Recruiting star ratings for 2017 NFL Draftees
Based on 247 Composite rankings:
| 5* | 23 | 72% |
| 4* | 76 | 25% |
| 3* | 90 | 8% |
| 2* | 26 | 1% |
| NR | 38 | <1% |
So this proves that 3* are better than 5* (90 vs. 23) /s
I put the % of players from each star group that got drafted (each year there are approx 32 with a 5* rating - 23/32 = 72%). Basically, the results show that the recruiting services do a pretty decent job in evaluating kids coming out of high school.
By state:
| GA | 27 |
| FL | 26 |
| CA | 25 |
| TX | 24 |
| OH | 16 |
| LA | 15 |
| PA | 10 |
This is pretty much chalk when compared to population of football players in each state, although it is amazing that Georgia is ahead of much larger good weather states like FL, CA and TX. You can bet this is why our staff is spending so much time and resources down in Georgia (and getting results!).
Ohio at 5th validates why Michigan has such a a hard time beating Ohio State in the recuriting rankings: they are the only P5 team in Ohio while we share a less "bountiful" state with MSU; thus, we would have to overwhelming beat them getting national recruits which is nearly impossible with Urban at the helm.
I see the poor placement of your "/s" as being a problem. You may want to draw more attention to it.
I'm sure everyone gets the sarcasm, but yeah making sure the /s is on the same line wouldn't hurt.
I was on the phone with Delta airlines trying to figure out some flight stuff and I completely missed it when I skimmed through it before so I thought I'd make the suggestion. I could have sworn it initially said 5* are better than 3* too but that just goes to show my mind was apparently all over the darn place. Def appreciated his breakdown though.
The next paragraph should make the sarcasm pretty obvious but let's not take any chances.
I swear to God, the first person that comes in here and says, "BUT LOOK, more 3* were drafted than 4* or 5*, and therefore, stars don't matter!!!!" should get punched in the throat...
I don't see why people deserve to be punched in the throat just because they got a degree in statistics from Michigan State.
You are dangerously close to a throat punch here, sir...
If you are rated 5 star, the chances that you will play in the NFL (and start in college) and WAY higher than if you are rated 3 star. #fact
Jonny didn't get the Hintz...
I swear to God, I'll pistol whip the next guy who says 'Shenanigans'
I call shenanigans on your pistol-whipping threat.
hey Farva! What's the name of that place out on Rt 9 with the burgers you like?
I think those that tell us we will find more Mexicans in Mexio than in Canada should probably be fucked in the anal cavitry rather than punched in the throat but my tolerance for fools funs low, sir.
Really puts things into prospective and fends off the star haters
I couldn't find it with a quick google search but I am sure I have seen it before. I would be interested to see if these numbers are basically constant or if there are some significant fluctuations from year to year.
Think about it. This would be the best school, from a Michigan fan's perspective, to join the Big Ten.
Replace Rutgers.
Think about the Michigan-MSU comparison. Michigan usually has a strangehold on the top players in state (at least in relation to MSU). It took Michigan being in their worst state in 50 years at the same time as MSU being in their best state in 50 years, for MSU to basically come out with a draw against Michigan in-state. I mean, MSU made the CFP and their recruiting profile nationally barely moved.
Adding Ohio U or Cincinnati to the Big Ten would still see OSU take anyone they want in state
... but over time I do think it would make a difference.
Sometimes games, and seasons, are decided by the smallest of margins. Take this past season for example. If we had done just a hair better in recruiting a few years ago (when MSU was taking at least a couple recruits away from UM), maybe those players would've made an ever so slight difference today for UM? Also, you have to think about the wins that those players would've generated that would result in even better recruiting, which leads to more wins, etc.
This is all just a big "what if" game, of course, but I do think having OSU compete with Ohio would result in actual benefit for Michigan. Ohio would get stomped year after year... at first. But after a while they would probably reach a steady-state equivalent to what MSU is in Michigan today. And that would certainly impact OSU a little bit. Maybe enough to change the result of a couple of inches on one play.
But what the recruiting results don't show is how much effort UM had to put into getting those recruits to come (or flip) to UM after considering MSU. That's time UM could've spent elsewhere.
