Some insights on “Star-gazing” as part of the recruiting process
So it seems that “Star-gazing” recruits is an age-old MgoBlog thing that seemingly throws every “Hello” post into mindless arguing. The past few days have been reminder of such things.
Anyway, I have a couple good sources on the inside that feed me some good nuggets of info from time to time. So I asked one if any of the football staff use any of the recruiting service ranking systems to evaluate players. The short answer was “absolutely not!”. He clarified that if the staff needs some video that is not readily available on YouTube, then they might pull it from one of the recruiting services, but they really don’t care or look at rankings at all. They feel they are a better at evaluating players than the services do. And he mentioned Michigan is no different than other big schools in that regard.
I’d be curious what other insider types say about this. Umbig11? Magnus? Etc?
I mean they can ignore it all they want for themselves but as fans the statistical evidence is clear that higher ranked recruits out perform lower ranked recruits as a whole. The problem is never if the staff takes a few 3 star guys they think highly of, its that you are never going to put together an elite team of all 3 star guys.
Not to mention, what would you expect them to say? Yeah we see those rankings, but we don't think those guys are that good? or We see what they are rated, but those guys didn't give us the time of day? It's really a lose lose proposition when you question a staff about recruiting based on rankings.
Not trying to grind your gears or say gotcha!, but yours is a bit of hand waving.
I agree that the recruiting services have an excellent record that well correlates to All-conference, All-American, and NFL draft status. I routinely say the same. But in this particular conversation, it's fair to wonder (though we aren't privy to various coaches' yearly player rankings to confirm) if various staffs don't have an even better correlation (with future All-conference, All-American, and NFL draft status) than the services do.
You make it sound like Michigan recruits poorly and that's simply not the case. Harbaugh's first class was especially poor due to signing on so late, and then he had one down class when Pep and Drevno decided that they didn't want to recruit. Every other class has been good to great.
There are all sorts of things you could bitch about (attrition and an offense that wastes talents among them), but the recuriting has been good.
Michigan does recruit well, I never wanted to imply otherwise. What I did want to imply is that continuing to recruit well is a necessary component to winning a championship.
I think having an offense that scores a bunch of points and a defense that doesn't self destruct are probably higher on the list of necessities.
Better recruits would improve the team for sure. However, doing a better job of using what we have is probably a lot more important.
2020 isnt that great right now. Osu has 7 top 100 recruits compared to 1 for Michigan. If Harbaugh had shown it on the field like Beilein, I dont think there would be any questions. As it is, it seems like we are playing with one arm pinned behind our backs. I dont have a problem with 2 and 3 star guys but after losing 62-39 you have to ask if this is a winning strategy.
I’m with Thad on this one. OSU hasn’t been beating the crap out of Michigan with a bunch of 3-star recruits. Sure there are 3-star recruits who have done well at OSU, but OSU has the luxury of developing those kids and surrounding them with elite athletes.
I wish I could upvote this a million times. Perfectly sums up my feelings on football and recruiting
The last five years of Clemson football is in stark contradiction to this idea, plus it's much more relevant than statistics; especially, who the fuck cares about "in the whole"?
I want to know what is the best way to build a roster that will pass a more talented in conference rival and vault my program to Championships and Clemson didn't do it with 5*s, or all that many 4*s when you look at it.
Yeah if you ignore the 4 and 5 star athletes all over the field for Clemson, they didn't have that many.
I don't need to ignore them, most of them arrived in '17 and beyond.
But between '12 and '16 they only had five 5* recruits and a blue-chip ratio of barely 50% but those players got to consecutive Championships and won one.
That is the model I care about.
look at who was on the field! like all programs, there were a few 3 stars, but clemson won with top-rated talent.
Exactly, just like our team will have more 4 and 5 stars when we win, but, as Clemson proves, you also can use guys like Hunter Renfrow.
that doesn't prove anything.
- on offense, clemson started three 5 stars, four 4 stars, and three 3 stars. and hunter renfrow.
- on defense, clemson started two 5 stars, five 4 stars, and four 3 stars.
star rating correlates to success.
Ok, soooooooo . ..what was Bama's "star formation" during the two losses they had against Clemson and why didn't this magic star formation correlation work for them?
Alabama has national titles in ‘09,’11,’12,’15,’17 and made the playoffs in ‘14,’16, ‘18.
Seems to me having #1 recruiting classes and playing for titles might be related.
5 national titles in the last 10 years...we split one 22 years ago...hmmm?
But yeah, cherry pick the Clemson losses (Clemson had 5* QBs both times they beat them)
Wow, you really got me there- O WAIT! no you didn't.
