Recruit Rankings

[Turbine]

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%

A 62% fail rate on the 5 star projections tells me the star system is a fail.

It also tells me that until Alabama starts putting 17 or more in the NFL every year . . . they are more of a talent graveyard than a producer of talent.

[Just1More]

A 62% fail rate on the 5 star projections tells me the star system is a fail.

It also tells me that until Alabama starts putting 17 or more in the NFL every year . . . they are more of a talent graveyard than a producer of talent.

Oh Turbine... "talent graveyard"... Alabama? Call them tree killers and small scrotum derelicts, but they are the top talent in college football.

I have argued, however, a similar argument with a friend. As he pointed out the clear dominance of the top 10 college football programs and direct connection with top 10 recruit rankings, we went to the NFL, counted the number of football players from schools not in the top 40 programs, and it seriously surprised him. I pointed out the large number of SBC NFLers, and despite there being more BCS program NFLers, his original recruiting arguments didn't justify a single SBC athlete making it in the NFL. He originally refuted my claim that several UL starters would start at top SEC teams. The NFL "proof" made him finally agree.

[CrappDaddy]

Oh Turbine... "talent graveyard"... Alabama? Call them tree killers and small scrotum derelicts, but they are the top talent in college football.
I can only think of 4 or five last year that would have started at a top program
I have argued, however, a similar argument with a friend. As he pointed out the clear dominance of the top 10 college football programs and direct connection with top 10 recruit rankings, we went to the NFL, counted the number of football players from schools not in the top 40 programs, and it seriously surprised him. I pointed out the large number of SBC NFLers, and despite there being more BCS program NFLers, his original recruiting arguments didn't justify a single SBC athlete making it in the NFL. He originally refuted my claim that several UL starters would start at top SEC teams. The NFL "proof" made him finally agree.

[Bunch24]

From Rivals.com -- A five-star prospect is considered to be one of the nation's top 25-30 players, four star is a top 250-300 or so player, three-stars is a top 750 level player, two stars means the player is a mid-major prospect and one star means the player is not ranked.

That being said, the star system is one of the more subjective things out there. It's largely based on opinion and heresy. I know a couple of guys who actually submit star ratings to Rivals.com and while they do see a lot of film on the players they're ranking, they don't get to see everyone. Star ratings generally don't shift a whole lot once you get initially ranked, unless you go from being recruited by UAB to being recruited by Alabama. Tyrell Fenroy was a 3-star tailback that, if he had been pursued heavily by SEC teams, would have easily been a 4-star guy.

Those who know me know I don't care for recruiting rankings and projections and all that jazz. But if you want to get a grasp of your class, I've always felt the best measuring stick is to compare your guys to the schools they received offers from (note I said offers, not considering). Even better, if you can find out where they visited, that's a better representation of their worth (at least on the surface). A lot of these recruiting sites take the kids word for it that they did receive an offer. Sometimes, kids misinterpret interest or a phone call as an offer. I just recently did a story on a kid who thought he had an offer from Bama, but it turns out Nick Saban was just asking him how he would feel if Bama WOULD offer him. Of course, that didn't stop the Bama rivals.com site from saying he received an offer.

It's certainly not an exact science, not even close. It's a measurement, a projection. Just like No. 1 draft picks turn out to be busts and 6th round draft picks win Super Bowl MVPs. It's probably more accurate than it was, say 10 years ago, but still very much a crapshoot. I wish they wouldn't rank players or classes at all. If a player fills a need, who cares if Joe Blow from MyTeamRocks.com thinks he's the No. 3 drop-back passer in the North Atlantic states.

[RiverRanchMan]

A 62% fail rate on the 5 star projections tells me the star system is a fail.

It also tells me that until Alabama starts putting 17 or more in the NFL every year . . . they are more of a talent graveyard than a producer of talent.

The star system is not perfect, but is a good indicator of how much success the recruit will have on the next level and beyond. I would consider the stary system a failure if a lower group of stars had a higher draft rate. For example, if the draft rate of 3 star recruits was higher than 4 star recruits, we would have a problem. The bottom line is 5 star recruits have a much higher chance of being drafted than any other group.

[Turbine]

Oh Turbine... "talent graveyard"... Alabama? Call them tree killers and small scrotum derelicts, but they are the top talent in college football.

They recruit enough "star" athletes to field 3 quality teams but only one team can hit the field so you end up with only 5 players being drafted last year, and 7 the year before.

Talent graveyard.

[alum81]

So what university had the most players drafted? Where do they rank in the number of players drafted the last few years?

[Turbine]

So what university had the most players drafted? Where do they rank in the number of players drafted the last few years?

USC, most last year (11) and most ever (472)

[Crowley Cajun]

This is how Rivals had our class ranked. You can check out everybody else's.

Link:
http://rivals.yahoo.com/footballrecr...ullafayette-45

This is how Scout has our conference ranked.

Link:
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...view=2&yr=2012

This is how we're ranked within our conference.

Link:
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...view=2&yr=2012

This is how Scout has our players ranked.

Link:
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73...id=757&yr=2012

[anhil8tor]

What i'm concerned with most is how we develop these players and the ones currently on our roster. We were very very fortunate this year in the fact that we lost no coaches. If we go out and win 8 or more.. we won't be that lucky.

[RaginFan2]

What i'm concerned with most is how we develop these players and the ones currently on our roster. We were very very fortunate this year in the fact that we lost no coaches. If we go out and win 8 or more.. we won't be that lucky.

Well, in that case we'd better not win 8 or more games, huh?? LOL. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it.

[CajunFan3406]

They recruit enough "star" athletes to field 3 quality teams but only one team can hit the field so you end up with only 5 players being drafted last year, and 7 the year before.

Talent graveyard.

This is a good point, and probably something many highly recruited kids don't consider. They tend to get overwhelmed with the possibility of playing for a team that is in the running for a NC every year, and don't consider that they'll go to a NC while riding the pine. No matter your talent and star rating in high school, if you aren't getting significant playing time in college, you probably won't get drafted.