The CardBoard
Class of 2015 - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Class of 2015 (/thread-5157.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69

Re: Class of 2015 - JohnR34231 - 09-22-2014

(09-21-2014, 01:51 PM)AthleticsDynasty link Wrote:[quote author=JPRI link=topic=7902.msg98860#msg98860 date=1411303123]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=7902.msg98753#msg98753 date=1411136659]
Love this comment, doesn't matter how many stars you come in with but how many you leave with.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/512628319024472064

True, but I do think there is a correlation between the two. Not a perfect one, but one nevertheless.
Having said that, I think the Harbaugh/Shaw regime has done a very good job of taking non-heralded recruits and turning them into excellent college football players.
[/quote]

Why is it assumed that just because Mike Farrell or Tom Luginbil doesn't rank a player high that he isn't an excellent recruit? Toby Gerhart checked every single possibly box of a 5 star RB recruit but was rated a 3 star fullback. Stars are based on hype nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]
Every time this subject comes up, somebody points to some few players who didn't get that many stars coming out of high school but became outstanding in college, as if that disproves the notion that stars have any meaning. This is not the point. The point is that a person with a higher star rating has a higher probability of success in college than one with a lower star rating. Ask recruiters if they would rather have a recruiting class filled with 4 and 5 star prospects or 2 and 3 ones. I have a feeling what most of them will tell you.

Re: Class of 2015 - CTcard - 09-22-2014

(09-22-2014, 02:28 AM)JPRI link Wrote:Every time this subject comes up, somebody points to some few players who didn't get that many stars coming out of high school but became outstanding in college, as if that disproves the notion that stars have any meaning. This is not the point. The point is that a person with a higher star rating has a higher probability of success in college than one with a lower star rating. Ask recruiters if they would rather have a recruiting class filled with 4 and 5 star prospects or 2 and 3 ones. I have a feeling what most of them will tell you.

What the point is presumably depends upon the question at hand.

That five star prospects have a higher probability of being a good player than two star prospects says something to me, but not necessarily a lot. There are lots of ways to come up with a list of about 30 players that have greater than average chance of being successful. [At least Scout lists 30 5 stars for 2015 - that number varies a bit by service and year.] For a kind of stupid example, say just take the list of players signed by S.-C and Alabama.

A question is how good would the rankings have to be to be useful for a particular purpose.

For general fan tracking of recruiting they are probably pretty good, at least compared to any alternative. Otherwise to most fans the recruits are just a list of names - perhaps coupled to an Kremlinology type parsing of coaching staff effusiveness on signing day.

I would think that for something like use by a coaching staff in running their own recruiting, these rankings have rather limited use. They are fairly comprehensive, so they might be useful for a general first screening to make sure you aren't missing anybody. Otherwise, I would certainly hope that my team has a coaching staff better able to evaluate players for their particular team and needs than a generic service trying to come up with some kind of overall rating. Otherwise, I think I want a new coaching staff.

Of course there are miles of distance between these two examples. That's where we have to start thinking and get to have fun arguing.



Re: Class of 2015 - dabomb1227 - 09-22-2014

While the coaches will certainly form their opinions of specific players, who may be better than the rankings indicate, the rankings do matter.  It is all about statistical probability and the 4 and 5 stars have a much greater chance of being successful in college and going on to the NFL, then the 2 and 3 stars.  Thus teams that recruit more 4 and 5 stars will have a better chance overall of being successful.

SBNation has had some articles that discuss this.  These two articles are the only ones I could find right now http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

Re: Class of 2015 - stupac2 - 09-22-2014

I don't think anyone questions that higher stars mean greater odds of success, the question is which way the causality runs. Are the stars predictive, or is the offer list predictive?

It seems to me that the people questioning stars' usefulness are doing so because they don't add anything to knowing a guy's offer sheet, that they're not based on independent assessments of talents but groupthink and hype.

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but just saying "stars are predictive" isn't meaningful if the question is why they're predictive.

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 09-22-2014

Really?  Another discussion about star ratings?

Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 09-22-2014

I'm not sure whether stars being predictive matters a ton. The important thing, for the non-expert, is that they're grokkable. It may be that you can figure out how good a prospect is from offer lists and measurables, but then again, maybe not. Is an offer list headed by UCLA and Wisconsin better than one headed by Washington, Nebraska and Arkansas? Not immediately obvious to me. (And that's compounded by recent trends for ever-expanding numbers of offers from schools, which makes it harder to figure out what an "offer" means. Does it mean you're the #1 OLB on the board, or the #15 guy?)

Given all that, why not simply pay attention to something that's easy to understand and has a well-known correlation with individual and team success?

