23 teams average higher per recruit than OU on Rivals

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

We're ranked 12 right now, but we have a fairly large # of guys already(22). The rankings are based upon # of guys, to some degree, as well as the player's rating, on a 5 point scale. usuc is way out in front on avg. per player, and we're 23rd on that criterion alone.

[Tulsa_Fireman]

Lane Kiffin killed five hookers.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Lane Kiffin killed five hookers.will that garner him another 5-star?

[Scott D]

Lane couldn't kill five hookers if you spotted him half dead hookers with their throats already slashed. He'd manage to screw it up and they'd end up bionic with no sense.

[Collier11]

We're ranked 12 right now, but we have a fairly large # of guys already(22). The rankings are based upon # of guys, to some degree, as well as the player's rating, on a 5 point scale. usuc is way out in front on avg. per player, and we're 23rd on that criterion alone.

who cares? A great stat that STEP has posted, of the 27 players that Bama has put in the NFL since 07', 16 were 3 stars or less. Its how you coach em up, not how some internet site rates them

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Its how you coach em up...Yes. true.That IS important.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

who cares? A great stat that STEP has posted, of the 27 players that Bama has put in the NFL since 07', 16 were 3 stars or less. Its how you coach em up, not how some internet site rates them

Coaching is part of it, but how they grow is important as well. The key is that outside of skill positions like WR and RB, how their body responds to weight gain is the most important factor. If they lose speed/athleticism they aren't going to be drafted.

[Seamus]

Lane couldn't kill five hookers if you spotted him half dead hookers with their throats already slashed. He'd manage to screw it up and they'd end up bionic with no sense.

Early leader in the Post of the Year Sweepstakes.

ROFL

[MyT Oklahoma]

who cares? A great stat that STEP has posted, of the 27 players that Bama has put in the NFL since 07', 16 were 3 stars or less. Its how you coach em up, not how some internet site rates them

Let's hope that we find some diamonds in the rough on Wednesday.

[Collier11]

Coaching is part of it, but how they grow is important as well. The key is that outside of skill positions like WR and RB, how their body responds to weight gain is the most important factor. If they lose speed/athleticism they aren't going to be drafted.

Correct me if im wrong, but by that statement I suspet you are suggesting that we arent developing them correctly in the weight room, or that Schmidt isnt doing a good job?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Correct me if im wrong, but by that statement I suspet you are suggesting that we arent developing them correctly in the weight room, or that Schmidt isnt doing a good job?

This isn't just an OU problem so even if Schmidt has something to do with it, it is an establishment issue not just him.

More likely, the problem is genetics. A secondary problem is that they may be older than the average HS athlete and have peaked physically.

[sooneron]

I still haven't peaked...

Rillay?

[vtsooner21]

Let's hope that we find some diamonds in the rough on Wednesday.

So....who is classified as a diamond in the rough? I'll take a 2 or 3 star player with desire and a good head on his shoulders than those 5 star prima donas that end up getting booted or get passed over by guys that truly value their scholarship..

Boomer

[EatLeadCommie]

who cares? A great stat that STEP has posted, of the 27 players that Bama has put in the NFL since 07', 16 were 3 stars or less. Its how you coach em up, not how some internet site rates them

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.

[Scott D]

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.

and conversely you can have a lot of 5 loss seasons ala Tejas and USC with all 4-5 star players.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.Rocket Science!

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

and conversely you can have a lot of 5 loss seasons ala Tejas and USC with all 4-5 star players.If you have one of those xclnt coaches, it's true. I contend only 3 programs have the luxury of great recruiting, regardless of the track record of the coach. you named 2 of them. The other is los domer. Unfortunately, domer now appears to have a pretty good coach.

[SoonerorLater]

Coaching is of course important but the teams that win national championships recruit highly ranked players. Not to say if you have a highly ranked class you will win a championship. However if you don't, chances are you won't win. While Rivals ratings are not going to be 100% accurate on any individual player they are generally correct given the law of large numbers.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Coaching is of course important but the teams that win national championships recruit highly ranked players. Not to say if you have a highly ranked class you will win a championship. However if you don't, chances are you won't win. While Rivals ratings are not going to be 100% accurate on any individual player they are generally correct given the law of large numbers.D'Oh!!!

[Scott D]

Apparently it was a draw names out of a hat time before Rivals and Scout came along since there weren't any star ranking systems earlier in time.

