On star gazing
The common theme in the past year or so worth of "hello" posts on the front page is the lackluster state of recruiting services. First there was scout/247 consolidation, and then it seemed rivals only scouted rivals camps, and then ESPN fired everyone except Sports Center anchors and Stephen A. Smith. Given all of that, it seems that stargazing is less informative than it was before. I'll quantifying this below.
While it's true that the top talent is still scouted and ranked highly by everyone (as in the top 50 or so), the recruits in the 3.5-4 star range are sometimes barely even scouted by all services, and thus the 247 composite is a lot less informative. You get a sqrt(n) improvement in measurement error for n times more measurements, so if you only have one legitimate scouting measurement of a given recruit instead of four in years past, the predictive power of the composite decreases by a factor of two. That is, a recruit with a composite rating of the 150th best recruit may truly be between 100-200 in the past with four services, but now there is no way to tell if he's between 50-250 if only a single site gave a thorough eval. If two sites have legit evaluations, then the predictive power of the composite is sqrt(4/2) ~ 1.4 times or 40% less informative. Finally, even if all three have legit evals it's still sqrt(4/3) ~ 1.15 or 15% less informative.
It's clear that stargazing is less informative than it used to be. Even a consensus #1 is 15% less certain than it was in the past due to an additional missing independent measurement. It'll be nice to see this in the data in the next few years, but put me on the record predicting starz to correlate with college success and NFL draft stock less than it used to.
I agree. A guy's offer list-- and the recency of those offers-- is telling when it comes to a recruit. Only problem with using offers is that distinctions aren't made between 'committable' offers and non-committable offers.
Light pollution ruined my stargazing.
Now y'all get yours.
Burn it all! Damn you all to hell! Aaahahahaha!
I am hearing that Inn Don Brown’s voice and getting fired up.
There has to be a better way of identifying the talent based off if offers. The coaches offer the kids that they have seen and scouted, fit a role in their team and are talented. If someone could come up with some sort of algorithm that identifies who has offered a kid and how many offers they have, dump it into an formula and see where the kid falls in a 5 point scale, you would have a bit more of a relaible metric. Someone like this George Johnson III May very well end up being much higher rated due to him outstanding offer sheet which does not seem to equate to his star status.
Seems reasonable, until you realize that the kid reports his offers. I mean, if I were still in high school, I could say Bama, UGA, FSU, TAMU, OSU, UM, and UW all offered me. And there is no way to dispute me. Yeah, truth would come out, but when?
Maybe if someone developed a mandatory offer clearing house, where schools would have to funnel offers through on the way to the kid, you'd be able to have a stable list. That would make for some pretty interesting situations...
The problem with ranking off of offers is that some offers aren't all the same. Some offers aren't commitable. Some offers are to players that are their back up options
This is a fun thread!
I've tended to put more emphasis on what the coaching staff says about a player, rather than some national recruiting analyst that saw a kid - once - at a camp. For all the hand-wringing about no-starz, or 3-starz, or ranked near 1000, or whatever, there are players like Chris Evans. He was a satellite camp pull from Nowhere, IN. He had no ranking to brag about when we all asked who the hell he was, and why Harbaugh was so happy to take him, after one camp experience.
Pretty much the same experience with Karan Higdon - we all wondered who the hell he was, and why Harbaugh would take him out of nowhere at the expense of Mike Weber. We get it now, though...
Khaleke was a non-descript 3-star, until he committed. Rankings are a great indicator of talent, but they are not the be-all, end-all as a discriminator. I'll continue to trust Harbaugh's evaluations until his proven positive track record turns negative.
Lets not be hyperbolic... while all three of those guys were 3* - all were ranked better than #500, and all had pretty good D1 offer lists.
Higdon was committed to Iowa before we grabbed him, and Hudson was committed to Penn. St. before we grabbed him.
Chris Evans -
3*
#383 in country/#9 All Purpose Back
offers from: Purdue, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Minnesota, Ohio State
Karan Higdon -
3*
#484 in country/#40 RB
offers from: Arizona, Arkansas, Duke, FAU, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Tennessee
Khaleke Hudson -
3*
#386 in country/#20 Safety
offers from: Penn. St., Pitt, UCLA, Va. Tech, Boston College, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan State, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Carolina, Rutgers, West Virginia, Wisconsin
I think a lot of those better offers came after Michigans with the exception of Hudson and psu. A snapshot in time when Michigan offered would be a more appropriate comparison.