Re: Class of 2015 - Nan3cy - 09-22-2014

I think you picked the right word, WIM -- correlation. It has meaning, but it isn't causation. Mostly I just trust the coaching staff to know what they're doing.

Re: Class of 2015 - AthleticsDynasty - 09-22-2014

(09-22-2014, 02:28 AM)JPRI link Wrote:[quote author=AthleticsDynasty link=topic=7902.msg98889#msg98889 date=1411332661]
[quote author=JPRI link=topic=7902.msg98860#msg98860 date=1411303123]
[quote author=ferrari link=topic=7902.msg98753#msg98753 date=1411136659]
Love this comment, doesn't matter how many stars you come in with but how many you leave with.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BruceFeldmanCFB/status/512628319024472064

True, but I do think there is a correlation between the two. Not a perfect one, but one nevertheless.
Having said that, I think the Harbaugh/Shaw regime has done a very good job of taking non-heralded recruits and turning them into excellent college football players.
[/quote]

Why is it assumed that just because Mike Farrell or Tom Luginbil doesn't rank a player high that he isn't an excellent recruit? Toby Gerhart checked every single possibly box of a 5 star RB recruit but was rated a 3 star fullback. Stars are based on hype nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]
Every time this subject comes up, somebody points to some few players who didn't get that many stars coming out of high school but became outstanding in college, as if that disproves the notion that stars have any meaning. This is not the point. The point is that a person with a higher star rating has a higher probability of success in college than one with a lower star rating. Ask recruiters if they would rather have a recruiting class filled with 4 and 5 star prospects or 2 and 3 ones. I have a feeling what most of them will tell you.
[/quote]

The idea of Urban Meyer or Bob Stoops browsing Rivals.com to get Mike Farrell's opinion on recruits is hilarious.

Re: Class of 2015 - AthleticsDynasty - 09-22-2014

(09-22-2014, 07:16 AM)dabomb1227 link Wrote:While the coaches will certainly form their opinions of specific players, who may be better than the rankings indicate, the rankings do matter.  It is all about statistical probability and the 4 and 5 stars have a much greater chance of being successful in college and going on to the NFL, then the 2 and 3 stars.  Thus teams that recruit more 4 and 5 stars will have a better chance overall of being successful.

SBNation has had some articles that discuss this.  These two articles are the only ones I could find right now http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships
http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/2/5/5382140/recruiting-matters-why-the-sites-get-the-rankings-right

Recruits that go to Texas Florida USC Ohio State Alabama etc will have a higher probability of being successful in college and the NFL than the ones that don't who cares it doesn't have anything to do with the actual talent level of a recruit

I feel about ratings stars the way I feel about sales approaches - Mick - 09-23-2014

(09-22-2014, 12:03 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:I'm not sure whether stars being predictive matters a ton. The important thing, for the non-expert, is that they're grokkable. It may be that you can figure out how good a prospect is from offer lists and measurables, but then again, maybe not. Is an offer list headed by UCLA and Wisconsin better than one headed by Washington, Nebraska and Arkansas? Not immediately obvious to me. (And that's compounded by recent trends for ever-expanding numbers of offers from schools, which makes it harder to figure out what an "offer" means. Does it mean you're the #1 OLB on the board, or the #15 guy?)

Given all that, why not simply pay attention to something that's easy to understand and has a well-known correlation with individual and team success?


In my professional life, I'm what amounts to a sales manager for lawyers.  On occasion, a lawyer will want to use a low-probability-of-success sales approach, usually one that has worked in the past, but in a broadly different situation.  Slaves to precedent, they can be.  I always say the same thing: "Fine, if you want to go that route, go ahead.  But you'd better win.  Otherwise, we'll go with the strategy that has won in the past, in this situation."

I feel the same about two-stars vs. five-star athletes.  Fine, go with the two star.  As long as you win.

Re: Class of 2015 - TrumpCard - 09-26-2014

Considering Stanford just landed a tremendous back in McCaffrey, the team looks awfully good for running back recruiting in this class. 

Cameron Scarlett is going to visit UW for the game this weekend.  He's a heavy favorite to attend Stanford assuming he gains admission.  It looks like this will be the second straight year that Stanford lands the top high school player in the state of Oregon. 

Bryce Love is planning official visits to: Stanford, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, and Florida.  None of the other schools are ones that typically beat Stanford in head-to-head recruiting battles.  UNC is the school that would ordinarily pose the stiffest competition, but it would be an understatement to say that program is in turmoil.