One day hopefully people will see the systems for the jokes they are.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Apparently it was a draw names out of a hat time before Rivals and Scout came along since there weren't any star ranking systems earlier in time.

One day hopefully people will see the systems for the jokes they are.There were other rating svcs. before Rivals and Scout emerged. There was Blue Chips and others. It's been a national endeavor for quite a while. Sure there is lots of fallibility, but there's some accuracy, or the participants wouldn't have a following.

[SoonerorLater]

Apparently it was a draw names out of a hat time before Rivals and Scout came along since there weren't any star ranking systems earlier in time.

One day hopefully people will see the systems for the jokes they are.

No they recruited the guys that would 4-5 stars then. Rivals just gives us commoners a chance to see who the prized recruits are now days. There just aren't that many undiscovered diamonds in the rough anymore. A few guys grow and develop but give me the 4-5 star guys all day long. Rivals etc. are far from a joke.

[EatLeadCommie]

CBS Sports as an article up on this very subject today. Worth reading for sure...

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/21641769/recruiting-by-the-numbers-why-the-recruiting-site-get-the-rankings-right

[Scott D]

Pretty decent article, definitely lends credence to the fact that people are reading too much into certain numbers involved. The take away is that a fair share of teams are formed via 3 star players, and in most cases sprinkling in a few 4 and possibly 5 star players along the way. That's not really anything new or mindblowing.

However, it would be very interesting to see if Alabama would remain "well ahead of the pack" if their gross numbers were adjusted to reflect allotted recruits and not their crass overrecruiting tactics.

[Collier11]

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.

of course recruiting matters, I think stars matter not.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If you have one of those xclnt coaches, it's true. I contend only 3 programs have the luxury of great recruiting, regardless of the track record of the coach. you named 2 of them. The other is los domer. Unfortunately, domer now appears to have a pretty good coach.

Technically there are 2 other programs in there -> Michigan and Ohio State. One of the more interesting things that I found about the high local population schools is that they tend to dominate when they have more scholarships to give. Strict scholarship limits tend to hurt schools who can get any player they want (for example Texas). Basically, once a decade the guys who are at the top in high school end up being the top in college (like the VY year). Remember that they were trying to get Colt McCoy to go somewhere else after they landed a 5 star prospect.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

No they recruited the guys that would 4-5 stars then. Rivals just gives us commoners a chance to see who the prized recruits are now days. There just aren't that many undiscovered diamonds in the rough anymore. A few guys grow and develop but give me the 4-5 star guys all day long. Rivals etc. are far from a joke.

WTF? They are fairly accurate for 2 positions (WR and RB). Everything else they are a crap shoot. If you take out those positions and I allowed you to pick 1 player from the top 10 at their position from the other positions you'd have 1 good player out of 10. Having maybe 5 good players out of a class of 25 is how you become 7-5 in a hurry.

as for the "no diamonds" crap. The scale for ANYONE who gets a D1 scholly is 3 to 5 to skew your perception of just how far off they are. They did this after our 1999/2000 class when we had a lot of 1 star guys that ended up being college superstars (Clayton/Q/Savage). Yet even so, guys like Bradford are 3 stars on their scale.

[Sooner in Tampa]

Recruiting rankings do matter...

CNN/SI Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/?sct=uk_t11_a4)

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Recruiting rankings do matter...

CNN/SI Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/?sct=uk_t11_a4)

Do you really think that article has "statistical significance"?

[Sooner in Tampa]

Do you really think that article has "statistical significance"?
I think the article makes some very good points about recruiting well = wins.

As with anything, there are not absolutes...but the trend is...if you recruit well you are going win more. I don't think it's nearly as mysterious as people make it out to be. The same can be said for NFL teams...Draft well...and you will win.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think the article makes some very good points about recruiting well = wins.

As with anything, there are not absolutes...but the trend is...if you recruit well you are going win more. I don't think it's nearly as mysterious as people make it out to be. The same can be said for NFL teams...Draft well...and you will win.

Okay, I think you are mixing some things here.

1. Draft well/Recruit Well and you Win - We definitely agree here. Good players = Wins

Where we disagree is about the accuracy of recruiting services to predict the value of a SINGLE recruit. Mandel uses aggregate rankings over a 4 year period and then compares it to one of the worst end of season predictors around -> The preseason AP poll (of which humorously he is a part). Basically what he is trying to say from his correlation is that the quality of your recruits predicts your win total regardless of opponent.

