Recruiting question | The Boneyard

Recruiting question

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
Skip the first two paragraphs if you're going to rely on strawmen, read them if you prefer context.

I don't want to rain on Byron Jones' parade, he had a very good career and a great day, we all want him to do well at the next level, so I'm starting a new thread. I'm not a fan of the star system. It's seriously flawed when you get past the top 100-200 players. There's a point where you're simply splitting hairs. There's a huge gap in coaching (at both levels). There are players, like Byron Jones, who don't play till late in their career and maybe don't have the instincts others do (so their ability hasn't yet shown itself). Fit, motivation, personal issues... there are too many variables to accurately predict success once the obvious film popping size/speed/talent that separates most of the the 4 and 5 star athletes from everyone else disappears.

Other offers, which is also flawed, is a better way to examine how well we are recruiting. Ignore our level for one second and look at Alabama. Do they want to beat out other SEC, Big 12, B1G schools for recruits, or do they want to beat out Conference USA and the American? Does Ohio State want to compete with the MAC for most of their recruits, or do they want to pluck the ones they think can contribute from Toledo's grasp? The same logic applies to UConn. We don't need to beat out the P5 programs (beating some regional ones would be nice) consistently, but we need to do better than beating out FCS programs. Those are not our peers. We will find success stories from time to time, we'll need to. Edsall made a living off that, and we can be mediocre and occasionally have very good seasons, but Diaco better be a hell of an evaluator and a better coach than we've seen so far.

This is not meant to be statistically perfect, but just a discussion of the aggregate and why we should recognize outliers for what they are.

The 2016 Scout.com class has 3,185 players.

320 4-5 star players
530 3 star players
2,335 2 or fewer (also unranked) players.

If we assume those numbers are standard, roughly 2335+/- 2 star athletes per season, and we assume that at any given time 3 of those classes are draft eligible (Junior, RS Jr/Senior, RS Senior), then there are roughly 7,000+/- 2 star (or below) athletes from HS eligible for any given draft.

Similarly there are 2,550+/- 3+ star players available for any give draft.

Of the 9500 players available to enter the draft, roughly 74% should be 2 star or below. Meaning that when we see a 2 star athlete do well at the combine it shouldn't be a surprise, they have the POTENTIAL to outnumber everyone else there 3-1.

If anyone has a link that shows the draft picks with their HS rankings, please post it. I found the top 50 prospects from last year.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap20...rofiles-of-top-50-prospects-in-2014-nfl-draft

Of that 50, 3 (6%) were 2 star athletes. Going later in the rounds, that percentage is sure to go up. Let's assume (yes, I know that's totally arbitrary) it doubles every 50 picks. So: 50 (3), 100 (3+6), 150 (3+6+9), 200 (3+6+9+18) 224 (3+6+9+18+18) = 54 2 star athletes out of 224 draft picks.

That's a very impressive 24%. Except one problem, they outnumbered the other athletes 3:1.

So if those numbers are close to accurate (I have no idea if they are, but I've tried to be logical and fair, and would appreciate anyone able to find the actual numbers), then:

170 3+ star athletes likely get drafted out of 2,550 eligible, or 6.67%
54 2 star athletes likely get drafted out of of 7,000 eligible, or .77%

You could argue that three classes is too many, and it really should be 2:
170 3+ star athletes likely drafted out of 1,700 eligible, or 10%.
54 2 star athletes likely drafted out of 5,100 eligible, or 1.05%.

Based on some reliable information and numbers, and my assumptions, it's clear that 3+ star athletes are far more likely to get drafted, and that 2- star athletes are so numerous, that it should come to no surprise when a few of them make a splash. It also means that 3+ star recruits are roughly 10 times as likely to get drafted as 2 star athletes. I like those odds.

Also, we seem to have had more than our fair share of these 2 star athletes make the NFL. However, THAT COACH IS GONE. We know Edsall could find the high 2 star athletes that were underrated or simply not rated at all. We also know that isn't what he preferred to recruit (because that's not how he recruits at Maryland). So using his success as an example of why the star ranking is "meaningless" is totally illogical. He proved it's flawed, not meaningless. He still lands 2 star recruits, but a) they aren't the majority, and b) some of them have other P5 offers.

So my question is:

If you're going to point out ONE 2 star athlete ( it could be 20 and the point still stands) that put on an impressive performance at the combine as if that proves something, are you also going to tell us about the 6,999 that didn't? (or 5,099 if you only consider 2 classes)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
86,932
Reaction Score
323,063
This is not in opposition to your post.

