Do stars really matter? Let's find out.

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
If you don’t think the player ranking works you are in fact saying that talent of HS athletes can’t be evaluated.
 
Jun 12, 2007
704
226
1,593
I'll put my 2 cents in as well. Stars don't matter, it's the player that matters and that player might be a 2 star, a 3 star, a 4 star or 5 star. Barry Sanders? Tulsa, Iowa State and us wanted him. Wes Welker who had one offer terrorized us for years. He wanted to play for the Cowboys and was turned away. Pick any NFL team roster and look at where that player played. You will see players from colleges you never knew existed as well from Power 5 colleges. We have been so close in the last 10 years to winning the Big 12 and losing it due to one play. Our team came within a 2 point converstion of beating ou this year with our 3 star recruits. Kansas was successful on two 2 point conversions against ou the next week due to brilliant play calling. Evidence does seem to show Gundy and crew do a good job on finding players that their star rating is either low or they grow into a higher star. He also misses on a few too. Names will not be mentioned. I would bet that the players on the Stanford team in 2011 had on average higher stars than our team and that was two evenly matched teams. Bottom line for me is us getting the players that work in the system Gundy wants to run and I don't care what their star is. As important is having the coaches on the staff that know how to use the players correctly.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
6,961
3,496
743
49
If you don’t think the player ranking works you are in fact saying that talent of HS athletes can’t be evaluated.
But then why limit the number of kids who can get a 5* ranking? If you're honest then make a 10* ranking and put the kids on the scale where you think they belong. If you end up with 200 10's and 500 5's and everyone else randomly elsewhere in the scale then so be it. (Just an example). But be willing to admit there is bias when there is an arbitrary limit placed on the upper end.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
If the stars don’t mean anything then are all of you concerned that we don’t get enough 4 and 5 star kids? Why Is Holder wanting more 4 and 5 star kids?
 

wreck

Intrigued By Shiny Objects
A/V Subscriber
Jun 3, 2006
2,225
1,068
1,743
Dallas
If the stars don’t mean anything then are all of you concerned that we don’t get enough 4 and 5 star kids? Why Is Holder wanting more 4 and 5 star kids?
I think everyone agrees that we would LIKE to get more 4 and 5 star kids - people just disagree on how many of these kids we SHOULD be getting realistically. No one is saying that you can't evaluate these athletes - but you also have to concede that the evaluations are subjective. That is why different services have different opinions on who is a 4 or 5 star talent.
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
I think everyone agrees that we would LIKE to get more 4 and 5 star kids - people just disagree on how many of these kids we SHOULD be getting realistically. No one is saying that you can't evaluate these athletes - but you also have to concede that the evaluations are subjective. That is why different services have different opinions on who is a 4 or 5 star talent.
Of course it’s subjective. It also has bias. It’s also not perfect. Where have I ever said otherwise? I’ll save you some time, I’ve never said otherwise.
 

wreck

Intrigued By Shiny Objects
A/V Subscriber
Jun 3, 2006
2,225
1,068
1,743
Dallas
Of course it’s subjective. It also has bias. It’s also not perfect. Where have I ever said otherwise? I’ll save you some time, I’ve never said otherwise.
... and where did I ever say you said otherwise??? I quoted you for making the point after stating you believed the HS evaluations were to be believed and followed. I just added the point that many here have unrealistic expectations of how many of these athletes we should be getting.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,226
2,363
1,743
So Cal
If you don’t think the player ranking works you are in fact saying that talent of HS athletes can’t be evaluated.
naw... that's not the logical conclusion.

The biggest issues are 1) player maturity at that age, since physical development changes radically for some kids from 17-20, and 2) the way the rankings are compiled.

Generally, the services rely on local sports personalities to assemble their opinion on kids, some of these guys actually attend HS games and watch kids on tape, some of them may not, in any event, they don't get to all of them, just those making somebody's headlines. Then a central committee collects those regional rankings and tries to do a "weed out" comparison... my region is better than your region type stuff (when the level of competition is totally subjective). Then they decide on how many of those kids are 5-star, 4-star, etc., based totally on subjective criteria, with little accounting for whether one year's class may be stronger than the past classes... doesn't affect the totals much.

These services do a decent job of pointing out who might be ready to play immediately, or who is really fast, or really big, and those are all desired qualities, but they don't really tell us much else about the rest of the players, their maturity, or their potential.

getting kids that are rated highly certainly makes it a bit easier on player development and immediate depth, but it's not the whole story, by any measure.

Most of our recent highly rated RBs have been busts one way or another, with some not making it to campus and others being dismissed for poor character issues., with Hunter being the exception.

OSU is not one of those destination schools for the highest rated kids, mostly because of geography, so we have to do as we can to build our classes.
 

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
15,132
3,594
1,743
Oklahoma City
I disagree. Tatum Bell, Thurman Thomas, Tyreek Hill were all highly recruited. Recently Devon Thomas was a bust but we knew he was a massive risk. It was well known. Herschel sims stole some money but many of our good running backs were highly recruited. We have a mix. Chubba Hubbard was a 4 star and we just signed Glass who was 4 star also.
 
Mar 8, 2010
1,468
931
743
Stars certainly aren't perfect, but I still contend you can't build a consistent conference contender with 2 and 3 star guys. There just aren't enough Barry Sanders exceptions out there to give you the numbers you need. You can't point to a few exceptions and say they don't matter. Holder is right, just should have said it to Mike privately during his annual evaluation (if he even gets one!)
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,375
1,099
1,743
33
Tulsa
naw... that's not the logical conclusion.

