• The KillerFrogs

2018 Recruiting Thread

CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
jake102 said:
Not as a percentage which is the only number that makes sense.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say that it's the ONLY number that makes sense. Both numbers should be taken into account. The raw number is still meaningful because it shows there are a LOT of really good players who were 3 star recruits.
 
Uncle_Frog

Uncle_Frog

Active Member
SuperTFrog said:
Like when they compare total players drafted per conference. You can't compare a 14 team league to a 10 team league like you can't compare 2,500 three stars to 25 five stars (or whatever the numbers are).
Click to expand...
This is correct. SB Nation has done several studies based on previous draft classes and while more 3-star players may get drafted than 5-star players, a 5-star player has a 10-15x better chance of getting drafted in any given year based on percentages. The difference is there are 50-100 3-star players for every 5-star player.

You don't need to be stocked with 5-stars to be elite as TCU has proven many times recently, but in terms a draft status, blue chip prospects typically fare much better.
 
tcumaniac

tcumaniac

Full Member
Chase to Florida is beyond puzzling.

Just goes to show how fickle this entire recruiting process is and how immature and indecisive some of these kids are.

Being a college football coach sure would be cool, but I don't think I'd be able to put up with the constant recruiting BS.
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
Moose Stuff said:
Relatively useless information. Like saying that there are more non first rounders in the NFL than there are first rounders.
Click to expand...
When you take it down to analyzing an individual team, or certainly an individual player, I think all of these numbers and trends become almost meaningless. Is a high 3 star really less of a player than a low 4 star? Was 5 star Tyrone Swoopes really a better QB prospect than 3 star Shawn Robinson in the years they came out? Is the number 315 rated recruit nationally significantly less than the number 80 rated recruit? The differences between so many of these guys are so slim.

The one thing these ratings are never able to account for are how an individual prospect fits in the program they sign with in terms of scheme, personality dynamics with coaches and teammates, campus atmosphere, academic fit, etc. All of those things play a huge part in how successful each player will be at the school they attend.
 
J

Jefffrog1993

KMA
The intangibles are everything not measurable. Heart, will to win, performing under pressure, instincts, eyes in the back of head, timing clock, anticipation, first step, loves to compete, can't stand losing, will work hard, chip on shoulder, can play hurt, etc. Call them all what you will, but that is why recruiting is an inexact science.

I would trust any college coach recruiting and evaluating talent than any recruiting service. If the coaches get it wrong they are fired. All these stars etc. are for the fans not much else.
 
W

Wexahu

Full Member
CountryFrog said:
When you take it down to analyzing an individual team, or certainly an individual player, I think all of these numbers and trends become almost meaningless. Is a high 3 star really less of a player than a low 4 star? Was 5 star Tyrone Swoopes really a better QB prospect than 3 star Shawn Robinson in the years they came out? Is the number 315 rated recruit nationally significantly less than the number 80 rated recruit? The differences between so many of these guys are so slim.

The one thing these ratings are never able to account for are how an individual prospect fits in the program they sign with in terms of scheme, personality dynamics with coaches and teammates, campus atmosphere, academic fit, etc. All of those things play a huge part in how successful each player will be at the school they attend.
Click to expand...

Not to mention they are analyzing 17-18 year old kids who probably won't fully mature physically until they are at least 20. There are a whole slew of late bloomers out there who just take an extra year or two to grow up so to speak. Talk about an inexact science.
 
Uncle_Frog

Uncle_Frog

Active Member
Salfrog said:
Ehh, I stopped getting too excited about the CB's from JG & the guys at 247 a good while back. Seems they have been wrong half, if not most of the time. These kids want the spotlight and the drama drawn out as long as the can. I could give a ratsass how they overblow their commitment announcemt. When they actually sign their letter LOI, that's when I will get excited. 17-18 yr. olds are mostly whiney, flakey, little drama queens that need to grow up. Wake me up on signing day.
Click to expand...
You can actually look at their record when it comes to CBs put in on previous players on 247. Both JC and JG hover around 70% accuracy which is pretty darn impressive given the fickle nature of recruiting high school kids. Historically, if they put in 10 CBs and 7 of them are correct, I'd say that's worth paying some attention to.
 
CountryFrog

CountryFrog

Active Member
Uncle_Frog said:
You can actually look at their record when it comes to CBs put in on previous players on 247. Both JC and JG hover around 70% accuracy which is pretty darn impressive given the fickle nature of recruiting high school kids. Historically, if they put in 10 CBs and 7 of them are correct, I'd say that's worth paying some attention to.
Click to expand...
30% of the time, they're wrong EVERY TIME!
 

Latest posts

Top