This is how the Rivals Ratings are broken out: (Essentially 6.1 is a 5* A low 3* is a 5.5) - It's intended to be matched up w/ the link you provided since they reference Rival stars not Scout stars.

6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

Scout had us w/ one 3* Recruit in 2015, Rivals had us w/four 3* and 247 which is suppose to be a composite site of all the others had us @ eleven 3*? There is no consistency between sites @ times except for the high end players.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
I appreciate that info. My main point (and I didn't want to distract from the praise Jones earned) is that while his performance is outstanding, it only "proves" something if you ignore the literally thousands of other 2 star athletes that had the opportunity to play their way into this combine and didn't.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
I appreciate that info. My main point (and I didn't want to distract from the praise Jones earned) is that while his performance is outstanding, it only "proves" something if you ignore the literally thousands of other 2 star athletes that had the opportunity to play their way into this combine and didn't.

The issue I see is that they dump "everyone else" into the 2* category, even DII players and players that no college coaches looked cross-eyed at. After 2003, Rivals got rid of the 1* category altogether. If the 2* rating was actually a rating as opposed to a default, I'd put more stock in it.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
The issue I see is that they dump "everyone else" into the 2* category, even DII players and players that no college coaches looked cross-eyed at. After 2003, Rivals got rid of the 1* category altogether. If the 2* rating was actually a rating as opposed to a default, I'd put more stock in it.
I think the key is, you can put more stock into 3, 4 and 5 star ratings, and the closer to 5 the more stock (accurate). I'd also counter with "sometimes" the 2* is a rating, sometimes it's a default. Just because a player has been given 2* doesn't mean that individual has, or hasn't, been accurately rated. But generally speaking, they are fairly accurate in that the program changers are few and far between comparatively speaking.

All of that said, coaching is what matters the most, specifically; evaluation and development.
 

CTMike

¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
11,420
Reaction Score
40,763
4 and 5 star players are, generally, good. They are physical freaks at the very front of the development/maturation curve for 17 year olds. They also tend to have more data backing them. Some have the desire to continue to improve as they move to college, some don't and will fade. If they are good fits, we should want them (though it's not quite realistic at this time that they choose UConn for a variety of reasons).

Beyond that, as others have noted, stars are crap shoots, being generated on progressively less and less data. These guys are developing at a more "normal" pace for a 17 year old - they haven't peaked yet. Do they want to? Some will, many won't.

Regardless of stars, slapping a label on a 17 year old and drawing some conclusion as to their football ceiling 4 years out is an exercise in stupidity.

You still do have to evaluate talent and find good fits - the RKGs. So how do you find the diamonds in the rough? You look for high integrity, highly motivated guys who love football and want to outwork the other kids in in the same bucket. Diaco's approach is just plain logical. Then, if you are competent (unlike PP), you coach them, teach them, develop them physically.

You don't NEED 4/5* recruits to do well, but they help get you there quicker. 2/3* recruits aren't a death sentence, but you had better be good at evaluating talent, developing it, and out working folks.

Bringing it back to Byron - maybe he WAS a two star recruit at 17... But frankly, who cares? His desire to maximize his talents made that evaluation utterly meaningless.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
I think the key is, you can put more stock into 3, 4 and 5 star ratings, and the closer to 5 the more stock (accurate). I'd also counter with "sometimes" the 2* is a rating, sometimes it's a default. Just because a player has been given 2* doesn't mean that individual has, or hasn't, been accurately rated. But generally speaking, they are fairly accurate in that the program changers are few and far between comparatively speaking.

All of that said, coaching is what matters the most, specifically; evaluation and development.


I don't think anyone is arguing that stars mean nothing, particularly as it pertains to the 4 and 5* rated players. I would expect the "hit" rate to be much higher with them. Things get messy when you start comparing 3* players with 2*s, and that's where you need to take the "default" setting into account. Take away the guys that either weren't evaluated or got a cursory look because they happened to send film in but get a 2* rating anyway and I'd guess that the difference in success rate between 2 and 3* players would be statistically insignificant.

