Dan Weztel: 55 of 97 Five Stars have signed with 5 schools. Guess where those schools rank in the polls...
Dan Wetzel dropped the following nugget on the Yahoo! College Football podcast:
Over the last 3 years there have been 97 five star recruits on Rivals.com. Five schools: Bama, Clemson, Georgia, OSU and LSU have gotten 55. The remaining 42 were divided amongst the other 125 schools.
The kicker? Take a guess who is ranked one through five in the current polls?
This was brought up because “people” are saying the Cali bill will “ruin” the current “level playing field.” Bottom line, it’s not level now and if anything, this could HELP create more parity.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:01 AM ^
I actually dislike parity in sports. Professional sports leagues became a lot worse once parity was instituted.
In fact, parity has absolutely ruined the NBA. Players jumping around to teams and trying to become package deals with others. And eventually you get to a point where it's just rental players for a year or to and tough to root for them because you know it's a quick stop.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:04 AM ^
Parity sure ruined the NBA. *checks most recent 5 Finals matchups* Yep, ruined the NBA.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:20 AM ^
Not that I necessarily agree with the original point, but the Finals should not be the only barometer by which the NBA should be measured. If the regular season and early rounds of the play-offs go completely by script with half of the teams sleep-walking through 82 games and the only entertainment comes in the Conference and Association Finals, that's not a good look.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:45 AM ^
Agreed, but the 82 boring games has little to do with parity/non-parity. It has to do with the NBA having too many games.
Further, I used to enjoy watching the regular season when I could watch the 90s Bulls trounce everyone. Excellence and style was worth watching them play the Nets.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:44 AM ^
I agree the Finals have been good, but I don't watch a single game during the regular season. Like honestly not even considering stopping at a single game during the entire 82 game season.
I doubt that's what they wanted when instituting parity. Even baseball was smart with allowing teams to pay the others to keep their stacked teams. They knew the sport would quickly die if everyone had to operate on a level playing field.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:12 AM ^
It's not that the Finals matchups haven't been good, it's that the same two teams were in the Finals from 2015 to 2018. Using the NBA as your example of a pro league with parity doesn't make any sense considering it's the league with by far the least amount of it.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:47 AM ^
"I don't watch a single game during the regular season. Like honestly not even considering stopping at a single game" but somehow I feel that I'm an expert to tell you why it all sucks. This attitude drives me crazy. So the NBA is ruined because you believe there is parity now that didn't exist in the past. First, the NBA has never been more popular so your entire premise is wrong. Second, is there more parity now than ever before? There might be, but how are you defining that? What measure are you using to show this?
If i may transition your argument to college football (where there is less parity presumably) then you are happy that Alabama and Clemson will play for the national championship again with only a few teams (OSU, UGA, LSU) having a chance at the other 2 CFP spots. Why is that good? Other than the last few minutes of Clemson/UNC I haven't watched any of their games this year because they are boring blowouts. How is that good for the sport?
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:46 AM ^
This is comical because the NBA has never had parity.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:24 AM ^
Exactly. The NBA has been dominated by a few teams since the 60's. The Lakers and Celtics have a won 33 championships between them, not to mention the other finals they've been a part of but didn't win.
The Bulls dominated the 90s with Jordan. The Spurs dominated the late 2000s. The Warriors have been in the last 5 finals, winning 3 of them. LeBron made it to the last 9 or 10 on whatever team he was a part of before this season.
Parity is not a thing in the NBA. This year could be different though. There are about 5 or 6 different teams with legit shots at winning it all. The Jazz and Clippers have the best odds! Crazy!
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:18 AM ^
Parity ruins sports? Have you ever looked at European club soccer?
Literally 1-3 teams dominate every country bc they can outspend everyone else. It becomes a joke.
Parity at least makes it harder to do that whether it’s by a soft cap or hard cap. Even that doesn’t prevent unfair competition. Every major league except maybe hockey in the US is dominated by a few teams at the top.
It’s all about the front office and management.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
Not maybe regarding hockey. The NHL is my favorite sports league because of the parity. An 8th seed can win the cup (as opposed to say, the NBA). Tampa Bay can blow the league away in the regular season and lose decisively in the first round of the playoffs.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:46 AM ^
That is more a product of the high variance inherent to hockey and not necessarily parity.
October 3rd, 2019 at 4:26 PM ^
NHL has been far worse after the salary cap. And it’s dumb that the playoffs are so random. The Nets need to be made 10-20% bigger in order to make the better team win more often. It’s so dumb seeing a team dominate a game and lose 2-1.
