Signing Day

  • 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.

Jostate

Bluecolla's sock
A/V Subscriber
Jun 24, 2005
20,846
14,716
1,743
#41
Stars given have some merit for the very cream of the crop, but for the most part, commits to schools like us have their ranking go down and the blue bloods’ commits ranking goes up merely because they sign them.
It is a chicken and egg thing, but you can glean a bit from who else offered a prospect. If we beat North Texas, Tulsa and LA Lafayette for a prospect it's not often a home run.
 
Aug 16, 2005
344
88
1,578
#42
I for one am so glad that all of you guys have traveled widely and observed all of the talent available, evaluated same and decided who OSU should offer and how they fill the teams needs rather than looking at star rankings. The blue bloods don't, and don't have to, recruit as hard or evaluate as effectively to fill classes. I personally don't think that our coaches just settle. Their livelihoods depend on getting the best recruits they can.
 
Sep 30, 2007
421
144
1,593
Dallas
#43
I for one am so glad that all of you guys have traveled widely and observed all of the talent available, evaluated same and decided who OSU should offer and how they fill the teams needs rather than looking at star rankings. The blue bloods don't, and don't have to, recruit as hard or evaluate as effectively to fill classes. I personally don't think that our coaches just settle. Their livelihoods depend on getting the best recruits they can.
Blue bloods like Baylor and TCU? Because they’re kicking our ass in recruiting.
 
Apr 14, 2008
1,068
631
1,743
Texas
#44
I for one am so glad that all of you guys have traveled widely and observed all of the talent available, evaluated same and decided who OSU should offer and how they fill the teams needs rather than looking at star rankings. The blue bloods don't, and don't have to, recruit as hard or evaluate as effectively to fill classes. I personally don't think that our coaches just settle. Their livelihoods depend on getting the best recruits they can.
Blue bloods like Baylor and TCU? Because they’re kicking our ass in recruiting.
Don’t forget Indiana
 
Nov 16, 2013
4,265
2,301
743
34
tractor
#45
Stars are also awarded based off physical traits now, college strength coaches are good at evaluating body type and how frames will develop and identify frames that have peaked in HS.

Also, recruiting websites are a for profit industry, not an unbiased representation of quantifiable information by qualified experts.
You mean to tell me that Cary Murdoch and James Hale may not know what they are talking about? No way! No way! I just can't accept such heresy.
 
Apr 20, 2013
264
126
593
35
Bakersfield, CA
#47
This is the most underwhelming signing day thread ever. We have so many guys where we were their best offer. I know our coaches take a certain approach but it almost feels nonchalant and a lack of care some of the kids we pulled in. Not trying to offend anyone but with our previous 15 yrs, we are not winning more than 1 or 2 recruiting battles vs teams in the top 50 classes. I expect to beat Baylor and Tech and Arkansas. I personally think we need new recruiters
This was pretty telling. Not much outreach in general.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,537
1,184
1,743
34
Tulsa
#48
Yeah OK, meanwhile the programs who go to the final 4 and will continue to be in the final 4 are coincidentally the ones who pull in top 10 classes year after year.
Like Texas who pulls in a top class nearly every year and hasn’t been relevant in a decade.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,537
1,184
1,743
34
Tulsa
#49
I hear this around signing day every year. Another annual tradition is reading how we weren't able to win a conference championship because we didn't have the Jimmy's and Joes'.

Anecdotal evidence aside, there is a correlation between stars and wins. We do as well as just about anybody overcoming that, but you don't win conference championships, in any power conference, with a bunch of 3 star guys.
Where is the evidence with Texas and Tennessee?
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,537
1,184
1,743
34
Tulsa
#51
So let’s look at 2015 top 10. Since this will be the 4th season with this class. I’ll give you credit, 2 of the CFP teams are in the top 10 and some other good ones.... but also some bad ones. Rivals rankings from 15 with 18 records.

1 USC 5-7
2 Alabama 13-0
3 FSU 5-7
4 Clemson 13-0
5 Tennessee 5-7
6 Georgia 11-2
7. Auburn 7-5
8. LSU 9-3
9. Ohio State 12-1
10. aTm 8-4

3 teams have a losing record
3 teams have a mediocre record
4 teams have a good record.

