All B1G Recruiting Ratings
In case you haven't seen it, check out Adam Rittenberg's article showing the high school recruiting ratings of the 2010 All B1G team. Not to trash the * ratings as worthless, but it is amazing how many 2* and unrated players ended up all B1G. On the offense, there were 5 ESPN 150 players and 5 unranked or 2*s. On the defense, there was 1 ESPN 150 player, and 6 1* or 2* players. I know that some SEC supporters will argue that this shows the B1G as a weak conference, but looking at the names on this list, the NFL recruiters seem to think they are pretty stout.
Again, this does not make the ratings worthless, but it reminds us 1) that coaches may see real potential in lower ranked players; and 2) player development once on campus is just as important as recruiting.
Link: http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/22910/how-all-big-ten-team-ranked-as-recruits
January 28th, 2011 at 8:57 AM ^
It would be more interesting (and relevant) if he'd also included the percentage of 5*, 4*, 3*, 2*, unranked, etc. that made all B1G.
I know this has been pointed out before. When accounting for relatively smaller numbers of players who fit into those more elite categories, the more highly-rated recruits still stand a much higher liklehood of turning into the better college players. Not that some players aren't underrated in high school, or over achievers in college.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:04 AM ^
some of these rankings are odd and could be due to the lameness of ESPN recruiting 4/5 years ago.
For example, Brian Rolle was listed as a 1 star on ESPN, but a 4 star on Scout.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:06 AM ^
He uses only ESPN rankings, many coming from 2007 or 2008....back when ESPN's ratings were even more worthless. From just a quick glance, all those he lists as two, one or no stars were 3 stars or higher to Rivals.
For example, Carimi and Leshoure are listed as "unranked," when both were high 5.7 3 stars to Rivals. Rittenberg also has Brian Rolle as a "one star" when he was a 5.8 4 star to Rivals.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
How come there aren't any Michigan players on the defensive side of the All Big-Ten list?
Here's to a vastly improved All-Big Ten list next year, thanks to Hoke and GERG2!
January 28th, 2011 at 10:13 AM ^
Can we let the GERG thing go now? I'm afraid it may be mildly contagious to the new DC.
January 28th, 2011 at 10:42 AM ^
-1 for GERG2 - for serious
January 28th, 2011 at 9:19 AM ^
It's unfortunate for Rittenberg that his findings are going to look kind of stupid because he has to toe the company line and use ESPN's worthless recruiting rankings from several years back.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:20 AM ^
Keep in mind that there are far fewer 4 & 5 Star players in the B1G than unranked, 2, & 3 Star players.
For example, the 2008 B1G recruiting class only had seven 5 Star players (six at OSU and one at Michigan (Boo Boo)). Also Wisconsin, Iowa, Purdue, Michigan State, Indiana, and Northwestern only had three 4 Star players combined.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:23 AM ^
There are only 8 individuals from the Midwest in the ESPN 150 this year, it makes kind of tough to have any other result with those kind of numbers...
January 28th, 2011 at 9:36 AM ^
Kerrigan (Purdue) 2*
JJ Watt (Wisky) 1*
Greg Jones (MSU) 2*
.. These guys are all top of the conference defensive players. Then you look at a guy like Clay Matthews on Green Bay: Dad coached him in high school and barely played him, he walked on to USC and is now a pro-bowl player in the super bowl.
Shows the rankings don't always know. You find a kid with heart, willing to work hard, and potential for talent, a good coach can turn him into a player.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:02 AM ^
The point isn't that every 5 star will be awesome and every 2-3 star will be terrible. There are roughly 25 five stars in any given year and hundreds or thousands of 2-3 stars. Some of the lower ranked guys will turn out good just by simple chance.
The point is that the recruiting services are accurate enough that, over the long run, a program that gets nothing but 5 stars will pretty much always outperform a program that gets nothing but 3 stars.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^
Again, the point is not really to trash the rankings, but rather to show that the coaches may see real potential in a lower ranked guy and that player development is hugely important. I think that's not a bad reminder at a time when most of us (like me) are obsessing over recruiting.
January 28th, 2011 at 12:23 PM ^
"see the potential" from "got lucky."
January 28th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Yeah, I'd say a lot of those are more in the "got lucky" group. For example, in 2008 NW signed Jeremy Ebert, the #187 WR in the country. I'd say NW got lucky with him, since if the #95 WR in the country wanted to come to NW in his place, I bet Fitzgerald would have taken him. Same thing with JJ Watt, he was a transfer from CMU, so obviously not many programs saw his talent. Did Wisconsin see what no one else did, or did they benefit from a guy who came on later in his career?
Some of these, I agree, are the coaches seeing what they want. But most of the 2 and a low 3 stars who make all conference teams do it out of chance or luck.
January 28th, 2011 at 11:20 AM ^
I don't think anyone will argue the rankings "always" know. But I think this article shows that recruiting rankings are pretty good indicators. If this article proves anything, it's how worthless ESPN is at recruiting rankings.
On offense, most of the players on that list were highly ranked players. Denard, Baker, Kendricks, Adams and Wisniewski were all ESPN 150 players, and Molk was the #6 C, and I would imagine the #6 C in the country is about where you would expect an All Conference center to be. That's more than half the offense team, with the others being guys like a NW receiver and two Wisconsin linemen, no big surprises there. Rivals also gave LeShoure an almost 4-star ranking.
