Good Article on "The Star System".

[Topopo]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

Star rankings are obviously not perfect and miss on a lot of people.....

Great post. Thanks for the analysis. You make a good point.

[Ari Gold]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

Star rankings are obviously not perfect and miss on a lot of people, but they provide a way to compare classes and give each fanbase some kind of way to view their classes. I don't use the star system so much for individual players, but I do use it to gauge classes as a whole. I think a 5 star recruit has a higher chance of becoming a great college player than a 3 star, and so on. I put the odds at about this in my mind:

Wow you mean the top 30 doesnt compare to a player outside the top 250? Great insight. Please explain the following.

1) Why do players get bumped in rankings only after "top" programs offer them? Was DJ Grant a better player after he was bumped? Or Martin?

2) What happens when there are more than 250 players deserving of a 4 star ranking? Is player 251 worse than 250?

[Frank Ricard]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

Star rankings are obviously not perfect and miss on a lot of people, but they provide a way to compare classes and give each fanbase some kind of way to view their classes. I don't use the star system so much for individual players, but I do use it to gauge classes as a whole. I think a 5 star recruit has a higher chance of becoming a great college player than a 3 star, and so on. I put the odds at about this in my mind:

5 star player - 50% chance of becoming a very good starter or better
4 star player - 40% chance of becoming a very good starter or better
3 star player - 30% chance
2 star player - 20% chance
1 star player - 10% chance


Everyone likes to point out all the 2 & 3 star recruits that became All-Americans or All-Conference, but how many other 2 & 3 star recruits were there in that same class that you've never heard of?

For example, everyone uses A.J. Hawk as an example of the "flawed star system", since he was a 3* and turned into an All-American. Here is the breakdown of OSU's class that year (Rivals):

5 star players:
Maurice Clarett RB 6-0 230 4.5 - Warren, OH
Mike D'Andrea LB 6-3 230 4.55 - Avon Lake, OH
# of solid/good starters = 1 (Clarett)
% rate = 50

4 star players:
Bobby Carpenter LB 6-3 235 4.55 - Lancaster, OH
R.J. Coleman TE 6-6 260 4.8 - Clarksburg, WV
Doug Datish OL 6-5 285 5 - Warren, OH
Roy Hall WR 6-3 200 4.5 - Lyndhurst, OH
Mike Kudla DE 6-4 235 4.6 - Medina, OH
Nick Mangold OL 6-4 270 5.15 - Kettering, OH
Quinn Pitcock DT 6-4 285 4.9 - Piqua, OH
Nate Salley DB 6-3 180 4.5 - Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Tim Schafer DE 6-5 245 4.85 - Upper Arlington, OH
Rob Sims OL 6-4 290 5.1 - Macedonia, OH
Troy Smith QB 6-1 200 4.5 - Cleveland, OH
E.J. Underwood DB 6-1 175 4.5 - Hamilton, OH
Stan White LB 6-3 225 4.6 - Cockeysville, MD
Justin Zwick QB 6-4 205 4.7 - Massillon, OH

# of solid/good starters = 6 (Datish, Hall, Mangold, Pitcock, Salley, Smith)
% of solid/good starters: 43

3 star players:
T.J. Downing OL 6-5 280 5 - North Canton, OH
Tyler Everett DB 6-0 190 4.5 - Canton, OH
A.J. Hawk LB 6-2 230 4.6 - Centerville, OH
Santonio Holmes WR 5-11 178 4.5 - Belle Glade, FL
Brandon Mitchell DB 6-3 185 4.51 - Atlanta, GA
Joel Penton DE 6-5 235 4.8 - Van Wert, OH
Jay Richardson DE 6-5 240 4.8 - Dublin, OH
Michael Roberts DB 5-11 175 4.35 - Toronto, Ont.

# of solid/good starters = 3 (Hawk, Holmes, Richardson)
% of solid/good starters = 38

If anyone has evidence to challenge my very subjective evaluations of each player, feel free. I am not an OSU fan, so I googled the names I wasn't familiar with to get an idea of what their careers were like. Basically if they started 2 years or more or got drafted, they were considered solid/good starters. I would also like to point out that I did no research at all on this OSU class before my guesses at %'s above. I just knew that everyone pointed to AJ Hawk as an exception to the star system, so I looked up his class to see what I'd find.