October 3rd, 2019 at 7:58 PM ^
Agreed. That's what soured me on the NHL. How many times did we see an also ran that made the playoffs, run the table because of nothing more than a hot goalie. If one player can change the entire playoffs, that's a problem with the game itself.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:24 AM ^
I don't think the NBA is a great example of parity. The NFL, on the other hand, with its more restrictive salary caps, is a better example and I think it has largely succeeded. You don't get the "rental player" issue like you do in the NBA and a greater level of overall competitiveness.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:26 AM ^
The Patriots would like to have a word with you.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:14 AM ^
I am really curious what your point is here. The Patriots pick last or near last every year. They pick up discards from other teams' scrap heaps and win...year after year. The only real constants they have is Belichick...and Brady. Brady is the only star on the team and in NFL terms he began fossilizing 5 years ago. The Patriots/Belichick are simply exhibit A of the difference coaching makes.
October 3rd, 2019 at 4:17 PM ^
Hmmmmm... "The difference coaching makes..." wish that were the "Michigan Difference"
Just sayin'
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:39 AM ^
You need to look up the definition of parity...
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:45 AM ^
Put me in the future 5 years from now and I almost guarantee you I can name over half the top 10 teams.
Cfb is only sport you can say that about. The game badly needs some major changes as the top teams have separated from the pact and it's ruining the sport
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
If you think this can't be done for college basketball as well, men's and women's, you're crazy.
October 3rd, 2019 at 2:02 PM ^
CFB has never really had parity. Go through the poll leaders for the past 50-60 years and then same 20 teams are going to show up all the time. The difference between now and say 25 years ago is that we have a playoff system that definitively determines a champion rather than polls electing one that could be endlessly debate as their legitimacy to getting a trophy.
The only thing that grates for me regarding the current state of CFB and recruiting is when a coach comes in with an innovative solution to piercing a school's regional hold on top talent, the NCAA intervenes on their behalf and creates rules to prevent it. It's going to be hard enough to compete against schools from the SEC without the NCAA putting up rules that make it harder for schools from the North and Midwest to recruit there.
October 3rd, 2019 at 8:18 PM ^
While CFB has historically not had a lot of parity, it currently has less parity than it has since the maybe late 19th/early 20th century. The four team playoff has only worked to further diminish parity. We now have basically three teams guaranteed to go every year (Clemson, Bama, OU) and OSU would be the fourth if they didn't (thankfully) often find a way to shoot themselves in the foot. Still, the fourth slot is pretty much reserved for OSU, Notre Dame, or some wildcard Pac-12/Big10 team or a second SEC team.
Not that the playoff is really a playoff anymore. Because of the trend the OP pointed out, Clemson and Bama have basically turned the first round of the playoff into exhibition games (I would have loved to see how many of those 55 five stars ended up at just those two schools).
October 4th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
We have as many built in advantages as anyone. There’s no reason we should not be competing with the big dogs.
October 3rd, 2019 at 4:09 PM ^
Not sure if satire or not but a -1 nonetheless
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:03 AM ^
New idea.
Like a salary cap, but a STAR cap. Unlimited team size- no 85 man limit but you're limited to like 50 stars per class.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:09 AM ^
I think we could do some serious damage with 16 three-stars, one 2-star and some walkons in the 2021 class.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:12 AM ^
How long before you have SEC schools paying the ranking sites to downgrade top-level talent then?
Let's see if allowing dudes to make some coin creates some parity. If it doesn't, at least they get to function like EVERY OTHER COLLEGE STUDENT OTHER THAN SCHOLARSHIP ATHLETES and earn some money.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:41 AM ^
Don't take it too seriously, just havin some fun thinking up some dumb ideas on a Thursday my dude
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:57 AM ^
I spent a good two minutes humming and hawing over your comment wondering if you were being serious.
October 3rd, 2019 at 1:13 PM ^
I am shocked that you, of all people, would not know that it's "hemming and hawing" :)
I have wondered about a **star** limit as well. Fifty seems way too low-make it around 75 or 300 per roster. However, make the top 100 five stars, the next 500 four stars, the next 1000 three stars and the rest twos. A luxury tax of a million per star over the limit might be attractive to the NCAA...plus $100K to each school in your conference. An "anti-ringer" provision may need to be in place. There are multiple complicating factors here-not the least of which is the transfer portal...though "compensatory" measures could be included here. Fun to think about.
October 3rd, 2019 at 4:37 PM ^
Your my dude comment softens my heart 1000% - upvote!
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:25 AM ^
The problem with that is the NCAA doesn't give a shit nor even reference the star ratings. It has nothing to do with the ratings of outside companies (I know you are aware of that).
