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

It will certainly vary from position to position.

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.

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

 

Definitely true with Notre Dame recruits.To be fair I think most BIG TIME schools tend to have that effect on recruiting rankings.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

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.

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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).

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.

 

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

I do remember him getting burned though. :smiley_simmons:

 

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)

 

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!

 

Thanks bud. Better luck next time.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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.