Chris Warren's top six are: Iowa, Oregon, Texas, Texas Tech, Stanford and Washington.  The popular wisdom is that he'll attend Texas, and that makes sense if you think the program is on an upward trajectory, but the results on the field have been unconvincing so far this year.  None of the other schools is a school that seems likely to beat Stanford in a head-to-head recruiting battle.  I know there have been instances of Oregon and Washington winning that battle, but the examples seem few and far between in recent years.

Could Shaw pull a trifecta?  If he does, how does he find a way to get them all on the field?


Re: Class of 2015 - slide - 09-28-2014

(09-26-2014, 06:12 PM)TrumpCard link Wrote:Considering Stanford just landed a tremendous back in McCaffrey, the team looks awfully good for running back recruiting in this class. 

Cameron Scarlett is going to visit UW for the game this weekend.  He's a heavy favorite to attend Stanford assuming he gains admission.  It looks like this will be the second straight year that Stanford lands the top high school player in the state of Oregon. 

Bryce Love is planning official visits to: Stanford, Tennessee, Virginia Tech, and Florida.  None of the other schools are ones that typically beat Stanford in head-to-head recruiting battles.  UNC is the school that would ordinarily pose the stiffest competition, but it would be an understatement to say that program is in turmoil.

Chris Warren's top six are: Iowa, Oregon, Texas, Texas Tech, Stanford and Washington.  The popular wisdom is that he'll attend Texas, and that makes sense if you think the program is on an upward trajectory, but the results on the field have been unconvincing so far this year.  None of the other schools is a school that seems likely to beat Stanford in a head-to-head recruiting battle.  I know there have been instances of Oregon and Washington winning that battle, but the examples seem few and far between in recent years.

Could Shaw pull a trifecta?  If he does, how does he find a way to get them all on the field?

Warren is the one true big back we are recruiting.  Scarlett is big but he doesn't run like a big back between the tackles.  not sure where a Love would fit.  Shaw has not shown a great feel for using a small, fast RB. 

Re: Class of 2015 - PrinceLightfoot - 09-28-2014

ILB Mustafa Branch from Bellevue, WA was offered today and committed almost on the spot. This guy is a thumper - likes to hit hard and is explosive off his first step on a blitz. Solid tackler. Nice pick-up!

https://twitter.com/mubranch20/status/516421632211316738

http://247sports.com/Player/Mustafa-Branch-37203

http://www.hudl.com/athlete/2233250/mustafa-branch

Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2014

Branch is the Lion King.

Re: Class of 2015 - stupac2 - 09-28-2014

(09-28-2014, 08:37 PM)washingtonismoney link Wrote:Branch is the Lion King.

Isn't that Mufasa?

Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2014

(09-28-2014, 08:39 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:Isn't that Mufasa?

ugh, you're right. Mustafa was an amusing cameo character in the first Austin Powers.

Mustafa reminds me of Joe Hemschoot.

Re: Class of 2015 - washingtonismoney - 09-28-2014

JJ Arcega-Whiteside's senior tape: http://www.hudl.com/athlete/1022129/highlights/161715380

Re: Class of 2015 - Bruce Wang - 09-29-2014

Buncom 4 and Equanimeous will watch this Saturday's game from the crowd.

http://slapthesign.com/2014/09/28/notre-dame-football-recruiting-frank-buncom-iv-visit-notre-dame-weekend/

Best part of the article:

"Many experts believe that Buncom will select the Stanford Cardinal by the time National Signing Day rolls around. Is Buncom really interested in Notre Dame or is he taking a free trip to watch the Stanford Cardinal?"

I've wondered how important it is to win in front of recruits.  On the one hand, they think "I should join a winner" or do they think "If I go there, they would win these games"?

Re: Class of 2015 - OutsiderFan - 09-29-2014

Anyone have any takes on Branch?  Never heard of him until today, watched his video and don't know what to think.  He seems to be a good athlete, but why no offer from UW or Oregon? His video doesn't jump out at me, but it's pretty hard to question Lance Anderson's player evaluations.

His Rivals profile shows Branch unrated.  The Drukarev story on him says he had a torn meniscus this Summer, and probably missed a lot of camps that might have earned him more recruiting service accolades.  Stanford has probably reached the point where a Stanford offer is going to increase the rating of recruits previously not regarded by recruiting services.  So Branch will more than likely get a rating bump as a result of the Stanford offer.  Maybe not to a four star, but maybe from a low three to high three star on Rivals.

Re: Class of 2015 - Papa John - 09-30-2014

(09-29-2014, 08:40 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Anyone have any takes on Branch?

Most assuredly not the take for which you are looking, but here goes...

It looks like Stanford has found its Tree Branch.