To me, star ratings reflect 85% current athleticism/skill and 15% "projectable" skills/athleticism. In other words, I don't think the Internet scouts exhibit much skill in projecting a player but far more skill in assessing their current athleticism relative to peers. Not a huge insight, I'm sure.
The disadvantage we currently face is that years of mediocre recruiting (by star measures) has left our team with a collection of guys that are way outmanned athletically. It's possible our coaches can project better, have better training methods etc, but that won't be obvious for a couple of years and a team full of upperclassmen playing the majority of minutes. Our recruiting requires years of development to catch up to the athleticism that teams like ucla, usc put on the field every year.
It's a different approach and one which we are either committed to or forced into (due to circumstances or poor recruiting). Nonetheless, I think it reflects our current team versus strong opponents.
The disadvantage we currently face is that years of mediocre recruiting (by star measures) has left our team with a collection of guys that are way outmanned athletically. It's possible our coaches can project better, have better training methods etc, but that won't be obvious for a couple of years and a team full of upperclassmen playing the majority of minutes. Our recruiting requires years of development to catch up to the athleticism that teams like ucla, usc put on the field every year.
It's a different approach and one which we are either committed to or forced into (due to circumstances or poor recruiting). Nonetheless, I think it reflects our current team versus strong opponents.
