Recruit Rankings

[CajunFun]

People have often pointed out that the number of stars a recruit receives isn't important, because it is a very poor measure of the athlete.

I agree that it's not much of an indicator of your recruits, but I think it's a pretty good indicator of your recruiting. That is, you can see how well your coaches are doing in head to head recruiting efforts against your peers and those 'above' you.

So can someone give a rundown of the recruits, with the number of stars each received from the various services?

[ULGrad@HOU]

I agree Cajunfun, the stars don't mean everthing, but mean something. Stars can't be the only measure of a class, but can be used as one of the measures of a class.

[Boomer]

Just asked the same on the other Board---also what schools were in contention for their services and what kids we lost to whom!!!!

[Bandwagon King]

I agree Cajunfun, the stars don't mean everthing, but mean something. Stars can't be the only measure of a class, but can be used as one of the measures of a class.

I wish someone could explain exactly how this star ranking thing works to begin with.

I mean last year there was no way Griffen should have been listed as anything less than 4 stars & probably 5 stars. I heard he wasn't ranked because of qualifying status at the time. However, there are many kids who are ranked & never qualify then have to finish their qualification process another way. Then there are examples of kids who should be ranked way higher than they are, but because they are not prototypical to a specific position, they are downgraded, even though they are fantastic football players ( Alexander).

Then there are others who are overrated because of their age & early maturity who never get any better through their senior year of high school or college for that matter & are some times drafted into the NFL because of the situation they were fortunate enough to walk into at college ( Joe Mcnight).

[Turbine]

I saw a list the other day but I can't find it. For the reasons BWK brings up it is silly because keep in mind this is upon coming out of HS

A 5 star means he projects/predicted to go to the NFL.

I can't remember the first 4

[CajunNation]

People have often pointed out that the number of stars a recruit receives isn't important, because it is a very poor measure of the athlete.

I agree that it's not much of an indicator of your recruits, but I think it's a pretty good indicator of your recruiting. That is, you can see how well your coaches are doing in head to head recruiting efforts against your peers and those 'above' you.

So can someone give a rundown of the recruits, with the number of stars each received from the various services?

The true tell of a school's recruiting proweress is who offerred the same guys that you signed.

I can tell you, C'Fun, that using this metric over the years really showed the distance between Tech's recruiting and ours.

However, last year's class closed the gap considerably.

This year's class, for the first time in 15 or so years is of a higher quality than Tech's and is probably the best signing class in the history of UL football.

Whereas in previous years we may have signed 1 or 2 guys who held legit offers from major programs at some point, this year we have, for sure, at least 10 guys like that.


If this trend continues for a few years, I have no doubt that we will be ranked at some point and, if we schedule properly and get a little luck, could be flirting with a big-time bowl game.

[Stokes1003]

From what I've read the stars represent who is recruiting a player. Meaning if LSU, Bama, Ohio State, USC, and Notre Dame are all interested, the kid will be 5 stars.

Therefore if a kid is in a bad place grade wise and the big schools don't think he'll qualify (Griffin last year, Alex Johnson this year) he will not receive stars regardless of his ability because the big schools will pass on him.

Also, if a kid commits to a small school early on and makes it clear he is not interested in receiving other offers his stars will remain lower than if he waited till the last minute to make his decision and allowed other schools to give him offers.

This is my basic understanding of how the system works, but I'm sure there are a lot more complexities.

Bottom line is, getting kids with many stars does not necessarily mean he is more talented than other recruits, but it does mean the kid chose us over tougher competition. So while it may not be a good indicator of incoming talent, like someone said before it is a good indication of how good our staff is doing at winning the recruiting battles.

[CajunFun]

The true tell of a school's recruiting proweress is who offerred the same guys that you signed.

I can tell you, C'Fun, that using this metric over the years really showed the distance between Tech's recruiting and ours.

However, last year's class closed the gap considerably.

This year's class, for the first time in 15 or so years is of a higher quality than Tech's and is probably the best signing class in the history of UL football.

Whereas in previous years we may have signed 1 or 2 guys who held legit offers from major programs at some point, this year we have, for sure, at least 10 guys like that.


If this trend continues for a few years, I have no doubt that we will be ranked at some point and, if we schedule properly and get a little luck, could be flirting with a big-time bowl game.

We often have to take the recruit's word for who else was offering, so that's not ideal either.

My thought about the number of stars is that 2+ bring the bigger dogs sniffing, whether the kid's deserving or not.

So I guess both would be ideal, number of stars, who else recruited.