Well... Higdon was committed to Iowa before Michigan, and Hudson was committed to PSU before Michigan.
Evans had Illinois, Purdue, and Michigan State offers before committing to Michigan.
Higdon had Wake Forest, USF, Iowa, Arkansas, Duke, and Nevada offers before committing to Michigan.
Hudson had West Virginia, Pitt, Temple, Penn. St., Michigan State, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Nebraska offers before committing to Michigan.
Not sure why you got downvoted on that opinion (maybe by someone who pays for the service), but it's clear Harbaugh has made player evaluation a priority so I think we'll continue to see offers to players outside of the top 300. Harbaugh and his staff know what they're looking for and those beholden to the recruit services will continue to grouse about it.
I just downvoted you for breaking the golden rule!
love you,
jdon
The problem with this line of thinking is that people discount when a guy wasn't the staffs top choice and still claim they trust the staff. Look at TE. The staff wanted Luke Deal, they didn't get him and that is when they went after All. They don't think he is the top TE in the country either but when you read comments on here its all "trust the staff he must be a great player". Sometimes players are second and third choices for the coaching staff too, and if you trust the coaching staff so much then you should trust their is a reason these guys were their third choices, and its probably for similar reasons these guys are 3 stars and not 4 or 5 stars.
Being second or third choice isn't as damning as you make it seem. That's the problem. Having to move down your board doesnt = player sucks.
Yeah, once they fall out of the top 50, it's all about the offer sheet. Even if the guy is a 3 star, if Bama, Georgia, LSU, and Ohio State all offered a kid and he picks us, I consider it a big win.
I don't think that the negative reaction across some members of the board to three stars is necessarily related to the fact that they don't like 3 stars per se as much as taking 3 stars shows that we are missing out on our top targets -- Lance Dixon, Logan Brown, Devontae Dobbs, etc. - and would rather not have to move on to Plan B in so many cases.
That being said, I personally trust the coaches and wish all of the young men they see fit to award a scholarship to the best of success.
I essentially agree, though for all intensive purposes, our coaching staff reportedly didn't pursue Dobbs.
Stars matter in general, but sometimes they don’t matter. Dobbs is a 5 star, but he’s fat and out of shape and slow and we didn’t want him.... in that case Msu getting a 5 star and us not getting one basically means nothing.
Watch his highlights LINK. I am not impressed with Dobbs at all.
Exactly. He does not look like a dude who would play over our current commits.
This post combines two of my favorite things...UM recruiting & math. I am so enjoying it!!
Continue on, gentlemen...
When you combine the fact that I actually recruited for Michigan pre-star rating days (92-94) here in Northern Ohio with the input/ideas from the board in general on recruiting over the past 8+ years I can safely say the following is true:
1. Highly rated player selects Michigan = ratings matter, what a great get for the program
2. Highly rated player considers Michigan but chooses another school instead = ratings dont matter, trust the coaches
Go back and read the comments here after Derrick Green, Rashan Gary and Jabrill Peppers committed and then compare them to the comments made when a random 3 star commits with no other significant offers. It happens here with every head coach and every player and is as dependable as the sun rising.
Someone asked yesterday why we include ESPN if their ratings suck. We include them because Mazi Smith is [26] in their rankings. You always take the top ranking from any service when considering how happy you are about a player unless they aren't ranked well.
I'm excited about Charbonnet from what Jamie Morris and others have said, but in this day and age can a player really be like Shaq in the movie Blue Chips, a virtual unknown? It seems unlikely given the size of his HS, but if the recruiting sites are giving up it is possible.
You are correct except that it is true for every program not just Michigan.
Also we consistently make fun of michigan state for not turning their success into better recruiting outcomes and would laugh at them for getting a guy ranked outside the top 500.
AK47 finally admitting he is a SpartyTroll. I have never heard of rational poster "making fun" of MSU for recruiting outcomes but that sounds exactly what a Sparty would say in response to a random comment on Twitter.
MSU success over the past 10 years is confirmation that you cannot simply look at recruiting rankings to judge players. You have to look at the player's skills, fit in the system and potential for development.
Funny enough, Michigan basketball also confirms this but you don't see the Star Gazers / douchebags reference Beilein anymore. I can't believe that folks still defend the resident douchebag on this very site after his multi-year rants about Beilein recruiting - but memories are short these days.
ak47 has been trolling since back in the fire Beilein days and it’s always pro-MSU.
