Another reason recruiting stars are worthless

Submitted by UofMFaninDC on
Browsing through rivals this morning, I noticed they have Schilling as one of the best guards in CF. While I like Schilling, it's a joke he's rated above Omameh. It seems like Rivals ranks him that high because he came out a 5*. Crazy to think Omameh was only a 2*. RRod recruits like Lewan and Omameh get me excited for our future. Can you guys think of any other "over achieving" players?

wolverine1987

September 30th, 2010 at 8:40 AM ^

since it has been proven over and over and over again that recruiting ratings, while never a guarantee of anything (just like being drafted #1 overall in the NFL) are in fact, as shown by almost every study, good overall indicators of talent, but you have also waded into the most overplayed area of this board.  Thread lockdown coming....

Magnus

September 30th, 2010 at 8:43 AM ^

You're fairly new to the board, so hopefully people aren't too harsh.

But this topic has been addressed about 7,000 times on MGoBlog.  Recruiting rankings are helpful but not 100% accurate, just like most sets of predictions aren't 100% accurate.

UofMFaninDC

September 30th, 2010 at 8:57 AM ^

Alright now, you can stop feeling like a badass because of your points. The only thing your points mean is you have way to much time to comment on this board.....Just because a guy gets drafted early doesnt mean he's a top notch player. The leagues full of All-Pros who either went undrafted or drafted low.  Lewan might have been a bad example, but who expected this kid to really bulk up and lock down the left tackle spot as a red shirt freshman.  

wolverine1987

September 30th, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^

it's just a fact that you are wrong. Do a search on the board for this subject. Ratings are proven in multiple studies linked to on the board over time to be generally (meaning that while they are many examples where they were poor predictors, the majority of time they are good predictors) accurate. In the NFL, being drafted #1 improves the likelihood that a player will be an all-pro, but guarantees nothing.

BTW, everyone that followed Lewan's recruiting closely in fact did think he had the potential to start early in his career. You don't have to be a badass like myself to know that.

Michigan Shirt

September 30th, 2010 at 10:19 AM ^

How was what I said wrong? I am pretty sure that I was agreeing with you. Stars are not worthless, they are a great indicator of the talent the player has coming out of High School. It's just that there are 5* busts (Kevin Grady) and un-ranked walk-on players that turn out great and start in the NFL (Jim Leonhard for Wisconsin/Jets). I am not disagreeing with you that there is a higher chance a 5* makes it to the NFL, just that its not the be-all end-all of recruiting. So please tell me again the facts that make me wrong.

ImSoBlue

September 30th, 2010 at 8:57 AM ^

Typically very few OLs can start as freshman, so there is a lot more development once they get into a program.

Star rankings are better predictors of other positions.

icefins26

September 30th, 2010 at 9:26 AM ^

I'm not going to neg this guy -- I don't think he's trying to convey what he's trying to say in the right way.  I think he means that Rivals won't rank them because Rivals themselves didn't have them highly rated through their site (and this will make them look bad with their scouting/projections).  I could be wrong but I think that is what he is trying to get at.