The defense isn't that much different. Wilson and Cleyborn are 4 stars, and although Brian Rolle is listed as a one star on here, he was a 4 star to both Rivals and Scout. Liuget was the #80 player overall to Rivals, one of the highest rated players in the Big Ten that year (in fact, only 10 players that signed with B1G schools in 2008 were ranked higher than Liuget, and they were all from UM or OSU). There were more "sleepers" on the D side, but a lot of them were still high 3 stars or were close to 4 stars like Hines and Jones (who was a 5.7, #16 player in Ohio)
So really, the all conference team on each side was half guru-approved players (which account for about 10% of the players coming in to the league) and the rest are mid 3 stars and below.
If I learned anything from this, it's that if you're a 4 star in the Big Ten, you have a pretty good shot at all Big Ten, and if you're lower than a high 3 star, you have almost no chance - you're battling half the conference for about 5 spots.
January 28th, 2011 at 9:51 AM ^
thread jack
Am I the only one who can't stand "B1G." I hate it. I read it as the word "big" where as I read B10 as "Big Ten." That's all.
I'll continue to use B10 and call the divisions East and West.
/thread jack
January 28th, 2011 at 10:41 AM ^
you are not alone...
January 28th, 2011 at 10:07 AM ^
its obvious that Rivals/Scout/ESPN all just downgrade players when they commit to B10 schools. At one point Ray Vinopal was a 5* safety prospect until he committed to Michigan. Then they bumped him down to a two. Just like Kris Frost he was only a middling 4 star when he was committed to M...now he goes to Auburn and is a 5*.
Its not rocket science...players are clearly better if they play south of the mason-dixon line in college. Dee Hart is going to be changed to a 6* from what I hear.
/s
January 28th, 2011 at 10:22 AM ^
Are we really going to use B1G as a textual way to say Big Ten? It barely makes sense as a logo, let alone as text in a sentence.
January 28th, 2011 at 10:38 AM ^
Rittenberg is a good blogger generally but don't expect him to analyze anything involving numbers well. Here, he's hamstrung by ESPN's awful recruiting rankings and more importantly, he doesn't analyze the worth of star ratings in a rigorous fashion. Look to Yahoo's Dr. Saturday who found 5 star recruits were four times more likely to become All-Americans than 4 star recruits who are in turn three times more likely to become All-Americans than 3 stars.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/Star-Power-…
Recruiting rankings don't predict the future but they are the best metric available and those who shit on them do it at their own peril.
P.S. Just because Yahoo bought Rivals, don't think Hinton is a shill for Rivals. He has been publishing such analysis since his days as an independent blogger.
January 28th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
January 28th, 2011 at 11:42 AM ^
Denard Robinson - 4 star, 5.8, #188 overall, #14Ath
Leshoure - 3 star, 5.7, #28 RB
Baker - 4 star, 6.0, #57 overall, #6 RB
Sanzenbacher - 3 star, 5.6, #71 WR
Ebert - 2 star
Kendricks - 4 star, 5.8, #30 WR
Molk - 3 star, 5.7, #5 OC
Carimi - 3 star, 5.7, #30 OT
Adams - 5 star, 6.1, #3 overall, #1 OT
Moffitt - 3 star, 5.5, NR
Wisniewski - 4 star, 5.9, #8 OG
D:
Kerrigan - 3 star, 5.6, #46 SDE
Watt - 2 star
Clayborn - 4 star, 5.9, #8 SDE
Liuget - 4 star, 6.0, #80 overall, #7 DT
Jones - 3 star, 5.7, #34 OLB
Wilson - 5 star, 6.1, #26 overall, #2 WDE
Rolle - 4 star, 5.8, #17 OLB
Chekwa - 3 star, 5.5, #45 CB
Sash - 3 star, 5.6, #59 Ath
Hines - 4 star, 5.8, #10 OLB
Allen - 3 star, 5.7, #29 CB
In summary - 10/22 who are 4 star or above, 5 more who were a 5.7 rated 3 star, leaving 7/22 who are 5.6 or below, just under a third.
January 28th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
I know it's a small sample size, but it looks like Rivals had a better record with these players than ESPN. Leshoure, Carimi and Jones stand out.
January 28th, 2011 at 12:24 PM ^
given the distribution of 5 stars, 4 stars and 3 stars (waaaay more 3 stars, way lower chance of being awesome).
January 28th, 2011 at 12:20 PM ^
"...if you think of a four or five-star player as a guy who is supposed to become an All-American – and a two or three-star guy as someone who is definitely not supposed to become an All-American – then yes, the rankings frequently miss.
On the other hand, if you consider the initial grade as a kind of investment – a projection of the how likely a player is of becoming an elite contributor compared to rest of the field – well, you'd put your money with the "experts" over the chances of finding the proverbial diamond in the rough every time..."
January 28th, 2011 at 1:37 PM ^
I've been looking at this myself in anticipation of signing day. The results for the Big 10 are shown below.
Methodology
Looked at Rivals Rankings (from 2002-2010), looked at all Big 10 1st or 2nd teams starting from 2005. For each year I went back to 5 years of recruits (except 2005, when I just used 4 years worth) and summed up the totals for 2005-2010. Note that I only used the coaches' teams and not the media selections. There were a few walkons who made the All Big Ten teams, so for those I estimated about 12 walkons per year for each school. Looking back at previous football rosters, this seems like a good approximation, maybe even a little conservative.
Since we're talking about All Conference first or second teams, the odds are obviously much better than looking at All Americans as Doc Saturday did.
As expected the odds follow the stars- more stars is generally predictive of more success. Sorry for the lack of analysis- I have more data on this that I have to put in a nicer form- but looking at positional breakdowns (QB, RB, WR/TE, OL, DL, LB, DB, K/P), both RB, OL, and LB have the Rival Stars as best predictors- with these All Big 10 selections averaging the highest stars with the lowest standard deviations.