Lol at being pro MSU. My entire point is that I don't want to be MSU because I want us to do better than a ceiling of getting blasted bama, getting lucky to squeak by more talented team. There is a reason Michigan has better title odds than MSU this year, that most of this fanbase expects to beat them at their place despite the fact that they beat us last year and bring back more returning production and its because everybody knows they have a hard ceiling on their program. Emulating MSU or Wisconsin might be a nice way to win a big ten title or two over a decade but if we want to get to the point where we could expect to go 5-5 or 6-4 against osu over a 10 year period and win a national championship and be in the conversation multiple years we need to recruit like osu, bama, clemson, georgia.
Sure its unrealistic and not a level of success Michigan has ever truly had but we spend money like it is and as a blue blood its the ultimate goal. That's what people don't get, I'm not pro msu, I'm the Michigan fan every msu fan complains about for being arrogant and thinking we are better than them and that is what I expect out of Harbaugh and this program. I'm also willing to call it out when they aren't meeting those expectations. Doesn't mean I want him fired or think a better candidate is out there but we fucked up the last year coaching and recruiting wise and need a bounce back this year.
You’re definitely not a Michigan fan. The backhanded insults are the giveaway. “Everyone is confident ‘we’ will beat MSU at their place this year....despite them beating us last year and having more returning players and having more talent and being better coached and blah blah.” “I want us to consistently beat OSU and recruit like Bama and Georgia and Clemson......even though I know it’s unrealistic and they are so much better and we’ve never done that historically and we spend money like a blue blood but we suck too much to be a blue blood and blah blah blah.” You just can’t resist showing that troll in almost every post. It’s pretty easy to pick out as you follow every positive with something doom and gloom concern troll. It’s very Maizen/Bluey if you. “I’m not calling for Harbaugh to be fired, but he sucked last year and his recruiting sucked and everything sucked, so I’m totally rooting for a bounce back year (did I convince anyone?).”
Also, lol at you being the Michigan fan MSU fans hate for being arrogant. You sum up their points on why Dantonio is awesome and Harbaugh sucks so well, you are their mouthpiece. They don’t hate you-you are them
So did you get fired in 1994 for following recruiting rankings instead of doing your own evaluations?
1. I was a volunteer
2. There were no recruiting rankings to follow back then
3. I left because the recruiting coordinator at the time, Bob Chmiel left Michigan to go to Notre Dame. Chmiel was a friend of the family and the new recruiting coordinator had their own people he wanted to use.
Look I get that some people, in the face of overwhelming statistical evidence to the contrary, want to believe that star ratings dont matter. Some people believe the earth is flat too.
I was just being a d!ck - you have to know my humor, I make fun of myself the most. You seem like a decent and reasonable guy with good football knowledge. Although you lose some credibility when you defend the trolls on the board.
I would never say that higher ranked guys don’t have a better chance to be productive players but people are confusing causation with correlation.
The ratings work out to the extent they match the opinions of the various coaching staffs (which they normally do - not hard to figure out that the biggest, fastest and strongest HS players will have a good chance to be successful).
The opinions of a $30k per year recruiting analyst mean nothing in and of themselves. If these guys could, on their own, accurately project the performance of players beyond on the obvious top flight guys - they would be on coaching staffs.
I would love for some douchebag to ask Harbaugh or Dantonio about Khaleke Hudson’s or Joe Bachie’s recruiting rankings.
Actually go back and read my comments and I have welcomed all the players that have joined the team the EXACT same way; from Rashan to PWO!
I don't have numbers on this per se, but it seems like stars and NFL success have been somewhat decoupled for quite a bit now. When you look at the teams that make their living between, say, the third and fifth rounds of the NFL Draft, how generally unheralded those players are and were, and how well some of those same NFL teams do, the difference in what constitutes a good college player and a good NFL player becomes apparent.
The numbers that exist actually dispute this. In last years super bowl 39% of the starters were ranked at least 4 stars, or 2 out of every five players. Considering 1 out every 770 players is the rate of 4 or 5 stars it shows 4 and 5 stars are much more likely to be playing in the nfl. Just like they are much more likely to get drafted and get drafted in higher rounds. https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2018/1/23/16920720…
Just like no team in college has ever won a national championship when at least over 50% of their roster wasn't at least 4 or 5 star recruits and had multiple years recruiting in the top 10 previous 4 years of the championship. This thread is a cute way to try to justify the average star rating of this class but literally all available evidence shows that final recruiting rankings matter. Teams with higher ranked guys win more and those guys perform better. It is what it is, star gazing is an accurate predictor, it doesn't mean a 5 star is guaranteed to be good or a 3 star can't be the best player in college football but it does mean over an 85 man roster if you are counting on more 3 stars to blossom than 4 or 5 stars you aren't winning a championship.