The biggest issues are 1) player maturity at that age, since physical development changes radically for some kids from 17-20, and 2) the way the rankings are compiled.

Generally, the services rely on local sports personalities to assemble their opinion on kids, some of these guys actually attend HS games and watch kids on tape, some of them may not, in any event, they don't get to all of them, just those making somebody's headlines. Then a central committee collects those regional rankings and tries to do a "weed out" comparison... my region is better than your region type stuff (when the level of competition is totally subjective). Then they decide on how many of those kids are 5-star, 4-star, etc., based totally on subjective criteria, with little accounting for whether one year's class may be stronger than the past classes... doesn't affect the totals much.

These services do a decent job of pointing out who might be ready to play immediately, or who is really fast, or really big, and those are all desired qualities, but they don't really tell us much else about the rest of the players, their maturity, or their potential.

getting kids that are rated highly certainly makes it a bit easier on player development and immediate depth, but it's not the whole story, by any measure.

Most of our recent highly rated RBs have been busts one way or another, with some not making it to campus and others being dismissed for poor character issues., with Hunter being the exception.

OSU is not one of those destination schools for the highest rated kids, mostly because of geography, so we have to do as we can to build our classes.
Perfect! Could not have been said better. /thread
 

Midnight Toker

Territorial Marshal
May 28, 2010
8,134
1,673
743
Stars matter. Look how dominant OU has been in the big 12 over the past decade, and they consistently get 4 stars and sometimes 5s. They consistently outrecruit the rest of the conference and as a result they own the big 12. Now, look what happens when they play teams that have a bunch of 5 stars all over the field like alabama. OU suddenly doesnt look so dominant. At the top level stars matter a lot because the real elite kids separate themselves from everyone else
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
cherry picking data is proof positive something doesn’t work.

For those of you who suggest the stars don’t matter. Please tell the rest of the world how you would evaluate talent. Because evidently you know something those in the business don’t know.
 

CaliforniaCowboy

Federal Marshal
Oct 15, 2003
15,226
2,363
1,743
So Cal
cherry picking data is proof positive something doesn’t work.

For those of you who suggest the stars don’t matter. Please tell the rest of the world how you would evaluate talent. Because evidently you know something those in the business don’t know.
naw... it just doesn't work that way. If the services were worth a darn, then every coach in the country would be running around with the recruiting service lists and wouldn't bother to actually watch tape, visit schools and do their own legwork.

Nobody has to "tell the rest of the world how they would evaluate talent"... they coaches' already do it differently and don't use the services.

what more evidence do you really need?

I'm glad you like looking at the ratings of the services. Yahoo.

and I believe the comments were that stars don't tell the whole story, not that they don't "work", and frankly, they have not worked very well for OSU by most accounting. We've had more busts and "didn't make its", than those the were real difference makers. (sorry, was that cherry picking?)
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
naw... it just doesn't work that way. If the services were worth a darn, then every coach in the country would be running around with the recruiting service lists and wouldn't bother to actually watch tape, visit schools and do their own legwork.

Nobody has to "tell the rest of the world how they would evaluate talent"... they coaches' already do it differently and don't use the services.

what more evidence do you really need?

I'm glad you like looking at the ratings of the services. Yahoo.

and I believe the comments were that stars don't tell the whole story, not that they don't "work", and frankly, they have not worked very well for OSU by most accounting. We've had more busts and "didn't make its", than those the were real difference makers. (sorry, was that cherry picking?)
Who does the ranking?
 

Cimarron

It's not dying I'm talking about, it's living.
Jun 28, 2007
52,556
18,181
1,743
naw... it just doesn't work that way. If the services were worth a darn, then every coach in the country would be running around with the recruiting service lists and wouldn't bother to actually watch tape, visit schools and do their own legwork.

Nobody has to "tell the rest of the world how they would evaluate talent"... they coaches' already do it differently and don't use the services.

what more evidence do you really need?

I'm glad you like looking at the ratings of the services. Yahoo.

and I believe the comments were that stars don't tell the whole story, not that they don't "work", and frankly, they have not worked very well for OSU by most accounting. We've had more busts and "didn't make its", than those the were real difference makers. (sorry, was that cherry picking?)
And then there is one of the most succesful coaches in OSU history had this to say.

" I'd want to finish higher in those recruiting rankings than we consistently do."

Not sure why a coach would care?
 

RutherfordFan

Federal Marshal
Feb 5, 2008
15,132
3,594
1,743
Oklahoma City
Stars certainly aren't perfect, but I still contend you can't build a consistent conference contender with 2 and 3 star guys. There just aren't enough Barry Sanders exceptions out there to give you the numbers you need. You can't point to a few exceptions and say they don't matter. Holder is right, just should have said it to Mike privately during his annual evaluation (if he even gets one!)
Please quit saying 2 stars we might have 1 two star player a class. We recruit mostly 3 stars and get about 3- 4 star guys a class on average. Mixed with a handful of high 3 star guys and boom we have good teams.. we have elite offensive talent and solid D talent, just while osu has about 15 great players. What people fail to understand is high 3 star players there is very little difference between that and 4 star. Unless kid is high 4 star. OSU has elite talent just less depth than OU and other teams at certain positions.