Basically, the star system pessimist will point to guys like Santonio Holmes & A.J. Hawk, and Mike D'Andrea(5 star bust) as guys that prove the system is fatally flawed, while star system enthusiasts will point to the overall class as proof that the system works, albeit not perfectly.

Interesting read (god I'm turning into a recuiting dork), but there's one thing missing. While it appears that the higher ranked player in OSU's case had a higher probability of performing up to their expectations, it still doesn't show how OSU did relative to their recuiting ranking and how they actually did on the field. i.e did this class win games and end up highly ranked when it was all said and done?

In this case, it does. OSU's final ranking basically cooresponded to what the recuiting rankings would have projected. My point is that this is true roughly 50% of the time. Do the same thing for the University of Miami, break it down like you just did. Then look at the final results. Not even close to the hype.

In other words, my guess is that the higher ranked player going to Miami would have roughly the same chance of starting/having a good career as it did for OSU. 5 Star - 50%, 4 star - 40%, yada, yada, yada. However, that's where the coorelation ends. The last several years have been very disappointing to Miami, despite having numerous Top 10 recuiting classes the past few years, even better than OSU's.

I've seen 2 different posts, one by you and another by some newspaper comparing OK St and OU where it shows that higher ranked players have a better chance of starting and having a decent college career. But what neither stories does is take it one step further and see if the overall recuiting ranking, composed of the various star players, did in actual competition. Those results are far more muddied than predicting whether a player will start for a specific team.

[NMUCats]

Originally Posted by Ari Gold

Wow you mean the top 30 doesnt compare to a player outside the top 250? Great insight. Please explain the following.

1) Why do players get bumped in rankings only after "top" programs offer them? Was DJ Grant a better player after he was bumped? Or Martin?

2) What happens when there are more than 250 players deserving of a 4 star ranking? Is player 251 worse than 250?

1) Obviously a player doesn't magically become better when he receives offers from traditionally solid programs. Every year there are cases of guys that slipped through the cracks and turned into major players who didn't receive major offers. However, I would take my chances with a recruit who is being offered by USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and LSU over a recruit whose offers are all MAC schools anyday (wouldn't you?), and I think the recruiting services view it in the same way. I'm pretty sure they use a combination of offers received and tape of the player to make an evaluation.

2) Obviously another imperfection of the system. I'm sure there are years where there aren't 250 players deserving of 4 star ratings as well. Practically, I think everyone realizes that someone ranked #250 and someone ranked #251 are a coin flip of a difference, regardless of star rating.

[NMUCats]

Originally Posted by Frank Ricard

Interesting read (god I'm turning into a recuiting dork), but there's one thing missing. While it appears that the higher ranked player in OSU's case had a higher probability of performing up to their expectations, it still doesn't show how OSU did relative to their recuiting ranking and how they actually did on the field. i.e did this class win games and end up highly ranked when it was all said and done?

In this case, it does. OSU's final ranking basically cooresponded to what the recuiting rankings would have projected. My point is that this is true roughly 50% of the time. Do the same thing for the University of Miami, break it down like you just did. Then look at the final results. Not even close to the hype.

In other words, my guess is that the higher ranked player going to Miami would have roughly the same chance of starting/having a good career as it did for OSU. 5 Star - 50%, 4 star - 40%, yada, yada, yada. However, that's where the coorelation ends. The last several years have been very disappointing to Miami, despite having numerous Top 10 recuiting classes the past few years, even better than OSU's.

I've seen 2 different posts, one by you and another by some newspaper comparing OK St and OU where it shows that higher ranked players have a better chance of starting and having a decent college career. But what neither stories does is take it one step further and see if the overall recuiting ranking, composed of the various star players, did in actual competition. Those results are far more muddied than predicting whether a player will start for a specific team.

I am becoming quite the recruiting junkie as well, much to my chagrin.

I'm sure you've read this article already, since it's been posted on the RCMB before, but I'll link it anyways in case you haven't. I think it's the kind of study you are looking for, since it compares team recruiting rankings to team performance from 2002-2007. I would just copy and paste it here, but it is rather long.

