This is exactly how I feel, the value is the willingness of the player to fill the role needed. This is what makes a team a "TEAM"....Well said kp... Corey that is great information and Bill is right you always pop up the best links...
I could care less how many stars a player is given. I look to see if we got the first offer guys we went after and if we addressed positions of need. When we do (like this year) I'm happy. When you are down to offering a third round of players with no takers things are not going well... (RC at the end of his tenure) Remember a lot of these services cater to certain fan bases that make up a large part of their subscriptions. Even if it's not conscious... it happens.
I'm sorry I totally disagree, those stars mean something. I would much rather have a top rated class with all 4 and 5 star players than a lot of 3 star players. Now granted places like TCU and Boise State and others have done extremely well developing lower rated players, and good for them. But I think if you look at the teams who are consistently in the top 10 you see teams that consistently recruit extremely well. Now those teams also pick up their share of diamonds in the rough. kp mentioned that their Heisman winner was a 3 star, it's a sign of a good staff when they find and develop players. Of course Johnny Football wasn't highly rated as a QB, another example, but again give me highly rated players like Javadon Clowney, or Manti Te'o, or the kid who is this years #1 player Robert Nkemiech who signed with Ole Miss.
Here are some recent 3 star players who panned out OK for ther Irish Mike Golic-Tyler Eifert-David Bruton-John Carlson And here are three notable 5 star players who ? Sam Young-James Aldridge-Dayne Crist
It's great when a 3* player becomes a great college player and disappointing when you have a highly rated player who doesn't. But still give me a team fulll of 4 and 5 star players every time over a class loaded with 3 star players.
It's more important to me to see what schools are offering a kid. If a kid gets offers from Mich., Fla., Ala., OSU and USC you just know he has talent and a big upside.
I agree with Terry.....you have to go with the odds and the odds are....according to my memory and in just looking at the link Corey provided that 5 star players pan out more often than not.... and sometimes pan out very well......like Tim Tebow and Percy Harvin at UF, etc. If three star guys were the ones that most often made All-American lists and won Heismans and national titles then teams would clamor and compete for the 3 star guys and say to hell with those 5 star lumps of coal.
you do sometimes see kids who aren't highly rated by the services who do have good offer lists, but it's far more likely that that kid with a great offer list is also a 4 or 5 star player.
Ralph, I'm with ya buddy....it has gotten over the top and becomes moreso each and every year. As for myself, I stay interested and informed without obsessing over it.....if our coaches say a kid can play and contribute at the level we expect, I am more likely to believe them than some web site guru Can't disagree with that at all..... the data on that is compelling. What is much more of a crap shoot and frankly worthless is the ranking of the teams. The notion that a team that has a 3.76 average recruit and 25 commits is somehow superior to a team that has 3.72 average with 24 commits and worthy of some distinction as "best" anything is just foolish. In truth there is likely no difference at all between the top 5 or even 10.... Practically speaking tho, it is so much more important to fill needs, build quality depth and have kids that fit systems that you really can't judge individual classes on that basis with any reasonable degree of precision......I do believe that you can say the top 10 or so will be superior over time to the next 10, etc....but to anoint a champ is just nonsense, but it sells readers and lets those so inclined to engage in another round of self-masturbatory chest thumping
Justin Tuck comes to mind. A skinny 2 or 3 star from a small school down south. Now he is an All-Pro.
This I agree with. As I said before #1 in recruiting really is window dressing....means very little except it looks good on paper and is fun to say. That said....being in the top 5 or 10 consistently year after year will eventually lead to some very very good teams on the field. I have to say also that if UF is going to go so heavy in signing so many players.. 30 ... in one recruiting year I am glad to see it is a consensus top 5 class because man that's a lot of newbies!
No doubt we can all come up with diamonds in the rough who made it big...but I guarantee you that if ND/Alabama/Fla/Ohio State/Mich/ or other skybox supported team regualarily recruited mostly 3 star players non of us would be esp happy.
I think Vandy routinely has been getting these types....and they are improved.....but not great. A team loaded with 3 stars only isn't going far.
The Big East (or at least the old Big East) was a case in point, they had several teams that had great records built mainly on 2 and 3 star recruits, but they played weak schedules. WVA under Rich Rod had some great records, so did Louisville, and Rutgers, and Kelly's last year at UC he was 12-0. Now some of those teams had some big bowl upsets, but even though the most recent big bowl upset of Louisville over Fla nobody really thinks that it proves that Louisville would have had that great record had they played in the SEC. It was one game and they played great and UF sucked. Same for the Utah vs Alabama win in the Sugar Bowl. How has Utah done since they joined the Pac12?
Terry, I think you missed what I was saying, but then again since Texas is doing so well with all those 5 star guys I can't argue with you. I wasn't saying my coaches wouldn't go after a player that was also rated 5 stars. I was saying if my coaches get who they EVALUATED as a first offer guy... then those are the guys I'm happy to get regardless of what the services rated them. I'm sure glad we took a lowly 3 star QB a couple of years ago...
Utah seems to be doing about as well in the p12 as Texas seems to be doing in the B12 and Texas has all those 4 and 5 star players? Is the B12 that awesome No.. It's what you do with the players that counts. In 2011, Utah finished 8-5 and the only teams they lost to (including the bowl) were P12 teams. Utah is in the same spot in the P12 as they were the MWC. The only thing that has changed is the perception of the conference they are in. They can build really good teams that will have a good 1 to 2 year run, but they're going to have a hard time being an annual to 25 team until they make a few breaks for themselves. Diminishing what they did to Alabama is just silly and is honestly the poor man's BCS cop out. That same team beat Michigan in Ann Arbor. The thing is you have to find kids who are a fit for you, develop them and then put them in a position to win. Those 3 things sound easy, but it is what separates the bad, the good and the greats. Zook landed lots of talent at 2 schools. How'd that work out for him?
It's funny to think about how different recruiting is now from back then. In 1987 when Bucky signed... All you knew about it was the name listed in the sports page along with all the other guys that were signed. No stars. Just Dave Campbell's super teams to give a hint at the super blues.