Agim fell to a four star by ESPN very late in the year, they had him as a 5 star for majority of the year as well as all other rankings. I like ESPN system, but I’d have to say I like 247 sports the most. You have a larger group of 5 stars, but they also lay out more information on the player.
Someone mentioned ranking the ranking systems, that would be an interesting research to do. I’d be curious to see who’s the most accurate. They seems to vary quite a bit between the ranking groups.
Either way, would like to see more hogs on all of the lists, im not huge on the star system. But it is beginning to become more accurate, that is showing in the drafts. Development is huge with many players but I figure the more stars the more college ready they typically are.
I just looked at 247’s list. They do 0-1.0 on their Composite player ratings. It takes a 0.9845 on Composite to make 5-star (32 of them). Brown is 0.9275. They have Hyatt as a 3-star, 0.8747. Hayden is a 4, 0.8901; he was the next to last 4-star on their list (300 4-stars after 32 5’s).
247 also has a Top247 list which is on the 0-100 scale. They have 23 5’s (98 or higher). Brown is a 4 at 94. Koilan Jackson is a 4 at 93. Hayden is a 4 at 92. Hyatt is a 3 at 87. It looks like it took a 91 to make 4-star, or at least to make the Top247.
ESPN gives Hayden a 77 as a 3-star, and not a particularly high 3, BTW.
[quote=“HogNDas”]
The reason everyone looks at STARS is because, FOR THE MOST PART (of course there are exceptions), they are accurate.
Bama has the BEST star rated classes and they are again playing for the NC. I don’t get the article…YES, we go by STARS cause STARS (like size, LOL) matter!
[/quote]That is correct. If you look an individual player, the star system is perhaps 60% accurate. However, as a group or even a recruiting class, the star system is near 100% accurate.
I liken it to a hotel having two groups: attorneys and electrical union members. If you meet someone in the hall, an individual, at first you may not know which group, but walk in to the meeting place and see them as a group, at just a glance you know with 100% certainty if they are attorneys or electrical union members.
How the heck can the star system be 100% accurate on a group if individual players are misrated in either direction? The group IS the individual players. The point is whether Player A is a better prospect than Player B. Obviously the star system blew it on Lamar Jackson, just for an example. As a 3-star, they thought more than 300 other players were better than he was. Now whether he really deserved the Heisman is debatable (I’d send it to D. Watson right now), but he’s not in the 300s on the best players in the country list, he’s way higher than that. They get them wrong in the other direction; Bama has had plenty of 4- and 5-stars who never made an impact. We have too, just not as many (Darius Winston comes to mind).
Where the star system fails is it can’t account for a players work ethic, determination, and will to succeed. It can just measure a players athletic and physical components.
I can honestly say after seeing him in person I thought otherwise. I had questions about his speed.
[/quote]What do you think of Tre Norwood or would you rather not say ?
I liked a kid that went to camp last summer a whole lot. I mean a lot!! He had a bad camp and his stock went down. I found out later Arkansas wasn’t as high on him as I was because they saw some issues with his hips and ability to redirect. Boy were they right.
I say that because they obviously know better than I do. They evaluated Tre and obviously decided not to pull the trigger.
I liked a kid that went to camp last summer a whole lot. I mean a lot!! He had a bad camp and his stock went down. I found out later Arkansas wasn’t as high on him as I was because they saw some issues with his hips and ability to redirect. Boy were they right.
I say that because they obviously know better than I do. They evaluated Tre and obviously decided not to pull the trigger.
[/quote]Well, and after reading some of you other posts, sounds like tight numbers in that position, with the big IF still looming on some of those guys. Thanks RD. When you see someone like ND offer him, --I just had to ask.
I understand. ND won’t be the only big offer an in-state kid gets. That should be revealed very soon.
[/quote]Well, for myself, I agree. The coaches know way better than I would know. Now you, I don’t know that I would say that necessarily with all your experience. I support this Coach and staff, but I hope they understand, that for me — and I don’t want to say for this fan base categorically, but I believe it to be so – you cannot have too many Kenneth Dixons, or in state kids who want to be Hogs that are successful at major programs — that you do not offer and not lose fan support unless you are winning. But great for those kids.
If you are not a mathematician, scientist, or engineer (had statistics), I am not certain I can explain it to you but I will try. When the probability of a single event is less than 100 percent, it is the difference (probability) of predicting the outcome of a single event vs. the probability of predicting the outcome of the average of many events.
For example, you have $100 and you are going to Las Vegas and bet on red or black until you win or lose $100. If you make a $100 bet ( a single event) the outcome is uncertain. You have a 47.4% chance of winning $100.
