https://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal...-two-stars

"Recruiting analysts and colleges must project a player to the college level, and part of that entails how much weight he can add to his frame. If a player appears to be maxed out, it can hurt his rating. On the other hand, a player with great length and a wide frame might be rated higher, because of his potential to add weight in a college strength program.

But that has its limitations, and the majority of undersized players with promising frames are unable to blow up in the weight room while still retaining the athleticism that got them noticed in the first place. College coaches and recruiting analysts would lose their jobs if they routinely projected every slender prospect to add the type of muscle these guys did.

Four- and five-star players rarely blow up to this extent. And there's a reason for that: they are already further along in their physical development, they offer greater certainty to the school, and they are able to be productive much earlier in their careers."

How many stories can be told about 5 star players, first team all staters, you name it....that got a football scholarship to a big football school and never made it through the first year of college. In fact, some never played football in college.

(12-23-2017 09:24 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  How many stories can be told about 5 star players, first team all staters, you name it....that got a football scholarship to a big football school and never made it through the first year of college. In fact, some never played football in college.

Yes, making that ratio dynamic of the stars and the numbers that are drafted VERY intriguing, to say the least.....

(12-23-2017 09:24 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  How many stories can be told about 5 star players, first team all staters, you name it....that got a football scholarship to a big football school and never made it through the first year of college. In fact, some never played football in college.

Football is a different monster because it is difficult to evaluate how a kid will handle the uptick in competition.

Some guys are frontrunners and don't handle competition or adversity well and others are Bullies and don't handle being beat up at all.

Let's not kid ourselves. Talent level - as measured by stars - is the main reason the best schools (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, etc) are at the top of the heap. Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule.

(12-24-2017 10:12 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Let's not kid ourselves. Talent level - as measured by stars - is the main reason the best schools (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, etc) are at the top of the heap. Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule.

True.

(12-25-2017 10:34 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 10:12 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Let's not kid ourselves. Talent level - as measured by stars - is the main reason the best schools (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, etc) are at the top of the heap. Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule.

True.

I am TOTALLY kidding myself....and here's why...It's NOT just about stars....

https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2015
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2016
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2017

UCLA Recruits
2014' - (12) 4* / (0) 5*
2015' - (9) 4* / (3) 5*
2016' - (11) 4* / (1) 5*
2017' - (6) 4* / (2) 5*


MEMPHIS Recruits

2014' - (9) 3*
2015' - (1) 4* / (12) 3*
2016' - (16) 3*
2017' - (1) 4* / (16) 3*

Based on "measurement of stars"UCLA/(32) 4* and (6) 5* players between 2014'-2017'

MEMPHIS (2) 4* and (53) 3* players between that same timeframe.....How can these teams COMPETE based on "MOS" let alone Memphis goes to UCLA 2015' and scares the SHITake out of them???

Let's look @ a higher example:

CLEMSON Recruits

2014' - (0) 5*
2015' - (3) 5*
2016' - (1) 5*
2017' - (2) 5*


BAMA Recruits

2014' - (5) 5*
2015' - (6) 5*
2016' - (3) 5*
2017' - (6) 5*
By comparison, Clemson has (6) 5* recruits and BAMA has (20) 5* recruits between the timeframe of 2014'-2017'....That's almost 75% MORE 5* recruits than Clemson has.....
So based on "Measurement Of Stars" how the H_LL does Clemson defeat BAMA for all the marbles?

It's a gr8 question and gr8 dynamic: " Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule."

No matter what the stars/ratings etc; players MUST possess intangibles such as ;WILL,DESIRE and be coachable, which is the main ingredient in DEVELOPMENT inwhich your staff is also a key ingredient...those two go hand in hand....

(12-26-2017 01:31 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 10:34 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 10:12 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Let's not kid ourselves. Talent level - as measured by stars - is the main reason the best schools (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, etc) are at the top of the heap. Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule.

True.

I am TOTALLY kidding myself....and here's why...It's NOT just about stars....

https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2015
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2016
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2017

UCLA Recruits
2014' - (12) 4* / (0) 5*
2015' - (9) 4* / (3) 5*
2016' - (11) 4* / (1) 5*
2017' - (6) 4* / (2) 5*


MEMPHIS Recruits

2014' - (9) 3*
2015' - (1) 4* / (12) 3*
2016' - (16) 3*
2017' - (1) 4* / (16) 3*

Based on "measurement of stars"UCLA/(32) 4* and (6) 5* players between 2014'-2017'

MEMPHIS (2) 4* and (53) 3* players between that same timeframe.....How can these teams COMPETE based on "MOS" let alone Memphis goes to UCLA 2015' and scares the SHITake out of them???

