Stars: Scout v. Rivals

[APA]

I was curious asa to how many players are given 3+ star ratings by these 2 services. Here are the numbers:
Scout lists 37 5* players. Rivals is stingier, only 17.

Scout has 278 4* players. Rivals is slightly more liberal, with 298.

Scout has 825 3* players. Rivals has about 1,000 3* players, significantly higher.

 

[Dann]

1140 vs 1315. its still a little early for this type of count. one reason is that scout is way behind in general ranking kids compared to rivals. another is to wait until about half way thru the fall. by then any kid with a legit talent will have a bcs offer or more. alot of kids show out in there senior years as they played behind other kids or injury's kept them from getting media and bcs looks.

 

[mattp]

do you guys know how that compares with several years ago? i've wondered if the bigger focus on recruiting coverage that's been happening over the last few years has resulted in higher overall number of players receiving more stars. i wondered if that was a contributor to why we've had more 3 star players over the years

 

[temery]

I'd like to know how accurate these stars end up being. I would expect five star athletes to go high in the NFL and NBA drafts. And I would expect those who went high in the draft to have been five star athletes.

My guess is their systems are slightly more accurate than throwing a dart at a list of names.

I was curious asa to how many players are given 3+ star ratings by these 2 services. Here are the numbers:
Scout lists 37 5* players. Rivals is stingier, only 17.

Scout has 278 4* players. Rivals is slightly more liberal, with 298.

Scout has 825 3* players. Rivals has about 1,000 3* players, significantly higher.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'd like to know how accurate these stars end up being. I would expect five star athletes to go high in the NFL and NBA drafts. And I would expect those who went high in the draft to have been five star athletes.

My guess is their systems are slightly more accurate than throwing a dart at a list of names.

There have been numbers run on this but I'm too lazy to look it up. I think a fair amount of 5 star kids get drafted high.

Personally, I think you legitimately tell who the top 100 to 200 kids are. After that, it's a crap shoot. I think the difference between a "high 2 star" and "low 4 star" is neglible if it exists at all.

 

[pj]

There have been numbers run on this but I'm too lazy to look it up. I think a fair amount of 5 star kids get drafted high.

Personally, I think you legitimately tell who the top 100 to 200 kids are. After that, it's a crap shoot. I think the difference between a "high 2 star" and "low 4 star" is neglible if it exists at all.

I agree they are often equal in terms of talent, but the low 4* are more developed than the athletic 2*, so there's lower risk. Also, they're more ready to play as freshman, so the team has more depth.

 

[mattp]

I'd like to know how accurate these stars end up being. I would expect five star athletes to go high in the NFL and NBA drafts. And I would expect those who went high in the draft to have been five star athletes.

My guess is their systems are slightly more accurate than throwing a dart at a list of names.

i think the stars are really meant not so much as a predictor of stardom, but as a predictor of success at the college level. 5* aren't necessarily going to be NFL all pros, but there's probably a 90% they play effectively at the college level where as 2* maybe has a 25% chance of playing effectively at the college level. there's always going to be kids that fail for reasons other than athletic ability and that attrition probably hits each rating about the same, whether it be grades, focus, immaturity or whatever. for the most part all of the top 100 players pan out if you take out failures of maturity or injuries and stuff like that. and then you have players like Tom Savage where it's hard to even say how they've done b/c of circumstances

 

[Jarhead_1775]

I thought I read somewhere that the star system was meant to indicate how likely a recruit would be able to contribute as a freshman.

 

[Chin Diesel]

I thought I read somewhere that the star system was meant to indicate how likely a recruit would be able to contribute as a freshman.

Each site has variances on what stars mean. Here's the excerpts from ESPN's football recruiting homepage.

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/football/news/story?id=6635735

5* Rare prospects: 100-90

These players demonstrate rare abilities and can create mismatches that have an obvious impact on the game. These players have all the skills to take over a game and could make a possible impact as true freshmen. They should also push for All-America honors with the potential to have a three-and-out college career with early entry into the NFL draft.



4* Outstanding prospects: 89-80

These players have the ability to create mismatches versus most opponents and have dominant performances. These players could contribute as a true freshmen and could end up as all-conference or All-America candidates during their college careers and develop into difference-makers over time.

3* Good prospects: 79-70

These players show flashes of dominance, but not on a consistent basis -- especially when matched up against the top players in the country. Players closer to a 79 rating possess BCS-caliber ability and the potential to be a quality starter or all-conference player. Players closer to a 70 rating are likely non-BCS conference caliber prospects.

2* Solid prospects: 69-60

These players are overmatched versus the better players in the nation. Their weaknesses will be exposed against top competition, but have the ability to develop into solid contributors at the non-BCS FBS level and could be a quality fit for the FCS level of play.

1* Prospects: 59-50

Players have some redeeming qualities but are not projected to contribute at the FBS or FCS levels.

Prospects: Not ranked or NR

Evaluations are pending film evaluation. These players will have a grade of "NR" and that means we have not had a chance to fully evaluate the prospect.

Rankings prior to the 2013 class

Players in the classes before 2013 were ranked on a different scale with five-star prospects falling within 85-100, four stars between 79.5-84.99, three stars between 75-79.49, two stars between 68-74.99 and one stars between 55-67.99.