Not seeing a strong correlation. Between success in recruiting and success on the field.
 
Nov 3, 2004
75
47
1,568
#53
The star system is imperfect, but as a general rule the teams with better recruiting classes over time seem to have better results and more championships. It could be argued that the recruiting follows the success (though our winning % doesn't seem to have improved our FB recruiting) or that success follows the recruiting. Either way, it seems that higher rated players have a better probability of turning into a good player at the college level.

With that said, our FB team seems to have every advantage over our BB team to be bringing in better recruits
- More recent success
- Newer facilities
- Established coach
- No FBI investigation to deal with

I looked at the number or 4/5 star recruits in each sport.
- According to rivals in 2018, FB had 430 recruits rated 4/5 star to spread across 130 teams with (up to) 85 scholarship players each. 0.039 4/5star players per scholarship position available each year.
- For basketball, it is 161 recruits rated 4/5 star to spread across 347 teams with (up to) 13 scholarship players each. 0.036 4/5 star players per scholarship position available each year.

So the availability of the 4/5 star recruits is equal or higher in FB, so how is there such disparity in the results? Maybe the recruiting budget per recruited player is much higher for BB, but I would doubt that is the case. Maybe it is effort. Maybe it is attitude. Maybe it is expectation. HCMB doesn't have a preconceived idea that going after the big recruit is pointless. To me it seems that we accept too many lower rated recruits in FB too early in the process because the coaches have already resolved themselves to the fact that we aren't getting the higher ranked guys. Sure, sometimes the coaches will see a diamond in the rough, but there aren't that many diamonds out there. We have won a lot of games with this approach, but we haven't won many championships.
 
Nov 27, 2007
2,537
1,184
1,743
34
Tulsa
#58
I hope you're right. I'd rather have more star power, but time will tell.
In the end me too. Some people (not you) act like it’s the end of the world or that players are worthless unless they have a 4*, 5* by their names.
As a side note, these are the same people that say that the SEC is overrated and aside from the teams at the top, the conference is mediocre at best.... So IMHO, it’s a bit hypocritical to say those teams are overrated or would not be good in the big 12 if you buy-into the stars and rankings.
I guess my underlying point is there is obviously a overwhelming media bias towards the blue bloods and the SEC. Stars and rankings are subjective and open to bias.

Two identical players. One has offers from Bama and Vandy, the other has offers from OSU and TCU. The first is seen as a 4*, the other a 3* and that is a major flaw in the system, bias and subjectively.
 

wrenhal

Territorial Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
9,788
4,062
743
#59
This is the most underwhelming signing day thread ever. We have so many guys where we were their best offer. I know our coaches take a certain approach but it almost feels nonchalant and a lack of care some of the kids we pulled in. Not trying to offend anyone but with our previous 15 yrs, we are not winning more than 1 or 2 recruiting battles vs teams in the top 50 classes. I expect to beat Baylor and Tech and Arkansas. I personally think we need new recruiters
This was pretty telling. Not much outreach in general.
So you don't make even twice as many offers and not even half as many as the highest team. Also Texas is barely above us. I think this just shows that there are teams who are very picky with their offers and don't just throw them out to everybody that visits campus.

Sent from my KIW-L24 using Tapatalk
 

O-St8

Orange is power.
A/V Subscriber
Jan 13, 2005
5,286
1,552
1,743
40
Sand Springs, OK
#60
Oh this is fun too! I hope they do this for 2019!
https://n.rivals.com/news/star-break-down-of-the-2018-pro-bowlers

So the NFL Pro Bowlers are the best of the best. Men that stood out amongst their peers. There were more guys that were not rated, 2 star, and 3 star guys than there are 4, and 5 star guys.

Think about that, a majority of the All Pro team was a 3* or less coming out of highschool.
So I actually tend to agree that much of the star system is tainted with bias and does not take into account how much better the team that each player played on was than their opponents. However, what you need to to is look at the ratio of 4/5 star players on the All Pro team vs the number of total 4/5 star players drafted. And then compare that to 2/3 star players. In other words there are MANY more 2/3 star players out there than there are 4/5 star players. So naturally the numbers of 4/5 star players drafted might still be less than 2/3 star players....and as a result also less than on the All Pro team.