The Star Ratings BS for this class so far

[bouma1415]

Casual observer, claiming no expertise...but what I see as the BS in stars:

• Nick Niemann 3 star LB: is he so much more talented than his brother who was a 2 star? Or is it because he was recruited more than his brother, due to his brothers success on the field (and don't bad mouth that).
• Cedric Boswell 2 star CB: played more RB than DB, but has the wiggle, has the speed, has the toughness. As a DB, I see more talent than other 3 star DBs. I really like his speed. I think he will shine.
• Cedrick Lattimore 3 star DE: At the OSU camp, he performed equal to the OSU 4 star stud, yet he has a 3 star. You have direct evidence of his comparative talent, not just speculation.
• TJ Hockenson 2 star TE: He caught 73 passes for 1100 yards. Has the build to add 20+ pounds. Obviously has good hands. Plays basketball. Great athlete with a lot of potential. Why 2 stars?
• Williams and Banwart 2 stars OL: I am assuming they never went to enough camps to get multiple offers. I am going to trust the staff on their potential. They both have decent size and hopefully will add 10 lbs before they graduate high school. 2 stars?? With KF's expertise and history, any player signed by Iowa as an OL should automatically be a 3 star player!
• Darby and Young 2 star WRs: Both played in large metropolitan areas. They both seem they could be 3 star players. One will probably prove the rankings wrong...I hope!

 

[EvilMonkeyInTheCloset]

Because MAC recruits....that's why.

 

[nu2u]

You will go crazy if you invest heavily in the star-based evaluation system. There are obvious biases in favor of southern, urban, and big school players which, to some degree, is justified but more often than not

I have no doubt that Jack Hockaday, a Rivals 3-star player, would be a 4-star player if he played high school football in a large suburban Dallas HS.

Brady Reiff is rated a 2-star DE. If Reiff had played football for WDM Valley instead of rural Parkston, SD, it is virtually certain he would be at least a 3-star. Bazata is another 2-star example - probably the best lineman in Nebraska his senior year, excelled against competitors from bigger schools but he grew up in a two-silo farm town.

I don't think the star-based evaluation is worthless. 4 and 5 star athletes are almost always justified. But when you get to the 2-star and 3-star evaluations, rural or small school Midwest players are often going to get marginalized in favor of big city, big school, southern players who fall into this category.

 

[dog_leg_left]

I go off of offer lists more then stars.

 

[bouma1415]

I go off of offer lists more then stars.

You obviously have not read the different ways stars are given.....by number of offers is one of them. My point is the fallacy of using your method.

 

[Bill_Callahan2.0]

You obviously have not read the different ways stars are given.....by number of offers is one of them. My point is the fallacy of using your method.

I see kids in the current class with offers from everyone and their mother, and is still a 5.6 3*.

 

[GoUIowa]

Casual observer, claiming no expertise...but what I see as the BS in stars:

• Nick Niemann 3 star LB: is he so much more talented than his brother who was a 2 star? Or is it because he was recruited more than his brother, due to his brothers success on the field (and don't bad mouth that).
• Cedric Boswell 2 star CB: played more RB than DB, but has the wiggle, has the speed, has the toughness. As a DB, I see more talent than other 3 star DBs. I really like his speed. I think he will shine.
• Cedrick Lattimore 3 star DE: At the OSU camp, he performed equal to the OSU 4 star stud, yet he has a 3 star. You have direct evidence of his comparative talent, not just speculation.
• TJ Hockenson 2 star TE: He caught 73 passes for 1100 yards. Has the build to add 20+ pounds. Obviously has good hands. Plays basketball. Great athlete with a lot of potential. Why 2 stars?
• Williams and Banwart 2 stars OL: I am assuming they never went to enough camps to get multiple offers. I am going to trust the staff on their potential. They both have decent size and hopefully will add 10 lbs before they graduate high school. 2 stars?? With KF's expertise and history, any player signed by Iowa as an OL should automatically be a 3 star player!
• Darby and Young 2 star WRs: Both played in large metropolitan areas. They both seem they could be 3 star players. One will probably prove the rankings wrong...I hope!