Let's look @ a higher example:

CLEMSON Recruits

2014' - (0) 5*
2015' - (3) 5*
2016' - (1) 5*
2017' - (2) 5*


BAMA Recruits

2014' - (5) 5*
2015' - (6) 5*
2016' - (3) 5*
2017' - (6) 5*
By comparison, Clemson has (6) 5* recruits and BAMA has (20) 5* recruits between the timeframe of 2014'-2017'....That's almost 75% MORE 5* recruits than Clemson has.....
So based on "Measurement Of Stars" how the H_LL does Clemson defeat BAMA for all the marbles?

It's a gr8 question and gr8 dynamic: " Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule."

No matter what the stars/ratings etc; players MUST possess intangibles such as ;WILL,DESIRE and be coachable, which is the main ingredient in DEVELOPMENT inwhich your staff is also a key ingredient...those two go hand in hand....

You make good points and I commend the research.

However, consider the observation that much time and treasure is spent on recruiting and the teams with the highest recruiting ratings tend (not always) to perform better than teams with the lowest recruiting ratings. A player is like raw material for a product. The better the raw material, the easier and more likely it will result in a better product.

(12-26-2017 03:15 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  

(12-26-2017 01:31 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  

(12-25-2017 10:34 PM)Crazier Wrote:  

(12-24-2017 10:12 AM)Tiger1983 Wrote:  Let's not kid ourselves. Talent level - as measured by stars - is the main reason the best schools (e.g., Alabama, Ohio St, Clemson, etc) are at the top of the heap. Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule.

True.

I am TOTALLY kidding myself....and here's why...It's NOT just about stars....

https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2015
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2016
https://ucla.rivals.com/commitments/football/2017

UCLA Recruits
2014' - (12) 4* / (0) 5*
2015' - (9) 4* / (3) 5*
2016' - (11) 4* / (1) 5*
2017' - (6) 4* / (2) 5*


MEMPHIS Recruits

2014' - (9) 3*
2015' - (1) 4* / (12) 3*
2016' - (16) 3*
2017' - (1) 4* / (16) 3*

Based on "measurement of stars"UCLA/(32) 4* and (6) 5* players between 2014'-2017'

MEMPHIS (2) 4* and (53) 3* players between that same timeframe.....How can these teams COMPETE based on "MOS" let alone Memphis goes to UCLA 2015' and scares the SHITake out of them???

Let's look @ a higher example:

CLEMSON Recruits

2014' - (0) 5*
2015' - (3) 5*
2016' - (1) 5*
2017' - (2) 5*


BAMA Recruits

2014' - (5) 5*
2015' - (6) 5*
2016' - (3) 5*
2017' - (6) 5*
By comparison, Clemson has (6) 5* recruits and BAMA has (20) 5* recruits between the timeframe of 2014'-2017'....That's almost 75% MORE 5* recruits than Clemson has.....
So based on "Measurement Of Stars" how the H_LL does Clemson defeat BAMA for all the marbles?

It's a gr8 question and gr8 dynamic: " Players like Miller are the exception and not the rule."

No matter what the stars/ratings etc; players MUST possess intangibles such as ;WILL,DESIRE and be coachable, which is the main ingredient in DEVELOPMENT inwhich your staff is also a key ingredient...those two go hand in hand....

You make good points and I commend the research.

However, consider the observation that much time and treasure is spent on recruiting and the teams with the highest recruiting ratings tend (not always) to perform better than teams with the lowest recruiting ratings. A player is like raw material for a product. The better the raw material, the easier and more likely it will result in a better product.

Thanks for the compliment,much obliged.... To some extent, I see what you're getting at here...Just wanted to mention that human being have plethora of critical components that other raw material don't possess...Such as: Emotions;feelings;insight;wisdom;ability to remember;cognitive behavioral instincts/ information behavior is a cognitive process that is NOT taught, but is innate to humans to the point that people are able to consciously understand that they need to undertake behavior processes of information finding, organizing and using to make sense of the environment.

So yes, just like raw materials, people need to be shaped; molded; honed and sharpened...in contrast, raw materials don't need nurturing,encouragement,disciplined,morals,values, nutrition, sleep etc...

Player rankings are generally a good barometer for talent level. But it is harder to rank football players because there are so many of them, and not all get to attend camps to go head to head with other talented players. I trust this coaching staff to evaluate and bring it players that can perform.

