(no message)

getting 5 star players and ND needs 5 star players to win championships. With that being said, I don't disagree that they are not a clear indication of the talent. But there is something to be said about law of large numbers, with the more higher star/ranked players ND can add the more likely you will find top collegiate talent.

made but very good to great recruiting is important.

these days. It likely meant something 10 years ago. Now it's just a revenue stream and a reason to hold some special camp to get parents and colleges to spend money to get there. Like all things... Once the honey pot gets too big it gets corrupt and broken.
The motivation becomes money and not delivery of value.

Just look at the US Gov't and political system.

Not guarantees, of course. But a five-star is MUCH more likely to be an all-Amercan than a three-star.

Amazing that we need to review this as often as we do.

(no message)

Every single time stars are mentioned, some board nanny is quick to remind us all the 5 stars who didn't pan out. We get it.

I'd rather have a roster full of 5 stars than not.

true that at this point it's oversaturated and doesn't bring the bang for your buck that it originally did, which is another math(econ) problem - law of diminishing returns. Star rankings have passed that point of providing incremental value.

"Oversaturated"? That makes no sense.

The ratings are better now, because (1) there are more national competitions and exhibitions, and (2) there are more opinions on each athlete, and more film.


It's not just Tom Lemming driving around to high schools any more.

Originally, a 5th star was coveted. There were very few and the ones that got a 5th star were mostly exactly that, and panned out like so. At that time there was one high school all-star game that counted and predominantly that group was your only 5 stars.

Translation: 5 star was rare = black marble in a bag of predominantly red marbles = low probability of pulling a black marble; low probability of getting a 5*.


Now, there are way too many 5*; more than there should be. There's a second all-star game with additional 5* kids + additional elite camps. So, let's say double the number of 5* these days.

Translation: Oversaturated. More 5* issued now than ever and the list has grown compared to a number of years go. More competitions mean more kids getting an "elite" status that shouldn't, because $ drives it. Similar to Special Forces in the military it was once a truly elite group. Now there are thousands or so, not 20 or 30; not that many people are that special and not that many players are really a 5*. Hense, why you see more bust, because they never were 5* quality = Oversaturated.

"More competitions", "more opinions" --- You stated my case for me. More = Oversaturated. Once you reach the tipping point there are too many --- oversaturated.


Which leads to my last point - law of diminishing returns. Once you get to a point of saturation (too much). Adding an additional item, in this case, a 5th star adds little to no return on investment.
Translation: because there are more (I believe too many) 5* given, schools pick up coveted 5* (who aren't) and get little to no return and end up having a higher number of "bust". ND has certainly had an issue with this.

The attached linked have shown an increasing trend of 5 star recruits being draft into the NFL. This would lead one to believe that they have been doing a better job of assigning 5 star rankings.

Link: https://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2019/6/4/18617865/five-star-recruits-nfl-draft-history

(no message)

(no message)

This pretty much proves my point. Sure, there could hypothetically be more, better players in 2019 than 2010. However, if you removed the money from the system... especially the excess now vs. then, would there be a larger pool of "better" player? My assumption is there are more 5* because the more a service has the more money that flows, not because there is actually a higher number of talented kids.

Don't get blinded by the light. That's all I'm trying to say. Sure, these services have some value. But only to a certain point and I believe they've passed it. Hinging on whether a kid is good or not because he's a 5* or a 2* is the dumbest thing ever. A 5* to one coach and system could be a 2* to another and vice-versa.

We've actually seen Kelly do leaps and bounds better with 2* in both development and wins than he has with 5* who generally bust for him.

247 - 35
Rivals - 30

Don't know the other few recruiting services. When all said and done my guess is 100-200 or so. The article attached lists several points I believe and is what I am trying to convey.

The number of 5 star players are between 30-40 in a given year. It is still very rare to obtain 5 stars. You are assumption is that each site gives 5 stars to unique players and not taking into account that there are going to be duplicate players receiving 5 stars. Nice try on this one, but your hypothesis has been proven debunked.

numbers over a 10 year span which tells you the numbers given out are increasing even if you count the duplicates. You have to also consider there are more sources giving ratings as well. And no, I don't know them all as I stopped following recruiting once it was very evident there was a pay to play component. See Chip Kelly and guy he was paying to direct him players at Oregon.

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)

(no message)