Do we honestly see enough of these kids to have a thorough evaluation of their skills (beyond just some highlight clips)? Have we seen them all actually play in person? The answers are: no and no. So I ask, how would we ever have any idea if their rankings are "BS"? Save yourself some angst. Sit back now and argue it in five years.

 

[nu2u]

Do we honestly see enough of these kids to have a thorough evaluation of their skills (beyond just some highlight clips)? Have we seen them all actually play in person? The answers are: no and no. So I ask, how would we ever have any idea if their rankings are "BS"? Save yourself some angst. Sit back now and argue it in five years.

Exactly. Besides game film and depending upon the prospect, the coaches are able to evaluate camp performance, conduct individual work-outs and/or skill drills, interview his coaches and trainers (also teachers, mentors, etc), speak with opponent coaches, interview the prospect directly, and get to know his family and personal background.

Some prospects are athletic freaks - the 4 & 5 stars. You want these guys if they have the work ethic to succeed. But the mental and character aspects are also important. For every one of the elite 4-star athletes there are many 3-star athletes not quite as physically gifted but are on a mission to prove they belong.and willing to put in extra work to get there. Klug, Hitchens, Considine, and on and on...... you want these guys on your team but you'll never know until you take the time to get to know them and guage their potential. That is where coaches not named Meyer, Saban, or Stoops earn there recruiting salary.

 

[icu81222]

You will go crazy if you invest heavily in the star-based evaluation system. There are obvious biases in favor of southern, urban, and big school players which, to some degree, is justified but more often than not

I have no doubt that Jack Hockaday, a Rivals 3-star player, would be a 4-star player if he played high school football in a large suburban Dallas HS.

Brady Reiff is rated a 2-star DE. If Reiff had played football for WDM Valley instead of rural Parkston, SD, it is virtually certain he would be at least a 3-star. Bazata is another 2-star example - probably the best lineman in Nebraska his senior year, excelled against competitors from bigger schools but he grew up in a two-silo farm town.

I don't think the star-based evaluation is worthless. 4 and 5 star athletes are almost always justified. But when you get to the 2-star and 3-star evaluations, rural or small school Midwest players are often going to get marginalized in favor of big city, big school, southern players who fall into this category.

So is Hockaday that good? In my mind, I was thinking maybe a Sash type of player but maybe smaller? (IIRC)

Haven't heard any real buzz about him since he committed.

Is he a S or a LB?

 

[nu2u]

Hockaday will play LB. IMO he is a 4-star under the Rivals rating system.

This is just my personal opinion: Hockaday is a better version of former MLB James Morris even though Morris was rated higher by Rivals (Morris 5.7 vs. Hockaday 5.5). A very good athlete (played QB & LB), good instincts, and like Morris -a tackling machine. The difference between the two appears to be Hockaday's quickness and speed. Fast but not elite speed and he shows very good quickness and reaction speed. I could be wrong, but I don't believe you will see Hockaday use a redshirt this year as the coaches try to figure where they can use him right away.

 

[ft254]

Casual observer, claiming no expertise...but what I see as the BS in stars:

• Nick Niemann 3 star LB: is he so much more talented than his brother who was a 2 star? Or is it because he was recruited more than his brother, due to his brothers success on the field (and don't bad mouth that).
• Cedric Boswell 2 star CB: played more RB than DB, but has the wiggle, has the speed, has the toughness. As a DB, I see more talent than other 3 star DBs. I really like his speed. I think he will shine.
• Cedrick Lattimore 3 star DE: At the OSU camp, he performed equal to the OSU 4 star stud, yet he has a 3 star. You have direct evidence of his comparative talent, not just speculation.
• TJ Hockenson 2 star TE: He caught 73 passes for 1100 yards. Has the build to add 20+ pounds. Obviously has good hands. Plays basketball. Great athlete with a lot of potential. Why 2 stars?
• Williams and Banwart 2 stars OL: I am assuming they never went to enough camps to get multiple offers. I am going to trust the staff on their potential. They both have decent size and hopefully will add 10 lbs before they graduate high school. 2 stars?? With KF's expertise and history, any player signed by Iowa as an OL should automatically be a 3 star player!
• Darby and Young 2 star WRs: Both played in large metropolitan areas. They both seem they could be 3 star players. One will probably prove the rankings wrong...I hope!

