Annual Stars Do/Don't Matter Article
This is an annual beat to death topic, but it caught my eye because it states that there is no correlation between the number of stars and wins. I thought that this had been proven wrong pretty emphatically in the blogosphere the last few years and by our eyes in the NC games...Florida, Alabama, LSU, Texas, OSU etc..... This is from ESPN and apparently they have done some research that they don't show. Hopefully they clarify their argument in the full magazine article if it is in fact longer. Here is is if you are interested. Insider needed.
January 30th, 2012 at 2:39 PM ^
For an specific individual stars/scores don't matter because there could be improper evaluation. But looking at an overall group stars/scores end up being pretty good evaluators.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:20 PM ^
Great comparison.
January 30th, 2012 at 2:41 PM ^
Insert pic of horse being beaten here...
January 30th, 2012 at 2:53 PM ^
How can a 1/30/12 post about a 1/30/12 article written 2 days before national signing day be compared to beating a dead horse?
scparksDPT on NFL blogs: "Oh My GOD... another Patriots / Giants story!!!!!!!! What is this, 2008?"
scparksDPT on Tennis blogs: "Jesus.... why do I care thad Djokovic just beat Nadal for a Grand Slam. Duh, happens all the time...."
January 30th, 2012 at 3:05 PM ^
Sensitive. Maybe the subject matter? I wasn't being negative. Sorry to hurt your feelings pretty princess.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:34 PM ^
Not all pretty princesses are sensitive. Some are tough as nails, like Princess Leah.
You're stereotyping.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:44 PM ^
Leia?
January 30th, 2012 at 3:48 PM ^
No. Leah Barkowitz. Spoiled brat, but if anyone make fun of her, holy shit would she go bat-shit-crazy.
I saw her stab Jacob Phillips in the shin with a fork after he told her her bangs made her look like a softball player.
Anyway, scparksDPT, you better watch your tone on this board or you may want to start wearing shin guards
January 30th, 2012 at 2:53 PM ^
Considering that the OP already acknowledged that this is discussed ad nauseum every year, make it a picture of a dead horse beating a dead horse with a dead horse.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:10 PM ^
So does anyone have a picture of a dead horse beating a dead horse?
January 30th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^
Shit, zombie horses. We're all screwed.
January 30th, 2012 at 2:56 PM ^
that stars correlate to NFL draft position and individual college success.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:13 PM ^
There are a bunch of studies saying one thing, and here comes another study saying "nope."
College football research isn't peer reviewed, so articles/studies like this are how knowledge spreads. Point, counterpoint, and people hash out which study has the better methodology. Saying "this case has already been closed" isn't productive. Now I happen to think this study may stink:
"Winthrop found no correlation between the number of recruits with three or more stars on an FBS team and its subsequent winning percentages."
That doesn't sound like a particularly productive query - ("three or more stars"?), but it's still interesting to see someone else looking at this. I'm gonna assume for now however that the author of the article just misreported the study however, since that query is too silly to really mean much.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:39 PM ^
ESPN is asking the wrong question though. The relevant question is, "how likely is it that a 5 star recruit will be awesome at football." Bringing in win/loss records just opens the door to like 6,000 confounding variables (conference, schedule, coaching, etc. etc.).
January 30th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
It seems pretty clear that there isn't a 100% correlation between recruiting rankings and program success but it also seems pretty clear that there isn't a 0%. I'm highly skeptical of their analysis. The only info they give seems to be:
"Winthrop found no correlation between the number of recruits with three or more stars on an FBS team and its subsequent winning percentages"
This makes it sound like they didn't even consider how many of those 3+ star recruits were 4 or 5 star recruits... You can pretty much frame any statistics in a light that will support whatever hypothesis you want to support.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:14 PM ^
I want to see their method of gathering data. I've seen the data from Dr. Saturday and the like and I know what my eyes tell me so I'm pretty sure theyare full of crap, but it's such a bold statement I would like to see how they came upon it and what they are trying to say.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:07 PM ^
Some 3 star recruits can be good, but when has a team had sustained national success with a bunch of 3 star recruits.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:17 PM ^
They seem to indicate major conferences in the study, but I would say Boise St and TCU wold fall in that category and maybe V. Tech, Iowa and Wisconsin in the big conferences. They don't seem to get very good classes and they have been top 20 programs over the last 10-15 years.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:41 PM ^
You can begrudgingly add Michigan State to the list of schools who have recently had success on the field despite consistently landing lower ranked recruiting classes.
January 30th, 2012 at 3:31 PM ^
And West Virginia... even with 3 coaching transitions
January 30th, 2012 at 3:19 PM ^
So they're saying (I don't have Insider, so I can't read the entire article), that based on recruiting class rankings the Washtenaw County Championship should be a 50/50 toss up?
If stars and recruiting rankings don't matter, what swings the odds to 99.9999/.0001? Hoke is an exponentially better coach than English? EMU can't handle our crowd noise? They're just terribly unlucky every time we play?
January 30th, 2012 at 3:36 PM ^
They say it all comes down to coaching, and finding players that work for your system regardless of star rating, and then developing them. They then state a bunch of anecdotal evidence of "Team x outperformed Team y even though Team y had better recruits".
They conveniently don't mention the fact that the typical year's class recruiting rankings look eerily similar to the typical year's Polls/BCS standings...
January 30th, 2012 at 3:46 PM ^
Simply put, Stars Matter.
However, it is also insane to think you will assemble a roster of pure 4 and 5 star players. 4* stars do not commit to a college to spend their entire career sitting on the bench behind a 5*. You have 85 on your roster and only 22 start, with some additional slots on special teams.
So really there has to be some kind of optimal mixture of star ratings in a class. Like 2/3s of the class should be 4*/5* who project as starters and 1/3 is depth where 3* is fine.
January 30th, 2012 at 4:31 PM ^
Maybe it's just their star ratings, seeing hoe ridic they really are and all
January 30th, 2012 at 4:34 PM ^
I thought it was established that star ratings matter unless you don't have a top class, in which case they don't matter, because you're going to coach up those diamonds in the rough.
January 30th, 2012 at 5:03 PM ^
You rate guys out of high school, if they get recruited by top notch colleges like Michigan, OSU, LSU, Alabama, Texas, etc you just increase their rankings. No one has yet done a study to show how accurate the rankings are, and none of them will because why would they attempt to kill their own golden goose?
January 30th, 2012 at 9:03 PM ^
OK I'll caveat it--almost every study that has taken the time to look into this has found some correlation between team success and recruiting, with all the caveats that apply, and all the individual exceptions. Certainly that doesn't mean that a better study can't come along and potentially disprove it, but it doesn't seem that this one is it. EDIT--after reading again, for sure, this one isn't it.
January 30th, 2012 at 9:02 PM ^
no shit, if it did michigan would actually be good at something