Sunday Morning Quarterback :: Sign Me Up, Tear Me Down: Recruiting Rankings and On-Field Success

[Ari Gold]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

1) Obviously a player doesn't magically become better when he receives offers from traditionally solid programs. Every year there are cases of guys that slipped through the cracks and turned into major players who didn't receive major offers. However, I would take my chances with a recruit who is being offered by USC, Oklahoma, Texas, and LSU over a recruit whose offers are all MAC schools anyday (wouldn't you?), and I think the recruiting services view it in the same way. I'm pretty sure they use a combination of offers received and tape of the player to make an evaluation.

2) Obviously another imperfection of the system. I'm sure there are years where there aren't 250 players deserving of 4 star ratings as well. Practically, I think everyone realizes that someone ranked #250 and someone ranked #251 are a coin flip of a difference, regardless of star rating.

Really? I don't think so. The audience is tRCMB and there isn't a plethora of knowledge being thrown around here. As to point #1: Don't you see the double standard then? If Tyler Hoover or Martin or Johnny Adams were Texas recruits they would be at least 4 stars.

As you said it isn't perfect but there is a paradox on display. If the top team's players always get a bump (and they do) and those teams are always successful then why wouldn't the ranking correlate to wins? The fact is that these teams win b/c of coaching and running quality systems. They recruit well but that doesn't have anything to do with stars since the players get a bump anyway. In other words, just b/c one player has an offer from a "top" school and another doesn't, does not mean that one player is better than the other. It means that one player got recruited by these schools and that largely has to do with the region where they play. Case in point Keshawn Martin. That kid would not have gone unnoticed in the South or in Texas. If the bias would be removed and actually player evaluation took place then the system would be better.

[NMUCats]

Originally Posted by Ari Gold

Really? I don't think so. The audience is tRCMB and there isn't a plethora of knowledge being thrown around here. As to point #1: Don't you see the double standard then? If Tyler Hoover or Martin or Johnny Adams were Texas recruits they would be at least 4 stars.

As you said it isn't perfect but there is a paradox on display. If the top team's players always get a bump (and they do) and those teams are always successful then why wouldn't the ranking correlate to wins? The fact is that these teams win b/c of coaching and running quality systems. They recruit well but that doesn't have anything to do with stars since the players get a bump anyway. In other words, just b/c one player has an offer from a "top" school and another doesn't, does not mean that one player is better than the other. It means that one player got recruited by these schools and that largely has to do with the region where they play. Case in point Keshawn Martin. That kid would not have gone unnoticed in the South or in Texas. If the bias would be removed and actually player evaluation took place then the system would be better.

You're probably right...if Hoover were recruited by USC or Texas or Florida, chances are he would have been bumped up...but he wasn't. According to scout (which isn't always right, but that's all I've got), he had offers from Eastern, UM, MSU, Nwestern, and Purdue. Nobody from outside the immediate states in the area offered, so in that sense he wasn't considered a "big" recruit. It doesn't mean he won't be a good player...just that he didn't have schools from outside the area offering him. At any rate, he's still a highly rated 3* guy and isn't far off from a fourth star.

I guess we take two different viewpoints. You believe that it's the coaches and the systems they have in place that leads to strong years, and not so much the players. I view it as about 60% player ability and 40% coaches ability. I really don't know how to explain the enigma that is Ron Zook any other way .

Truthfully though, I do think Rivals takes stock in players films just as much as offers and who the players commit too. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for teams like Minnesota or Pittsburgh having great classes, or Illinois in the last couple years. I don't see how they would rate these classes highly if they based the rankings purely off of team prestige. Heck, even Kent State got a four star player this year.

[Frank Ricard]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

I am becoming quite the recruiting junkie as well, much to my chagrin.

I'm sure you've read this article already, since it's been posted on the RCMB before, but I'll link it anyways in case you haven't. I think it's the kind of study you are looking for, since it compares team recruiting rankings to team performance from 2002-2007. I would just copy and paste it here, but it is rather long.

Sunday Morning Quarterback :: Sign Me Up, Tear Me Down: Recruiting Rankings and On-Field Success

Thanks for the link. This article does break it down basically like it should be. While from a stastical standpoint, the article is right, it's still isn't reality.

Basically he contends that certain teams (WVU is an example) that don't really have highly ranked recuiting classes, run up their record against inferior teams, get highly ranked in the polls, get to a BCS game, pull a game out of their ass by getting the upset and give the apperance that recuiting rankings don't matter because the results are so far different than the expected results. Then he shows that teams (Tenn for example) appear to underachieve but it's due to the fact they're facing much tougher competition. Nothing earth shattering there - many of us had complained that school X is only where it is because "they haven't play anybody".