The second problem is that he isn't trying to weight teams based on probable name bias. It isn't exactly a secret that players that we land magically add stars. This means that the recruiting services are actually weighting the overall rankings to teams that tend to win.

The third problem is that he doesn't try to figure out how teams can overachieve. To me, this is something that is worth exploring. How in the world is it that teams who have never had higher than a 3* recruit end up in the top 10?

The fourth issue with these analysis are that they don't "re-weight" based on who actually played. A good example is our 2006 class -> http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006. There were a lot of really, really good players in that class (which ended up dominating over any other classes for a couple of years) but all of our attrition was in the upper middle of the class. If you re-weighted the class it goes down because of the 3* superstars, but its still won a ton of games.

[soonerdo]

Looking like this OU class is about the same as others in the last few years..Still beating out KU, Tech, Tulsa, teams like that.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Recruiting rankings do matter...

CNN/SI Article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-football/news/20130204/recruiting-rankings-predictive-accuracy/?sct=uk_t11_a4)

Heh and I actually forgot to add one last point

Team Recruiting Rankings are heavily influenced by QUANTITY of recruits. His analysis isn't taking into account the advantage of oversigning (or in a lot of ways it is actually proving it is a huge advantage).

[badger]

Is this gonna be our official signing day thread?

If so, here's a link to SS.com's signing day page (http://www.soonersports.com/sports/m-footbl/spec-rel/020413aaa.html)

They are allegedly updating signings via their twitter page here. (https://twitter.com/SoonerSportscom)

And Soonersports.tv (http://www.soonersports.tv/video/play.jsp) will have coverage starting at 8 a.m. Wednesday (tomorrow!)

Welcome, new Sooners!

[SoonerorLater]

WTF? They are fairly accurate for 2 positions (WR and RB). Everything else they are a crap shoot. If you take out those positions and I allowed you to pick 1 player from the top 10 at their position from the other positions you'd have 1 good player out of 10. Having maybe 5 good players out of a class of 25 is how you become 7-5 in a hurry.

as for the "no diamonds" crap. The scale for ANYONE who gets a D1 scholly is 3 to 5 to skew your perception of just how far off they are. They did this after our 1999/2000 class when we had a lot of 1 star guys that ended up being college superstars (Clayton/Q/Savage). Yet even so, guys like Bradford are 3 stars on their scale.

Reference to Commies link

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...rankings-right

over large numbers they are very accurate.

[EatLeadCommie]

From that CBS Sports article...

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

[stoops the eternal pimp]

Well there are a lot more 3 star guys to pick from every year than there are 4 and 5 star guys, so that makes sense. Plus all those 3 star guys are getting pushed for playing time by the 4 and 5 star guys.

Recruiting matters, and stars do-- by and large-- matter. Yeah, you can get some prima donnas or flops in there, but if we start recruiting nothing but 3 stars, we will become a mediocre to bad program.

Can you tell me the difference between a 3 star and a 5 star?

[tator]

Can you tell me the difference between a 3 star and a 5 star?

2 stars, what do I win?

[badger]

Can you tell me the difference between a 3 star and a 5 star?

Sam Bradford (http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/recruiting/player-Sam-Bradford-31616) and Brandon Williams (http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecruiting/football/recruiting/player-Brandon-Williams-105895)? One Heisman, first overall draft pick and $50 million guaranteed :D

[stoops the eternal pimp]

2 stars, what do I win?

pic sent

[badger]

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking

All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

So 1 in 45 players in college football are an All-American, as in, more than 1 per team on average? That can't be right. Am I missing something?

[stoops the eternal pimp]

And my question is an honest question...I've worked as an NFL draft guy for close to 9 years..I have no idea how to grade a kid out of high school because I'm going to automatically expect too much..Likewise, when recruiting guys get into the NFL draft stuff, they usuallly overrate everyone.

It seems in my opinion, there are positions were that may be more important than others...Dline, Oline.. It seems that those positions would be hard to differentiate between a 3 and 5...

[8timechamps]

And my question is an honest question...I've worked as an NFL draft guy for close to 9 years..I have no idea how to grade a kid out of high school because I'm going to automatically expect too much..Likewise, when recruiting guys get into the NFL draft stuff, they usuallly overrate everyone.

It seems in my opinion, there are positions were that may be more important than others...Dline, Oline.. It seems that those positions would be hard to differentiate between a 3 and 5...

