Stars Absolutely Matter

[EMAWmeister]

Imagine how awesome we'd be if we surrounded diamond in the rough 2 and 3 star types with elite 5 star athletes.

We'd probably look a lot like how we did this year and last year.

Yes, I'd clearly like to have more 4 and 5 star kids.  But like has been said, stars are usually given out based on measurables.  At the end of the day, I think the difference in production between a wideout who runs a 4.45 and one who runs a 4.6 is negligible, as long as its not a Chris Harper type vs a Tremaine Thompson type.  We've seen in the past how we can be outmatched by far superior athletes (Oregon) but we've also seen how we can win against teams that are more talented, like Texas. They matter, but we can win without a roster like Alabama's.

 :powerespect:

[EMAWesome]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

[CNS]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

[steve dave]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

I think he's being sarcastic. At least I hope he is.

[Mixed-Nutz]

Here you go.



http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/football/blog/dr_saturday/post/star-power-how-recruiting-rankings-hold-up-at-the-top-of-the-nfl-draft?urn=ncaaf,wp1103

So if you live by the principle that you need pros to be an elite program, it would help to have 4/5 Stars but theirs is defiantly enough room for error to be build an elite team out of a couple of 4 Stars each year and less heralded players. Also considering class can be 25 players each their is a lot of wiggle room for misses.

[EMAWesome]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

I understand it, I'm just not as impressed by the accuracy of the star system as others...

What was the # of 5*'s drafted yesterday? The difference between a 5 & a 4 is the largest difference between any ranking system...The difference betweena  4* & a 3* is meh IMO

[steve dave]

so on average 60% of the first round is 4/5 stars

[Rage Against the McKee]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

It really does show that talent evaluators are not doing as good of a job as they should be. Steve Dave's argument of comparing the percentage of 4* and 5* kids who get drafted to the percentage of everybody else is pretty flawed. Of course the percentage of those kids going in the draft is higher than that of the general population. These are the kids that the scouts determined are the best. The fact that the percentage is not higher is the bigger issue. There are a lot of misses, and that really just shouldn't happen at the rate that it does, other than special circimstances like injury.

[EMAWesome]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.

I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.

[steve dave]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.

I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.

his data shows it as 12.7% of all players rated by rivals as a 2-5 star. there are a ton of players who are not rated by rivals that play football. a lot on our team right now in fact. his data also shows the average being almost 60% of players drafted on average.

[Mixed-Nutz]

It will be interesting to see how stars shift in this year class compared to older class with the rivals nation wide mini camps.

Also Rivals considers Mississippi to have about 3 times the talent that Kansas has even though the are roughly the same size.

[EMAWesome]

I look at it as having ONLY 17/32 in the first round as 4/5*...I mean if they are so important, shouldn't they get more than (virtually) half right? I could see you making the starts are important argument if it was 25/32 or something, but 17/32 in no way strengthens your argument. jMHO

Half the kids taken in the first round are from something like 5% of college players.

That is a big stat if you understand it.

I also don't buy this 5% stat...the chart posted by Mixed-Nuts shows it at closer to 12% of all players, and that is for ALL RECRUITS...Not saying that taken independently having 53% of a group come from 12% is still impressive, but not jaw dropping.

I've seen too many recruits have their star status bumped up or down depending on where they sign to take the system too seriously.

his data shows it as 12.7% of all players rated by rivals as a 2-5 star. there are a ton of players who are not rated by rivals that play football. a lot on our team right now in fact. his data also shows the average being almost 60% of players drafted on average.

Right, but them not rating about 25-35% of all incoming D1 Freshman is even more of a reason to not get too worked up about the * system IMO

[steve dave]

I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.

[EMAWesome]

I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they (statistically) do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.

I'm not trying to argue that they are irrelevant, or that they don't matter, but until they stop manipulating their ratings when a kid they took the time to rate as a 3* then signs with Alabama is all of a sudden bumped up to 4*, or the player they evaluated at 4* that KSU signs gets bumped to a 3*, I'm not going to get twisted over it.

[KITNfury]

Imagine how awesome we'd be if we surrounded diamond in the rough 2 and 3 star types with elite 5 star athletes.

We'd probably look a lot like how we did this year and last year.

