(01-13-2011 09:28 PM)cagy cager Wrote:  I heard PJ kicked Chuck Norris' ass with PJ's arm tied around his back.

PJ also made Chandler cry, and we know what Chandler's tears can do!

(01-13-2011 05:58 PM)bikechuck Wrote:  Coach Novak was great at selecting kids with raw talent a good work ethic and projecting where they might be able to fit in after spending a year in the weight room. Coach Kill brought in a great strength and conditioning coach and got even more out of those kids than might otherwise have been possible. Like it or not we are not going to attract too many 3, 4 or 5 stars.

For the umteenth time it does not matter. Do you think our coaches look at a recruiting service to see how many stars a potential recruit has. Every coach knows who the great players are.

Notre Dame has proven that the star ranking service is not an accurate measure of talent.
Much too many other factors involved. The fact that a player can play in one High school setting does not make him a super star in College.

i always laugh at these threads....

of course there are no guarentees...no guarentees that 3 star athletes pan out, no guarentees that 2 stars dont excell....but the "i dont care about the ratings of our recruits" argument is for programs that arent getting any highly rated recruits...

as for me...id rather have a good number of 3 and four star recruits sign on than have a lot of 2 star or unrated recruits...doesnt mean i wont like who we sign, and it doesnt mean they wont pan out, but getting more highly rated recruits cant be anything but a good sign for a program.

(01-14-2011 08:39 PM)houstonhuskie Wrote:  i always laugh at these threads....

of course there are no guarentees...no guarentees that 3 star athletes pan out, no guarentees that 2 stars dont excell....but the "i dont care about the ratings of our recruits" argument is for programs that arent getting any highly rated recruits...

as for me...id rather have a good number of 3 and four star recruits sign on than have a lot of 2 star or unrated recruits...doesnt mean i wont like who we sign, and it doesnt mean they wont pan out, but getting more highly rated recruits cant be anything but a good sign for a program.

Seriously, for every two star recruit that made it big and every five star recruit that didn't pan out you'll find the opposite situation hundreds more times.

The measure of any class is what happens 3 and 4 years out. Are they core of a team winning its games? Are they good college players?

That's the resistance to ratings. Sure, 5 star guys jump out and have a higher rate of success. But they aren't the NIU recruiting pool. 3 star, 2 star and some unrated guys look for all the world to be shades of gray based on the range of outcomes.

Basically: I wouldn't be surprised by a correlation between high star ratings (5, maybe 4) and conference awards, draft position, and team success. I would not expect any correlation between lesser ratings and later success.

That would feed the notion that recruiting ratings are largely useless from an NIU fan perspective.

(01-14-2011 09:44 PM)illini125 Wrote:  

(01-14-2011 08:39 PM)houstonhuskie Wrote:  i always laugh at these threads....

of course there are no guarentees...no guarentees that 3 star athletes pan out, no guarentees that 2 stars dont excell....but the "i dont care about the ratings of our recruits" argument is for programs that arent getting any highly rated recruits...

as for me...id rather have a good number of 3 and four star recruits sign on than have a lot of 2 star or unrated recruits...doesnt mean i wont like who we sign, and it doesnt mean they wont pan out, but getting more highly rated recruits cant be anything but a good sign for a program.

Seriously, for every two star recruit that made it big and every five star recruit that didn't pan out you'll find the opposite situation hundreds more times.

You are an idiot Illi-troll. 5 stars a rare and easy to predict by anyone. It's the 3 stars that are a joke. These services need a new system. Anyone that pays attention to these rankings are clueless.

Rivals and Scout pander to their subscribers...doesn't take a genius to figure that out.

(01-13-2011 03:52 PM)gcd Wrote:  This is for everyone who gets worked up about our recruiting rankings and the number of three star recruits we are able to bring in. I went back in the Rivals website and saw that our 19 person recruiting class from 2007 was ranked dead last in the MAC (tied with Buffalo) that year with zero three star recruits. However, 10 of those recruits started this year on a team that finished 11-3. Let’s not worry about what someone else thinks about the players that the coaches think can play football.

And you have to remember Rivals will drop rankings of recruits if they sign with MAC teams. In other words, no credibility for Rivals.

(01-16-2011 04:34 AM)MaddDawgz02 Wrote:  

(01-13-2011 03:52 PM)gcd Wrote:  This is for everyone who gets worked up about our recruiting rankings and the number of three star recruits we are able to bring in. I went back in the Rivals website and saw that our 19 person recruiting class from 2007 was ranked dead last in the MAC (tied with Buffalo) that year with zero three star recruits. However, 10 of those recruits started this year on a team that finished 11-3. Let’s not worry about what someone else thinks about the players that the coaches think can play football.

