Do you remember the 2007 SC class? It was supposed to be All-World with gobs of five star recruits.

Tyler -not drafted - #2RB
Gallipo - not drafted - #1MLB
Griffen - 4th round - #1DE
O'dowd - not drafted - #1C
McKnight - 4th round - #1RB
R. Johnson - 6th round - #2CB
A. Corp - not drafted - #3QB
D. Harris - not drafted - #6DE

....and we beat ourselves up, because our 2008 and 2009 were not world beaters.

So much for star rankings. Thank you for the reality check.

Interesting. Did you look at the other 5-star players from the other Pac-10 teams?

southseasbear;743667 said:

---

So much for star rankings. Thank you for the reality check.

---

Reality check deux?

And yet these mediocrities own us .

But they get so many of those recruits they can afford to have some misses. If we have too many misses we are in trouble.

For instance, although corp did not work out, they got Barkley the next year. I think we had three qb misses in row, which really set our offense back. Every program has misses. The key is depth and the ability to reload every year.

I submit college football success is not how many players get into the NFL or where they were drafted.....in 2007 u$c was 11-2 and played in the Rose Bowl, in 2008 they were 12-1 and played in the Rose Bowl, etc., etc.

Cal can get the whole team in the NFL and drafted high.......but Cal has many recruited players that didn't make the NFL draft and has not had any consistent college football success of note........So ....uhhh...Cal hasn't got any glitter in my book.....?????

BB, the 2007 & 08 teams probably did not contain these recruits. They either red-shirted or played a small amount in relief.

BTW, I was not original with this. It came from a poster on WildWest Sports. His/her point was that not all 5 stars deliver as promised. How much time and investigation do these recruiting blogs really devote to a high school prospect before they anoint one with 4 or 5 stars? These kids are still growing into their bodies; their interests change as they get older; they're really evaluated in 11th grade when they are 16/17 years old - a shaky proposition at best; they are best in high school and not meant to confront kids of similar size and speed and where they commit might influence the number of stars given. In short, it can be a crap shoot.

This.

6bear6;743658 said:

---

Do you remember the 2007 SC class? It was supposed to be All-World with gobs of five star recruits.

Tyler -not drafted - #2RB
Gallipo - not drafted - #1MLB
Griffen - 4th round - #1DE
O'dowd - not drafted - #1C
McKnight - 4th round - #1RB
R. Johnson - 6th round - #2CB
A. Corp - not drafted - #3QB
D. Harris - not drafted - #6DE

....and we beat ourselves up, because our 2008 and 2009 were not world beaters.

---

Thanks 6bear6.
It gives a good "reality check" to those people who live and die by the the star ratings of PAC12 recruits. Star ratings are not accurate predictors of how a particular recruit will do in college.

Obviously a 4* and 5* recruit will generally be better than a 2*. But this is often not true about a 3* recruit.

Part of the problem with relying on stars is that the reporting agency may be biased.

Part of the problem is that the reporting agency may have missed some important element in reviewing a particular recruit.

Part of the problem is that the stars assigned to a HS SR will not take into account the player's development and growth once in college. There are many recruits who add height and (obviously) weight in their college years.

Part of the problem is that the stars assigned may not take into account a player's desire and drive.

Finally part of problem is that the star does not take into account "coaching". [And in this area I can complement JT. It is obvious that he has had a lot of success in developing the 3* players. Although many posters may not be happy how he has actually used these players.]

I am not sure accuracy is the proper assessment of star ratings...more like there is a substantially higher probability of a 4* star player becoming an impact contributor than a 3* or lower player.

Obviously Cal's staff has done wonders in developing all of our players, evidenced by our comparable NFL draftees over the last few years, but can you imagine our offense without a 5* player like KA? What are the chances of landing a 3* player that could have made a similar impact? Considering the cultural different at Cal and SC, can anyone be certain those 4* and 5* busts wouldn't have lived up to their ranking if they came to Cal?

Quote:

---

There's definitely a tendency for higher star rankings to perform better on the field.

---

It's not just a weak tendency, either. It's a fairly strong correlation. 5* recruits really do outperform 4* recruits, who really do outperform 3* recruits, who really do outperform 2* recruits. We should all be aware that cherry picked results that suggest otherwise isn't exactly good evidence...

southseasbear;743667 said:

---

So much for star rankings. Thank you for the reality check.

---

http://www.blackheartgoldpants.com/2011/4/30/2143688/the-best-and-worst-college-programs-and-conferences-at-developing

I don't know how to take a picture of a tweet and post it so I'll just say what is tweeted. This comes from Adam Munsterteiger (@adamcm777) who covers the University of Colorado for Rivals/Yahoo.

"There were a total of 10,189 two and three star recruits in 07, 08, 09 & only 1,197 four and five star recruits those years.