[Stokes1003]

http://www.scout.com/2/1096116.html

Here is scout's explanation. It doesn't really clarify anything, but it's something.

[RiverRanchMan]

I saw a list the other day but I can't find it. For the reasons BWK brings up it is silly because keep in mind this is upon coming out of HS

A 5 star means he projects/predicted to go to the NFL.

I can't remember the first 4

The more stars, the more likely the recruit will be drafted.

Recruiting Stars 2002-2011
& Percent drafted

★★ 4.9%
★★★ 8.1%
★★★★ 16.7%
★★★★★ 38.0%

[covcaj]

We often have to take the recruit's word for who else was offering, so that's not ideal either.

My thought about the number of stars is that 2+ bring the bigger dogs sniffing, whether the kid's deserving or not.

So I guess both would be ideal, number of stars, who else recruited.

How about where the recruit made official visits. While this is not perfect either ((the kid might have only taken one visit cause he knew where he wanted to go), I believe you can be sure that if the school paid his way, there was a real interest in the kid from the school.

[Just1More]

From what I've read the stars represent who is recruiting a player. Meaning if LSU, Bama, Ohio State, USC, and Notre Dame are all interested, the kid will be 5 stars.

Therefore if a kid is in a bad place grade wise and the big schools don't think he'll qualify (Griffin last year, Alex Johnson this year) he will not receive stars regardless of his ability because the big schools will pass on him.

Also, if a kid commits to a small school early on and makes it clear he is not interested in receiving other offers his stars will remain lower than if he waited till the last minute to make his decision and allowed other schools to give him offers.

This is my basic understanding of how the system works, but I'm sure there are a lot more complexities.

Bottom line is, getting kids with many stars does not necessarily mean he is more talented than other recruits, but it does mean the kid chose us over tougher competition. So while it may not be a good indicator of incoming talent, like someone said before it is a good indication of how good our staff is doing at winning the recruiting battles.

This is all true. The exceptions, as many point out about 2 star athletes that end up being prolific, are not the rule. 4 and 5 star recruits are not mythical fabrications of talent. They have displayed skills, etc beyond their peers in high school. I also think with the flow of information these days, we are getting more and more accurate information on high school talent. There are not a huge number of 5 star athletes. There are way more 2s than 3s... and more 3s than 4s.

The biggest problem with some athletes getting 3 stars and others getting stuck with 2 is the problem with what I call "compounding". Once an athlete's name gets thrown around and he picks up a few good offers, it snowballs. A very similar athlete that doesn't catch that early notoriety, gets one tenth the notice. That is a gross misrepresentation "statistic" to the football public. They believe that the athlete that is highly sought after is radically superior to the one that has less interest. I like how Lee Brecheen has stated it bluntly "you are either an FBS athlete or you are not". He doesn't feel as strongly as many others about how radically different some of these athletes, out of high school, are from their peers in the FBS. I tend to disagree regarding the 5 star guys. They are usually exceptional and prove it.

We have had many on here discredit the star rankings... and I am one of them... for programs not ranked above 40. Lately, it seems like people are using the "others that offered" as a gauge as to whether we are moving up in our recruiting. That is an "iffy" argument. I think regardless of the "stars" and "other offers"... we know we are getting better recruits by having so much early interest by so many... and by knowing that a program that just won a bowl is far more likely to recruit better than one that hadn't in 40 years.... Hud and staff are damn good recruiters... and UL is a greater school than many of our "peers". Hiring a great coach and committing to football... the word is out.

I find it funny that some over-tout the star system with evidence of the NFL having way more 5s than 4s, more 4s than 3s, more 3s than 2s... and so on. How in the world do ANY "2s" make it to the NFL in the first place? How do any 5s not? How do any "2s" not only make it but become pro bowlers? Why are there any... not to say "many" NFLers from programs not in the BCS? That alone should make some of the BCS school blowhards stop pretending that the lower tier FBS programs do not have some of the superior talent. They don't in mass... but there is an overlap.

There's another level of discussion way outside of "stars" and "offers". Which type of athletes on the football team truly separate the best teams from the worst in collegiate football? It isn't the skill positions... and it isn't the defensive secondaries... it's the big men. That is where there are fewer good ones to choose from and more difference in the collegiate ranks from the top to the bottom. So, the next time you get all squiggly over some safety or running back we signed... you had better make sure the big men can do their job... or your coaches know how to compensate for it... and that ain't easy. Biggest differentiator: Big men with fast feet.