The problem with this line of thought is that the offers and where the kids end up committing influence the star rating given to the kids. How many of these three-stars that just committed to UM will get a "bump" because they are now more on the radar? This even extends to the NFL, where they are much more likely to scout (and eventually draft) a power five game/kid than a group of five game/kid.
Wish I could edit-
But to make the point a little clearer, a 4-star shouldn't be a 4-star because UM took his commitment and the same kid would be a 3-star if he went somewhere else.
or should it?
I hear what you are saying, but I also think the recruiting sites should respect which university actually admits the player.
thanks,
jdon
I don't think you have to justify this current class. As predicted in an exchange with Bluey last week, this class is trending to be at the same quality as the 2016 class which even Bluey admitted was a great class.
Even more interesting, if Ace/Brian are correct, there are a few 3 star rated recruits who could be moving to 4 start status. If that happens, then this class trends closer towards the 2017 class which has been the best in the Harbaugh era.
Bottom line, this is a good class. I really don't care about Dobbs, Dixon, and Brown. If they were from out of state would anyone even care? Fans should want the best players that fit Michigan's system and culture. If they come from Michigan or Ohio, that is a bonus.
Does anyone think Alabama fans are concerned Tua Tagovailoa comes from Hawaii and he may not fully understand the importance of the Iron Bowl? Do Alabama fans secretly hope Brian Robinson a 4* RB from Alabama is a better RB than Najee Harris the 5* recruit because he comes from California?
It's interesting because UM's struggles (late Carr on) was occurring at the same time as the rise of the internet availability, smart phones, social media, & internet recruiting services (and us following them). Coincidentally this is also the era I grew up in as I'm 39 years old. Folks under 30 may think I'm nuts if they can't remember life without internet and a cell phone. I long thought this "new" phenomenon was bad for UM, but it's hard to separate the coaching inconsistency (and shittyness at times) from the recruiting as there have been great recruiting years mixed in with poor (for UM's standards) ones. I'm not totally sure why some of recruiting services are falling off (rise of free recruiting info like this blog?), but I feel like it will be good for UM. I don't think it will ever go back to the way it was, but I think less information is better for the blue bloods, particularly in out of region recruiting where it's likely a UM or a Bama would have a larger reach than say an MSU or an Ole Miss. I've always thought this, but now there is at least some chance to test this theory.
The OP makes sense. Any data/evaluation increases the likelihood that the players star rating is accurate. The difference is that the coaches are actually coaches and are evaluating the player's tape in detail and are evaluating the player in person, in detail. The coaches take on the player's worth are much more important than the recruiting services. That said, the top [50] guys who everyone in the world has evaluated are much more likely to be successful because of the preponderance of data.
Last point: Does the accuracy of star ratings, even in the top 50, vary greater by position? Seems like OL would be harder to evaluate based on the guys needing to put on 20-50 pounds of muscle. QBs would seem to be more accurate because of all of the camps, but getting hit by 300 pound guys is an X factor.
While I certainly appreciate your opinion the bottom line is that this is a very intelligent sounding way of spinning the old homer line of “don’t worry about lower ranked commitments”.
Alabama had 18 former 5 star recruits and Georgia had 11 in last seasons title game. I trust our talent evaluators but there is no way of getting around the fact that sustained elite success is based on having better players and better coaches than the other team.
But how much of that is the fact that the southern recruiting base tends to get more five stars than the Midwest, even accounting for the greater amount of talent in the south? It is disproportionate.
I'm excited for the players coming in. If the coaches see a player and offer them, they have the trained eye to evaluate talent. Harbaugh and his staff make their bread off this so I am happy!
tl;dr
starz matter. Who wins national championships? I didn't read OP but I can guess what he said and these takes are hilarious.
Its been proven time and again on this blog that stars matter.
The OP is not saying stars don't matter. He's saying the quality of the ranking systems is changing so in the near future stars may be more variable as an indicator than they were in the past.
247 isn't going away. Their rankings will always provide valuable insight.
Who said anything about 247 going away?
Go back and read the OP and the OP's additional comments. Going forward there will be more variability in the composite ranking due to fewer data inputs. The OP used math to articulate this point.
It's amazing what people will tell themselves to feel better about things.