You admit having no expertise. Well the experts who evaluate have that. They look at athletes individually and comparatively. He (any example) may be very good, but lesser compared to others that evaluator has observed. But any individual rating is subjective. If several evaluators see the same thing, things become firmer. There are no doubt very good athletes out there that have not gotten attention, and some received undeserving attention. There is an industry that organizes high school talent similar to stocks. It pays dividends to those use it.....and they do.

 

[CO_hawk]

I don't get some of the negative Nancy's out here. After the last 5 years of Iowa football, we are not going to land multiple 4 star recruits, period. Iowa is doing what they need to do, which is taking overlooked kids that project well and trying to get back to winning football games.

People can complain when we are winning at a higher level and still not getting big time recruits.

The past is the past, lets look forward.

Ask yourself if you were a 4 star recruit would you choose Iowa, whom hasn't done better the 6-8 win seasons in recent memory?

We need to build again, which is Kirk's fault, but this is the route that we must take. Identify talent early, offer before anyone else and try to keep these kids until signing day.

 

[redout]

Lol, and the excuses continue to pile up for Iowa's struggles. Until the fan base forces Kirk to make changes the struggles will build even more as they did last year and the year before. Whats funny is the posters who make excuses for Kirk are a small group that is shrinking.

 

[IACentralHawk73]

Star rankings are such bogus to begin with: Guarantee you if Juan Harris (Class of 2017) went to a school like Michigan, OSU. He gets bumped up to a 5-star. Cold hard truth. Honestly I'd depend more on 40 times than stars (not saying that I'd heavily rely on 40 times, much more than that to evaluate a recruit)

 

[B1G]

Star rankings are such bogus to begin with: Guarantee you if Juan Harris (Class of 2017) went to a school like Michigan, OSU. He gets bumped up to a 5-star. Cold hard truth. Honestly I'd depend more on 40 times than stars (not saying that I'd heavily rely on 40 times, much more than that to evaluate a recruit)

Well, OSU has 17 commits with only one 5* and three 3*s. UM has 21 commits and zero 5*'s and eight 3*s. And 40 times are nice but the fastest kid may be the worst player. Better off looking at offer lists. Urban wouldn't sign a kid if he wasn't a player, you can bank on that.

 

[klemman]

Star rankings aren't everything, but they do mean something. They are based on a players high school achievements, quality of program, level of competition, measurables such as size and speed, and performances in camps. I don't know if being recruited by OSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, etc... has much impact on the ratings, but I'm sure it brings a lot of attention and exposure so that the recruiting services can evaluate the above.

What the rankings don't tell you is the players intelligence, heart, discipline, dedication, ability to handle the completion for playing time or playing on the big stage, ability to learn new techniques and schemes, or future injuries.

But still,mthere's a reason why teams that get more players with higher rankings tend to do better overall than those who don't.

 

[R1950]

"Star rankings are such bogus to begin with: Guarantee you if Juan Harris (Class of 2017) went to a school like Michigan, OSU. He gets bumped up to a 5-star. Cold hard truth. Honestly I'd depend more on 40 times than stars (not saying that I'd heavily rely on 40 times, much more than that to evaluate a recruit)."

Not really. Does every 4 or 5 star turn out to be solid college players ? Of course not. But, I'll take a roster of 4 and 5 stars and play a roster of 3 stars and with any kind of coaching beat the 3-stars almost every time.

Something to think about. 247 Sports released a 4-year composite (all major recruiting services) average rating right after the playoffs and the top 3 in order over that 4-year period were Alabama. Ohio State, and FSU. Ring a bell ? Those were 3 of the 4 teams in last year's first playoff. The other - Oregon - finished 18th. You can spin it any way you want, but unless the coach is an absolute dud - stars do matter !

 

[Hawk_4shur]

Star rankings aren't everything, but they do mean something. They are based on a players high school achievements, quality of program, level of competition, measurables such as size and speed, and performances in camps. I don't know if being recruited by OSU, Alabama, Auburn, Florida State, etc... has much impact on the ratings, but I'm sure it brings a lot of attention and exposure so that the recruiting services can evaluate the above.