I did look back at some of the guys that have contributed this year to our football team and found the following players with their rankings coming out of HS:

2013 Pos. 247rating Stars

Doroland Dorceus RB .7884 2
Christian Johnson DE .7681 2
Jackson Dillon DE .7653 2
Gabe Kuhn OT .7333 2

2014

Gernard Avery LB .7784 2
Phillip Mayhue WR .7000 2


2015

Joey Magnifico LB/TE .7598 2

2016

Sean Dykes TE .7750 2
Dustin Woodard OG .7750 2
Bryce Huff LB .7676 2
Jonathan Wilson DE .7631 2


It's not an exact science, and much like the Anthony Millers of the world much of how they end up depends on desire and work ethic.

BAKER MAYFIELD...second team ALL STATE in Texas. 3 Star rating.

https://auburn.247sports.com/Season/2014...ll/Commits

Let's take a look @ UCF v AUBURN ratiings "Measurement Of Stars"...I'm pretty certain that AUBURN SEC POWERHOUSE that Beat BAMA was favored by bunches:

AUBURN

2014' (2) 5* / (12) 4*
2015' (1) 5* / (18) 4*
2016' (1) 5* / (12) 4*
2017' (1) 5* / (9) 4*



UCF

2014' (1) 4* / (13) 3*
2015' (1) 4* / (15) 3*
2016' / (19) 3*
2017' (1) 4* / (18) 3*

The discrepancy here is glaring: 2014' AUBURN had almost as many 4* recruits (12) as UCF had 3* recruits (13)...

2015' Even more disparaging: AUBURN had (18) 4* recruits as UCF signed (1) 4* and (15) 3* recruits...

2016' (12) 4* recruits signed by AUBURN vs (0) 4* recruits for UCF....ONLY (19) 3* recruits....

"Measurement Of Stars" ANYONE

(01-01-2018 10:04 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  https://auburn.247sports.com/Season/2014...ll/Commits

Let's take a look @ UCF v AUBURN ratiings "Measurement Of Stars"...I'm pretty certain that AUBURN SEC POWERHOUSE that Beat BAMA was favored by bunches:

AUBURN

2014' (2) 5* / (12) 4*
2015' (1) 5* / (18) 4*
2016' (1) 5* / (12) 4*
2017' (1) 5* / (9) 4*



UCF

2014' (1) 4* / (13) 3*
2015' (1) 4* / (15) 3*
2016' / (19) 3*
2017' (1) 4* / (18) 3*

The discrepancy here is glaring: 2014' AUBURN had almost as many 4* recruits (12) as UCF had 3* recruits (13)...

2015' Even more disparaging: AUBURN had (18) 4* recruits as UCF signed (1) 4* and (15) 3* recruits...

2016' (12) 4* recruits signed by AUBURN vs (0) 4* recruits for UCF....ONLY (19) 3* recruits....

"Measurement Of Stars" ANYONE

Some positions star rankings are very valuable...

Defensive line is one that truly stands out...QBs and skill guys can be missed especially if they don't attend camps.

And as a side note what was Riley ranked out of High School.

(01-01-2018 08:52 PM)DallasTiger Wrote:  BAKER MAYFIELD...second team ALL STATE in Texas. 3 Star rating.

(01-05-2018 10:11 PM)macgar32 Wrote:  

(01-01-2018 10:04 PM)thagr82008 Wrote:  https://auburn.247sports.com/Season/2014...ll/Commits

Let's take a look @ UCF v AUBURN ratiings "Measurement Of Stars"...I'm pretty certain that AUBURN SEC POWERHOUSE that Beat BAMA was favored by bunches:

AUBURN

2014' (2) 5* / (12) 4*
2015' (1) 5* / (18) 4*
2016' (1) 5* / (12) 4*
2017' (1) 5* / (9) 4*



UCF

2014' (1) 4* / (13) 3*
2015' (1) 4* / (15) 3*
2016' / (19) 3*
2017' (1) 4* / (18) 3*

The discrepancy here is glaring: 2014' AUBURN had almost as many 4* recruits (12) as UCF had 3* recruits (13)...

2015' Even more disparaging: AUBURN had (18) 4* recruits as UCF signed (1) 4* and (15) 3* recruits...

2016' (12) 4* recruits signed by AUBURN vs (0) 4* recruits for UCF....ONLY (19) 3* recruits....

"Measurement Of Stars" ANYONE

Some positions star rankings are very valuable...

Defensive line is one that truly stands out...QBs and skill guys can be missed especially if they don't attend camps.

And as a side note what was Riley ranked out of High School.

https://247sports.com/player/riley-ferguson-2035

Both Baker & Riley ranked as same....