5-stars: Worth the hype or just setting us up for letdown

[badger]

I really want to believe that Mixon is the next AD or Demarco and I know he has the potential. BUT...

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/johnehoover/john-e-hoover-five-star-recruit-rating-means-little-to/article_18c4a21a-cb38-5c89-bb27-c904fa9d1b7f.html)

We've been let down so many times before by 5-stars :(

[KantoSooner]

Here's the way I think about it. He's either going to get here, discover he's got competition and work to earn a starting spot and thus develop his already respectable talent. Or he's going to look at the comp, become a head case and disappoint. We've got enough running backs that, if he decides to take the latter path, it won't cripple us. Up to him.

[badger]

I like having the luxury of not needing five stars to pan out. I also love when less heralded guys become stars at OU

[SoonerorLater]

I really want to believe that Mixon is the next AD or Demarco and I know he has the potential. BUT...

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/johnehoover/john-e-hoover-five-star-recruit-rating-means-little-to/article_18c4a21a-cb38-5c89-bb27-c904fa9d1b7f.html)

We've been let down so many times before by 5-stars :(

We've been let down by more 2 & 3 star players. Over time and large numbers the star rating system is pretty good indicator of the overall talent level. Not perfect. Not guaranteed insurance of future performance.

[picasso]

Well AD and DM7 weren't disappointments. I'm willing to take a few Lemons to get one of these guys every 3 or 4 years.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

We've been let down by more 2 & 3 star players. Over time and large numbers the star rating system is pretty good indicator of the overall talent level. Not perfect. Not guaranteed insurance of future performance.

You can't make statements like this without numbers to back it up. Both 5* and 2*s are relatively rare at OU.

5*s since Stoops has been here
1999 Marcus Chretien, Wes Sims
2000 Tommie Harris
2002 Lance Mitchell
2002 Pasha Jackson
2002 Zach Latimer
2004 Adrian Peterson
2004 Chris Patterson
2004 Rhett Bomar
2005 DeMarcus Granger
2005 Ryan Reynolds
2006 Gerald McCoy
2007 Mike Reed
2008 Jermie Calhoun
2008 R.J. Washington
2008 Stephen Good
2011 Brandon Williams
2011 Trey Metoyer
2012 Trey Metoyer

So 18 players (3 Juco)
3 1st Round Good -> McCoy, Peterson, Harris
4 All Big 12 Good -> Mitchell, Jackson, Sims, Latimer (ironically 3 of those guys would have been 4*s in any other year but 2002)

2*s
2003 Antonn Reid
2003 Jacob Gutierrez
2004 Corey Bennett
2005 Aaron Cummings
2007 David Anderson
2007 Jordan Nix
2007 Londell Taylor
2008 Tress Way
2009 Tavaris Jeffries

Tress Way was arguably the best member of his class (along with Landry Jones). Other than that nothing much to see there.

so 27 total vs 204 3*/4*s.

For me, the biggest problem with 5*s is that they leave early (NFL/Transfer) without graduating (9/18).
1. I wouldn't be surprised if their total 5 year graduation rate was less than 25%.
2. Catch 22 -> Because of them leaving early you are forced to act like they aren't on the roster for recruiting, but no other recruits want to sit behind them

[Eielson]

You wanna know if 5-stars are worth it? Go check out a Rivals top 100 list. Look through all the 5-stars, and see how that batch turned out. Chances are, regardless of year, there are several incredible players in that group, several really good players, and a couple busts. I just randomly looked at 2006. From 1-28 are the 5-star players, and that list includes names like Percy Harvin, Andre Smith, Gerald McCoy, Myron Rolle, Taylor Mays, Time Tebow, and several other guys any program would have LOVED to have had. Then I went to 28-50 and saw several names like Michael Goodson, Jermaine Gresham, Demarco Murray, and LeSean McCoy. Then I went to 75-100 and only saw a few names like Josh Freeman.

This is a really brief look through the list, but I saw exactly what I expected to see, so I'm not going to waste time going into more detail. If you're going to pick a random group of 25 guys, you'd be well advised to pick the 5-stars. The top 25 guys are loaded with great players, the next 25 has a ton (but a little bit less) talent, and the trend continues on down. Our 5-stars haven't always been great, but you're look at a small sample size. Look at the bigger sample size (all 5-stars), and you'll see that they're a pretty studly group. It's kind of like the NFL draft. Sure, there are 5th rounders that outperform 1st rounders, but I'd take the group of 1st rounders ten times out of ten.

[badger]

Is it possible that recruits are bumped up a star or two just because OU says they are worth offering a scholarship to? Is that why two-stars are rare at OU?

[cherokeebrewer]

I really want to believe that Mixon is the next AD or Demarco and I know he has the potential. BUT...

Linky (http://www.tulsaworld.com/sportsextra/johnehoover/john-e-hoover-five-star-recruit-rating-means-little-to/article_18c4a21a-cb38-5c89-bb27-c904fa9d1b7f.html)

We've been let down so many times before by 5-stars :(

I waited & waited for my dinosaur dial-up connection to load that link only to find "Subscription required", so don't know what it says. Generally speaking, I would prefer 5* players to be a bit more humble. Joe Mixon seems like he is up to this point. What does Hoover say?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

You wanna know if 5-stars are worth it? Go check out a Rivals top 100 list. Look through all the 5-stars, and see how that batch turned out. Chances are, regardless of year, there are several incredible players in that group, several really good players, and a couple busts. I just randomly looked at 2006. From 1-28 are the 5-star players, and that list includes names like Percy Harvin, Andre Smith, Gerald McCoy, Myron Rolle, Taylor Mays, Time Tebow, and several other guys any program would have LOVED to have had. Then I went to 28-50 and saw several names like Michael Goodson, Jermaine Gresham, Demarco Murray, and LeSean McCoy. Then I went to 75-100 and only saw a few names like Josh Freeman.

