Star Rating biased?

T

thewalruswasjohn

< 25 Posts
This guy seems to think the star rating system is biased towards large BCS schools.

"...is important to note that the currently used star system is often biased towards which prospects BCS schools are interested in rather than actual potential."

Huh?

The Link
 
Then why do big schools often offer to lesser starred athletes? I have always thought that the bias is towards players at bigger schools and more "competition" if anything. But that is maybe not an unfair bias. There are exceptions going both ways on that so who knows.

The bottom line is that it is hard to predict what a teenage boy will want to eat at their next meal, what their favorite band is and for sure how good they truly are at football and will continue to be in college.

I don't give them much thought any more.
 
what of the idea that the larger, more prominent schools offer recruits with more potential? i'm sure smaller schools contact these recruits also.
 
star ranking is biased.
If a kid who was a 2/3*** player is offered by a heavy hitter ala the 2 BIG12 boys or some heavy SEC or Big10/USC/ND & actually commits then that kid will sometime go from a lower ranked star to a 4**** player w/in the week. Sometimes overnight.
While it's a given the 4/5***** player pan out moreso than the lower rnaked guys, I think it more important in what a good coach thinks.
Hell, OU's first commit is from a kid who plays 8 man ball & was one of our 1st offers out for the 08 season.
Back a few years ago b4 the eweb & the rabid recruiting following, this kid might not be a red chip. Even after an OU pledge. The kid will now be a 4**** player when the rankings come out & for no other reason (other than being a good player) because he's in the OU camp. Had he went to Tulsa, probably wouldn't be view as favorable.
Big schools affect everything from rules to recruiting.
 
Michael Huff was a good example of that phenomena. Went from un-starred to 4-starred the moment he committed to us.

It kind of has to be biased towards the good BCS schools, otherwise there would be no way to rank the classes the way all of the services do. You take the kid's 40-time, height, weight, and offers. That's pretty much all you can go on, because anything can happen regarding position changes, injuries, HS team ineptitude, etc. If a guy is beyond awesome on the field, but only has offers from SMU, San Diego State, and Hofstra, then of course he's not going to be 4/5 star.
 
People who complain about star ratings usually root for ****** teams that don't do anything and haven't done anything, ever.
 
The MNC teams this decade were all consistant with a similar number of four and five star athletes signed each year , 14 to 15 on average.

Non BCS teams like A&M for the whole decade, for example, signed 6 four and five star athletes on average each year.

miller58
 
This is nothing more than accepting input from the coaches and recruiters at prestigious football schools in your rankings. What's the big deal?
 
You got video of thousands and thousands of kids with great stats, great physical attributes. Usually some stand out from others, but sometimes you have to rank one kid over another who look pretty much even and if one has offers from Michigan, Nebraska, Ohio State and Texas while the other one has "lesser" offers, who are you going to rank higher?
 
Overall I like rivals, but there is some bias. I have seen players who didnt have a high rating have their star count increased once the big schools make an offer. DJ Grant went to 4 stars overnight. They also limit the number of 5 star players by geography. They like to spread the top rated player rankings around so that there is more widespread interest in top players. This usually leads to more subscriptions for rivals.
 
Wolfman, you hit it on the geography. That is a big bunch of BS! If Texas actually has 8 -5*s and only gets 4 and then some other smaller state gets 3 and really has none that shades the whole team ratings. Also, naturally a team that signs 26-27 kids is going to have more points than one that signs 18-19. Like someone says, it is for fun and that is right. It justs generally gives you an idea of who has signed a lot of talent. Nobody can say some team is a 3 and another one a 11. Who even knows if all of them qualify? You generally know when you have signed a good class and just be happy about it and look forward to seeing what they accomplish. Texas had a great class the year VY came in, but there were a bunch of those kids never stayed or contributed for several reasons. Bryan Pickryl was a Parade AA, but because of injuries, never got to play much if any. He was just one of a bunch on that crop that didn't get to play. The ones who did were dandies. Maybe this 2009 bunch if all pans out will all get to stay and that would make their class really good. Who knows?
 
i think there is some truth to it, but i also think it is at least partly a function of the fact that by and large the coaches of big-time schools know a hell of a lot more about evaluating talent than most of the guys running recruiting sites.

more than a true school bias, i think generating subscriptions has a huge impact on the rankings. fans of big schools with reknowned programs are more likely to pay for the ability to know stuff an hour or so before the rest of us. geography plays into that, but you'll also see uncommitted kids shooting up the rankings as you get closer to signing day. the sites are more about generating buzz than they are about useful analysis, IMO.
 
I agree with Orangebones. Does anyone believe Mack or any other head coach gives a damn about the star ratings of their recruiting class?

More importantly, who gives a damn if big school recruits are over hyped compared to the kids going to smaller schools? Has any kid not gotten a chance at a scholarship because of his star rating? Did it hurt anyone's chance to play? Then forget about it.
 
One more thought I've had in recent years.

Early commitments have to piss off these recruiting experts since they make a living off the year-long suspense. Less suspense means less interest which means less demand for their service. I'd like to see how many early commitments get upgraded as their senior seasons progress. I suspect that most of them are stuck with the same rating once they commit early while the hype is directed towards the uncommitted.
 
That was the same David McWilliams who went 7-5, 4-7, 5-6, 10-2, and 5-6 during his time as the head coach in Austin.

Nothing symbolizes just how mediocre Texas football had become than the McWilliams era. Three losing seasons and the only really good year is marred by the worst bowl *** whipping in the history of Texas football. I truly think Miami could have scored 100 in the game if they wanted (and didn't have about 300 yards in personal fouls and unsportsmanlike penalties).

I can't imagine Mack having those conversations as long as his teams win.

Talent does matter no doubt. My issue is that if Mack thinks a certain kid is the best fit for Texas I am sure he doesn't care if that kid is a 4-star compared to a 5-star or if he is even on the radar.

I agree on your thoughts on early commits. Having 2/3 of your class full by April doesn't leave much for the Texas sites to cover.
 
Huff was an interesting case because he was such an unknown in the recruiting circles prior to committing. Once the sites saw his film and his track times and talked to some high school coaches, he became a four star. Would that have happened if he committed to Baylor or SMU? Probably not.

Still, Texas has had enough 3 star players over the past few years that you can't say that they automatically bump you for being committed to UT. I think there is a little more rigor in the process now, because there are so many more people paying attention.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Back
Top