Clearly this proves 2 stars are just as good as 5 stars!
chance of bowl: 13.6%
Clearly this proves 2 stars are just as good as 5 stars!
Problem is, teams draft upon need/value not who they think is the best.
I don't think I would agree with that, if you have a large enough sample size. In this case, the entire first round is the sample size. Maybe the top three teams don't need a safety, but some pick in the first round will be a safety and that would be assumed to be the best safety in the draft.
The first team isn't going to draft the 4th or 5th best safety first, they will take (who they think is) the best safety first.
If you could magically take all of them fit them on one roster and somehow develop ALL two star players yes, they would be equal to or more valuable than the small group of five star players.
The fact is you have 85 guys on a roster and you have to take the players most likely to develop into being good-great players. You don't do that filling the roster with two-star kids. If you want the hgihest likelyhood of success you take the players with the highest ranking because they have best chance of being successful. Now, there are exceptions to that rule and there's "fit" with different systems and so on but as a general rule...
No offense intended--It's probability, stupid.
In which case you would find out that the collegiate team an athlete plays for has more to do with the probability of their draft status than does what their high-school star-ranking was. Consider that stars reflect which teams an athlete goes to, rather than their actual talent (i.e. athletes being considered by Alabama are given more stars than athletes being considered by Utah... but Utah took its conglomeration of 2- and 3-stars and beat the crap out of Alabama's 4- and 5-stars the year before Alabama won a NC.)
In fact, on teams with zero to two 5-stars taken over a 4-year recruiting cycle, the teams' 2- 3- and 4-star athletes behave almost identically in terms of eventual draft-status.
On teams with at least four 5-stars taken over a 4-year recruiting cycle, their 4-stars begin to pull away from the 3-stars on the team... 5-stars seem to act as a social catalyst, with more effect on their 4-star teammates than the 3-stars.
If you would like to put numbers to your argument of "probability," please check out my diary post:
"it looks like rivals finds the teams that have won the most of late and finds out who that coach is recruiting and which players he thinks are better than others. cross list a number of coaches and you start to come up with relevant national rankings. but it's pretty obvious that they have a limited network that isn't actually available to evaluate the entirety of relevant players other than through inference.
if i'm right, it suggests that we can probably infer what the Rivals rankings will look like based on offers and past team winning percentage. for instance, teams that come out of nowhere and start winning a lot of games like Boise and TCU will eventually see their recruits rated better even if they aren't outcompeting national powers for recruits.
this would also mean that Rivals/Scout are merely reporting services and not doing any value added scouting of their own...
...i think they probably have what they think are
independent evaluations. they just don't add any value. it's way more important that he knows what the million dollar coach thinks. and i assume these guys are not so full of themselves to think they know more than the coaches. in fact, i'm pretty sure they fawn over/are in awe of the coaches.
so we should expect to see a bias based on the degree of access. the farther from the network, the farther from being highly rated.
the question left is predictive power at the highest levels. there are a lot of various factors there and since they are successful in the extreme, it becomes difficult to pick out what exactly they're good at that makes the difference. i also wonder if the best coaches are the most sophisticated when it comes to dealing with the recruiting services. so they may be distorting their signal to some degree as well."
I'm confused what point are you trying to make...
I really hope it's not "look as many 2 stars were drafted as 5 stars". Because if we assume that this is all from one year then there are something like 30 five stars... like 100 4 stars.. 200 5 stars and 500 2 stars...
percentage wise it would be something like:
5 star: 17%
4 star: 15%
3 star: 3.5%
2 star: 1%
(All numbers are guesses but the percentages are roughly right, you can look back on a previous diary as to draft percentages)
You don't have to be a 4 or 5 star to be a first round pick in the draft.
But your odds are better...
that a 5 star is more likely to make the NFL than a 3 star. I get bouje's point. I just think the breakdown is interesting and appreciate the OP for taking the time to figure it out.
Rivals must have changed these rankings after the players signed. I distinctly remember Tebow being a 4* and about #90 overall when he signed his Florida LOI. Locker was always the higher prospect than Tebow, but now that I look at the rankings for the first time in a couple of years, he is lower than "golden boy" Tebow.
That tebow was always a 5* prospect and #1 dual threat qb throughout the year.
Tebow was a five star when recruited, at least per Rivals. The historical data is still on their website. What I pasted below came directly from Rivals - Florida - 2006
Ponte Vedra Beach, FL
Recruited him but then realized that he was a dual threat qb and thus would never come to Michigan. Plus Michigan only recruited a high profile qb once every 3 years under Lloyd carr so since we had henne it wasn't time yet.
Rivals has been known to change the historical rankings after the fact for certain players. They used to do it all the time with lower ranked Michigan guys.
I know for a fact Tebow was not originally a 5* player on Rivals.
Are you saying that Rivals changes rankings after national signing day? I appreciate that rankings change over the course of the player's senior year of HS, but I never realized they would change rankings after a player goes to college.
This shows with the right coaching and the right amount of work guys with any stars can make it into the NFL. Take that Rivals.
The bigger problem is that of all those players with the different star rankings, we still only got one.
5 star, 2 star, you still have to be right sbout them. And as Bouje's rough percentages show, which is easier or more likely?
Recruiting rankings are not equal to NFL draftability. NFL prospects play into the stars, but they mostly project success IN COLLEGE. Tebow is the exception that proves the rule. 5*, great player in college, not very good for NFL game. He would not have gone in the first round if he wasn't Tebow.
Troy Smith is another example. 4*, Heisman trophy winner, ended up going in like the 6th round. His talents, that earned him the stars and success in college, aren't as valued in the pros.
Breaking it down by position would be more useful. The difference between spread/running QBs and pro-style is most pronounced. Stars probably translate best to draft for the most purely athletic positions, like DB and WR.