Outside the top 30 or so programs, you're mostly looking at 2 and 3* kids with a sprinkling of higher-rated players.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
I don't think anyone is arguing that stars mean nothing, particularly as it pertains to the 4 and 5* rated players. I would expect the "hit" rate to be much higher with them. Things get messy when you start comparing 3* players with 2*s, and that's where you need to take the "default" setting into account. Take away the guys that either weren't evaluated or got a cursory look because they happened to send film in but get a 2* rating anyway and I'd guess that the difference in success rate between 2 and 3* players would be statistically insignificant.

Outside the top 30 or so programs, you're mostly looking at 2 and 3* kids with a sprinkling of higher-rated players.

See: Fisk, Carlton aka Pudge
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
From 2 posters in another thread.

You've never read commentary from anywhere other than the Boneyard. Go ahead and tell me I'm making it up again, I'll drop it for you. My whole point is that stars don't matter, or is that way over your head for some reason.


Byron Jones DOES prove the contra point to whatever you are selling: this Star crap is meaningless.

Again, I'm not saying it's entirely accurate, other offers intrigue me more than star ratings. but to pretend it is meaningless, in aggregate, is silly. And what is most ironic, is that the guy claiming to be an expert in statistics, is using ONE player out of the 6-7,000 thousand other players that received the same rating, to "prove" the whole system is meaningless. That leap is virtually insane.
 
Last edited:

whaler11

Head Happy Hour Coach
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
44,376
Reaction Score
68,269
When you've got thousands of players with the same 'rating', I wonder if there is any way to differentiate them... oh wait I wonder if the coaching staffs at hundreds of schools evaluating the aggregate and making scholarship offers provides any insight?
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
From 2 posters in another thread.

From the same poster in the same thread:

"I believe, and have for over 10 years, that the absolute 4 & 5 Stars are largely correct in these Ratings Services. That's not statistically significant given that we are talking 100s of kids out of 4000."
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
When you've got thousands of players with the same 'rating', I wonder if there is any way to differentiate them... oh wait I wonder if the coaching staffs at hundreds of schools evaluating the aggregate and making scholarship offers provides any insight?

No . . . you think?
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,380
Reaction Score
33,684
From the same poster in the same thread:

"I believe, and have for over 10 years, that the absolute 4 & 5 Stars are largely correct in these Ratings Services. That's not statistically significant given that we are talking 100s of kids out of 4000."

The weird thing about this whole argument is that most of the people who are arguing with me, whaler, and WingU actually agree with us.

Except for Pudge. He has regression analysis and 7 degrees under his belt.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
From the same poster in the same thread:

"I believe, and have for over 10 years, that the absolute 4 & 5 Stars are largely correct in these Ratings Services. That's not statistically significant given that we are talking 100s of kids out of 4000."

Don't you see the contradiction?

He's saying that 100s of kids out of 4,000 aren't statistically significant, but 1 kid out of 4000-6000 IS. Because that kid went to UConn.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
The closest I've seen is UConnFamily posting that we will not consistently beat teams made up of mostly 3, 4 and 5 star athletes with a team made up mostly of 2 star guys, which conveniently ignores that

1) We have done so in the past, under a prior regime,
2) Our opponents in-conference will not be "made up" of 4 and 5 star players.

I'm as big an apologist as anyone. But Edsall was 74-70, 20-23 (Big East) and finished T-1st (twice), 4th, 5th (twice), 6th, and 7th in the Big East. Whether or not we "consistently" beat teams made up of 3, 4, and 5* athletes is debatable. In 7 years in the Big East we had 2 winning seasons, and 1 .500 season. We were below .500 4 times out of 7. I think Edsall did a great job building the program. We won some pretty important games, but we were below .500 more often than above it against teams made up of 3, 4, and 5* athletes.

If Diaco's staff can evaluate and develop talent like Edsall's could, we should be competitive in this conference. But, IMO, there are some pretty good coaches in the AAC (for now), and until we see Diaco able to develop/coach as well as Edsall did, I think it's fair to be concerned whether or not we are recruiting well enough.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
I largely agree with you about offers as a better measurement of talent level... but I think when you say stuff like the Daily Numbers you're downplaying what went on here in the past. I think 2* recruits are much more like micro/nano cap stocks. If you're an excellent at evaluation and projection you can make a killing and out perform your peers. It's what Edsall did here. It's what Rich Rod did at West Virginia... it's how teams like TCU and Boise State got great. It's MUCH MUCH harder to do...but if you're in the AAC and if you're recruiting territory includes upstate New York, Mass, and New Hampshire... you better be able to do it.