Bama didn't have a #1 class till '11, so they had already won in '09.
Bama recruiting:
'05: #16 84.77
'06: #13 87.49
'07: #12 87.81
'08: #3 91.20
'09: #3 91.39
Those last two ranked near UofM's '17 class.
You could argue Bama did better with the lower ranked classes before '12 than the monster classes they've had since than.
Mike Hart was a 3 star!!
And other proof that outliers exist everywhere and for every rule. That does not change the fact--not my opinion, a fact, shown over and over again, that recruiting star success correlates to on field success, and that higher ranked guys are far more likely to go to the NFL than lower ranked guys.
For those easily confused by statistics.
But, to be fair most fans are.
Sorry dude, ALL the stats support the conclusion. So does the math. It's actually the emotional position to say stars don't matter, not the logical and statistically based one. Try googling a few times. Brian has linked to lots of studies here as well. Google Matt Hinton, one of many who has looked into this. I started off believing as you did, and once reading the evidence, changed, as we all should change when faced with conclusive evidence
I've seen the evidence.
IMO, there are three major problems with a standard deviation model to rank ALL recruits:
1) Sample size; 2,000 recruits is less than 1%, even if they rank those correctly, how relevant is it when 99% aren't in the model.
2) Of the 32 NFL first round picks only 8 were 5*s, and that's one of the better first rounds they've had; correct on less than 30% of your "best guesses" doesn't inspire me with confidence.
3) Self fulfilling mechanisms: if simply receiving an offer from Bama raises the recruits ranking, than higher rated recruits will continue to end up at Bama since they are successful every year, thus solidifying that higher ranked players win more.
Show me how Clemson overcame lower rated classes to pass FSU and Bama, or why SoCal, Florida and Texas went into such talespins despite high ranked classes, and then convince me why that isn't the norm.
As I said it's an impossible task to properly rank all these players correctly and numbers in general are more of a guide than a constant.
No one of any sense has ever stated that on an individual team basis or in abstract that total number of stars is conclusive. It's about probability of success, and the numbers state that teams with better rated talent tend to do better, and that's been true every year since recruiting rankings became widely followed.
You do understand don't you, that since there are only 10-20 5 stars every year, that the fact 8 of them were first rounders is fantastic, and shows the validity of the rankings? If you are a 5 star, the chances you are a top player or NFL player are HUGELY increased over lower ranked players
I know there are usually 30+ 5*s each year (247 composite).
And 33% of them between '12-'16 didn't even get drafted.
That means 67% did get drafted. That’s impressive. That’s higher than I expected and clearly shows rankings matter.
O, I get it ....you didn't come to play school.
You clearly don't understand math or probability. Good luck to you
HaHa precious .....
And yet it's you who is having difficulty going to this page and counting how many 5*s there are.
What, does counting get fuzzy for you after "10-20"?
OMG!!!!!! You mean to say that I mistook the number of five stars?? There goes my math and fact based argument, backed up by numerous studies of this issue over years such that no credible writer even argues the point anymore, versus your "what about Mike Hart and Clemson argument!"
Such a shame for my facts....
Um, this doesn't mean what you think it means
It means, quite clearly, that between '12-'17,
1 out of 3
5*s didn't have a good enough college career to be a top250 player on draft day
a variance of about 220 spots with a recruit who was completely and thoroughly scouted if he's a 5*
Not sure how far anyone would get in school if they were only 66% right on their best work.
Hey "smart", try calculating the probability of a three star... hint, it's infinitesimal and again, once more, you do not understand simple math. Keep digging the social media hole dude
Not really, they are over the 50% blue chip threshold and have been during the entire run. Over 50% of your recruiting class being 4 or 5 star players is a lot when 4 and 5 star players only account for .14% of all players playing high school football every year. Even if you narrow it down to just prospects who get ranked 4 and 5 star players account for 12% of those players. There is a reason only like 12 schools every year have over 50% blue chip recruits, there is also a reason the only teams to have won national championships come from that pool and its because having elite recruits is necessary to having an elite team.
Than you should be ecstatic with UofM's recruiting since we have an even better blue chip ratio then they did at the start of their run.
Also not all positions are created equal. Clemson won in large part because they had Deshaun Watson and Trevor Lawrence. Having the best QB in the country is a helpful thing to help paper over some other issues. Its the same way Oklahoma has competed with a lower blue chip ratio score.
Cool: Shea is a 5*, Dylan is a high 4* and JJ is the 11th best ranked player in his class.
This is 100% why I believe we will now SOON not only beat those morons from Columbus, but will be in the Playoff in the near future.
