Just a thought on rankings by stars
With the recent commitments of Winovich and Furbush, I could not help but wonder why both were rated 3 stars only(although Winovich was quickly granted another after verbaling to M) when their tape clearly indicates both are worthy of a higher ranking. ^(why can't I get a paragraph break?) Furbush comes for a school roughly the same size as Mike Hart, who after committing to UM got a fourth star, but as a cb. Winovich, who I said yesterday, could be mistaken for Noah if they were to exchange uniforms comes from a school twice as large as Noah's and this might be the reason certain ranking gurus were quick to assign him another star. ^ I am not about to get into the discussion of whether or not stars really are an indicator because there has been too much evidence indicating they are, but then again the highest rated players tend to commit to the same institutions, almost guaranteeing a high level of success for those tradition rich schools. ^My only point here is that if a mere former h.s. fb coach can watch Big Will's tape and conclude he was nowhere near playing at a 5* level,then it's just as easy to conclude these two latest demonstrate equal talent to other players holding that extra star. ^Point being, trust yourself when watching their tapes and, if like Jake Ryan before them-who was always making plays on tape- or Big Will, doing just the opposite, it's ok to go with what your eyes process than what you read, normally by paying for that luxury as well.
...when their tape clearly indicates both are worthy of a higher rankingI'd say that's an opinion at best
and I think I'm a nice guy but thanks for the feedback
wow - that IS a small school... Mike Hart is like 5'8" 200lbs...!
Mike Hart High had a graduating class size of one.
WHAT IS THIS A SCHOOL FOR ANTS?!?!?!
Then you, sir, would be +6.
but then again, I am all about content. Just wtf is yours? Or,as you would probably prefer, "Dewd, the Kat ran a 5.0 and hopped three monkeys and a fucking donut............all with a baconed up hammy." Kewwwwwwwwl chittttttttttt, maaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!
What is it about three stars that force the board to repeatedly and unnecessarily justify the coaches' decision to accept their commitments?
Nothing else going on for the diehard CFB fan, so lets look for something to discuss??? I find the "3 star freak-out" to be an especially annoying occurence this year, given the fact that nearly everyone in the class is a 4 star or higher across the board. If the entire class consists of 3 star "who is this guy" types then maybe we have a good discussion thread. Otherwise, lets relax and light us some fireworks.
Amen.
The worship of the star system is beyond annoying. Throw all the 3 and 4 stars together in a bucket and shake it up - the same amount will be studs and busts.
Only exception is 5 stars which usually have a floor of "average football player". 3s and 4s can be total busts or superstars. Why people stress about it or take it as gospel is beyond me. Just imagine this discussion with Jake Ryan 3 years ago.
What is it that you want to discuss? (second time in as many days I find myself asking this...)
So, with 3 stars we should 'trust our own judgement' but the recruiting services got the 4 and 5 stars ranked correctly.
Oh brother, the logic issues with this...
ESPN is the best service this year because they rank UM's class the highest.
Part of it has to do with how much a recruit gets seen by talent evaluator's at camps. A lot of times when a guy is a 3 star, it's not because scouts took a good, long look at him and determined he should be rated 3-stars. Rather, it's because they have not had an opportunity to confirm for themselves whether the player warrants an elevated ranking.
I don't know about the rest of you, but when I'd watch the film on many of the 3-star guys RR recruited, I was left thinking "I'm not so sure this guy can pla in the Big Ten". I don't find myself saying that with most of Hoke's 3-star recruits. I watch film on guys like Bunting, Winovich, Wys, and Furbush and find myself saying "Wow. This guy can play."
This is the definition of a 3 star according to rivals:
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
The truth of the matter is that most rosters are filled by guys who are 3 stars.
It's an inexact science. If a player doesn't do camps and you don't have a whole lot of film, you're not going to rate him very high. I think Ben Gedeon was massively underrated due to these factors, and guess what, I think he didn't care. Good for him. He knew where he wanted to go and that was that. So don't expect the coaches or the recruiting services to know everything, because they don't have all the information they need.
What's more, even if they did have all the info, they still are going to whiff. Players grow. They develop. Sometimes they fulfill their potential, sometimes they don't. Trust the film you say? Go back and watch Kevin Grady's film. He was supposed to rule CFB.
My point is, you are basically guessing what they are going to turn into in a few years based on incomplete information. Coaches are in the best position to make that guess. We, as fans, are in the worst position. Doesn't mean coaches are always going to be right and we'll be wrong, but PLEASE STOP PUTTING TOO MUCH WEIGHT ON STARS, OK?
Get a computer that works and I'll think about it.
I think Mike Hart remained a 3* RB to the major recruiting sites (Rivals and Scout). ESPN was the lone outlier that had him a top 100 overall prospect at cb, but they didn't give out star ratings back then. I don't think he actually got a bump by committing to Michigan. I actually don't think many players get bumps by committing to Michigan. They might get evaluated if they previously were not and therefore might get their first actual rating, but I don't remember many cases of a prospect getting a bump simply from committing to Michigan.
I'm curious...how many HS highlight tapes do you review to have come across this beauty?
This was on SBNation and posted on almost all college football blogs.
Thank you for making this thread worth my time.
Sidenote: my little brother went to this high school. The soundtrack is perfect for the rich white-boy MBA. Yes, I know Blake Bars went here, but it is definitely Momma's Boys Academy
Pretend there are no stars. Prior to 2000 or whenever, there really weren't stars. Stars don't measure who is going to work hard, who will and won't get injured, who will pick up a scheme more quickly, or who is going to be a No. 1 pick.
For perspective, Kyle Wright was Rival's No. 1 QB in 2003. That same year, Matt Ryan was the No. 25 QB with three stars and Joe Flacco was No. 39.
Jebus, the 3* mafia is back out in full force!
Rankings mean something in general terms; if you are a 5*, you have something rare (size, speed, agility, strength, inteilligence, etc.) that makes you stand out to a number of people. If you are a 3*, the consensus is that you are a solid but unspectacular recruit based on the evidence available. Now, what you do going forward, the successes and failures, will be governed by how you play, the situation, your innate ability, and a myriad of other factors that might be impossible to quantify.
Recruiters will make mistakes, and guys will be missed who turn out to be stars and prime recruits will flame out. But for every Mike Hart or Will Campbell, there are lots of kids who don't exceed their rankings and perform as expected. If UM was pulling in MSU's class, then I'd be surprised if they won more than half their games in a year. I'm sure a couple of those MSU kids will surprise people, but in totality star rankiings give you a fairly objective for measuring players at a position. I hope the most recent UM recruits are successful, but if a 3* kid becomes a starter as an upperclassman but doesn't blow up, I'm not going to be surprised.
that might know a little bit about fb in the first place. If you can't tell if a kid is strong or can run by watching his tape, if he has superior instincts - and we're not talking highlight film here- then you should trust only the rankings. I'm just very, very glad our coaches trust themselves instead of waiting for the top 250 to be released before they start offering.
HS performances, even films of years or entire HS careers, can be pretty subjective. Remember you're seeing highlights, not every snap of every game. You have to keep a lot of things in mind like the level of competition and the position as used by that coach and team (ie blocking schemes and offensive/defensive sets. Drawing the line between grooming for their college desire vs "you're a body and I want you to stand there and rush the QB every play" types of coaching).
I'm praying our kids get more stars cause they means they are better at football!