This is a really brief look through the list, but I saw exactly what I expected to see, so I'm not going to waste time going into more detail. If you're going to pick a random group of 25 guys, you'd be well advised to pick the 5-stars. The top 25 guys are loaded with great players, the next 25 has a ton (but a little bit less) talent, and the trend continues on down. Our 5-stars haven't always been great, but you're look at a small sample size. Look at the bigger sample size (all 5-stars), and you'll see that they're a pretty studly group. It's kind of like the NFL draft. Sure, there are 5th rounders that outperform 1st rounders, but I'd take the group of 1st rounders ten times out of ten.

No offense, but this is a textbook example of Confirmation Bias. You are taking what you expect to see and applying it to the whole. What I have shown with aggregated data is the following:

1. The rankings are better with some positions than others - Specifically WR
2. These guys leave early more than any other type. You can't build a team around them because they are gone by the time you get those guys on campus.
3. When you get a lot of them on campus, teams tend to go downhill. The best teams tend to be older 3*/low 4*s with a mix of younger 5*s.
4. Because these guys are planning on going pro early, they tend to take your really good 3*s and 4*s with them. You see a mass exodus to the NFL when you mix these guys with your core.

Now I have went over each one of these points before:

1. 9 5* WRs taken in rounds 1-3 in the last 3 years. The only other position that comes close is CB with 5
2. 33% of 5*s in the last 3 draft eligible recruiting classes left early regardless of draft position. Running backs are the worst offenders with 4 early entrants 4th round or lower
3. Case studies -> USC/Tennessee/Miami/FSU
4. Case study -> Miami 2001/2002 OMG

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Is it possible that recruits are bumped up a star or two just because OU says they are worth offering a scholarship to? Is that why two-stars are rare at OU?

Guaranteed. It is the corollary to "You suck, therefore your players suck".

When I went through the lists, I found that there was 1 relatively unbiased list -> State Rankings (minus TX, FL, CA which seem to be very biased towards their flagship schools). On those lists, you find 2*s ahead of 4*s in some cases.

The 5* list is heavily biased towards athleticism. This is the reason they are so good at predicting things like WRs being drafted. This isn't a bad thing, but you have to realize that the effectiveness of athleticism varies based on position played and scheme. A 5* corner may excel in a man to man defense, but suck in a zone etc.

10% of the guys drafted in the last 3 years aren't even in the rivals database.

2*s are a mixed bag (20% of the draft). In the big 3, they seem to be forgotten in the political wrangling going on. 2*s tend to start about #90 on those state lists, yet they represent 25% of the kids drafted from those states. In the rest of the states, it is more that the states themselves don't get any respect. These 2*s are in the top 10 in the state and get overlooked. A good example is JJ Watt who was #7 in Wisconsin but a 2*.

tangent -> We need to find a place on the staff for whoever evaluates linemen for central michigan (that guy recruited a #1 and #11 overall pick)

[8timechamps]

There are few positions that really reflect the star rating accurately. For example, offensive linemen are VERY difficult to evaluate, and I think most of the ratings are guesses. QB's are similar. Running Backs and Linebackers are usually pretty accurate (at least when it comes to 4 and 5 star guys).

The last 5 star RB we had (he was a Rivals 5 star) was Brennan Clay, and it took him 3 years to really become the player we hoped he would be. Then there's Trey Metoyer, who just never could seem to 'get it' (regardless of his off-the-field issues).

As for Mixon, I'd say there's a better-than-average chance he'll end up a good player at the next level.


All of that said, and if you've read many of my posts here you'll know, I'm just not a big believer in the star hype.

[8timechamps]

We've been let down by more 2 & 3 star players. Over time and large numbers the star rating system is pretty good indicator of the overall talent level. Not perfect. Not guaranteed insurance of future performance.

I have to disagree with you. When OU lands 3 star (and the rare 2 star) guys, they are almost never expected to be big time players. If they end up mediocre, then 'that's what everyone expected'. So, I don't think OU's been "let down" much by those guys.

4 and 5 star guys, that's where we've seen some letdown.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

The last 5 star RB we had (he was a Rivals 5 star) was Brennan Clay, and it took him 3 years to really become the player we hoped he would be. Then there's Trey Metoyer, who just never could seem to 'get it' (regardless of his off-the-field issues).

FYI, they dropped Clay to a 4 star on the last cut. He dropped 30 places.

[Eielson]

No offense, but this is a textbook example of Confirmation Bias. You are taking what you expect to see and applying it to the whole. What I have shown with aggregated data is the following:

1. The rankings are better with some positions than others - Specifically WR
2. These guys leave early more than any other type. You can't build a team around them because they are gone by the time you get those guys on campus.
3. When you get a lot of them on campus, teams tend to go downhill. The best teams tend to be older 3*/low 4*s with a mix of younger 5*s.
4. Because these guys are planning on going pro early, they tend to take your really good 3*s and 4*s with them. You see a mass exodus to the NFL when you mix these guys with your core.