What the rankings don't tell you is the players intelligence, heart, discipline, dedication, ability to handle the completion for playing time or playing on the big stage, ability to learn new techniques and schemes, or future injuries.

But still,mthere's a reason why teams that get more players with higher rankings tend to do better overall than those who don't.

Well said.

 

[IACentralHawk73]

Well, OSU has 17 commits with only one 5* and three 3*s. UM has 21 commits and zero 5*'s and eight 3*s. And 40 times are nice but the fastest kid may be the worst player. Better off looking at offer lists. Urban wouldn't sign a kid if he wasn't a player, you can bank on that.

I'm not saying OSU or Michigan would go after him I'm just stating that if he went to a school of that caliber his star rating would go up IMO, also I did say that I wouldn't really depend on a 40 time, just used it as a comparison tool.

 

[bouma1415]

So if we are to accept these "Expert" Services who rank these players as the gospel truth, then we should be able to quantify the total wins a team should have based on the star ranking. So if your team has 80% or more 4* players on the roster that should be good for a 11-1 results on the playing field. If you have 80% or more 4*, of which 20% of those are 5* ratings, that should automatically give you the national championship!

So based on Iowa's ranking of recruits, they should be 6.5 wins or 7 wins every year??? The so called experts should have an automatic formula that they can plug into their computer that tells us how good a coach is based on recruit rankings vs actual record. That would be interesting to see.

 

[HoustonHawkeye]

So do we actually have to play the games? And who would pay for all of the seating rights if we didn't have to play the games?

 

[swagsurfer02]

So do we actually have to play the games? And who would pay for all of the seating rights if we didn't have to play the games?

This is an interesting question

 

[Hawkeye2222]

then whose right. Darby the WR is rated a 5.3 2* vs 247 who rates him a 3*, Scout who rates him a 3* and ESPN who rates him a grade 77 3*, with 77 being just below a grade 80 4*? 247 lists 3 split 2 2*and 3 * player with just 1 true 2* player and yet Rivals shows IA with 8 2* players.

Lemming who started the star rating system said that QB Stanly and RB Akinrobi were 4* players by him. somehow he is more qualified, than the so called experts on this board as he started the star rating system.

 

[clickhere 01]

then whose right. Darby the WR is rated a 5.3 2* vs 247 who rates him a 3*, Scout who rates him a 3* and ESPN who rates him a grade 77 3*, with 77 being just below a grade 80 4*? 247 lists 3 split 2 2*and 3 * player with just 1 true 2* player and yet Rivals shows IA with 8 2* players.

Lemming who started the star rating system said that QB Stanly and RB Akinrobi were 4* players by him. somehow he is more qualified, than the so called experts on this board as he started the star rating system.

I give you 5 days this time.

 

[B1G]

A coach once told me that he thought he knew what speed was until he saw real speed. Iowa gets fast players. Every school gets fast players. But there are always a few that are just straight up faster and better than their peers. Those are generally your 5*s. Those are the players that go to OSU and UM etc.

Yes, there are exceptions. Some 5*s bust and some walkons become All Americans. I'm not big on star ratings but they are fairly accurate. Offer lists tell a whole better story. Nothing in recruiting is absolute tho.

 

[Hawkeye2222]

Scout lists Boswell with a 4.34 40 and a 3* and yet Rivals only gives him a 2* rating. don't know about you but not to many run a 4.34 40.

looking at it most of these kids come from small schools and most don't go to the major camps to be evaluated. and if I get banned again it will just prove my point about how wrong it is to support this staff and players.

if you notice none of those that bash the players or coaches or even attack other posters never are banned.

 

[Hawkeye2222]

and as I asked who's right? also just what qualifications do these people have that make them the experts?

 

[iahawkeyes17]

and as I asked who's right? also just what qualifications do these people have that make them the experts?

All I can say is they are by far more of an expert than you Kilroy.

 

[B1G]

and as I asked who's right? also just what qualifications do these people have that make them the experts?

Here's a thought. Go back and look at Iowa's last 10 recruiting classes and then look at the last 8 or 9 years of the teams record. See any correlation?