I know this horse has been beaten to death, but you probably have as much (if not more) ability to rate a kid out of high school, as most of the recruiting gurus. It's one thing to try and understand how a high school kid is rated, as I actually think there is a certain level of validity in the process. However, the class rankings are pretty much junk. If all things were equal year in and year out, it'd be a different story. But, it's not. So, there is no way to look at what team X brought in and compare it to what team Y brought in, and try to accurately rank the two. Team X may need more players at TE, whereas team Y needs more help at DB. Not to mention that how many schollys a team has to give out changes every year based on roster personnel.

I could care less where the OU class ranking ends up. It's kind of a worthless stat. I'm much more interested in the individual players, and what they have done and are expected to do.

[badger]

Dline, Oline.. It seems that those positions would be hard to differentiate between a 3 and 5...

I remember seeing GK in the Army AA game and instantly being excited for his OU future. The offensive lineman on the other side of him simply couldn't stop him.

I think that's the definition of a 5-star right there :D

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Reference to Commies link

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoot...rankings-right

over large numbers they are very accurate.


From that CBS Sports article...

Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
All FBS Signees: 1 in 45.

So I want you guys to look closely at this list (this year's rivals 100)

http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/rankings/rank-2640

Do you notice how SKEWED the 5*s are toward athlete positions (running back and wide receiver)? Maybe its the fact that I deal with data and mathematical weighting proofs way too much, but there are significant cases of bias being pushed into the results. This would be similar to me inviting fans of every college team to a football quiz bowl with 8x and then only asking questions about OU. His performance is going to be much higher because of the bias.

This is also the reason why I pointed out that they use a 3 point system instead of a 10 point system. Anything less that 5 point spreads produce statistically insignificant data variations (which is why pretty much all customer service surveys you see are at least 5 values). They then further disguise it AS a 5 point system so that you infer that it must be correct.

The last part is the team rankings. I want you to notice the top 15ish teams here and the point spread between them -> http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/teamrank/2013/all/all . Now I want you to think about how hard it would be to tweak that top 10 to where teams that typically win a lot (and have high fan bases) are in the top 10. Bumping 1 guy from 3* to 4* for OU would push us past FSU. It is just too easy to look at the final rankings for the last decade and make subjective "tweaks" to individual recruits to align recruiting with probable win totals (for example, I don't care how bad OU's classes were - 3 out of 4 years they'd be in the top 10 because that is where they normally end the season).

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

So 1 in 45 players in college football are an All-American, as in, more than 1 per team on average? That can't be right. Am I missing something?

There are what 74 on all 3 AA teams + HMs and like 14 AA teams so it could be true. The problem is that after 1st team, it gets so name driven that it isn't reliable. And name driven tends to favor the big time recruits.

[goingoneight]

I don't care what we're ranked... I'll settle for actually keeping guys on campus and developing depth for now.

[OkieThunderLion]

So 1 in 45 players in college football are an All-American, as in, more than 1 per team on average? That can't be right. Am I missing something?

Yeah, that doesn't make sense. Considering lots of kid who sign never even make it to school.

"There are what 74 on all 3 AA teams + HMs and like 14 AA teams so it could be true."

Good thought. Perhaps.

[OkieThunderLion]

Apparently it was a draw names out of a hat time before Rivals and Scout came along since there weren't any star ranking systems earlier in time.

One day hopefully people will see the systems for the jokes they are.
I have a closet full of Parade, Prep Star, SuperPrep and Bluechip publications from the 90s. They didn't use the star system, but had rankings and labels of their own.

BTW - Blake's classes weren't considered good. '98 class cracked one of the Top 25s, but that was it.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I have a closet full of Parade, Prep Star, SuperPrep and Bluechip publications from the 90s. They didn't use the star system, but had rankings and labels of their own.

BTW - Blake's classes weren't considered good. '98 class cracked one of the Top 25s, but that was it.anybody have a short account of how the recruiting services morphed into what we have today?

[8timechamps]

anybody have a short account of how the recruiting services morphed into what we have today?

If you want to try and pinpoint a year, you could go back to 2004. That seems to be the year that the various websites caught on. Prior to that, you could subscribe to a few services (Max Preps, Blue Chip, Superprep), and for a fee they would email you reports. Prior to that, you could either receive the same service via snail mail (which most beat writers did) or buy the annual magazines.