Now I have went over each one of these points before:

1. 9 5* WRs taken in rounds 1-3 in the last 3 years. The only other position that comes close is CB with 5
2. 33% of 5*s in the last 3 draft eligible recruiting classes left early regardless of draft position. Running backs are the worst offenders with 4 early entrants 4th round or lower
3. Case studies -> USC/Tennessee/Miami/FSU
4. Case study -> Miami 2001/2002 OMG

Apparently you disagree with me, but I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. All I really said in my post was that the probability of a player succeeding is higher for higher ranking players than lower ranking players. If you feel like that's false, then feel free to prove me wrong, but nothing you said did that. If you we had two pools of players (one pool of players is 1-25, the other is 75-100), and you got to randomly pick one, would you seriously pick the guy from the 75-100 pool?

[Eielson]

Speaking of 2-stars, wasn't Ronnell a 2-star when he committed? I don't even think all the major databases had him listed.

[oupride]

What happened with Jermie Calhoun again? Where did he go? I do not remember seeing him get any measurable game time.

[Widescreen]

Date Opponent No. Yds TDs Lg No. Yds TDs Lg
9/5/2013 BHSU 12 140 1 53 1 10 1 10
9/14/2013 CSU-Pueblo 14 51 0 13 1 2 0 2
9/21/2013 Tarleton State 19 103 0 33 2 51 0 47
9/28/2013 Valdosta State 17 97 0 38 2 -1 0 0
10/5/2013 McMurry University 23 152 1 35 0 0 0 0
10/12/2013 Eastern New Mexico 15 78 1 21 0 0 0 0
10/19/2013 West Texas A&M 19 39 0 19 3 63 0 39
10/26/2013 MSU 23 81 0 12 3 11 0 12
11/2/2013 A&M-Commerce 21 61 2 20 3 15 0 9
11/9/2013 TAMUK 17 45 0 21 2 7 0 8
11/16/2013 Incarnate Word 19 83 0 23 0 0 0 0
Totals 199 930 5 53 17 158 1 47

Angelo State. Surprised to see he played this year. He was finally a senior (dude's 25 years old!). Decent numbers although it looks like his production dropped later in the season.

[dwarthog]

5 Stars is definitely a winner in the star counting game.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Apparently you disagree with me, but I'm not exactly sure what you're disagreeing with. All I really said in my post was that the probability of a player succeeding is higher for higher ranking players than lower ranking players.

At certain positions this is true


If you feel like that's false, then feel free to prove me wrong, but nothing you said did that. If you we had two pools of players (one pool of players is 1-25, the other is 75-100), and you got to randomly pick one, would you seriously pick the guy from the 75-100 pool?

The fallacy in this statement is that you are assuming the one who does the ranking = the one who does the evaluating. There are some coaches that are just flat out better at evaluating players than anyone else. Good examples under Stoops have been Mike Leach, Bobby Jack Wright (DE), and SOS jr. Basically when one of these guys says a kid can play, I don't give a crap what he's ranked, the kid will most likely be able to play.

The last point I was making was your comment about 25 5*s. Based on historical data, having a lot of 5*s is a good way to get a coach fired.

[Eielson]

At certain positions this is true

It will certainly vary from position to position.


The fallacy in this statement is that you are assuming the one who does the ranking = the one who does the evaluating. There are some coaches that are just flat out better at evaluating players than anyone else. Good examples under Stoops have been Mike Leach, Bobby Jack Wright (DE), and SOS jr. Basically when one of these guys says a kid can play, I don't give a crap what he's ranked, the kid will most likely be able to play.

That's also true, but once again, I didn't say otherwise. I trust that if our coaching staff made a top 100 list that it would be better than Rivals'. We don't have access to that list, though.


Based on historical data, having a lot of 5*s is a good way to get a coach fired.

I have some definite issues with this last statement, but I'll wait until you name a few good coaches that were fired after getting too many 5*s

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I have some definite issues with this last statement, but I'll wait until you name a few good coaches that were fired after getting too many 5*s

Okay, here are some records of teams with a lot of 5*s.

Case Study #1 - Texas
2005 - 13-0 - Recruiting Class http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2005/texas-83 Note that this is the core of the players(along with shipley from the last class who got 6 years) that will take them to the title game later (like 7 guys drafted)
2006 - 10-3 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/texas-83 - add 2 5*s
2007 - 10-3 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/texas-83 - add 2 more 5*s
2008 - 12-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/texas-83 - add no 5*s
2009 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/texas-83 - add 3 5*s
2010 - 5-7 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/texas-83 - add 2 more
2011 - 8-5
2012 - 9-4
2013 - 8-5

2 things to notice here
1. The 2005 + Shipley class carries them - the 5*s do well as long as they are there
2. The classes with 5*s in them suck

2007
5* - curtis brown
5* - tray allen

3* sam acho
4* (mid) - earl thomas
4* (mid) - fozzy whitaker

[stoopified]

Is it possible that recruits are bumped up a star or two just because OU says they are worth offering a scholarship to? Is that why two-stars are rare at OU?Definitely true with Notre Dame recruits.To be fair I think most BIG TIME schools tend to have that effect on recruiting rankings.