 

[NomisHawk]

You will go crazy if you invest heavily in the star-based evaluation system. There are obvious biases in favor of southern, urban, and big school players which, to some degree, is justified but more often than not

I have no doubt that Jack Hockaday, a Rivals 3-star player, would be a 4-star player if he played high school football in a large suburban Dallas HS.

Brady Reiff is rated a 2-star DE. If Reiff had played football for WDM Valley instead of rural Parkston, SD, it is virtually certain he would be at least a 3-star. Bazata is another 2-star example - probably the best lineman in Nebraska his senior year, excelled against competitors from bigger schools but he grew up in a two-silo farm town.

I don't think the star-based evaluation is worthless. 4 and 5 star athletes are almost always justified. But when you get to the 2-star and 3-star evaluations, rural or small school Midwest players are often going to get marginalized in favor of big city, big school, southern players who fall into this category.

I agree - though there is a lot more evaluations being done in recruiting than there used to be, there also is no way to fully evaluate the information on these rural kids. Recruits from 'football hotbeds' large schools with heavy competition and a history of Division 1 level recruits are always going to be safer bets in terms of recruiting rankings. Also, I think that because a lot of the kids Iowa has gotten are from smaller schools and have committed so early in the process, there is no way they have gotten to do the full evaluations. What I like is that Iowa liked these guys from the beginning using their own evaluations and got the guys they are after. So often in the past it seems like Iowa has come late to the game with less to offer and no time to develop the strong relationships that are foundational to high school recruiting.

There is a chance that as time goes along, some of these recruits may get a bump in rankings as other schools evaluate and try to poach or if there is simply more attention on them now that they are committed to Iowa. As for me, I don't think this is necessary for me to have a good impression of this class. Iowa seems to be changing their recruiting system and are getting their guys early, which I think is a win for this staff and this program.

 

[NomisHawk]

Exactly. Besides game film and depending upon the prospect, the coaches are able to evaluate camp performance, conduct individual work-outs and/or skill drills, interview his coaches and trainers (also teachers, mentors, etc), speak with opponent coaches, interview the prospect directly, and get to know his family and personal background.

Some prospects are athletic freaks - the 4 & 5 stars. You want these guys if they have the work ethic to succeed. But the mental and character aspects are also important. For every one of the elite 4-star athletes there are many 3-star athletes not quite as physically gifted but are on a mission to prove they belong.and willing to put in extra work to get there. Klug, Hitchens, Considine, and on and on...... you want these guys on your team but you'll never know until you take the time to get to know them and guage their potential. That is where coaches not named Meyer, Saban, or Stoops earn there recruiting salary.

Many of the guys Iowa gets are not developed physically enough to be 4-5 star recruits, but may have the same or better intangibles. We all know the effect of Coach Doyle on this program, and I think that if they find the right intangibles that they want for these positions and the recruits have the right mental attitude and feel a part of the Iowa family right away, this is a good thing. Recruits have constantly been mentioning the impact of having these tailgating events where they get to spend time with other recruits/commits. This has become more and more prevalent over the past few recruiting cycles - recruits are staying in contact with each other and are influencing each other's decisions. Not only is this a good thing to help their transition be positive as they prepare to enter college, I also think it could diminish the amount of flipping later in the year. The recruits begin to see right away what is valued by the coaches and their teammates and have more of a feeling whether or not this will be a fit for them, as well as building loyalty to the program and their future teammates.

 

[studed]

Star rankings are such bogus to begin with: Guarantee you if Juan Harris (Class of 2017) went to a school like Michigan, OSU. He gets bumped up to a 5-star. Cold hard truth. Honestly I'd depend more on 40 times than stars (not saying that I'd heavily rely on 40 times, much more than that to evaluate a recruit)

dont be to so sure for michigan dytarious johnson outside lb 5.3 2 star plays in alabama top division and team won state title. look at his highlights and tell me he looks like a 2 star. http://www.hudl.com/athlete/3344048/highlights/226418376/v2

 

[Hawk80]

They haven't even played their senior seasons...the stars and offers will more than likely increase, if its that important to you.