He throws out wins versus Non-BCS teams to compare apples to apples. All of this is fair and the right thing to do if you were trying to prove a stastical correlation between recuiting rankings and the actual records. However, it's not necessarily reality. Reality is teams like OSU this year got to the NC game playing a fraudulent schedule - but it sure as hell wasn't punished for it.

My point has always been reality is what it is. He's probably right in that the recuiting rankings are probably more right than wrong when comparing apples to apples. But the schedule and rankings allow for teams that purposefully dodge legitimate competition. By allowing teams to dumb down the schedule to keep their rating artificially high, they're rewarded with better bowl games.

It also screws up the recuiting rankings and bringing it something closer to the 50-50 crapshot that I've referred to many times here, i.e. 50% a team will do far better than expected and vice versa. Whether this would hold up in a truly scientific experiment with the variables thrown out as this article does, is unlikely. However the reality is the BCS rankings allow for far more variability than this article and that's the system that you have to play to.

[Randolph Junuh]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

Star rankings are obviously not perfect and miss on a lot of people, but they provide a way to compare classes and give each fanbase some kind of way to view their classes. I don't use the star system so much for individual players, but I do use it to gauge classes as a whole. I think a 5 star recruit has a higher chance of becoming a great college player than a 3 star, and so on. I put the odds at about this in my mind:

5 star player - 50% chance of becoming a very good starter or better
4 star player - 40% chance of becoming a very good starter or better
3 star player - 30% chance
2 star player - 20% chance
1 star player - 10% chance


Everyone likes to point out all the 2 & 3 star recruits that became All-Americans or All-Conference, but how many other 2 & 3 star recruits were there in that same class that you've never heard of?

For example, everyone uses A.J. Hawk as an example of the "flawed star system", since he was a 3* and turned into an All-American. Here is the breakdown of OSU's class that year (Rivals):

5 star players:
Maurice Clarett RB 6-0 230 4.5 - Warren, OH
Mike D'Andrea LB 6-3 230 4.55 - Avon Lake, OH
# of solid/good starters = 1 (Clarett)
% rate = 50

4 star players:
Bobby Carpenter LB 6-3 235 4.55 - Lancaster, OH
R.J. Coleman TE 6-6 260 4.8 - Clarksburg, WV
Doug Datish OL 6-5 285 5 - Warren, OH
Roy Hall WR 6-3 200 4.5 - Lyndhurst, OH
Mike Kudla DE 6-4 235 4.6 - Medina, OH
Nick Mangold OL 6-4 270 5.15 - Kettering, OH
Quinn Pitcock DT 6-4 285 4.9 - Piqua, OH
Nate Salley DB 6-3 180 4.5 - Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Tim Schafer DE 6-5 245 4.85 - Upper Arlington, OH
Rob Sims OL 6-4 290 5.1 - Macedonia, OH
Troy Smith QB 6-1 200 4.5 - Cleveland, OH
E.J. Underwood DB 6-1 175 4.5 - Hamilton, OH
Stan White LB 6-3 225 4.6 - Cockeysville, MD
Justin Zwick QB 6-4 205 4.7 - Massillon, OH

# of solid/good starters = 6 (Datish, Hall, Mangold, Pitcock, Salley, Smith)
% of solid/good starters: 43

3 star players:
T.J. Downing OL 6-5 280 5 - North Canton, OH
Tyler Everett DB 6-0 190 4.5 - Canton, OH
A.J. Hawk LB 6-2 230 4.6 - Centerville, OH
Santonio Holmes WR 5-11 178 4.5 - Belle Glade, FL
Brandon Mitchell DB 6-3 185 4.51 - Atlanta, GA
Joel Penton DE 6-5 235 4.8 - Van Wert, OH
Jay Richardson DE 6-5 240 4.8 - Dublin, OH
Michael Roberts DB 5-11 175 4.35 - Toronto, Ont.

# of solid/good starters = 3 (Hawk, Holmes, Richardson)
% of solid/good starters = 38

If anyone has evidence to challenge my very subjective evaluations of each player, feel free. I am not an OSU fan, so I googled the names I wasn't familiar with to get an idea of what their careers were like. Basically if they started 2 years or more or got drafted, they were considered solid/good starters. I would also like to point out that I did no research at all on this OSU class before my guesses at %'s above. I just knew that everyone pointed to AJ Hawk as an exception to the star system, so I looked up his class to see what I'd find.