[Mjcpr]

Maybe he got fired because he wasn't able to develop them when they got there. Jammal Charles has been a lot more impressive at KC than he was at UT, for example.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Case Study #2 - Tennessee

2006 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/tennessee-71 (1 5*)
2007 - 10-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/tennessee-71 (5 5*)
2008 - 5-7
2009 - 7-6
2010 - 6-7

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Maybe he got fired because he wasn't able to develop them when they got there. Jammal Charles has been a lot more impressive at KC than he was at UT, for example.

Unfortunately it is hard to compare pros to college. Pros get as much coaching in one mini-camp as college kids get from the end of a bowl game til fall camp and they get 3-4 of them.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Case Study #3 USC

2006 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/usc-62 (5 5*)
2007 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/usc-62 (6 5*)
2008 - 12-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/usc-62 (2 5*)
2009 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/usc-62 (4 5*)
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/usc-62 (4 5*)
2011 - 10-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/usc-62 (1 5*)
2012 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2012/usc-62 (3 5*)
2013 - 10-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/usc-62 (5 5*)

USC had potentially 17 5*s on that 2009 9-4 team

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Case Study #4 - Florida

2002 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2002/florida-67 - 1 5*
2003 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2003/florida-67 - 5 5*
2004 - 7-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2004/florida-67 - 1 5*
2005 - 9-3 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2005/florida-67 - 0 5*
2006 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/florida-67 - 4 5*
2007 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/florida-67 - 4 5*
2008 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/florida-67 - 4 5*
2009 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/florida-67 - 3 5*
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/florida-67 - 4 5*
2011 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/florida-67 - 0 5*
2012 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2012/florida-67 - 3 5*
2013 - 4-8 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/florida-67 - 2 5*

Math Time (potential 5* assuming 4 years)
2003 - 6
2004 - 7
2005 - 7
2006 - 10
2007 - 9
2008 - 12
2009 - 15
2010 - 15
2011 - 11
2012 - 10
2013 - 9

[Eielson]

Mack got fired because he was doing a poor job as a coach. He had plenty of talent on those teams.


Case Study #2 - Tennessee

2006 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/tennessee-71 (1 5*)
2007 - 10-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/tennessee-71 (5 5*)
2008 - 5-7
2009 - 7-6
2010 - 6-7

Are you blaming Tennessee's horrible 2008 season on the fact that they got 5 5* players in 2007? Surely you can see how absurd that is. I think you might have some potential evidence with Fulmer/Tennessee if you go back to 2002 where they got 5 5* players. I'm not real familiar with Tennessee's program or Fulmer, so I'm not sure what to attribute their ups and downs to. It may support your idea, but the idea of their 2007 recruiting sabotaging their 2008 season is bogus.


Case Study #3 USC

2006 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/usc-62 (5 5*)
2007 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/usc-62 (6 5*)
2008 - 12-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/usc-62 (2 5*)
2009 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/usc-62 (4 5*)
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/usc-62 (4 5*)
2011 - 10-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/usc-62 (1 5*)
2012 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2012/usc-62 (3 5*)
2013 - 10-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/usc-62 (5 5*)

I'm annoyed that you even tried this BS. I thought that MAYBE you though Mack was a great coach that got cursed by too many talented recruits, and I thought MAYBE there was something to Tennessee, but this is absurd. You conveniently skipped a lot of important information. USC shows very strong evidence that getting a bunch of 5* players works, but you're trying to cut out any information that shows that, and only show the information that supports your absurd hypothesis. All you're trying to do is win an internet argument, and are willingly hiding important information to do it. I thought we were trying to have a conversation. Here are the real facts:

Pete Carroll comes in to coach USC in 2001. First season he goes 6-6.

2002: 11-2 (0 5*)
2003: 12-1 (2 5*)
2004: 13-0 (8 5*)
2005: 12-1 (4 5*)
2006: 11-2 (5 5*)
2007: 11-2 (6 5*)
2008: 12-1 (2 5*)
2009: 9-4 (4 5*)

In 2009, USC had QB issues, and started a freshman. This was their one down year, but it's not unlike the struggles that OU had when Landry and Bomar were freshman. They didn't rebound like we did, but that's not because they had too many highly rated recruits. They had their scholarships restricted, their great coach left, and they got stuck with Lane Kiffin. I'm telling you these things, but I'm sure you already knew them. In 7 of his 8 final seasons, Carroll's teams finished in the top 5, and those great recruits didn't seem to deter him. If USC hadn't got caught cheating and Carroll had stuck around, there is no reason to believe they wouldn't have continued their dominance. Alabama and Saban are currently doing something similar.

[Eielson]

Case Study #4 - Florida

2002 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2002/florida-67 - 1 5*
2003 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2003/florida-67 - 5 5*
2004 - 7-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2004/florida-67 - 1 5*
2005 - 9-3 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2005/florida-67 - 0 5*
2006 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2006/florida-67 - 4 5*
2007 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2007/florida-67 - 4 5*
2008 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2008/florida-67 - 4 5*
2009 - 13-1 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2009/florida-67 - 3 5*
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2010/florida-67 - 4 5*
2011 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2011/florida-67 - 0 5*
2012 - 11-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2012/florida-67 - 3 5*
2013 - 4-8 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/football/recruiting/commitments/2013/florida-67 - 2 5*

Math Time (potential 5* assuming 4 years)
2003 - 6
2004 - 7
2005 - 7
2006 - 10
2007 - 9
2008 - 12
2009 - 15
2010 - 15
2011 - 11
2012 - 10
2013 - 9

Once again, you're leaving off the important stuff. Ron Zook had talent, but wasn't a very good coach, so he lasted three years and then they got rid of him. They brought in a great coach (Urban Meyer) to go with those great players, and he had tremendous success. Then he has his health problems/leaves, and they start to struggle again. You don't think the coaching changes had anything to do with it?

