3* Recruits
Tre' Newton was a 3* to both Scout and Rivals
Tre' Newton has taken over the starting RB job for Texas as a Freshman (Colt McCoy was the leading rusher in 2008)
Texas has more talent than anyone and can handpick who they instate and Newton beat out SIX 4* recruits
Star Rankings are overvalued and overrated
GO BLUE!
September 20th, 2009 at 9:22 PM ^
Yeah, so was Hart. Statistics say it's not as likely as the reverse.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:27 PM ^
So one 3 star guy becomes a starter as a freshman, and now star rankings are overvalued? Star rankings are measure of a player's potential, not how good they'll be. A person can exceed their potential; it's just a observation that people have made but can be wrong. Make a list of 3,4, and 5 star recruits, and compare to see who started at Texas as freshmen, and I'm willing to bet that the higher the ranking, the more likely they were to start as a freshmen than a player of a lower ranking.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:32 PM ^
Exactly. They're generalizations based on observation. Just because something goes against the general pattern it does not abrogate the reality that in general something is the case.
To the OP, no, star rankings are not necessarily accurate for every single player, but they cannot simply be dismissed, either.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:46 PM ^
Has to be a Scout guy. It's the anomaly, stupid!. ONE example means the whole argument about recruiting known talent is shot.
Not even Mike Barwis saying, "Give me the five stars, dammmit!" can cool the jets of guys like this.
Of course, with Ernie Kovacs and Kevin Leach playing pretty well, it just fuels their fire all the more.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:13 PM ^
So one 3 star guy becomes a starter as a freshman, and now star rankings are overvalued?Yes. Obvi.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:15 AM ^
but if memory serves, one example is not a statistically significant sample.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:30 PM ^
This has been discussed ad nauseam.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:34 PM ^
Its not a perfect system but its better then nothing....yeah there will be exceptions.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^
I find your post and opinions to be new and refreshing. When can we sit down to discuss how to solve the healthcare crisis?
September 20th, 2009 at 9:48 PM ^
Fuck health care. You and this guy need to get together and discuss who might win the upcoming battle between the North and South! Civil wars are never fun, but if you guys coul handicap it and lay some odds, I might head off to Vegas with a bet or two.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:32 PM ^
you take it up the ass. Cracks me up.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:35 PM ^
I thought Vondrell McGee was the starter.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:45 PM ^
the sun rises in the east!
Seriously, though. This post whould be reworded to "I'm a noob."
September 20th, 2009 at 10:10 PM ^
You're the n00b.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:14 PM ^
It has been awhile since we've had a post on the accuracy of recruiting rankings. We were due.
Now we can sit back and wait for the inevitable "OMG we have too many three star recruits for next year!" thread.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:08 PM ^
I fear the day is coming when a poster will combine these two threads to create one unstoppably redundant post that will crush the souls of all those who try to oppose it. It will be a post complaining that recruiting rankings are worthless, AND that we are recruiting too many 3-stars.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:24 PM ^
was he named Tre' before or after being ranked ***
September 20th, 2009 at 10:37 PM ^
Changed it from Deuce.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:25 PM ^
3 Star guys can be successful, but not nearly as often as 4 star guys, or 5 star guys. Play the odds. The exception does not make the rule.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:03 AM ^
Hey, did you guys know Pat White was a 2* player? Talk about amazing!
/sarcasm.
Seriously, while it is cool that the random 3* guy is able to beat out higher-rated guys, part of the reason you remember/write about these cases is because it is so rare. Heard it stated for memorable baseball trades - the reason Bagwell to the Astros or Smoltz to the Braves is memorable is because it almost never happens. Usually the top-rated guys become the stars because they are better.
September 21st, 2009 at 12:07 AM ^
dead you can stop now. And thanks for the news on UT;s depth chart.
September 21st, 2009 at 8:56 AM ^
No offense meant, but as you can read from the comments, this has been discussed once or twice before. Do a search in this topic on the blog, and you'll find at least 3 sets of stats that show that recruiting rankings matter, and that it really isn't subject to opinion--they correlate well to on field team success and also to NFL draft projections.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:24 AM ^
Why don't all of you seasoned vets of this site post something that tells everyone what has been covered and what you don't want to see on here? I don't understand why there is so much bitching on this site. You guys are a bunch of clowns sometimes.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:57 AM ^
I don't have a problem with the conversations about 3-star recruits. The thing that bothers me is when people take one example and make a huge generalization.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:56 PM ^
I agree with you, that stuff gets annoying from time to time. But it is equally annoying to see a post on here and see everyone dissect the grammar, the spelling, the poster being a noob ect....
Not aiming at you specifically, just making a commentary.
September 21st, 2009 at 10:57 AM ^
That Chad Henne was a 5 star recruit? Therefore, that PROVES that five stars are better than three.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:13 PM ^
I only see gelatin.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:11 PM ^
But I just recently heard rumor that Pat White was a 2*.