PonyFans.com

This is a interesting article but it also points out an interesting paradox:

A high Rivals.com rankings is a very good predictor whether you'll be a top prospect in the NFL (a 1-3 rounder). A Rivals100 rankings on the other hand seems to be a mediocre-to-poor predictor of your odds of being selected a Top 10 player in the Draft, as nearly half of the last 40 Top 10 NFL draft picks weren't included on that list.

This wouldn't be very remarkable if the Rivals100 if were heavily skewed towards a few positions (i.e. 30 QBs, 30 RBs, 20 DBs, 10 DEs, 5DTs...etc) but each Rivals list posits a pretty steady 8-13 players for each position. Thus, if two DEs are selected Top 10 in draft and the recent trend holds, one or both of those players will not be among the 8-13 names that Rivals100 said were the best DEs in the country 3 or 4 years before. Curious.

not surprising.

there are are always exceptions to the rule (late bloomers, the underrateds, good coaching, strength/conditioning, etc.), but that is why they are referred to as exceptions.

If half the time is "an exception", is it still an exception? Or what if something occurs 1/3 of the time? Seems to me that would approaching normalcy.

I know, I know...there are all sorts of particulars that play a role in developing a player as a final draft product; that doesn't change the fact that 3-5 of next years Top 10 draft picks aren't going to be found on a Rivals100 list. Rivals is pretty good at being accurate (who's going to be good enough?) but not very precise (who's going to be the best at their position?). Not belittling, I just find it interesting.

Check the number of high school football players in the United States, then Check the number of players receiving college scholarships. You are making the same uninformed statements as those claiming this study was designed to rebutt. The fact is that the field(ie 2 stars) have less than 1% chance of getting drafted. At each corresponding star level the chances of success are substantially higher

3 Star-3.6%
4 Star-9-11%
5 Star-40-48%


And that's a projection made when the kids are 16-17 years old 3,4,5 years BEFORE the Draft w/o the benefit of knowing which players will get hurt, quit, drop out or are "busts"

Read, Learned, and Known.

We have two 3 star recruits this year, so maybe they'll go the NFL some day. It worked for Matt Ryan. It can work for these guys.

Nice job of recycling old information and stuff that is practically known by all who follow this stuff.

You evaluate the significance of an independent variable (in this case, a Rivals 5 star rating) by its ability to predict a dependent variable (in this case being drafted in one of the 1st three rounds).

If Rivals % Star ratings had zero ability to predict the liklihood of a player being drafted in one of the first three rounds, the % of Rivals 5 Stars being drafted in the first three rounds would be the same as the % of the universe of athletes being drafted in the first three rounds -- .033 % by my math (99 /3,000).

Since 40% to 48% of the Rivals 5 Stars are drafted in the first three rounds, a Rivals 5 Star is at least 120 times as likely to be drafted in the of the first three round as a randomly selected player, a significant correlation in my view.

As much as the optimists on this board (myself included) may hate to admit it, Stallion is right in noting the significant correlation between the average Rivals Stars rating and the quality of a recruiting class. It's an imperfect predictor of a player's future performance, but it seems to be the best available.

George S. Patton wrote: Nice job of recycling old information and stuff that is practically known by all who follow this stuff.

I disagree. It's not well known and Stallion gets beat up nearly on a daily basis for this.

We would do well to remember, as max points out, that Rivals ratings are an imperfect indicator of an individual potential performance, so I think there's a valid criticism there. But there's no arguing against his point on the macro level.

ponyboy wrote:

George S. Patton wrote: Nice job of recycling old information and stuff that is practically known by all who follow this stuff.

I disagree. It's not well known and Stallion gets beat up nearly on a daily basis for this.

We would do well to remember, as max points out, that Rivals ratings are an imperfect indicator of an individual potential performance, so I think there's a valid criticism there. But there's no arguing against his point on the macro level.

I hear you, but let's step back and recognize that this is common sense. The higher rating, the better program you go to, the better chances of playing in the pros.

If this relates to us, then we're wasting our time with this debate. This program is not at a point where it's going to compete for 4-star and 5-star kids. Not gonna happen.

Should Jones move us in a solid direction, it can get to a point where it can get to the 4-star kids and pluck a couple.

But the landscape of college football between non-bcs and bsc has drawn the line to the type of kids we can expect to get.

For instance if we have an offer out to a kid who also has an offer from Colorado, chances are CU is going to get him because it can sell the chance of playing in a New Year's Day game or BCS game. We can't. We can sell the Liberty Bowl.

We need to build a track record of success and stop changing coaches every five years. TCU has recruited well over the last decade because of its success and ability to get kids into school that SMU couldn't touch.

If SMU is now on a more level playing field like we are led to believe, then we should annually draw a quality number of 3-star kids and some high-rated 2-star kids. That's when you'll ind this program on sound footing.

Top 25 in every program. TCU which has essentially achieved SMU's goal-or a reasonable facsimile thereof, has outrecruited SMU in arguably 19 out of 20 years-and one could legitimately argue 20 out of 20 years. TCU has 2 4 Star commitments. But I agree Recruiting is relative to your competition.

Stallion wrote:TCU has 2 4 Star commitments. But I agree Recruiting is relative to your competition.

3

hmm. RB Wayman James recently upgraded. You are correct.

Stallion wrote:hmm. RB Wayman James recently upgraded. You are correct.

I think he is the guy that handles my 401K.

mrydel wrote:Read, Learned, and Known.

Got it down.