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I'm not trying to win anything. As a matter of a fact, outside of Texas all I did was lay out the numbers for you. I never gave one excuse or reason for the numbers being what they were. What you are doing is trying to apply external reasons (X wasn't a good coach, etc) to the numbers to try to have them fit your hypothesis.

What I would like you to do is step back and breathe a bit. Then think about the following about my lists.

1. Recruits play in the year they are recruited. This is a major annoyance for me, but it is what it is. Thus if you have 5 5*s in 2007, your record in 2007 is partially on them
2. Because of the nature of college athletics, recruiting classes last 3-5 years. This means that a team is partially composed of multiple classes. Because only 33% of 5*s leave early, I decided to stick with 4 years assuming that most players will stay 4. I only looked at Texas but this seems to be the average.
3. My premise is that 5* players coming into an existing core of good 3*/4* players is a good thing. However, when it is their turn to lead, the wheels fall off. This is because they are SOFT. They haven't had to work for anything and the underclassmen under them mimic them.

For Tennessee, I'm not talking about just 2007, I'm mainly talking about 2009-2010

For USC, their worst years under Carroll were when they had the MOST 5*s theoretically on campus

For Florida -I'm talking about 2010 specifically. This is because those 5*s from 2009 ALL declared early. That team was decimated.

If I had numbers for 99-2000 We could use Miami and Florida State as well.

[SoonerMarkVA]

However, when it is their turn to lead, the wheels fall off. This is because they are SOFT. They haven't had to work for anything and the underclassmen under them mimic them.

I think this is really the heart of it. Very interesting on the numbers and your assessment. Thanks for it.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I think this is really the heart of it. Very interesting on the numbers and your assessment. Thanks for it.

The analysis came from looking at OU under Stoops and looking at teams with guys who were "hyped" early (Malcolm Kelly, Tony Jefferson, Travis Lewis) and then how they reacted to it. Those guys are fine as long as they have blue collar upperclassmen around them, but once they become the upperclassmen the team goes downhill. 5*s come into a program with that level of hype from high school.

[Eielson]

I'm not trying to win anything. As a matter of a fact, outside of Texas all I did was lay out the numbers for you. I never gave one excuse or reason for the numbers being what they were. What you are doing is trying to apply external reasons (X wasn't a good coach, etc) to the numbers to try to have them fit your hypothesis.

The head coach of a team is a major variable to consider. When one coach is having great success with a certain level of talent, but then a new one comes in and doesn't have as much success, it's certainly reasonable to believe that the new head coach played a role in the decline. It's much more reasonable to judge how good a coach is than to start claiming that guys you've never met are soft, haven't worked for anything, etc. If you want to stick to numbers, then fine, but actually stick to the numbers and don't manipulate them.


1. Recruits play in the year they are recruited. This is a major annoyance for me, but it is what it is. Thus if you have 5 5*s in 2007, your record in 2007 is partially on them

3. My premise is that 5* players coming into an existing core of good 3*/4* players is a good thing. However, when it is their turn to lead, the wheels fall off. This is because they are SOFT. They haven't had to work for anything and the underclassmen under them mimic them.

If a team does poorly, it's silly to lay the blame on the freshmen. #3 is the complete opposite what actually happened at Tennessee.


For Tennessee, I'm not talking about just 2007, I'm mainly talking about 2009-2010

Oh...so you're referring to the two years when they had coaching changes? Oddly enough, they actually had the worst year when the 5 5*s were freshman, and did a little better in their 2nd and 3rd years despite two coaching changes (which you didn't feel the need to mention).


For USC, their worst years under Carroll were when they had the MOST 5*s theoretically on campus

Worst years, as in plural? After Carroll's first year, they only ended one year outside of the top 4. I don't know what other year you're referring to as their other down year, but it would have to be a year in which they were top 4. You're reaching pretty badly.

[landrun]

On a side note, I don't remember Onyenegecha being dismissed from the team.

I do remember him getting burned though. :smiley_simmons:

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Okay Eielson, you win.

reasons:
1. There is no possible way for me to overcome your subjective rating of how good a coach is.
2. Since neither Freshman nor Sophomores are responsible for a team's overall record, that leaves only JRs and SRs being responsible. This is problematic since 5*s leave after their true JR year 33% of the time. Given that number, I made an assumption that these guys were contributing at FR, SO and not becoming a brand new starter their junior year. I apparently am wrong in this assumption.
3. A team with 5 5*s improved from 5 wins to 7 wins which shows that they improved the team.
a) Based on the general opinion of everyone who says we have to have 5*s I assumed that if we could win 10 games with 1, then a team with 5 would be able to win more than 10.
b) A team with 17 of them (USC) would win more than 9 just on talent alone
c) A team with potentially 15 (Florida) would win more than 8 on talent alone
4. Coaching is more important than Talent (which begs the question why we care about 5*s so much)

[Curly Bill]

FYI, they dropped Clay to a 4 star on the last cut. He dropped 30 places.

I'm glad you pointed that out, because I knew it, but was about to go look it up to be sure before giving 8time a hard time about being a dumas! :)

[Eielson]

Okay Eielson, you win.