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:03 AM ^
Winning programs get winning recruits. If Michigan was a dominant power they would also be mentioned among the top 5 star destinations.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:14 AM ^
LSU's record since 2015:
2015: 9-3
2016: 8-4
2017: 9-4
2018 10-3
Michigan's record since 2015:
2015: 10-3
2016: 10-3
2017: 8-5
2018: 10-3
so maybe they're just paying more?
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:27 AM ^
Doesn't Louisiana produce more 5* recruits each year than Michigan?
At some point location matters.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:42 AM ^
State of Louisiana Five Star Recruits (per 247)
- 2015: 1
- 2016: 2
- 2017: 0
- 2018: 1
State of Michigan Five Star Recruits (per 247)
- 2015: 0
- 2016: 0
- 2017: 1
- 2018: 0
While you're technically correct this seems like an overstatement. 4 to 1 is not explaining anything
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:47 AM ^
Well when we don't get the five stars from Michigan, it matters.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:17 AM ^
DPJ was the one in 2017. So we have a 100% hit rate in the last few years.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:26 AM ^
You should probably look up how many 5 stars are from the South, not just from Louisiana. It seems lots of kids from the South stay in the South, maybe including going to LSU even if they're not from Louisiana.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:01 AM ^
I'm going to be lazy and not look up the numbers, but recruiting isn't just state-anchored. It's more regional. LSU has access to more 5*s in the belt from Texas to Florida than Michigan has in their region.
I wonder how much better Michigan as a program could've been in the last 10-20 years if we had the same fertile recruiting grounds near us
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:24 AM ^
Those States down there are small. The schools down South are closer together than people realize. Michigan is VERY far away from the South in comparison. I can see why kids from the South want to stay down South.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:27 AM ^
Look my problem with this posters argument was only the assertion that winning gets you better players. It can, but in LSU's case, that's not true for sure. And yes, in terms of recruiting overall, regional talent matters/helps but it's still probably influenced by how much bag your bagmen bag, and our bagmen probably bag a lot less.
Also a side note, I don't think the 5 star thing alone is fully explanatory of success, as it's probably five star and high four star that help differentiate. Check 247 team talent metric.
For example, LSU is 5th on that ranking, with 7 five stars and 44 four stars for 906 "points". Michigan is 11th on that ranking with 4 five stars and 36 four stars for 853 "points" - so LSU has 11 more four or five star players, and the total "value" of their rankings is 53 points better. replace 11 of our three star players on our team with 4 and 5 stars and how do we look? and then bump another group of guys from the caliber they are to a slightly higher caliber (low 4 vs high 4 for example) - now we look really damn good.
Ohio State, btw, has 13 five stars and 47 four stars, a total of 973 "points" and is second on the ranking. That means they've got 20 more four and five star players than Michigan does and their talent is 120 points better than ours by stars. The closest our talent gap with OSU has been under Harbaugh was 2016 when they were only 50 points better.
October 3rd, 2019 at 2:07 PM ^
Which was just good enough for -6 inches.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:06 AM ^
They got a new coach with good recruiting chops, that leads to a boost
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:13 AM ^
I wonder how our roster would fare with LSU's schedule. Alabama is their OSU, but they've also faced Auburn, UGA, Texas A&M during that period. Would we still have those 10-win seasons with our roster in the SEC?
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:29 AM ^
I really am not sure Auburn, UGA and Texas A&M collectively the last 4 or 5 years have been any better than Penn State, Wisky, MSU, etc. The SEC has been very top heavy in recent years.
October 3rd, 2019 at 9:27 AM ^
Bama, Clemson, recent Georgia and OSU yes.
However, how do you explain LSU, and Georgia in the interim between when Smart arrived, and then started winning? Or Ole' Miss before that?
And why didn't the same trend as Georgia happen for us in 2016/2017?
I don't think NIL rights fix the imbalance completely. There will still be flocking to winners. But the non winners who are winning will fade some, and the next level perennial top 6-15s will move up some.
There is a reason we are stuck in the mud since 2016 Short of cheating in recruiting, or a new shot a of adrenaline from hiring a different top name winning head coach, and hoping for early success by that coach, I don't see how we get over it, unless Harbaugh somehow gets the Lucky Carr NC season grit team with a couple of stars.
For now, Oklahoma has the best shot.
October 3rd, 2019 at 11:26 AM ^
But it did happen for us Harbaugh’s best class was when he got Rashan after only being on campus for a year. Georgia/LSU have location working on their side so they’ll get more 5 stars because of that.
October 3rd, 2019 at 10:22 AM ^
It's a chicken and egg thing. You gotta get the players before you win. Sometimes a team gets lucky and makes chicken salad with 3 and 4 stars and gets over the hump that way. Other times, 5 stars start coming because, uh, reasons even when the team isn't that successful and then they sustain success because of that initial momentum.