Always felt we recruited just fine...but what we needed was a 5 star stud QB. It’s the most important position on the field, and the guy who touches the ball on EVERY play on offense. A stud QB is unstoppable.
Watching DeShaun Watson destroy the Bucks was awesome. They had no answer. And look at our 2011 game. Even though he wasn’t a 5 star, they had no answer for Denard. He took over that game. On the other side, we had no answer for 5 star Braxton Miller. In the end, Denard and our team just wanted it more. But it showed the power of an ELITE QB in a big game.
Harbaugh just needs to keep solid recruiting in the other positions, and do whatever it takes to get STUD QBs and we will be able to play with anyone. I know some of you will think I am just being an optimist, but I truly believe we are now on the cusp of that.
GO BLUE!
And what happened when they won? They started to go for 3 stars, no. They recruited better athletes and that shows up in their rankings. It’s asinine to suggest the coaches know better than the rankings on an aggregate level. You CAN win with lower ranked athletes in theory but you cannot argue that it gives any team a better chance. Dantonio outcoaches his rankjngs and Dabo did too, but it’s becuase they have no other choice because they don’t have the pull to bring in all 4-5 stars. This is simple, don’t get it twisted.
Thanks, I got it straight though:
Personally, I'd say it's asinine to suggest an aggregate would know better what a coach needs to coach HIS team than the coach himself ........ but then again, I actually use my synapses.
Specifically however, I'm suggesting that the same players Clemson recruited when their classes were ranked in the teens, are the same players they recruit now ... but NOW those players are top100.
Why are they top100?
Because they are going to play for Clemson ...duh.
Check how many INCREDIBLE defensive lineman there are from N. and S. Carolina for the '20 and '21 recruiting cycle!
Why? Because, most likely, many of them will end up on the Clemson Dline.
Shit, look how good the S. Carolina class looks just cuz Clemson can't take all the high ranked players.
Recruiting services are great, Sam's gut is great, listening to the mother's of all the recruits rave about how great Matt Dudek is .....is creepy, but great as well ...... because that guy does his job unbelievably ...even though I still have no idea what the fuck he does.
Just keep doin it.
GoBlue!
At this point you are intentionally missing the point. Yes they recruit the same players but now they actually sign the 4 and 5 stars. They don’t become 4-5 stars because they were signed despite your irrational clinging to that assertion. Julian Fleming - 5 star - top rated receiver before he committed and that’s the norm. Guys who cycle up late in the recruiting cycle before signing day cycle up because of the camps they attend in the summer, once again you’ve got it twisted. By your logic Akron should be able to bear UM cause you know, Stars don’t matter.
There is too much evidence to ignore so I’m going to assume you are forever stuck in denial, I refuse to believe you are this obtuse.
higher ranked recruits out perform lower ranked recruits as a whole.
Absolutely true. But remember this is a two way street. The recruiting services routinely up a recruits ranking if that recruit signs with a high profile program. So, at least partly, the services are relying on the coaching staffs to add data into the process.
So then why do so many people bitch about every single 3* we go get? We’ve never recruited only 3* players. We’re usually half 3* and half 4/5*. Sometimes more on the 4/5* end.
Bitching about any individual recruit is dumb, bitching about overall composition of a class is not necessarily dumb
I think an important consideration is what data is being used to determine this "statistical evidence". Is it the recruiting rankings from June or the final recruiting rankings in February?
I don't disagree with the general assertion that more recruits w/ more starz = better football program. I agree with it. But let's simmer down and wait for all of the data to come in before we start bellyaching. Example: Zach Charbonnet started as the 408th ranked recruit and finished as the 46th (and some still believe he is underrated at that ranking).
This is true, worrying about recruiting rankings now just is going to make someone anxious. I stopped following recruiting and just look at national signing day now. Recruiting absolutely matters in terms of success but following it is a miserable experience.
I will say though for the most part truly elite guys tend to be truly elite throughout an entire recruiting cycle. Top 15 guys don't generally fall out of like the top 50 and not that many guys ranked below or 400 or 500 are jumping into the top 50. Of course it happens but its not common.
Pretty sure if you’re running a big time college football program, you couldn’t care less what a “scout” sitting behind a monitor smashing in a keyboard has to think. I always assumed a lot of how the “services” compile their rankings was actually based of who the big time colleges were recruiting, more so than coaches starting to recruit a kid based of his ranking.
Couldn't care less
Also: you're.
Larry Coker got ridiculed for relying on Rivals when he was Miami's coach.
Well Rivals sucks. He should have been using Scout at that time.
/s