Recruiting star ratings for 2017 NFL Draftees
Based on 247 Composite rankings:
| 5* | 23 | 72% |
| 4* | 76 | 25% |
| 3* | 90 | 8% |
| 2* | 26 | 1% |
| NR | 38 | <1% |
So this proves that 3* are better than 5* (90 vs. 23) /s
I put the % of players from each star group that got drafted (each year there are approx 32 with a 5* rating - 23/32 = 72%). Basically, the results show that the recruiting services do a pretty decent job in evaluating kids coming out of high school.
By state:
| GA | 27 |
| FL | 26 |
| CA | 25 |
| TX | 24 |
| OH | 16 |
| LA | 15 |
| PA | 10 |
This is pretty much chalk when compared to population of football players in each state, although it is amazing that Georgia is ahead of much larger good weather states like FL, CA and TX. You can bet this is why our staff is spending so much time and resources down in Georgia (and getting results!).
Ohio at 5th validates why Michigan has such a a hard time beating Ohio State in the recuriting rankings: they are the only P5 team in Ohio while we share a less "bountiful" state with MSU; thus, we would have to overwhelming beat them getting national recruits which is nearly impossible with Urban at the helm.
i was just curious.
good work in any case.
What rd. did Derrick Green go?
/s
skill level = athleticism when talking about 16-18 year old HS players.
Don't the recruiting sites admit they are looking toward athleticism and future as NFL talent when ranking players???
So, this shows the recruiting services are good at that, but does it NECESSARILY mean that they predict college success with as much certainty?
I think the percentages that end up All-American, etc. in college are the best way to consider whether recruiting rankings equal COLLEGE SUCCESS. I bet they are probably along the same lines, but maybe not as good a predictor.
Literally every study done on recruiting rankings shows that over the aggregate recruiting rankings are accurate predictors of success. This is a debate like a debate on whether climate change exists. One side has facts and people who know what they are talking about and the other side, the othse side has people who say nu-uh it was cold yesterday (or for the football equivalent msu won a big ten title once)
I fear you might be a little overly-defensive. There is no debate.
The OP shows data the recruiting rankings = NFL draft success. I agree. The rankings are based on the same factors that NFL teams use to draft.
However, I point out that the data is not AS RELEVANT to college success as things like AA teams, etc.
I explicitly state that rankings still matter for college success, but suggest that it might not be as stongly correlated as rankings are to NFL Draft success (two things that look at the same criteria).
There is nothing to debtate here. Calm down.
2017
5 - 10
4 - 12
3 - 6
2 - 2
N/A - 2
2016
5 - 5
4 - 17
3 - 4
2 - 3
N/A - 2
no pick - 1
2015 to 2010
5 - 8,5,6,4,4,5
4 - 7,10,13,13,13,12
3 - 16, 15, 9, 11, 13, 11
2 - 1,2,2,3,2,4
N/A - 0,0,2,1,0,0
2017 was the highest total for 5-stars since 2010 - maybe stars matter more now than ever
the last 8 years, the everage number for each star
5 - 6
4 - 12
3 - 11
2 - 1
N/A - 1
using 36 as the number of 5-stars, 300 as the number of 4-stars, and 1000 as the number of 3-stars
16.7% of 5-stars are 1st rounders
4% of 4-stars
1% of 3-stars
now more than ever. Scouting services (who are responsible for the Stars) have evolved tremendously over the past 10 or so years, and hindsight is in play. Each year offers a chance to correct the logic that led to the "misses" from previous years. Stars should become better predictors of future success every year.
One of the changes is that they seem to be incorporating offer lists into their equation more so than they used to.
Thanks for the info....but 1 quick question to clarify:
How does your top chart account for underclassmen? If you say 23 5* recruits got drafted, were any of those underclassmen? And if yes, are they included in your 32 (presumably from the 2013 class)?
the 3 year draft cycle for each class. Empirically speaking from the high profile types (like Garrett, Peppers, Fournette, etc...) the 5* are more likely to jump to the NFL as underclassmen.
Would be great if someone could flesh that out even more, but I don't have the time.
bits of real panther.
You know Brian I'm going to be honest with you, that smells like pure gasoline.
Yea, well, you didn't address walk-ons.
I think the interesting stat is that 38 unranked players were drafted.