Basically, the star system pessimist will point to guys like Santonio Holmes & A.J. Hawk, and Mike D'Andrea(5 star bust) as guys that prove the system is fatally flawed, while star system enthusiasts will point to the overall class as proof that the system works, albeit not perfectly.

You don't thing Bobby Carpenter was a solid/good starter? He was a first round pick in 2006. Anyway, overall it doesn't change much.

[Ari Gold]

Originally Posted by NMUCats

You're probably right...if Hoover were recruited by USC or Texas or Florida, chances are he would have been bumped up...but he wasn't. According to scout (which isn't always right, but that's all I've got), he had offers from Eastern, UM, MSU, Nwestern, and Purdue. Nobody from outside the immediate states in the area offered, so in that sense he wasn't considered a "big" recruit. It doesn't mean he won't be a good player...just that he didn't have schools from outside the area offering him. At any rate, he's still a highly rated 3* guy and isn't far off from a fourth star.

I guess we take two different viewpoints. You believe that it's the coaches and the systems they have in place that leads to strong years, and not so much the players. I view it as about 60% player ability and 40% coaches ability. I really don't know how to explain the enigma that is Ron Zook any other way .

Truthfully though, I do think Rivals takes stock in players films just as much as offers and who the players commit too. Otherwise, there would be no explanation for teams like Minnesota or Pittsburgh having great classes, or Illinois in the last couple years. I don't see how they would rate these classes highly if they based the rankings purely off of team prestige. Heck, even Kent State got a four star player this year.

Your problem is that you're going off of scout. Absolutely horrible and that has been proven time and again. THose offers for Hoover arent even close.

And you missed the point of my post. Players abiltiy obviously has to do with their sucess but so does coaching and recruiting to fit your schemes (Look at minni's class this year: 13+ wrs/dbs. That stuff won't fly at MSU anymore). Rarely, and I mean VERY rarely, does a player come to college absolutely ready to play. Every single recruit that aspires to play must improve and they don't do that on their own volition.

The fact is that rankings and stars are influenced as much by where they go as their comparable talent. So it is very easy to correlate stars to wins b/c almost every one of the top teams recruits get a bump while great players that go to other schools (Hoover, Martin) stay lower. This fluff gets shilled out by the recruitniks every spring, same stuff every year. It's an easy article to write b/c logic is not used and is the equivalent of a SOS article from the detroit rags (ie redimade, easy to write). Good teams are good b/c of their coaching. Period. Players improve b/c of coaching, weight training, etc not b/c they finally lived up to their star ranking. No great, or even good, college player exists that hasn't improved from when he was in HS.

[NMUCats]

Originally Posted by Randolph Junuh

You don't thing Bobby Carpenter was a solid/good starter? He was a first round pick in 2006. Anyway, overall it doesn't change much.

Just flat out missed it actually. Obviously he qualifies as a solid to good starter.

[Mr. Tanfan]

Interesting read. However, why is it most of the time the schools that consistently attrack the 4 and 5 star players are always in the top ten?

[Frank Ricard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tanfan

Interesting read. However, why is it most of the time the schools that consistently attrack the 4 and 5 star players are always in the top ten?

Assuming that having more 4/5 stars cooresponds to higher recuiting rankings (duh), let's see if this statement holds up after looking at the final 2007 season AP poll:

1) LSU - 4 years out of 5, LSU has had Top 10 recuiting classes. The worst year, LSU ranked 22nd.

2) Georgia - 5 straight years of recuiting classes in the Top 10.

3) USC - 3 out of the last 5 years, USC has had not only Top 10 classes, but they were ranked No. 1. The other 2 years USC was ranked 2nd and 3rd. So in the past 5 years, USC has EASILY had the best recuiting rankings of any college football program. And while they've had success, it could be questioned, at least on paper, how the hell did they ever lose? They've had 2 losses each season the past 2 years - 4 losses total. Injuries have been blamed, but I contend based upon the recuiting rankings, the backups were likely 4 and 5 stars. If you go strictly by recuiting rankings, USC shouldn't have lost a game in 5 years, so in that way , they've actually underachieved relative to their recuiting rankings.