2004 marked the first time a recruit decision was televised live. Within two years, the Army All American Game, Marine Corp AA (now the Semper Fi) Game and Parade AA (now called the Under Armour) game started to be televised live (they had been televised previously here and there, but not live). ESPN took the lead (of the major media outlets) with live signing day coverage, and the rest is history.

Of course High School recruiting goes back many decades, and recruiting services providing information to anyone that cared to pay for it goes back to the late 60's early 70's. But it wasn't until the early to mid 2000's that it morphed into what we see today.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If you want to try and pinpoint a year, you could go back to 2004. That seems to be the year that the various websites caught on. Prior to that, you could subscribe to a few services (Max Preps, Blue Chip, Superprep), and for a fee they would email you reports. Prior to that, you could either receive the same service via snail mail (which most beat writers did) or buy the annual magazines.

2004 marked the first time a recruit decision was televised live. Within two years, the Army All American Game, Marine Corp AA (now the Semper Fi) Game and Parade AA (now called the Under Armour) game started to be televised live (they had been televised previously here and there, but not live). ESPN took the lead (of the major media outlets) with live signing day coverage, and the rest is history.

Of course High School recruiting goes back many decades, and recruiting services providing information to anyone that cared to pay for it goes back to the late 60's early 70's. But it wasn't until the early to mid 2000's that it morphed into what we see today.I subscribed to Bluechips one year. I think it was sometime in the 80's. The first Army All-American HS allstar game I remember seeing on TV was after the 2003 season. Adrian Peterson and Ted Ginn Jr. both played in that game, and had very good showings. I remember AD putting on the OU baseball hat, and stating he was going to play for OU.

[badger]

There are what 74 on all 3 AA teams + HMs and like 14 AA teams so it could be true. The problem is that after 1st team, it gets so name driven that it isn't reliable. And name driven tends to favor the big time recruits.

Ah, so that also includes AA honorable mentions, in other words. OK, that makes sense.

LOL @ the top player going to "The University of Ole Miss." Are we doing a signing day thread, or just keeping with this one?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

If you want to try and pinpoint a year, you could go back to 2004. That seems to be the year that the various websites caught on. Prior to that, you could subscribe to a few services (Max Preps, Blue Chip, Superprep), and for a fee they would email you reports. Prior to that, you could either receive the same service via snail mail (which most beat writers did) or buy the annual magazines.

2004 marked the first time a recruit decision was televised live. Within two years, the Army All American Game, Marine Corp AA (now the Semper Fi) Game and Parade AA (now called the Under Armour) game started to be televised live (they had been televised previously here and there, but not live). ESPN took the lead (of the major media outlets) with live signing day coverage, and the rest is history.

Of course High School recruiting goes back many decades, and recruiting services providing information to anyone that cared to pay for it goes back to the late 60's early 70's. But it wasn't until the early to mid 2000's that it morphed into what we see today.

It goes back farther than that, Rivals and Scout were both doing this in 1999.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I have a closet full of Parade, Prep Star, SuperPrep and Bluechip publications from the 90s. They didn't use the star system, but had rankings and labels of their own.

BTW - Blake's classes weren't considered good. '98 class cracked one of the Top 25s, but that was it.

One of the more interesting thing about the 90's magazines were how varied they were. All 4 could cover an area and have radically divergent lists. A good example was TGRW, he was on the cover of prepstar, but wasn't even listed in the regional lists of most of the magazines. Calmus was another one that was borderline on most of the lists for the midlands. Cory Callens though was at the top of them all.

[jkjsooner]

There are what 74 on all 3 AA teams + HMs and like 14 AA teams so it could be true. The problem is that after 1st team, it gets so name driven that it isn't reliable. And name driven tends to favor the big time recruits.

Plus it doesn't mean 1 in 45 for any specific year. It means 1 in 45 become AA at some point in their careers.

So to say more than one per team on average would mean more than one per team on average over a 4 or 5 year period.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Plus it doesn't mean 1 in 45 for any specific year. It means 1 in 45 become AA at some point in their careers.

So to say more than one per team on average would mean more than one per team on average over a 4 or 5 year period.

Like I said, without knowing their criteria, its hard to say. I wouldn't be surprised if over 150 kids are considered an AA in any year. There are a TON of All American teams (AP, Walter Camp, etc) and if they include HMs that list goes way up. We've had guys be HMs that had horrible years but great reputations.