Yes, I'd clearly like to have more 4 and 5 star kids.  But like has been said, stars are usually given out based on measurables.  At the end of the day, I think the difference in production between a wideout who runs a 4.45 and one who runs a 4.6 is negligible, as long as its not a Chris Harper type vs a Tremaine Thompson type.  We've seen in the past how we can be outmatched by far superior athletes (Oregon) but we've also seen how we can win against teams that are more talented, like Texas. They matter, but we can win without a roster like Alabama's.

 :powerespect:

I know Snyder can win a lot of games without the "studs". And I'll take all the winning I can get. At the same time, it would be pretty neat for us to win a NC in football or basketball before I die, and I don't think that's gonna happen with a bunch of 2* players. And honestly, I don't think we'll ever win a football NC in my life, but I think if Snyder had always been surrounded by 4*, we may have already have the crystal football in our trophy case.

No way to know that, but you know, a boy can dream.

[Cartierfor3]

You'll never find Jordy Nelson looking at stars. NEVER!

[MadCat]

And I would like a breakdown of the % of studs that get drafted versus the % of puds that get drafted.  Stats daemons, ho!

[Rage Against the McKee]

And I would like a breakdown of the % of studs that get drafted versus the % of puds that get drafted.  Stats daemons, ho!

I can tell you right now that 0% of the puds get drafted.

[yoga-like_abana]

You'll never find Jordy Nelson looking at stars. NEVER!

Yes you will. Whether he is leaping into the Lambeau faithful or sitting outside with an ice cold tea at Nelsons landing our boy Jordy can appreciate the little things in life.

[wetwillie]

I mean statistically if you are a 4 or 5 star player there is an excellent chance (relatively) you will be elite at football. on the other end, if you are a unranked through 3 star player there is a very slim chance that you will be elite at football. Ultimately that's what the rivals star system sets out to do and they do a damn good job of it. that's the only point I was making in this thread. Not that there aren't outliers. Not that programs CAN'T win without these players. Just that stars are a very good indicator of football ability and fans of teams that don't get these players look like dumbasses saying they don't matter.

What is your definition of being "elite" at football? 

[The Manhatter]

Do stars matter?  YES

Now the REAL question should be a follow up to the first:  matter to whom?


That rule does not apply to LHC Bill Snyder.  You can say what you want but the dude finds talent whether you or I believe it to be the case.  Dude keeps winning and keeps putting all conference players on the field and in the draft.  Does he have as much talent as one of these 4-star deluxe signing day programs?  No.  But you cannot convince me he isn't a little better on the veal for these DIRs then the next guy.

Stars do matter to K-State's program under Snyder...but only in a limited capacity.


glad we had this talk.

['taterblast]

snyder's way of doing things has a lot to do with it. i don't think people realize how much more k-state practices than any other team, how much more they meet, how much more they are required to know. every d1 program is intense but it's a different level at k-state in terms of time and energy required to put in to it.

it turns what would normally be a pud medium into a well oiled (mostly) disciplined machine stud medium.

Randall Evans is a perfect example. i don't think he really had offers coming out of high school (i mean check out his profile... http://rivals.yahoo.com/kansasstate/football/recruiting/player-Randall-Evans-83971;_ylt=ApLnOCRXO57H1NuhGSp7BsjpsJB4" but he was a stud athlete. let's say he goes to a small d2 school somewhere. he would probably play right away, be pretty good for that level, but not really develop into anything spectacular. instead he comes to kstate, gets put into the "system," gets stronger, develops, learns, earns a scholly, learns some more, gets on the field his sophomore year, and i believe ready to break out in his junior year.

i will never say stars are meaningless, if a kid has 4 or 5 he is absolutely more likely to be a stud. but you can develop a great program with 2 stars if you do it the right way, it just takes more work.

*untucks shirt*

[steve dave]

yeah, I agree. Again, I am in no way suggesting you can't win the way KState does or there aren't kids that overcome their ranking.

['taterblast]

yeah, I agree. Again, I am in no way suggesting you can't win the way KState does or there aren't kids that overcome their ranking.

i know you're not. just had to get rid of my morning Snyder wood.

[Cire]

3 stars serve as a foundation but elite teams have elite players that are 4 and 5 star kids.