4) Mizzou - This is where Mr. Tanfan's theory starts to have holes in it. MIZZOU HAS HAD ZERO TOP 15 RECUITING CLASSES IN THE PAST 5 YEARS.

5) Ohio State - Surprising stat here, but it's a FACT. Ohio State has only had ONE Top 10 recuiting class in the past 5 years. ONE. And that one time it was ranked 9th. The other 4 years, OSU has had rankings of 41, 15, and twice have had a 12 ranking. Yet, OSU has played in 2 NC championship games. Either OSU has overachieved relative to their recuiting rankings, OR THEY'VE PLAYED A RELATIVELY EASY SCHEDULE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO GET TO THE BCS NC GAME. I contend they've played a fairly soft schedule. Yes, I know they've played Texas twice, but last year OSU's schedule was ridiculously easy and they've been exposed as frauds when they played Florida and LSU.

6) West Virginia - Here's another that would surprise some people - WVU HAS HAD ZERO TOP 15 RECUITING CLASSES THE PAST 5 YEARS. And while many argue that they're playing in the weakest conference, they've won 2 BCS bowl games against quality programs - Georgia and Oklahoma.

7) Kansas - ZERO TOP 15 RECUITING CLASSES THE PAST 5 YEARS. Also won their BCS game in their only BCS bowl game appearance.

8) Oklahoma - 4 out of 5 years, OU has had Top 10 recuiting classes. The lone year where it wasn't in the Top 10, it was ranked 14th. They've also have been BLOWN out in a NC game and lost 2 other BCS bowl games that it played in. So on paper, it could be said that while OU lived up to their recuiting rankings, it also could be argued that OU has NO SIGNATURE WINS THE PAST 4 YEARS.

9) Va Tech - ONE TOP 15 RECUITING CLASS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS AND THAT WAS RANKED 14TH (2004). MICHIGAN STATE ACTUALLY COMPARE RATHER FAVORABLY TO VA TECH IN RECUITING RANKINGS- MORE SO THAN ANY TOP 10 TEAM. Despite this, the results on the field aren't even close.

Tie for 10th:

10) Texas - 3 Top 10 recuiting classes the past 5 years. One class ranked 14 and another ranked 20th.

11) Boston College - BC HAS HAD ZERO TOP 15 RECUITING CLASSES THE PAST 5 YEARS.

So let's look at the results - if you look at the Top 3 (LSU, UGA, USC), it would seem like Tanner is right. But after that 5 TEAMS (Mizzou, UWV, UK, Va Tech, BC) THAT FINISHED IN THE AP TOP 10 HAD VERY FEW, IF ANY, TOP RECUITING CLASSES. IT'S A SAFE ASSUMPTION THAT THESE TEAMS HAD VERY FEW 4 OR 5 STAR RATED PLAYERS.



Since there is a tie for 10th place, 11 teams can claim a Top 10 ranking. 5 of those 11 didn't have rankings that are far different than Michigan State's rankings over the past 5 years. This season, the recuiting rankings were completely WRONG 45% of the time. I've contended many times that recuiting rankings are about a 50/50 crapshot.

Do we want good/great players coming here? Yes - but remember if you're judging by the star system and recuiting rankings to see if those players are actually coming here, you're going to be wrong close to 50% of the time.

[Frank Ricard]

One brief followup to my last post. I mentioned that this past season, the recuiting rankings were wrong 45% of the time. That's misleading.

When you combine the teams that greatly underachieved relative to their recuiting rankings with the ones that greatly overachieved, THE RANKINGS ARE WRONG MORE THAN 65% OF THE TIME.

Teams that can be classified as underachieverss are: Miami, FSU, Michigan, Tennesee. Bottom line - 5/11 of the Top 10 teams in 2007 didn't have top ranked classes and conversely, the 4 teams listed here came no where close to a Top 10 ranking, despite having several highly ranked recuiting classes.

[Mr. Tanfan]

Frank, I never said there weren't exceptions. You are going to have those years like Kansas had, where everything seems to work out perfectly with lesser talent. However, schools like USC, Michigan, OSU, LSU, Florida are consistently attracting the best talent and are always good. Yeah, they may have a bad year or two, players get injured, but for the most part, they have the most depth because of the quality of their classes.

