a team full of 4 and 3 star recruits are going to beat a team of 3 and 2 stars 95% of the time. Yes, you can name the 2 star exceptions over a 10 year period, but that does not mean squat about the team you are fielding each year. Iowa is going in the wrong direction and if you don't believe it, you are deluding yourself. Hell, the BTN did not even mention Iowa during their recruiting show. Can anybody remember when the state of Iowa produced 10 D-1 athletes for a team in 1 year?
For the last and final time,
- Thread starter Hawk68
- Start date
95? of the time? Not even close.
Somewhere I saw the top 15 recruiting rankings from 2010-2011 (classes that would have been redshirt seniors and true seniors this year), and 10 schools were in the rankings for both years. 7 of those 10 had at least 4 losses in 2014.
Somewhere I saw the top 15 recruiting rankings from 2010-2011 (classes that would have been redshirt seniors and true seniors this year), and 10 schools were in the rankings for both years. 7 of those 10 had at least 4 losses in 2014.
Every year we have a new batch of people that don't even know what Rival's star ratings mean. I think there should be some sort of primer, then continuing ed refresher required before discussions like this can take place. For the last and final time (LOL....as if).....star ratings are about how soon a player will make an impact, not a measure of their talent, per se. I think it's obvious that a 5 star not only will make an immediate impact, but they do indeed have more talent. But the difference between a 3 star and 4 star rating is a prediction of how soon each player will make an impact. I do think a team full of 4 star talent does indeed have an advantage - depth and consistency of talent across the roster (OSU, Alabama, etal). Take IAs LB for example. The problem is not that Jewel and Bower are low rated players (because they appear to have potential to develop), but that they have to play too soon. Which of course is a recruiting fail, but of a different stripe. I know this is obvious, but it just gets so tiresome when people try to boil something as complex as a football team to such a ridiculous point as in the OP. If it were true that two teams players HS star ratings could predict the winner 95% of the time Vegas' job would certainly be a lot easier, wouldn't it?
I still don't get why everyone gets so locked onto star ratings. I measure a players worth by... well.... his worth to teams that matter. A 'recruiting guru' for a website can give a guy 27 stars if he wants, but if his only offers came from Eastern Michigan and South Central Louisiana State Bible College, then I think that speaks for itself. After losing Higdon, the only guy left that we 'won' on the recruiting front was Daniels. The rest literally had no better offers....
Stars are not the end all. We get enough good players that need a little time to develope to compete. I think with the coaching changes have hampered the ability to "develope"? You see a lot of things not characteristic of Iowa....especially on defense. This isn't popular here, but the coaching is not as good as it has been in the past....maybe that is something that will improve with having younger coaches who are still learning?
The only folks who think 4 and 5 star players don't matter are fans of a program not getting many of them. Say what you want but you cannot win the Kentucky Derby on a mule.
Could you point me to the post that said they don't matter? Of course they matter, but the season doesn't begin and end on signing day. I'm pretty sure Alabama had a better collection of talent than OSU if star ratings was the only thing that mattered.
Posted from Rivals Mobile
"Every year we have a new batch of people that don't even know what Rival's star ratings mean. I think there should be some sort of primer, then continuing ed refresher required before discussions like this can take place. For the last and final time (LOL....as if).....star ratings are about how soon a player will make an impact, not a measure of their talent, per se. I think it's obvious that a 5 star not only will make an immediate impact, but they do indeed have more talent. But the difference between a 3 star and 4 star rating is a prediction of how soon each player will make an impact."
___________________________________________________________________
I believe there should be some sort of primer...FOR DULL HEADS THAT THINK THEY KNOW FOOTBALL AND WHAT SURROUNDS IT! As for the rest, three words... what a crock. If you have two sophomore four star tackles playing and you recruit a five star tackle...is he recruited based on how soon he makes an impact?
Four and five stars are recruited based on percentage. Less flame-out. All you have to do is look at the difference between 2's and 3's being successful compared to 4's and 5's. With some exceptions it is nerve bending.
___________________________________________________________________
I believe there should be some sort of primer...FOR DULL HEADS THAT THINK THEY KNOW FOOTBALL AND WHAT SURROUNDS IT! As for the rest, three words... what a crock. If you have two sophomore four star tackles playing and you recruit a five star tackle...is he recruited based on how soon he makes an impact?
Four and five stars are recruited based on percentage. Less flame-out. All you have to do is look at the difference between 2's and 3's being successful compared to 4's and 5's. With some exceptions it is nerve bending.
I think everyone wants the 4 and 5 stars, with good coaching and the ability to develope you can still compete.