Your argument about Rich Rod at WVU has been addressed and disproven by whaler in another thread.

Here's what TCU recruited from 2010 - 2014 (R I V A L S)

15 - 2* (10 coming in 2014, and 2 were unrated)
9 - 4*

All of the rest, about 75+/-, were 3 star recruits. Roughly 85 3-4* recruits compared to 17 2* (or unrated) recruits.

We're going to need Diaco to do what Edsall did, unless he proves to be a better recruiter of obvious talent (which may not be that difficult). But let's not re-write history. Edsall did a great job, but didn't outperform his peers (see post above), and TCU was built on 3* and above players. That said, those 3* star players were killing teams loaded with 4* players. Again... coaching.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
I'm as big an apologist as anyone. But Edsall was 74-70, 20-23 (Big East) and finished T-1st (twice), 4th, 5th (twice), 6th, and 7th in the Big East. Whether or not we "consistently" beat teams made up of 3, 4, and 5* athletes is debatable. In 7 years in the Big East we had 2 winning seasons, and 1 .500 season. We were below .500 4 times out of 7. I think Edsall did a great job building the program. We won some pretty important games, but we were below .500 more often than above it against teams made up of 3, 4, and 5* athletes.

Looking back, the only two Big East programs that were pulling in 4* and above guys after the initial split in 2003 were Louisville and Pitt (RU had a few). Our record vs. those two was pretty decent.

Cincy and WVU? Mostly 2 and 3 star recruits.

I think where we differ is in whether we consider a 2* vs. 3* designation significant. I don't.
 

sdhusky

1972,73 & 98 Boneyard Poster of the Year
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
9,272
Reaction Score
6,556
Don't you see the contradiction?

He's saying that 100s of kids out of 4,000 aren't statistically significant, but 1 kid out of 4000-6000 IS. Because that kid went to UConn.

It's not one player.

Based on your .77, UCONN should get 1 player drafted about every 3-4 years.

Clearly, for some reason, 2 star players at UCONN get drafted at a higher rate than 3 star players elsewhere.

So maybe, the idea that stars of UCONN players isn't accurate isn't a crazy idea.
 
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
8,234
Reaction Score
17,486
It's not one player.

Based on your .77, UCONN should get 1 player drafted about every 3-4 years.

Clearly, for some reason, 2 star players at UCONN get drafted at a higher rate than 3 star players elsewhere.

So maybe, the idea that stars of UCONN players isn't accurate isn't a crazy idea.

I think that's a reflection of the "dumping" of unranked or unreviewed players into the 2* rating.
 
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
13,380
Reaction Score
33,684
It's not one player.

Based on your .77, UCONN should get 1 player drafted about every 3-4 years.

Clearly, for some reason, 2 star players at UCONN get drafted at a higher rate than 3 star players elsewhere.

So maybe, the idea that stars of UCONN players isn't accurate isn't a crazy idea.

Clearly you either aren't smart or mature enough for this conversation.

I'm going with both.
 
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
6,374
Reaction Score
16,572
Point 1: Byron Jones is the perfect Case Study for this debate. Then let's go on.

You reference Randy Edsall? Many of us know that Edsall purposely would not publish nor leak his offers to kids. Byron Jones was on UConn's radar - probably his Sophomore year or earlier. (maybe the first camp) Edsall may have offered him as early as possible. Jones and his Dad may never have talked to any of the ratings services.

DEFAULT. No Offers. And, he is from a region of the country that no one looks at the HS players that rigorously. He is a TWO Star all day. And never would have been raised. Is Jones an outlier? Absolutely not. We have 30 Jones stories in the last 8 years.

Point 2: Where does this revisionist loser attitude come from?

We were great ... for a Program rising from FCS to FBS from 2003 -2010. Didn't beat WVU that often? Big Deal. You think you are supposed to instantly get on that field and win games against. I think we ought to be darn proud to have regularly cracked the top 40 in that period. Beaten a lot of really good Programs. Are you wrong to want/expect a higher standard? Absolutely not. What I like about being a UConn fan (in multiple sports) is that we aren't going accept mediocrity. (BTW ... we were NOT mediocre 2003-2010 WING) We are going to be rising up ... or we are going can the Coach. (ie. We aren't Rutgers)
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
It's not one player.

Based on your .77, UCONN should get 1 player drafted about every 3-4 years.

Clearly, for some reason, 2 star players at UCONN get drafted at a higher rate than 3 star players elsewhere.