If MSU had recruited like Saban did in Bama this year, that article never would have been posted. Fact is, Spartan fans are looking for any information to improve their disappointment with our coaching staff's inability to recruit as well as the big boys. If that article makes you feel better, well good.

[Frank Ricard]

Originally Posted by Mr. Tanfan

Frank, I never said there weren't exceptions. You are going to have those years like Kansas had, where everything seems to work out perfectly with lesser talent. However, schools like USC, Michigan, OSU, LSU, Florida are consistently attracting the best talent and are always good. Yeah, they may have a bad year or two, players get injured, but for the most part, they have the most depth because of the quality of their classes.

If MSU had recruited like Saban did in Bama this year, that article never would have been posted. Fact is, Spartan fans are looking for any information to improve their disappointment with our coaching staff's inability to recruit as well as the big boys. If that article makes you feel better, well good.

I agree with most of the examples you give - USC, LSU, Florida, OSU. UM is one of the most overrated teams relative to their recuiting rankings there is. UM is maybe a Top 15 program, but not near a top 10 and obviously not a National title contender, although they like to think they are. I don't fear Michigan. Outside of Notre Dame, Um is the most fraudulent team there is in CF, especially the last 7-8 years.

My posts were based on facts that shows about a 67% disparity between what the recuiting rankings were and then seeing how close those rankings came to actual results. It's not subjective; it's cold hard numbers. Again, no arguement with USC, OSU, LSU and I'll give you Florida (although they were not a Top 10 team this year - I'm not going to argue against them - it's still a damn good program with a lot of upside). But those are the EXCEPTIONS - they fall in the 33%, not the 67%.

You mentioned Kansas. Maybe Kansas is a one hit wonder, who knows. But next year if they do fall, another program will jump in the top 10 out of nowhere to make up for it. Two seasons ago it was Boise State, this past year Kansas, next year somebody else that had recuiting rankings averaging in the 30's and 40's, which defines teams composed of 2 and 3*'s will break in the Top 10 and maybe go to a BCS bowl game.

If you believe in the hype of the 4/5 star, then don't lists the schools where it rings true like a USC. Explain Mizzou, Boston College, West Virginia, and Va Tech. Then also explain how a University of Miami that typically year after year has top ranked classes can't even break .500. Explain how a Florida State has fallen of the CF map. Lastly, explain a how a program like Notre Dame that has had two top 10 classes along with another ranked 12th. And even Navy beat them.

I didn't make anything up to make me feel better. Maybe Dantonio is completely failing in the recuiting battles. Maybe he isn't. I don't know, BUT NEITHER DOES RIVALS AND YOU CAN'T BASE YOUR OPINION ON HOW RECUITING IS GOING BASED ON A FLAWED SYSTEM THAT'S WRONG 2 OUT OF 3 TIMES.

[Misterray]

The bottom line is that the star system is a very imperfect measurement device. Statistically speaking, it has a high error variance. On the average, teams with MUCH MUCH better recruiting rankings will be better off --ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL. (Of course, all other things are NOT equal.)

If you're smart, use the star system to get a general idea of how good a player is --just like you use the number of stars a movie or a restaurant gets.

If you use recruiting class rankings to judge a class, you are potentially compounding the errors of the star system.

Do you want higher star ratings for your players and a good ranking for your class? Sure, why not?

BUT if you take the rankings at face value and go into meltdown if they are not where you want them, you are being foolish.

If you praise a class for its ranking, or laugh at your opponent's lesser class ranking, you are focused on the WRONG thing.

is not recruiting ONLY based on stars--and he shouldn't. As has been said elsewhere, he's looking for the right players for MSU--the right positions of need, the right mentality, the passion etc. etc.

Is he doing well? No way to know at this point. Just as in the NFL draft, you can ONLY be certain years later.

At this point, it's interesting and not much beyond that.

[Frank Ricard]

Originally Posted by Misterray

Is (Dantonio) he doing well? No way to know at this point. Just as in the NFL draft, you can ONLY be certain years later.

At this point, it's interesting and not much beyond that.

And there, ladies and germs, is the correct answer.

If you don't like going thru my admitably long winded number crunching, just come back in 2 to 3 years to see if Dantonio's recuiting succeeded or otherwise. Just don't depend on what recuiting rankings say, that's all I ask.