As I was saying.....some people don't actually know how star ratings are derived. Based on a percentage? Is that some warped way of describing the Rivals250 Bonus? Are you aware that Rivals changed their formula in 2013? Are you aware that the primary driver of a "Rival's Rating" isn't even the star rating?
Unlike the old formula, the new formula uses a prospect's Rivals Rating (RR), not the prospect's star rating, as the key factor in the formula to compute the point totals.
One thing Rivals has done with the new formula is to consider pro potential, which I think potentially skews things. Beyond the very elite, this is a very difficult thing to do and NFL proves this.
BTW, you'll note I never said ratings don't matter (or show us anything). I think it's obvious that they do. But the OPs contention that you can determine the winner of a game 95% of the time by the team's collective HS star ratings is silly (when you consider that a star rating includes a component that gauges the point at which a player will make an impact). Similar to Kilroy touting an upperclassman's HS star rating, even though he's not in the 2 deeps.
I also want to address this misstatement: If you have two sophomore four star tackles playing and you recruit a five star tackle...is he recruited based on how soon he makes an impact?
That would be determined by the team as to when they expect him to make an impact. But as far as his rating - it does indeed include a component of how soon and how great his impact would be. Or put another way...be careful who you call a "dull head".
This post was edited on 2/6 12:57 PM by thejazzcat
Good lord... would somebody just kill the star system already. So dumb.
Please folks, just look at the recruiting films. Just the kid and the opposition and make an inference. Let the coaches worry about character and grades.
Please folks, just look at the recruiting films. Just the kid and the opposition and make an inference. Let the coaches worry about character and grades.
coaching certainly makes a difference. But it is accurate to say that the majority of the time the team with more highly rated recruits over time will be the winner over a team with lesser rated talent.
And all this hides the FACT that KF is not recruiting good enough for us to contend for Big Ten titles. As the results on the field the last few years have shown.
And all this hides the FACT that KF is not recruiting good enough for us to contend for Big Ten titles. As the results on the field the last few years have shown.
no the problem the 4-5 years were defections and injuries, as I posted long age 2008 and 2009 lost 30 out of 45 recruits, that screwed up what KF and his staff does best and that was DEVELOPE talent, that is why Kirksey, Hitchens, Morris, Schumpert, Coker, CJF, Miller and Lowery had to play as true FR. that class was rated 42nd with 21 recruits and that class had these go pro
3* Kirksey
3* Morris
2* Hitchens
4* CJF
3* Lowery
it was a trickle down effect has it has taken till 2013 when they really could RS most of that class, 2014 the did the same thing, and now IA is back on track to do what KF does best and that is DEVELOPE talent
those 3 seasons from 2002 thru 2004 were not loaded with 4 and 5* talent what the did have were a lot of walk-ons 0*2*and 3* players on those teams, that ended up in the top 10 rankings for 3 straight years.
3* Kirksey
3* Morris
2* Hitchens
4* CJF
3* Lowery
it was a trickle down effect has it has taken till 2013 when they really could RS most of that class, 2014 the did the same thing, and now IA is back on track to do what KF does best and that is DEVELOPE talent
those 3 seasons from 2002 thru 2004 were not loaded with 4 and 5* talent what the did have were a lot of walk-ons 0*2*and 3* players on those teams, that ended up in the top 10 rankings for 3 straight years.
I'm sorry if you lose 30 out of 45 recruits the coaching staff has to shoulder some of the blame. There are legitimate reasons for a few to leave but for 30 come one either we messed up in bringing in some of these kids are something when here. Not just a fluke occurrence.
As for RS we could have easily RS CJF or even Ray Hamilton following year. Iowa was not forced to play either as true freshman. Just like kirksey and hitchens played special teams as freshman. Weren't on 2 deeps
As for RS we could have easily RS CJF or even Ray Hamilton following year. Iowa was not forced to play either as true freshman. Just like kirksey and hitchens played special teams as freshman. Weren't on 2 deeps
If the coaches could get higher rated recruits they would. It's that simple
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Posted from Rivals Mobile
Hawkeye 2222 Is spot on all them guys would of been RS SR last year and the season would of been very successful.
Just like Mich.St. was a couple years ago.
Program never has recover from that year.
I know would of could of is easy to say.
Just like Mich.St. was a couple years ago.
Program never has recover from that year.
I know would of could of is easy to say.
Stars do matter if you are trying to win a National Championship. Since 1998 every team that has won a national title except for Oklahoma in 2000 has had at least two top ten national signing classes in the four years before a title.
