Topic: "Player rankings don't matter"
Replies: 20   Last Post: May 16, 2019 12:55 PM by: Joe21®
[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 20  

"Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 2:19 PM

I really hate this statement because obviously you can find outliers in any situation and this is no different. Truth is the rankings tend to be quite accurate as you can see with the NFL Draft. In the 2018 draft the % of those players is a much more accurate way to represent instead of the # as there's substantially less 5* than any other players holding a lesser rating.

2018 NFL Draftees

5-star: 19
4-star: 70
3-star: 106
2-star: 19
NR: 42

2014 Class - 247Sports Composite

5-star: 33 (57.6%)
4-star: 296 (23.6%)
3-star: 1,541 (6.9%)
2-star: 1,666 (1.1%)

2017 NFL Draft

Five-star: 23
Four-star: 76
Three-star: 90
Two-star: 25
NR: 38

Five-star: 35 (65.7%)
Four-star: 330 (23%)
Three-star: 1,790 (5%)
Two-star: 1,720 (1.4%)

The total number of players holding that ranking is on the left, the percentage of which were selected in the NFL draft are on the right.

Of course you get your outliers like Renfrow and Mayfield but the vast majority of 2* will never been Renfrow, schools consistently recruiting 3* and missing on 4-5 don't win championships. Before anyone brings up "Clemson not recruiting top 10" look at the class size for Clemson the pat 5 years, with the outlier being 2019 as that was a large class. For the past 5 years Clemson's recruiting at rankings per player average has been on par or close to the top overall classes. They don't "lack" in recruiting rankings the lack in handing 30 kids a scholarship and telling them no after signing day.

For the most part, the rankings are quite accurate as to who pans out and who doesn't in CFB.

(Statistics taken off of 247 I didn't take the time myself to do the math just the time to research)


Posted: May 15, 2019 2:24 PM

Sample size of 4&5*s minute in comparison

Re: Bingo

Posted: May 15, 2019 2:28 PM

Quite confused more people haven't noticed this, Alabama has dominated in recruiting the past 10 years and in turn has dominated college football until now and has dominated the draft for a long long time. It's a pretty simple correlation in my opinion. Player rankings don't have a "literal" importance but the correlation tends to hold true.

I'll bite.

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:35 PM

Not sure if this is in-directly directed at my post about 5* hunters or not. But, if so, here I am. Not sure who you spoke with or what you read and from who; but if this is a product of that post: "it was never said, they don't matter"!
It was never said, "just get anybody and suit up"!

The point I was making was: "clearly Clemson has not had the top ranked class and still won/wins consistently on the football field. To include schools who's team class rankings are greater!

I am a team guy! When I post, "it's team and the class in total"! We get our fair share of 4 and 5 star players and that's perfect! We don't need or want every 5 star and that's fine.

By the logic I have seen since posting that thread - Georgia should just be handed the trophy now! But, thankfully, Coach Swinney and the Tigers and myself know it doesn't work like that.
I can give a dang about how many 5 star players you have - if a Clemson coach see's a kids film and isn't impressed; I am with that decision not to recruit them. If they get a kid in here and he sits for 3 years or 4 behind a 3 star player that out-worked him; so be it! That's my angle; stats are stats! I don't know those numbers to be accurate and this topic isn't worth the energy or time.
I just know if our last few recruiting classes were all outside the top 9(ha) 10, 7, 12 and 16th I believe - and we win and beat those schools who "on paper" out recruited us! My thing is stop it with all the "woe is me; why can't we get all 5 star players talk some people have"! When it's proven already; we beat teams full of 5 star talent?
Now that is what makes zero sense!

Outside of last year

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:41 PM

Those next class rankings you rattled off we’re all small classes but the player average was still elite. There’s no coincidence that when we started getting a higher ratio of 4 and 5 stars, the championships started coming.

You’re right that development matters and I get I'm not the one that your message is intended for, but you have to admit that your chance of success increases with the more 5 stars you pick up

I think you misrepresent the OP

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:42 PM

We trust our staff we just like winning the five Star battles for guys that are staffed likes and it's happening more and more

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

The Dude abides

Re: I'll bite.

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:12 PM

In the post I show that our player ranking average is on par with top rated classes year in and year out and our ranking is lower because we took less than 20 players compared to mid to upper 20s. The post is a generalized statement about anyone consistently thinking we're "out recruited" or "skipping 5 stars" which we do generally skip 5 stars if we have a red flag but we don't just not go after them or get out recruited on a player average we get out recruited because we only take high quality attitudes and work ethic along with talent as it's much more developmental in the long run compared to just taking every high ranked recruit wanting to tout that he's going to Clemson. Clemson's average player now is about a 90-91 ranking which is on par with every top 10 recruiting class, occasionally you'll see 94 averages like the insane UGA class back in 2018 but they also are taking overflow at positions that increase their average player ranking and their class rank such as in 2018 when they took multiple high ranked recruits for the exact same position. This doesn't work once it hits the field, as only one plays and it leads to transfers and the team having uneasiness and animosity towards the coaching staff which of course never works out. Allocation of scholarships is one of Dabo and coaches most unique and successful moments.