I just think having Ohio (or Toledo, or Cincy) becoming more prominent in Ohio would add a little bit of extra pressure for OSU in the long term. Enough so that they have to worry about a) their own little brother and b) having to fight for the occasional good recruit whose Dad went to school at Ohio/Toledo/Cincy.
Also, don't discount an annual rivalry where little brother has nothing to lose and everything to prove by beating big brother. Ohio/Toledo/Cincy would certainly have the OSU game circled every year and throw the kitchen sink at the Buckeyes. I'd wager even at the beginning of joining the B1G they'd win one out of their first four tries.
I dont know about that, if Cincinnati.... sometimes its hip to be the blacksheep or underdog or whatever, and I do think it would negatively effect OSU, as much as MSU to M. Think about playing time, too... they could get alot of players who wanna play at home but don't want to sit behind a few five stars ahead of them.
We lost a few to MSU... notably Gholston, McDowell, Reschke...
Granted this would require Cinci having at least moderate winning success.
Yes, we've lost a very small handful to MSU over the years. Meanwhile, think of all the top Michigan kids we've signed in the last decade. Those are all MSU losses. And in that example, MSU is an established power 5 program. The cavern between OSU and Cincinnati is even wider. Cincinnati would get some 4* guys here and there, but as noted above, OSU will just get an equivalent guy elsewhere
Look!. More 3 stars got drafted than 5 Stars. Starz don't matter and this proveughhhhhhhhhshghj (gasps for air).
I m sure u were being sarcastice so no harm done. If 10 players are beig drafted today, no more, no less. Of those 10 7 are 4 star, 3 are 3 star. That should help those trying to figure our y more of a certain star getdrafted. There are more of them. Less 2 *s actually than 5s, more 3*s because more high quality, non greats that r found from that much smaller pile.
and there are only a handlful of coaches, and its not shared by the entire fan base, who don't get bitched out when they offer a 3* insstead of a 4 or 5 at the same position. I offer, for example, our latest RB from GA, by the name of Christian Turner. He is only listed at about the number 587 player in the nation so its not like he's on the orer between 3 and 4 star territory by the gurus. However, Harbaugh sees something he really likes in this youg man - and this is one of the things that really piss me off about certain fans. If Harbaugh wanted a 4* RB instead of this youg man, he'd have him. Some think we were forced to take a player while OSU just signed someone at the same position who happens to be a 4*, proof they are kicking Harbaugh's ass in recruiting,
Hell if he wanted to please fans like this instead of buildiing the football team he wants he'd sign nothing lower than 4* s to keep you assholes happy. But he wants to contend for NCs and he'll put a team on the field he wants. Regardless of hiim, Meyer, Saban and a handful of others not picking a player solely on what they see, they end up in the top 5 recruiting classes every year s this proves the gurus do a damn good job of ranking the players correctly and you really have to give certain coaches breaks bcause they earn it.
Is this a new form of statistics???? Your statement and your conclusion directlly oppose each other.
There are only 32 each year and 23 got drafted - many of them as underclassmen in the 1st round. Throw in the fact that past years have shown a similar trend and that is an amazing correlation, not statistical fluke.
The reason that it is confusing is that there are posts in this thread showing that former 5* players are drafted at an overwhelmingly disproportionate rate over the past 7 years with the hit rate increasing over time (presumably as the rating agencies have improved their methodologies). So the previous questioning was based on the assumption that you had seen that.
On top of that, my post clarified that 4 of the first 8 picks this year were 5* and at least 6 in the first round (only using high profile names - so probably more) this year were 5*.
Not sure what you need or what you are looking for. Rating systems are not perfect and there are lots of overlooked gems out there (especially for a good coaching staff to develop) but overall, there is a strong statistically significant correlation between stars and success.
Uhhh are you being serious?
I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.
I'd still rather have 5*'s on the roster.
5 stars go to programs that do a pretty good job of developing kids. Very few 3 stars end up at top 10-15 programs that really develop kids. Would be interesting to see what percentage of 3 star kids that go to Alabama's and OSU's of the world are selected in the draft.
as it relates to the stars i would imagine there are any number of cross over classes included unless you somehow were able to filter that out. by that i mean for example, you might have had 23 five star kids drafted, but 17 were from the class of '17, 4 from '18, etc.
does that then change how dramatic the numbers appear in statistical form?