If you place $10 bets (likely 300 bets), you have much less than a 1 percent chance of winning $100 before losing $100. Therefore, you are over 99% certain of the outcome.
If you place $1 bets (likely 3,000 bets), you have 1 chance in more than 10^29 of winning $100 before losing $100. 10^29 is more than a billion times larger than all the grains of sand on all the deserts and all the beaches in the world. Therefore you are 100% certain of the outcome (rounded to the nearest 29 decimal places).
Predicting the future performance of an individual player based on the number of stars is less than 100%. However, predicting the average performance of a large number of players based on their number of stars is a certainty. Predicting how a random person in NYC was was going to vote is guessing. However, predicting that Clinton would win NYC (the average of all the voters in NYC), was a certainty.
I was afraid that was what you were implying. I wholeheartedly disagree. You’re throwing a whole lot of oranges into a comparison of apples.
Let’s take your NYC voting example. Yes, you could predict with 99.99% accuracy that HRC was going to carry NYC. But that is not the point of recruiting rankings. Recruiting rankings are qualitative, not quantitative. You can make that kind of political prediction because one voter counts the same as the next; a count of heads will suffice. I can predict with 99.99% accuracy that we’re going to sign at least 15 players in 2018. But that’s quantitative. I cannot predict that we will sign a 5-star, or that our star average will be better next year than this year, because that’s qualitative. And more to the point, I cannot predict that a single 4-star or 5-star recruit, in any season, will prove to be worth that 4-star ranking, or that there won’t be a 3-star in the class who will be better than anyone else (like Lamar Jackson). Or that our recruiting group, whatever its average star rating turns out to be, will be able to win 10 games in a season in the SEC West.
[quote] However, predicting the average performance of a large number of players based on their number of stars is a certainty.
[/quote]
Baloney. It is absolutely not certain. I’m looking at the Rivals team recruiting rankings for 2014, this year’s juniors/redshirt sophs. Of the top 30 recruiting classes, six didn’t even make a bowl game this year. Bama was #1, yeah. But Clemson was #13, with an average of 0.6 stars per recruit fewer than the Tide. You may have noticed that Clemson wound up a little higher than #13 in the final rankings. And Clemson’s 2012-13-14 classes were all outside the top 10.
Baloney. It is absolutely not certain. I’m looking at the Rivals team recruiting rankings for 2014, this year’s juniors/redshirt sophs. Of the top 30 recruiting classes, six didn’t even make a bowl game this year. Bama was #1, yeah. But Clemson was #13, with an average of 0.6 stars per recruit fewer than the Tide. You may have noticed that Clemson wound up a little higher than #13 in the final rankings. And Clemson’s 2012-13-14 classes were all outside the top 10.
[/quote]
Your mentioned Clemson, do you think they get to keep the championship trophy? Didn’t the rectruitniks and star-gazers declare that no team could win a NC without a top 10 recruiting class? Looking back the last five years, the highest I see is 12, with an average of 17.6 (scout numbers).
The star system works because it’s fairly easy to judge 5* talent over 3* and whoever winds up with the most 5*s is in better shape to win. However, in all of these rankings (whatever method is used), none of them takes into consideration all the intangibles, such as how a player will respond to the coaches, how college life is going to suit him, will he get homesick and desire to leave, will he be a good student or a good person, etc. The team with the most stars could wind up with the most problems. Or the most injuries. The point is there is no perfect method that guarantees success, just a good barometer. And the star system is that good barometer as much as I dislike it mos
Baloney. It is absolutely not certain. I’m looking at the Rivals team recruiting rankings for 2014, this year’s juniors/redshirt sophs. Of the top 30 recruiting classes, six didn’t even make a bowl game this year. Bama was #1, yeah. But Clemson was #13, with an average of 0.6 stars per recruit fewer than the Tide. You may have noticed that Clemson wound up a little higher than #13 in the final rankings. And Clemson’s 2012-13-14 classes were all outside the top 10.
[/quote]
Whatever, if you choose to believe that the probability of a single event is the same as the probability of the average of many events, I concede; you win the debate.
For all those reasons and other uncertainties, you can not be certain of the future performance of a individual player based on his number of stars. However, Google and you will find that every year the percentage of 5 star players that play in the NFL or NBA is greater than the percentage of 4 star players, etc.
That is, % of players playing in NFL & NBA:
5*% > 4*% >3*% > 2*% > 1*%.
That doesn’t imply that #5* players in NFL and NBA is greater than #4*, because there are far more 4* then 5* and far more 4* than 3*, etc.