Thanks bud. Better luck next time.


reasons:
1. There is no possible way for me to overcome your subjective rating of how good a coach is.

I apologize that my way of rating coaches isn't satisfactory for you. Your ways of rating aren't up to my standards either, though. I thought my way of judging good coaches and bad coaches was pretty straight forward, though. Take Florida for instance. I said Zook was a bad coach. He did alright by general standards, but by Florida standards he did bad enough that he was gone after just three years. Then he went on to Illinois and he did pretty poorly there as well, so I considered him a bad coach. Urban Meyer on the other hand did pretty well at BG, did phenomenal in his short tenure at Utah, had another great stretch at Florida, and is now doing another impressive job at Ohio State. After all those great coaching jobs I consider him a great coach. Seems pretty straight forward to me. I could get the numbers to support that pretty easily, but I'm not going to waste my time on this because half the things you are arguing against weren't even said by me. I didn't judge Mack Brown by that same standard, but we're all pretty familiar with the state of the Texas program. Are you really going to say that Mack Brown has been a good coach these last few years? I don't think you would dare go on record and say that, but feel free to prove me wrong.

Is my way of judging perfect? Certainly not. Your standards aren't too great, either. You judge a player's success by where he was drafted? Your system is so jacked up that it rates people like Ryan Tannehill light years above people like Jason White and Josh Heupel. Just because a player isn't a great NFL prospect does not mean that he didn't have a great college career.


2. Since neither Freshman nor Sophomores are responsible for a team's overall record, that leaves only JRs and SRs being responsible. This is problematic since 5*s leave after their true JR year 33% of the time. Given that number, I made an assumption that these guys were contributing at FR, SO and not becoming a brand new starter their junior year. I apparently am wrong in this assumption.

This is so childish. I never even brought up sophomores. I did bring up freshmen, and I'm sticking with that. If a team struggles, it's silly to blame the most recent recruiting class. A lot of them were probably redshirting, and even the really successful ones likely didn't really get the hang of things until the end of the season. Sure, you should get some contribution from the freshmen, but you can't lay the blame of a 5-7 season on them. That's a common sense statement, so I'm guessing that's why you felt the need to throw in the part about sophomores that nobody said. It gave you a leg to stand on.



3. A team with 5 5*s improved from 5 wins to 7 wins which shows that they improved the team.

It's a 2 game improvement, which is nothing to scoff at, but you're missing the point. That team had a lot of other turmoil it was going through. They had three different coaches in three different years. That's enough to throw any program into chaos, but they still manage to show slight improvement. This doesn't make 5 star players look incredible, but it does nothing to prove that they magically ruin programs.


b) A team with 17 of them (USC) would win more than 9 just on talent alone

A team is top 4 for 7 straight years having rosters filled with 5 star players and then they have 1 down year where they had to thrust a freshman into the starting lineup, and then you take that as proof that 5 stars ruin programs? You can make yourself believe anything I guess.


c) A team with potentially 15 (Florida) would win more than 8 on talent alone

A team wins 2 national championships and 3 BCS bowls in 4 years and then they have one down year and you want to take that as proof that 5 stars ruin programs? Yup, you can definitely convince yourself to believe anything.


4. Coaching is more important than Talent (which begs the question why we care about 5*s so much)

I don't care that much. I agree that coaching is more important than talent, but they're both of great importance if you're trying to be an elite program.

The funny thing about all this, is that the original statement I made was simply saying that a player in the Rivals top 25 is more likely to be a great player than somebody who is ranked 75-100. You've barely refuted that statement at all (I'm honestly not sure you ever even did). You've spent most of this time making up strawman arguments.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

and I quote -> Are you blaming Tennessee's horrible 2008 season on the fact that they got 5 5* players in 2007?

2007 - Freshman
2008 - Sophomores

[SoonerorLater]

How about this? In the universe of available college football talent, percentage-wise, you are much more likely to draw a good college player or NFL talent level player from the 5* ranks. Every level you go down decreases (percentage-wise) your chances of getting a good/great player.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

heh on the josh heupel/Jason white comments. I stopped trying to use the "great college player unsuited for the pros" argument a long time ago. People on this board do not equate college effectiveness with talent. So things like Q was as effective as a college running back as AD aren't going to fly.

The biggest problem that I have with your bad coaching argument is the following scenario:

Year 1 -> Great Coach -> 11 wins
Year 2 -> Bad Coach -> 5 wins

For the most part, the players are exactly the same (minus the seniors). This means that "talent" on campus is basically a non-influencer on wins.


The funny thing about all this, is that the original statement I made was simply saying that a player in the Rivals top 25 is more likely to be a great player than somebody who is ranked 75-100. You've barely refuted that statement at all (I'm honestly not sure you ever even did). You've spent most of this time making up strawman arguments.

Who cares on a one to one basis. The only thing that fans give a crap about is the number in the W column. It is all about the aggregate and how they push you from 9 wins to 11 wins to 13 wins.

[badger]

I wonder... is the program that makes the player? Is it OU's fault if 5-stars don't live up to the hype?

As much as I'd like to think OU helped AD become awesome in college, he already was and likely would have been anywhere. At the same time, I am quite confident that Rhett Bomar getting to start right away (technically redshirt freshman, not true freshman) went straight to his head and lended to his ability to extract free money from a local business. :(

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Lastly, here is a story about how the first time I saw this phenomenon...at OU.