And you have to remember Rivals will drop rankings of recruits if they sign with MAC teams. In other words, no credibility for Rivals.

Rockets had 1 4star and 13 3star commits for the 2010 Class according to Rivals.com.

It has been proven that the more stars a player has the higher the chance he ends up in the nfl. A greater percentage of 3 stars make it then 2 stars and so forth. In that way the star ratings are accurate, but I don't think the ratings correlate to winning. Unless a team is landing top 20 classes every season, then it's pretty hard not to win.

(01-16-2011 12:48 PM)btowngopher Wrote:  It has been proven that the more stars a player has the higher the chance he ends up in the nfl. A greater percentage of 3 stars make it then 2 stars and so forth. In that way the star ratings are accurate, but I don't think the ratings correlate to winning. Unless a team is landing top 20 classes every season, then it's pretty hard not to win.

Proven? Show us the data on that one.

(01-16-2011 12:48 PM)btowngopher Wrote:  It has been proven that the more stars a player has the higher the chance he ends up in the nfl. A greater percentage of 3 stars make it then 2 stars and so forth. In that way the star ratings are accurate, but I don't think the ratings correlate to winning. Unless a team is landing top 20 classes every season, then it's pretty hard not to win.

If you read ANYTHING into Rivals rrankings you are a fool, they are clueless.

(01-16-2011 01:53 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 12:48 PM)btowngopher Wrote:  It has been proven that the more stars a player has the higher the chance he ends up in the nfl. A greater percentage of 3 stars make it then 2 stars and so forth. In that way the star ratings are accurate, but I don't think the ratings correlate to winning. Unless a team is landing top 20 classes every season, then it's pretty hard not to win.

Proven? Show us the data on that one.

It's easy to look up, just go check out 1st round draft picks and tell me how many 2 stars there are.

I'd guess over 80% of h.s. players that sign are rated as 3 stars or less, no where near 80% of the first round draft picks are 3 stars or less.

(01-16-2011 03:36 PM)btowngopher Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 01:53 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  

(01-16-2011 12:48 PM)btowngopher Wrote:  It has been proven that the more stars a player has the higher the chance he ends up in the nfl. A greater percentage of 3 stars make it then 2 stars and so forth. In that way the star ratings are accurate, but I don't think the ratings correlate to winning. Unless a team is landing top 20 classes every season, then it's pretty hard not to win.

Proven? Show us the data on that one.

It's easy to look up, just go check out 1st round draft picks and tell me how many 2 stars there are.

So, no data?

No one's arguing 5's vs. 3's. You're playing with strawmen if you think people are.

It's 3's vs. 2's. The point being that outside of the 5's and presumably the 4's (though to a lesser degree)- you're talking about a blob of highly similar players little effort is expended on the evaluation of. Hence the hangup a couple meatballs have about 3's over 2's being dumb.

Again, I would be surprised if any meaningful correlation existed between draft status and conference awards among 3's and 2's.

Who's talking about the 1st round? Of course those guys were likely highly recruited in HS.

Minnesota has 11 current players in the NFL....NIU has 9... have fun with all the stars on your roster.

(01-16-2011 04:16 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  Who's talking about the 1st round? Of course those guys were likely highly recruited in HS.

Minnesota has 11 current players in the NFL....NIU has 9... have fun with all the stars on your roster.

Glen mason never landed a lot of 2 star guys, I'm not shocked that niu has a similar amount of current nfl players. But yeah the star ratings aren't perfect, but I wouldn't say they are completely meaningless. Also the way rivals scoring is set up a .1 change in how they score someone can result in the gain or loss of a star, so of course there are many 2 and 3 stars of similar skill sets.

(01-16-2011 04:16 PM)prairiedawg Wrote:  Who's talking about the 1st round? Of course those guys were likely highly recruited in HS.

Minnesota has 11 current players in the NFL....NIU has 9... have fun with all the stars on your roster.

Glen mason was not a strong recruiter he landed a lot of 2 star guys, I'm not shocked that niu has a similar amount of current nfl players. But yeah the star ratings aren't perfect, but I wouldn't say they are completely meaningless. Also the way rivals scoring is set up a .1 change in how they score someone can result in the gain or loss of a star, so of course there are many 2 and 3 stars of similar skill sets.