Also, yes your post is what led me to research more into it but this mindset has been prodding at me for a bit to give it more thought and look into it. Not to bicker but to show people more accurate statistics your opinion is not trying to be changed but giving you more insight on the topic. Also, I never stated the coaches are doing wrong they just aren't over recruiting to claim recruiting titles because they're just selecting positions we're needing the most help at and taking the best guys for just that at times we need it most.

Re: I'll bite.

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:20 PM

SethSlyy I got you! It's all Go Tigers! You must have been typing this while I typed another post. That post was sent before I read your reply! I understand where you are coming from! Thank You for the information!

Re: Bingo

Posted: May 16, 2019 12:55 PM

Looking at the NFL draft from another view point by looking at the total and percentage of those drafted by star ratings looks like this:

2018 Draftees: 252 Drafted.

5***** 19 7.3%
4**** 70 27.5%
3*** 106 41.6%
2** 19 7.3%
NR 42 16.5%

2017 Draftees: 252 Drafted

5***** 23 9.1%
4**** 76 30.2%
3*** 90 35.7%
2** 25 9.9%
NR 38 15.1%

With so few numbers in the 5***** group, we would expect a high percentage of that group to be drafted when compared with the other star groups. By being such a small group, the vast number of draftees must come from the lower rated rankings. Surprisingly, the large number coming from the NR group is amazing.

An interesting number would be the star rankings for those drafted round by round. It would take some time and effort to summarize all of these numbers, nevertheless, it would be interesting to see how this plays out. Even though the percentage of 5***** players is higher than the other star groups, some of them may have been drafted in the later rounds.


Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:18 PM

This is a first, I guess your thread is too well organized and facts too many in number, for any rebuttal.

I'd rather have a 5 star our staff believes in

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:39 PM

Than a 3 star they feel they can develop. A mixture of the two has worked along with 4 stars that are a little of both.

2019 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

The Dude abides

Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:40 PM

The truth is with as much crap as the recruiting services get on here they generally do a pretty good job of scouting talent (particularly 247 and Rivals) when you consider exactly how many high school football players they have to scout.

2019 student level member

247 and Rivals are the best IMO

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:46 PM

ESPN is garbage. When evaluating that many kids every year, there’s bound to be some misses and ones that fell through the cracks but in general they do a pretty good job and I think are getting better with all the camps and other points of evaluation.

A lot of the 2*’s that people throw out too are guys that had major physical transformations in college and gained a lot of weight or switched positions.

Re: 247 and Rivals are the best IMO

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:13 PM

ESPN will give a kid an automatic 4* because he committed to a big school LOL.

Don't you mean, "because he committed to an SEC school!"

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:50 PM

And no, not in all cases. But there is evidence that it happens more often than it should!

2019 white level member

Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 7:49 PM

Great info!! Thanks for posting - Seth! Actually higher hits on 5-stars than I thought - but all in all these numbers support the Blue Chip Ratio theory that 4- and 5-star players are an important ingredient for national championship contenders. Certainly not the only ingredient - but a very important one....

2019 purple level member

Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:17 PM

Wow, loosely translated, I gather by some of the comments some of you agree apparently with the SEC talk? Because (can't stress enough) their initial class rankings often show they are getting the best players on their campus. Them or Ohio St. Southern Cal pretty much use to have 1st pick on all the west coast talent; not sure what happened to them.
But, based on the BCR i've seen a few times on this thread and the one I started - you all would fall in line with the SEC propaganda. Except you would say, "based on the average of the recruits ranking INITIALLY they are the best"!
Not where they finished; like our classes that finished being tops or top 3! Which to me blows up the BCR to a degree. But, tomato , tomato!

It's all about what our coaching staff does and what the recruit is willing to do(work on body/mind) to me. We have the best coaches in the country and they have not needed 5 star players who in my opinion: "may have that privileged attitude"! May not just as well, i'm not saying that with certainty. Go Tigers! Keep pasting teams with higher rated classes. Keep developing lower ranked "INITIAL" classes into #1 classes!

Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:19 PM

anyone who believes that was NOT around during the Bowden era.

2019 orange level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

You should never chalk up to conspiracy what you can reliably attribute to stupidity. Because stupidity is a much more powerful force in the course of human events.

Or the Tommy Worst Years***

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:27 PM

2019 purple level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg

say what

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:54 PM

SethSlyy said:

For the most part, the rankings are quite accurate as to who pans out and who doesn't in CFB.

what does NFL acceptance have to do with CFB success?

Re: "Player rankings don't matter"

Posted: May 15, 2019 8:55 PM

Hey, that was pretty #### good ...TU for you!!

Replies: 20  
[ Tiger Boards - Football ]
Start New Topic
884 people have read this post