Study of Georgia's recruits over a 5-year period (2004-2008) found that the star ratings of their recruits was correlated with their production on the field.
So what have we learned?
First off, recruiting "stars" are always going to overvalue the overall impact those players will have, because the handful that exceed expectations are never going to be enough to counterbalance all those who fall short due to injuries or discipline or simply a lack of ability.
Of the three groups we're talking about, 80 percent of the 5-star guys turned into productive starters (and Samuel still has time), 60 percent of the 4-star guys went on to be productive starters, and only about 30 percent of the 3-star guys did.
So the point is this: If you sign a 5-star guy, you are virtually guaranteed to at least get a player who is productive at some point in his career. If you sign a 3-star guy, there is almost a 50-50 chance that he'll never even make a mark on special teams.
ladies and gentleman, esteemed colleagues and guests, it is with great pleasure that I introduce tonight's keynote speaker, who really needs no introduction on this subject...
That said, let's give a warm pf.com welcome to....Stallion.
RGV Pony wrote:ladies and gentleman, esteemed colleagues and guests, it is with great pleasure that I introduce tonight's keynote speaker, who really needs no introduction on this subject...
That said, let's give a warm pf.com welcome to....Stallion.
See this is what I've been telling you birthers for awhile now -- that in general the teams that get players with more stars tend to do better and that's why the system needs to be in place to get players who are higher star totals. TCU has been doing this for awhile now and that's the Model that I've said needs to be in place here for ever, and now look at the success TCU is having. Look at the success Texas is having. Clearly the teams that get the guys with higher Rivals star ratings do better and it wouldn't take a study to figure that out if you all would just listen to me.
CalallenStang wrote:See this is what I've been telling you birthers for awhile now -- that in general the teams that get players with more stars tend to do better and that's why the system needs to be in place to get players who are higher star totals. TCU has been doing this for awhile now and that's the Model that I've said needs to be in place here for ever, and now look at the success TCU is having. Look at the success Texas is having. Clearly the teams that get the guys with higher Rivals star ratings do better and it wouldn't take a study to figure that out if you all would just listen to me.
[/Stallion]
i am impressed. i had to double check the picture on the left side of the post - could have sworn it was really him.
RGV Pony wrote:ladies and gentleman, esteemed colleagues and guests, it is with great pleasure that I introduce tonight's keynote speaker, who really needs no introduction on this subject...
That said, let's give a warm pf.com welcome to....Stallion.
Stallion, the podium is yours.
LOL! I thought the same thing! I can't believe he hasn't posted, he must be on a cruise or something.
A general observation: Note that the study was done at Georgia, a traditional powerhouse football school. It stands to reason that three star players may not produce in such an environment when they must overcome the talent of four or five star players. To me, and I'm not a math or stat guy, it would seem logical that the three star players, in the Georgia system, would be less productive. It would be interesting to see what the results of a similar study might reveal at say Boise State, where 3 stars, over the past few years have been the norm. You would think that the level of performance from their three stars would be significantly higher than the results from Georgia. All this assumes, however, that the stars assigned to the player are in fact correct. The end.
RGV Pony wrote:ladies and gentleman, esteemed colleagues and guests, it is with great pleasure that I introduce tonight's keynote speaker, who really needs no introduction on this subject...
That said, let's give a warm pf.com welcome to....Stallion.
Stallion, the podium is yours.
LOL! I thought the same thing! I can't believe he hasn't posted, he must be on a cruise or something.
Stallion is around, he's posted tonight on other threads but he knows that I already said what he was going to say
panhandle_pony wrote:A general observation: Note that the study was done at Georgia, a traditional powerhouse football school. It stands to reason that three star players may not produce in such an environment when they must overcome the talent of four or five star players. To me, and I'm not a math or stat guy, it would seem logical that the three star players, in the Georgia system, would be less productive. It would be interesting to see what the results of a similar study might reveal at say Boise State, where 3 stars, over the past few years have been the norm. You would think that the level of performance from their three stars would be significantly higher than the results from Georgia. All this assumes, however, that the stars assigned to the player are in fact correct. The end.
this is a really good point. a 3* guy competing at Georgia against 4* and 5* guys coming in every class is going to have a tough time making an impact. 3* guys as you mention for a lot of other programs can make a big impact.
