A local reporter said last night on the sports report that the average number of stars (when coming out of high school) for the players playing in the Super Bowl this weekend was 2.75. I found that hard to believe, but he must have gotten it from somewhere.
I’ve put that info on here before. There is on avg around 20 - 5* a year (on average they have a 90% success rate to make it to the NFL). There is on avg 200 - 4* a year (they have a 30% success rate to make the NFL). This year there were approximately 10,000 players rated on all the sites. That means 9,780 were 3* or below. Counting a minimum a 7 practice squad players for each team there is approximately 1,920 players in the NFL on the year. That means out of 1,920 players there are 18 5*, 60 4*, and 1,842 3* or below.
Now, a caveat is there are more than those numbers of 4&5* players because, most guys that play in the NFL avgd about 4 years.
Still, if you look at a 10 year period, the total number of 5* that made the NFL is 180, total number of 4* is 600 (remember 1,920 a year, the 4&5’s only make up 780 in 10 years), while the total number of players needed in the NFL over 10 years is 19,200.
What is the average star rating in the past four college football championship games?
Don’t know, but I can tell you they all had a Top 10 class
I haven’t seen the article mentioned in the OP. But, if he is talking about this specific upcoming Super Bowl, then the star count would be abnormally low. I saw an article a year or 2 ago that showed the make-up of the Patriots roster over about a 10 year pattern. It was related to their players “star ratings” coming out of high school.
The Patriots have basically built their team by trading their top picks for extra mid-round picks and then picking up a few free agents and making a few trades each year. They have been by far the best in the NFL at picking players in the 4th - 7th rounds that make their squad.
They’ve done all this with basically one Super Star in Brady (a 6th round pick?) and a team full of players who play their positions perfectly with little fan fare and little prior college notoriety.
I’ve wondered how many MBA Theses were written based on the building blocks to the Patriots business plan and its successes these last 10 years. It could make for some fascinating reading.
Really? What year did Clemson have a top 10 class? I’m afraid Recruitniks and Stargazers everywhere cried themselves to sleep when bama went down this year, the “nobody’s won a championship without a top 10 class” thing has been taken away from them.
Rivals has them 4th in 2015 and 6th in 2016.
247 has 2015 as 9th
Yep, saw a tweet yesterday that had listed the last four NC, and showed that all had a Top 10 class within four years prior to winning.
ESPN - 2013 Clemson 13, 2014 Clemson 12, 2015 Clemson 4, 2016 Clemson 8, 2017 Clemson 10
Malcolm Butler, hero of the Pats’ last Supe win, was a zero star out of high school. Completely unranked.
Robert Alford, Falcons DB, zero stars.
Alex Mack, Pro Bowl center for Atlanta, two stars.
According to the list above, so was Brady
It makes good sense. Partly because recruiting is not an exact science and even more so because some players are overlooked and other players don’t develop their potential until after they graduate high school and finish growing. For example, as I recall, Scottie Pippin and David Robinson were both only about 6 foot out of high school.
There may be only one chance in 10,000 for a 2* and below to make it to the NFL but there also 10,000 (more or less) times as many 2* and below as 4 and 5 star players. If it were possible to train for a month and then evaulate everyone in Texas than never played in college or as a pro, I think it likely that at least one in a million, more or less, could play in the NFL.
I agree with that. One of the best PG’s I’ve ever seen never played college or HS. He only had played pick up games at a park until he got in the military and they had inter mural games. Kid reminded me of Iverson (seriously, I think he was that good), but he had a family and was doing what he thought was best for them. I understand that. Couldn’t fault him.
I don’t look at Rivals or 247. Scout does not show them in the top 10 from 2012-2016, and ESPN must change their numbers, because they didn’t have them in the top 10 when I checked after the title game.
I’ll use 2016 as an example - Scout has Clemson with 19 players and the 16th ranked class. 247 has them with 21 players and the eleventh ranked class. ESPN has them at 8th with 22. So, it looks like Scout isn’t counting all the players