Recruiting stars in superbowl
Another recruiting stars forum
but I saw this tweet and was curious if anyone else saw this and if they think it is true
Pretty cool stats: Never let someone tell U what U R! 44 starters in the Super Bowl: 5 Star Recruits - 0 4 Star Recruits- 4 3 and below- 40
— Phil Galiano (@Coach_Galiano) February 2, 2015February 3rd, 2015 at 10:07 PM ^
here is the link
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:08 PM ^
double post
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:14 PM ^
True, but only about 1% of college football players are 5 star players. Based on Rivals rankings, nearly 50% of 5 star players have been drafted in the NFL and a few more play (or played) as undrafted free agents.
Others flamed out (arrested, etc.) or got injured.
50% is a pretty big number, so recruiting stars seem to matter.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:16 PM ^
This is a useless point. Recruiting stars have been proven time and time again to be good INDICATORS (not gurantees) of success at the college level. If you are a 5 star, you are more likely to be a standout player in college than if you are a 4 star, and so on. This is the trend, however even 5 star guys have a surprisingly high rate of not making an impact in college.
Now how does a recruiting ranking predict NFL success? Not at all. 3-5 years of development (or lack thereof) in college, random nature of where players are drafted, who is coaching them, which established starters they are on the roster with, etc will drown out any significance in star ratings coming out of high school by a long shot.
That, and there are many, many times more 3 star ranked guys and below coming out of high school, so purely statistically NFL rosters are more likely to be filled with them than 5 star guys. So, basically, this guy's twitter post is pretty much meaningless.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:20 PM ^
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:27 PM ^
I would disagree. There is a clear point to the post. That just because people say you are not a 5 star high school recruit means you will not make it into the NFL is wrong you can even go and play on a superbowl team and not be a 5 star recruit.
I dont disagree with the fact that we have seen you have a higher chance of going to the nfl if you are a higher rated though.
Like I said. I thought it was interesting and was wondering if you guys thought it was a true fact.
February 4th, 2015 at 6:44 AM ^
The OP would have been meaningful if it analyzed the number of stars relative to NFL success vs just the teams in the Super Bowl.
February 4th, 2015 at 8:00 AM ^
Seriously. SBNation ran an article that showed 8 4* players in the starting lineups. He's also counting players that came before Rivals as unranked. I suppose he's just playing to his audience as a Rutgers coach.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:55 PM ^
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:17 PM ^
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:23 PM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 3rd, 2015 at 11:12 PM ^
"...shitty teams who don't make the playoffs."
And habitually shitty teams generally tend to have shitty coaches and shitty owners, thus completing the great chain... of shit.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:27 PM ^
Neither starting lineup for the Pats or Seahawks had any players from Ohio State, Notre Dame, or Michigan State.
Which explains why the game was so much more enjoyable this year. ;-)
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:55 PM ^
Best. Superbowl. Ever.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:38 PM ^
There's a breakdown on the frontpage by Seth that refutes all of this. It's a numbers game, the higher ranked players are much more likely to succeed, there's just much less of them.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:41 PM ^
But I saw somewhere that had rankings been as prevalent in the 90's, Brady likely gets a 4-5* rating. And out of the starters, 24/7 had a 4* composite on Lynch, Gronkowski, Wilfork, Hightower, Carpenter, Irvin, Maxwell, and Blount. Wilson was a 3* despite his lack of size, and 3 starters, Brady, Kevin Williams, and Vollmer werent available to be ranked due to age or in Vollmers case playing in Germany. So while there are no 5*, I would call it a statistical anomaly, and I would not consider it significant. Interesting? Yes. Significant, no.
February 3rd, 2015 at 10:48 PM ^
It's always been this way. It's not so much the stars as the caliber of player. Even in the days of Woody, Bo, and the Bear they knew who your Jabrill Peppers players were and laoded up on them. It's not shocking that the top 100 guys are vital to being the best team in the country year in and year out.
February 3rd, 2015 at 11:06 PM ^
Stars don't mean much in the end. It's about finding the right guys that are fits for your system, and having the ability to develop and get the most out of them.
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 4th, 2015 at 12:33 AM ^
Sent from MGoBlog HD for iPhone & iPad
February 4th, 2015 at 12:36 AM ^
February 4th, 2015 at 12:54 AM ^
particularly if you are talking 5 and 4-star players - as there are relatively very few of them. Sure there are misses but it is a very good indicator on the average.
Where you get big variations is with the 3-stars. I believe Brian noted in a recent WTKA appearance that Rivals (?) actually has 3-4 levels of players all lumped into the 3-star bin. These range from near 4-stars to kids that get bumped to 3-stars without any in-depth scouting because a big-time program gives them a scholarship. (See Ulizio for M this year - not saying he isn't deserving of his 3rd star but the services didn't do any additional scouting they just gave him #3 on Michigan's rep...and the fan base's size and willingness to pay scouting sites for good news.) -- Brian noted that most of the services rank kids by their position so you can get a better feel for which 3-stars are "better" than others. (Also 247s compositie number gives a decent indication i.e. a 96 point 4 star vs. a 91 point 4-star)
Another factor is the fact that all the services tend not to drop 5 and 4-star kids below 4-stars even if their Sr. years are disappointing, so you get kids like M. Robinson - while a good player - was overrated by the services. I suppose this is so they don't look bad or alienate kids/coaches by demoting them.
Finally you have late bloomer kids - 2 and 3-stars that really have a coming out in their Sr. seasons. Rarely are they bumped to 4-stars but they are grouped at the top of 3-star status --possibly for the same reason 4-stars don't drop -- This is where MSU and Dantonio seem to have done a great job. Every year when most of the major programs are filling up on 4-stars, MSU has identified and hard targeted these kids. I suspect that given their recent success more programs are keeping track of the kids MSU identifies as possible late targets.
Specifically for MSU - they have done great job by maintaining a very stable program. This means a LOT of 4th and 5-th year kids on the MSU squads. Yes they develop them but the extra years of strength and practice are extremely helpful. Mason Cole as a Frosh was pretty good - but nowhere near what a RS Sr. Cole would have been. I believe MSU has some incredible number (14-18?) RS Srs. on the team for 2015. Michigan will have 3 or 4 this year and it will improve immensely in the coming years as BH was able to add depth and stability to the recruiting classes during his tenure -- outside of his first class that is.
February 4th, 2015 at 12:01 AM ^
Each year there are only around 30-50 5 stars, 225-275 4 stars, and TENS OF MILLIONS in the 3 stars or lower group.
Implying that shooting to find diamond in the rough 2/3 stars is a better strategy than taking more 4/5s is like saying that we shouldn't mine for gold in Pike's Peak because there are probably a few flakes of gold lying around in other places.