I went to school during the Gary Gibbs era. Gary Gibbs was a great "heralded recruit" recruiter.

He landed highly touted national QBs (#2 Cale Gundy, #1 Chad Davis).
He landed highly touted WRs (#3 Jujuan Penny)
He landed highly touted DTs (#1 Greg Wilkins)
He landed highly touted DEs (#1 Aubrey Beavers)

The problem was that we were a better team when the guys who were lowly ranked were on the field. We were better with Steve Collins than Cale. We were better with Corey Warren and Tink Collins than we were with Penny. We were better with guys like Reggie Barnes and Joe Bowden out there. The problem was that the other guys always seemed to bubble up to the top and start. The guys weren't mentally tough enough to bounce back after the Texas game and kept losing the game after (DRAW!).

In my mind, there are very, very few coaches that can do well with a lot of 5* players. And almost all of those coaches can get a job in the pros.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I wonder... is the program that makes the player? Is it OU's fault if 5-stars don't live up to the hype?

As much as I'd like to think OU helped AD become awesome in college, he already was and likely would have been anywhere. At the same time, I am quite confident that Rhett Bomar getting to start right away (technically redshirt freshman, not true freshman) went straight to his head and lended to his ability to extract free money from a local business. :(

The situations were probably what caused it. Peterson came in knowing McGruder who had already gotten into trouble once. McGruder (and probably Clayton) probably took him under his wing to keep him from screwing up at first. Being around a lot of blue collar offensive guys also probably helped a ton.

Bomar showed on the field that he was prone to doing stupid stuff (penalty in the holiday bowl). People who do stupid stuff tend to do more stupid stuff (not quite as bad as a plagiarist but close). Someone probably said it in jest and he latched onto it as a good idea.

[Eielson]

and I quote -> Are you blaming Tennessee's horrible 2008 season on the fact that they got 5 5* players in 2007?

2007 - Freshman
2008 - Sophomores

This was an oversight on my part. I was thinking of the 2007 recruiting class as being recruited during that season, and then coming onto campus in 2008. Regardless, you're claim was that having young 5*s was good but when they took over as upperclassmen the wheels fell off. This case study doesn't support that.


The biggest problem that I have with your bad coaching argument is the following scenario:

Year 1 -> Great Coach -> 11 wins
Year 2 -> Bad Coach -> 5 wins

For the most part, the players are exactly the same (minus the seniors). This means that "talent" on campus is basically a non-influencer on wins.

I don't judge a coach by one year. I told you that Urban Meyer and Pete Carroll were great coaches. They both had at least one down year, though. Ron Zook was an example of a bad coach I mentioned. He didn't have just one bad year. He was sub-par all three years at Florida, and he went 34-51 and only had 2 winning seasons in 7 years.


Who cares on a one to one basis.

That's the statement I made in my first post, and you had issue with it.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't judge a coach by one year. I told you that Urban Meyer and Pete Carroll were great coaches. They both had at least one down year, though. Ron Zook was an example of a bad coach I mentioned. He didn't have just one bad year. He was sub-par all three years at Florida, and he went 34-51 and only had 2 winning seasons in 7 years.

Oh...so you're referring to the two years when they had coaching changes? Oddly enough, they actually had the worst year when the 5 5*s were freshman, and did a little better in their 2nd and 3rd years despite two coaching changes (which you didn't feel the need to mention).

A team is top 4 for 7 straight years having rosters filled with 5 star players and then they have 1 down year where they had to thrust a freshman into the starting lineup, and then you take that as proof that 5 stars ruin programs? You can make yourself believe anything I guess.

Note-> USC had 2 straight down years and 3 out of 4 years in a row

[Eielson]

Note-> USC had 2 straight down years and 3 out of 4 years in a row

I don't consider top 4 finishes as down seasons.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I don't consider top 4 finishes as down seasons.

2009 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2009/usc-62 (4 5*)
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2010/usc-62 (4 5*)
2011 - 10-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2011/usc-62 (1 5*)
2012 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2012/usc-62 (3 5*)

I was under the impression that you had to have a better record than 9-4, 8-5, and 7-6 to get a top 5 finish

[Eielson]

2009 - 9-4 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2009/usc-62 (4 5*)
2010 - 8-5 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2010/usc-62 (4 5*)
2011 - 10-2 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2011/usc-62 (1 5*)
2012 - 7-6 - http://rivals.yahoo.com/oklahoma/foo...ts/2012/usc-62 (3 5*)

I was under the impression that you had to have a better record than 9-4, 8-5, and 7-6 to get a top 5 finish

Pete Carroll had already left. Lane Kiffin took over and their school was being punished for recruiting violations (lost scholarships). Surely you know what a confounding variable is...

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Pete Carroll had already left. Lane Kiffin took over and their school was being punished for recruiting violations (lost scholarships). Surely you know what a confounding variable is...


I don't judge a coach by one year.

I think we've beaten this topic to death now. However, I want you to keep an open mind on this subject and see if teams that are recruiting well NOW have issues later.

[Eielson]

I think we've beaten this topic to death now. However, I want you to keep an open mind on this subject and see if teams that are recruiting well NOW have issues later.

I've always been willing to listen to the numbers, but I don't find these numbers very convincing. Alabama is the only team that seems to be consistently getting multiple 5 star players at the moment that is one of the top teams. I'll pay attention to them, but I'm betting that history will continue, and their program will start to fall off when Saban leaves.

