Lies. The five stars are not proven at the college level and not all are ahead of everyone else. Some five stars have fallen flat in college because they peaked in high school. Meaning their playing abilities did not improve much while in college. However, it is not the five stars that builds a successful team. It is the 3 and 4 stars with a few 5 stars thrown in the mix. And OU has plenty of interest from 3 and 4 stars!
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if at least 2 verbals didn't all of a sudden increase their "star rating" by the end of the season because they sign with OU.
CK, if you actually played this sport, outside of powderpuff, and coached this game. you may know more than just what the pundits and talking heads tell you or what you read. I am not calling you incorrect by any means, but rankings mean very little when recruiting players. So roll your eyes wherever and whenever, I could careless. I coach high school players. So I know a lot of their abilities and their tendancies. And so do other high school coaches. 1. The 5 stars have not proven anything in college. Because they have not stepped foot on a college or played a down in college. Their ranking is based on potential, nothing more. 2. I have seen players as a junior (great players their junior year) not do well as a Senior because of various reasons, ranging from injuries to head cases. These types of things happen. And they affect their scouting reports. 3. I have seen players look to be studs only to fall flat because they peaked their potential sooner than others. A lot of times this does not happen, but in some cases it does. 4. College coaches fills their needs not based on recruiting rankings. But based on their system and how they read the talent they are going after.
Who cares what their star ranking is? Lehman was not a 5 star. Calmus was not a 5 star. Heupel was not a 5 star. Savage was not a 5 star. Clayton was not a 5 star. In fact the majority of the players that have laid this current foundation and made OU successful again were not rated as five stars coming out of high school.
I have not followed college recruiting for very long, but from what I've seen, 5-star recruits can be hit-or-miss just like any other recruits... but usually have a higher rate of success than other players, much like NFL 1st rounders stay on NFL rosters longer than, say, 7th rounders. 5-stars can be successful in college... or not... It seems to largely depend on work ethic and desire more than raw talent, as we could tell from these two recruits from the same class - one went on to be a Heisman runner-up his freshman year and the NFL Rookie of the Year, the other... well... he's somewhere else. It is possible that like NFL 1st round draft picks, a college team may invest more practice and playing time in a higher-rated recruit, thus have a higher rate of success than, say, a 2-star or a walk-on (what do coaches promise top recruits to get them to sign the LoI? Practice and playing time, of course). Would Kellen Winslow still be in the NFL after his stupid bike incident if he wasn't a 1st rounder? Who knows... but I think the Cleveland Browns gave him a second chance largely because of the resources they already poured into his development with the organization. Anyways, take or leave 5-stars. Regardless of where our recruiting classes rank, I like how our teams have done on the field lately, so I think Stoops and Co. must be doing a good job off-the-field via recruiting
thank you for making my point for me. I mean look what Charlie Weis has done with his plethora of 4 and 5 star recruits...win a single game more than Ty Willingham did in the same amount of time at the same university. My primary point is, instead of going "oh noes we haz no 5 starz" right now, be like me and just be amused at how many of our recruits are 4 or 5 star recruits by the end of the high school season.
When you actually have a clue what you are talking about outside of what the talking heads at scouts or rivals say, then let me know. Until then, having a roster full of 5 stars does not make you a better team...It is the coaches that can turn that potential talent into something special....look toward USC if you do not believe me!
5 stars are overrated. Texas, in '99, signed the national defensive and offensive players of the year (Cory Redding and Chris Simms). Those two guys beat Oklahoma once, and never won a Big 12 Championship. They never played in a BCS bowl. You go out and do your homework. Sometimes you sign a guy who becomes a Nagurski Award winner (Derrick Strait) when you're only competition for him out of high school was Kentucky. It's about homework and filling the needs of your team. I respect the opinion of the coach of my team over some clown in a cubicle who's rating a guy with five stars just because he signed with Notre Dame.
Thats what I tried to tell CK in the beginning, Stoops doesnt base his recruiting off of star ratings and star ratings will change depending on whom is recruiting the kid. The player making it big time has to do with development and attitude, not star rating
I think Stoops got a little lazy for a little bit, but his last couple of classes appear to be a throwback to his earlier days. The problem with a lot of the high-profile guys is their attitude (Bomar and Kelly). Sometimes that attitude permeates through to other players: see Enrique Iglesias. Go out, do your homework, and really understand the kids you're recruiting. The staff is doing that now, and it bodes well for us.
What is the status on the big DT out of Lufkin (McFarland, I think?) and the highly rated db out of Tulsa. I think both are 5 star (or maybe the DB is only a high 4?).
If you are talking about Gabe Lynn, he is a high 4 star. Getting him would pretty much be as good as getting a five star. Am I the only one that thinks Lynn looks much taller than just 6'0?