So more than half the 1st-round picks came from a four and five star group that was 1/9th the size of two and three stars.

A former five-star recruit getting drafted in the first round proved to be 52.4x more likely than a former two-star recruit"

68great;743776 said:

---

Thanks 6bear6.
It gives a good "reality check" to those people who live and die by the the star ratings of PAC12 recruits. Star ratings are not accurate predictors of how a particular recruit will do in college.

Obviously a 4* and 5* recruit will generally be better than a 2*. But this is often not true about a 3* recruit.

Part of the problem with relying on stars is that the reporting agency may be biased.

Part of the problem is that the reporting agency may have missed some important element in reviewing a particular recruit.

Part of the problem is that the stars assigned to a HS SR will not take into account the player's development and growth once in college. There are many recruits who add height and (obviously) weight in their college years.

Part of the problem is that the stars assigned may not take into account a player's desire and drive.

Finally part of problem is that the star does not take into account "coaching". [And in this area I can complement JT. It is obvious that he has had a lot of success in developing the 3* players. Although many posters may not be happy how he has actually used these players.]

---

Agreed. Look at how much time, money and effort the NFL puts into analyzing the probability of a draftee. They have 3 or 4 years of film; they have a Combine to test the player; they have a medical examination; they have coaches to talk to and make recommendations; they have this player versus that player in team versus team contests; they also have the high school record of the draftee; they can cherry-pick who they want and that player must join the team that picks him - no Plan B's. And, with all of that the NFL still misses time and again in getting what they want from a player.

Meanwhile, the recruiting blogs bestow stars based on what?

6bear6;743862 said:

---

Agreed. Look at how much time, money and effort the NFL puts into analyzing the probability of a draftee. They have 3 or 4 years of film; they have a Combine to test the player; they have a medical examination; they have coaches to talk to and make recommendations; they have this player versus that player in team versus team contests; they also have the high school record of the draftee; they can cherry-pick who they want and that player must join the team that picks him - no Plan B's. And, with all of that the NFL still misses time and again in getting what they want from a player.

Meanwhile, the recruiting blogs bestow stars based on what?

---

2-3 years of film, camps, all-star games, combines, physical tests, interviews, etc., etc. It's big business.

HS ratings are subject to the same mistakes for any given player, but on average ratings are a pretty good indicator.

afroski;743885 said:

---

2-3 years of film, camps, all-star games, combines, physical tests, interviews, etc., etc. It's big business.

HS ratings are subject to the same mistakes for any given player, but on average ratings are a pretty good indicator.

---

People complain that the recruiting services bump guys up/down based on what offers they get and who's recruiting them....but that's actually a decent indicator. The coaches are doing their homework and developing relationships with these kids, and using that as a proxy essentially includes all that homework the various coaching staffs have as a general catchall in one variable. It's far from perfect, and maybe it could be done quite a bit more accurately...but as others have provided data for, it still does work fairly well.

Blueblood;743693 said:

---

I submit college football success is not how many players get into the NFL or where they were drafted.....in 2007 u$c was 11-2 and played in the Rose Bowl, in 2008 they were 12-1 and played in the Rose Bowl, etc., etc.

Cal can get the whole team in the NFL and drafted high.......but Cal has many recruited players that didn't make the NFL draft and has not had any consistent college football success of note........So ....uhhh...Cal hasn't got any glitter in my book.....?????

---

Thanks for the well phrased piece of sanity.
The credibility of this board suffers greatly from the frequency of postings that attempt to claim that our football program is somehow superior to $C or Whoregon. We have a hard time even managing a winning conference record. Let's beat OSU, Washington and Utah next year before we even start to have a serious discussion about this.

And I agree, who cares how many Cal players make it to the pros.
Yes it is a legitimate selling point to recruits, but only one of many.
If we want to sell recruits, sell the new Memorial stadium and the inspirational history highlighted by the Joe Roth story. That is something truly unique to Cal. If you market the stadium in the right way, it can really influence young people to want to play at Cal.

heartofthebear;743919 said:

---

If we want to sell recruits, sell the new Memorial stadium and the inspirational history highlighted by the Joe Roth story.

---

...and maybe this will be able to convince a member of the Roth family to attend Cal. No one else.

Bear Balls;743981 said:

---

...and maybe this will be able to convince a member of the Roth family to attend Cal. No one else.

---

That must have been a lot of work interviewing everyone on the planet.
history and tradition is often sited as a reason a recruit wanted to attend a given school. The Mike White era at Cal and the Joe Roth period in particular is one reason why I'm a Cal fan. I don't see why the same history wouldn't affect a recruit as well.

People who use this information as proof that star rankings dont matter or are a crap shoot are pretty stupid...


It is like when people claim "global warming" cant be true because it is snowing in Copenhagen.