[8timechamps]

I wonder... is the program that makes the player? Is it OU's fault if 5-stars don't live up to the hype?

As much as I'd like to think OU helped AD become awesome in college, he already was and likely would have been anywhere. At the same time, I am quite confident that Rhett Bomar getting to start right away (technically redshirt freshman, not true freshman) went straight to his head and lended to his ability to extract free money from a local business. :(

Good question badg.

It works both ways really.

Look at this year as a prime example, Dominique Alexander was a 3 star kid by most services, but put in the right situation with the right coaching, he did better than almost every 5 star LB in his class. That doesn't mean he will end up better than all of them, but he certainly has a good start.

On the other hand, look at a kid like R.J. Washington. A highly touted 5 star player, that never really panned out. He even said that he didn't really start to put the work in until his junior year. First, that speaks a lot to coaching (position coach), and secondly it addresses the mental issue. The rating services only watch the player on the field, they aren't afforded the ability to actually get in the training room and spend quality time with them, so there is a big part of the puzzle incomplete.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I've always been willing to listen to the numbers, but I don't find these numbers very convincing. Alabama is the only team that seems to be consistently getting multiple 5 star players at the moment that is one of the top teams. I'll pay attention to them, but I'm betting that history will continue, and their program will start to fall off when Saban leaves.

I think we may see some dropoff since they've had some of their oversigning reigned in. This theory falls apart when you are allowed to send people packing (and replace them) that don't pan out.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

Good question badg.

It works both ways really.

Look at this year as a prime example, Dominique Alexander was a 3 star kid by most services, but put in the right situation with the right coaching, he did better than almost every 5 star LB in his class. That doesn't mean he will end up better than all of them, but he certainly has a good start.

On the other hand, look at a kid like R.J. Washington. A highly touted 5 star player, that never really panned out. He even said that he didn't really start to put the work in until his junior year. First, that speaks a lot to coaching (position coach), and secondly it addresses the mental issue. The rating services only watch the player on the field, they aren't afforded the ability to actually get in the training room and spend quality time with them, so there is a big part of the puzzle incomplete.

How is that on the position coach? They can't even ASK them how they are doing much less tell them to get their butts in gear for 8 months of the year (or it is an NCAA violation). That is the one of the biggest drivers behind my theory. The ONLY leverage that a coach has on these guys is draconian ie -> cutting and then signing over them.

[jkjsooner]

We were better with Steve Collins than Cale.

I was in school then too. I can't believe you said that.

The only reason we might have been better at times with Steve Collins was because we didn't allow Gundy to play his game. When Gundy wasn't allowed to throw the ball (see several Texas games) of course you might as well have Collins in there.

Gundy was one of the best QB's in the country his last couple of years (once we brought in Watson Brown). Steve Collins was never going to be one of the best QB's in the country.


We were better with Corey Warren and Tink Collins than we were with Penny. We were better with guys like Reggie Barnes and Joe Bowden out there.

I don't remember or didn't know their rankings but this comparison is biased. You don't mention all the lower ranked guys who never saw the field.

We get a lot more lower ranked players than top ranked players. If you have ten 3 star guys and one 5 star guy, there's a good chance your best player is going to be a 3 star guy based purely on numbers. Nobody doubts that and it definitely doesn't indicate that you'd rather have a 3 star guy than a 5 star guy.

[DrZaius]

Moe Dampeer gif in 5...4...3...2...

[picasso]

I recall Gundy tearing it up at Colorado before blowing out his ankle. He had something like 160 yards passing in the first half and we had the lead.

[jkm, the stolen pifwafwi]

I was in school then too. I can't believe you said that.

The only reason we might have been better at times with Steve Collins was because we didn't allow Gundy to play his game. When Gundy wasn't allowed to throw the ball (see several Texas games) of course you might as well have Collins in there.

Gundy was one of the best QB's in the country his last couple of years (once we brought in Watson Brown). Steve Collins was never going to be one of the best QB's in the country.


I think you are missing the philosophy here. Running the ball was what OU was built for under Barry. What Gibbs wanted was an option offense where the QB hit the deep ball. Early in the year, Collins was doing that (against UCLA and Pitt). However, he started missing more as the season went along (Tulsa, KU, then OSU) and gundy could hit them. Thus he started playing Gundy more and more. The problem was that Steve could still get you 5 yards per carry on the option and cale could get you 1. This presented a huge problem with the option, but we kept running it. Thus "Given the obstinance of the coaching staff" we were a better team with Steve than Cale.

The phrase you said "when they let him play his game" was echoed 100x during my time there. The problem was that the coaching staff rarely let him do it. In that case the player that fits the coach's plan > than the more talented player who doesn't.


as an aside, Gundy's only really good year was 1993. In 1992 he had 15 INTs and 9 TDs

[SoonerInHSV]

I think it is clear that, on average, 5* recruits are more athletic that 2* recruits. However, that does not mean that are the best contributor to team success.

There is a thing called the "suboptimization problem" in systems engineering. It basically says that you don't optimize a system by optimizing each of its parts.

it is the same way in sports, you don't necessarily create the best team by putting all of the best athletes on the field. It is not just how they operate individually but how they interact with each other that creates their effectiveness as a team. Its also about whether the coaching staff can take advantage of the collective skill set to be effective against the other team.

I think too many people today think of life as a video game where all that matters is the stats. In real life group dynamics often play as much of a role in team success as does the talent of the members.