatest success when a critical mass of those players are recruited over time. That means NC are won by teams that recruit the most best players.

It doesn't mean top rated stars don't miss. They do. There are lots of intangibles. It doesn't mean unrated players can't excel. They do. But the trends are strong and undeniable no matter how many exceptions are floated.

The NFL story is deceptive. What you get is the second layer of filtering after four years of training and development. And there are still mistakes and still surprises. Atlanta used the key word...development.

CJF talks about our continued rise means recruiting better, bigger, faster players. In most cases that means more three stars a few four stars and a every once in a while five star......if we stay in AAC. If we move to B? the pressure to shift upward only increases.

Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Bingo. There's simply WAY MORE 2 and 3 star players.

(02-25-2015 08:14 AM)MemphisCanes Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Bingo. There's simply WAY MORE 2 and 3 star players.

Neither team boasts a former five-star recruit in its two-deep, and both have four former four-stars. Seattle has 11 former three-stars, while New England has nine.

(02-24-2015 03:54 PM)Atlanta Wrote:  Saw an SI article (you'll have to find it, I'm traveling) that said in the recent Super Bowl, Seattle players averaged 2.4 stars out of high school and New England averaged 2.3. No doubt everyone wants those 5 star players but aside from those, it seems below the almost guaranteed college stars to be (the 5 star players), the lower rated players require development. This is what gives me confidence we can compete.

That's what gives you confidence? Not the fact that we saw our team compete the past 2 years?

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Well if you add up the percentages above...it only comes to 69.6%. So, if I am reading this right.....that leaves 30.4% that were LOWER than 2 stars. If you want to do some interesting research, look at the number of All Americans....that were walk ons. To me, the really significant information is that...according to the numbers just posted, almost as many players who are under 2 stars....and many who are walk ons....end up being drafted in the NFL as 5 star players. In fact the 40.6% of 5 stars is just a little above the 30.4% of players totally under the radar of these rating services.

(02-25-2015 01:57 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Well if you add up the percentages above...it only comes to 69.6%. So, if I am reading this right.....that leaves 30.4% that were LOWER than 2 stars. If you want to do some interesting research, look at the number of All Americans....that were walk ons. To me, the really significant information is that...according to the numbers just posted, almost as many players who are under 2 stars....and many who are walk ons....end up being drafted in the NFL as 5 star players. In fact the 40.6% of 5 stars is just a little above the 30.4% of players totally under the radar of these rating services.

I think you're reading it wrong --- those are the percentages *within* each of the groups represented in the draft. Not the percentage in the draft itself. So, they don't have to add up to 100% -- they don't have to add up to any specific number --

Many if not most of the 4/5* star guys are just not that much better than most of 3* guys. The 'raters' see more upside in them and they are usually able to contribute immediately. Yet the evidence indicates, many that are not 'ranked' high have the potential to develop themselves. It just might take a bit longer.

But every so often a few guys come along that are cannot misses.

There are exceptions but overall the higher rated players tend to be better, as do their teams. This is not really close.
There are certainly exceptions.

(02-25-2015 02:21 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 01:57 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Well if you add up the percentages above...it only comes to 69.6%. So, if I am reading this right.....that leaves 30.4% that were LOWER than 2 stars. If you want to do some interesting research, look at the number of All Americans....that were walk ons. To me, the really significant information is that...according to the numbers just posted, almost as many players who are under 2 stars....and many who are walk ons....end up being drafted in the NFL as 5 star players. In fact the 40.6% of 5 stars is just a little above the 30.4% of players totally under the radar of these rating services.

I think you're reading it wrong --- those are the percentages *within* each of the groups represented in the draft. Not the percentage in the draft itself. So, they don't have to add up to 100% -- they don't have to add up to any specific number --

Right, I was reading it incorrectly. So, what it says is that about 60% if the 5 star players never got drafted into the NFL. Is that correct? And thus about 81% of the 4 stars did not get into the NFL. I wonder how many "under 2 stars" were drafted?

(02-25-2015 09:08 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 02:21 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  

(02-25-2015 01:57 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  

(02-24-2015 10:39 PM)Tigerx3 Wrote:  Here’s a rundown of who was selected in the NFL draft:
67 of the 165 five-star prospects (21 in the first round); 40.6%
289 of the 1,536 four-star prospects (53 in the first round), 18.8%
291 of the 3,810 three-star prospects (33 in the first round); 7.6%
155 of the 6,015 two-star prospects (nine in the first round). 2.6%

“The ratings are an inexact science,” said Tom Lemming, a national analyst for CBS Sports Network. ”And it is political at a lot of the sites. But if you’re a top-10 class, that means you’re bringing in a great class. You could be wrong on some of the players, but not that many. If you’ve got a top-10 class consistently, you're going to consistently be in the national rankings.

Well if you add up the percentages above...it only comes to 69.6%. So, if I am reading this right.....that leaves 30.4% that were LOWER than 2 stars. If you want to do some interesting research, look at the number of All Americans....that were walk ons. To me, the really significant information is that...according to the numbers just posted, almost as many players who are under 2 stars....and many who are walk ons....end up being drafted in the NFL as 5 star players. In fact the 40.6% of 5 stars is just a little above the 30.4% of players totally under the radar of these rating services.

I think you're reading it wrong --- those are the percentages *within* each of the groups represented in the draft. Not the percentage in the draft itself. So, they don't have to add up to 100% -- they don't have to add up to any specific number --

Right, I was reading it incorrectly. So, what it says is that about 60% if the 5 star players never got drafted into the NFL. Is that correct? And thus about 81% of the 4 stars did not get into the NFL. I wonder how many "under 2 stars" were drafted?

The % of under ** is tiny. There are representations of all levels of rated and unrated players but the key is the chances of getting drafted based on a high school rating of Five* is light years ahead of 2* or less.

Said another way, if you bet on every 5* to be drafted and against every unrated player to be drafted you would be uber rich in one year. But nobody is stupid enough to even offer odds like that. Vegas knows even if fans try to talk exceptions.

Open your mind... In the USA there were over 1 million participants in high school football in 2014. This group had over 300,000 Seniors participate.

Who really believes there were only 34 five star players, 330 four star players and 472 three star players = 836 players total out of over 300,000 according to Rivals? It's a numbers game. The bigger pool will always have more fish(NFL players).

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying the fore mentioned players aren't deserving of their rankings or that I wouldn't mind having them be Tigers. I am only advocating that there is a hell of a lot more talent out there to be had than the recruiting services know of. This is not an exact science here, take a look at 0 star Alan Cross. I wouldn't trade him for anyone.

To me, it's not even an argument.

(02-27-2015 09:22 AM)hartless Wrote:  Open your mind... In the USA there were over 1 million participants in high school football in 2014. This group had over 300,000 Seniors participate.

Who really believes there were only 34 five star players, 330 four star players and 472 three star players = 836 players total out of over 300,000 according to Rivals? It's a numbers game. The bigger pool will always have more fish(NFL players).

DISCLAIMER: I am not saying the fore mentioned players aren't deserving of their rankings or that I wouldn't mind having them be Tigers. I am only advocating that there is a hell of a lot more talent out there to be had than the recruiting services know of. This is not an exact science here, take a look at 0 star Alan Cross. I wouldn't trade him for anyone.

To me, it's not even an argument.

My mind is open. You didn't say anything I would disagree with. You are just focussing on the exceptions and the unknown. I'm focusing on the best known and statistical likelihood. Not certainty, statistical likelihood.