So maybe, the idea that stars of UCONN players isn't accurate isn't a crazy idea.

I readily admit that the .77 number is based on assumptions and that it may be too high or too low. If you have access to the real data for where I made assumptions, I'd love to have it.

I also addressed your point in the original post:

"Also, we seem to have had more than our fair share of these 2 star athletes make the NFL. However, THAT COACH IS GONE. We know Edsall could find the high 2 star athletes that were underrated or simply not rated at all. We also know that isn't what he preferred to recruit (because that's not how he recruits at Maryland). So using his success as an example of why the star ranking is "meaningless" is totally illogical. He proved it's flawed, not meaningless. He still lands 2 star recruits, but a) they aren't the majority, and b) some of them have other P5 offers."

The problem, as I see it, is some coaches are able to recognize and develop underrated 2* talent. Edsall proved capable. Diaco has not. So attributing that success to "UConn" rather than the coaches is flawed. And to expect what Edsall was able to accomplish to continue regardless of who is the coach, again, flawed, as evidenced by the performance on the field.
 
Joined
Aug 28, 2011
Messages
8,197
Reaction Score
22,399
Point 1: Byron Jones is the perfect Case Study for this debate. Then let's go on.

You reference Randy Edsall? Many of us know that Edsall purposely would not publish nor leak his offers to kids. Byron Jones was on UConn's radar - probably his Sophomore year or earlier. (maybe the first camp) Edsall may have offered him as early as possible. Jones and his Dad may never have talked to any of the ratings services.

DEFAULT. No Offers. And, he is from a region of the country that no one looks at the HS players that rigorously. He is a TWO Star all day. And never would have been raised. Is Jones an outlier? Absolutely not. We have 30 Jones stories in the last 8 years.

Point 2: Where does this revisionist loser attitude come from?

We were great ... for a Program rising from FCS to FBS from 2003 -2010. Didn't beat WVU that often? Big Deal. You think you are supposed to instantly get on that field and win games against. I think we ought to be darn proud to have regularly cracked the top 40 in that period. Beaten a lot of really good Programs. Are you wrong to want/expect a higher standard? Absolutely not. What I like about being a UConn fan (in multiple sports) is that we aren't going accept mediocrity. (BTW ... we were NOT mediocre 2003-2010 WING) We are going to be rising up ... or we are going can the Coach. (ie. We aren't Rutgers)

Again, Edsall proved more capable than others to find underrated talent. Randy Edsall isn't here. Can Diaco do it? Remains to be seen. Other offers is flawed, sure.

LMAO.

I'm as big an Edsall supporter as you'll find. But the record is what it is. I'm proud to have cracked the top 40. I'm proud of our Big East Championships. I couldn't stand many of our fans discounting our success. But we still need perspective. You should stop telling people what they think. I never said we should instantly be good, you need that strawman to be true about me in order to avoid the facts I'm bringing to the discussion. You know, the record against the Big East. I think Edsall over-achieved (many thought he was under-achieving which I still find crazy), but that over-achievement was because we ranged from mediocre to occasionally good.

You say just because we didn't compete with WVU we weren't mediocre, but the RECORD in the Big East (remember we only played WVU 7 times in 7 years) was 20-23. That's not revisionist, it's a fact. We were below .500 more often than above it. That's not revisionist, it's a fact. If people are going to claim we regularly beat teams with higher rated recruits, then the record should reflect that, it doesn't. We were competitive, never really bad, but also never really good.

We didn't regularly beat teams with higher rated recruits, or else we wouldn't have been 20-23 in the Big East.
 
Last edited:

sdhusky

1972,73 & 98 Boneyard Poster of the Year
Joined
Aug 24, 2011
Messages
9,272
Reaction Score
6,556
The problem, as I see it, is some coaches are able to recognize and develop underrated 2* talent. Edsall proved capable. Diaco has not. So attributing that success to "UConn" rather than the coaches is flawed. And to expect what Edsall was able to accomplish to continue regardless of who is the coach, again, flawed, as evidenced by the performance on the field.

That's a valid opionion - but suggesting otherwise, without evidence, is "flawed" is going to far.

I think it had more to do with the guru's discounting players from the northeast more so than Edsall developing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Online statistics

Members online
475
Guests online
3,103
Total visitors
3,578

Forum statistics

Threads
155,759
Messages
4,030,591
Members
9,864
Latest member
leepaul


Top Bottom