This time of year, we often hear arguments about ratings - how they are everything or how they suck.
Here's some perspective:
1.) Stars matter - the factual correlation between high star ratings and performance in college is real and meaningful. Here's a good read on the topic: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/Bergmen_Logan.pdf
2.) Stars are materially correlative BUT far from conclusively. Turns out ratings for players are inflated by the teams that recruit them, e.g. two players of equal rating will see the player who commits to a traditional power get a higher final rating by the services. Secondly and more importantly, do the players stick and perform or do they wash out because of character and/or academic issues?
3.) Scouting and player development matter a lot. That's why you can see over a number of years schools like Oregon, Wisconsin, Baylor, TCU and Stanford outperform UCLA, Texas, Michigan, Penn State and USC despite having lower rated classes.
Look at our own Cal Bears for a lesson in perspective. Our 2010 class was rated 7th nationally at 3.58 average stars per recruit. On paper, one of if not the greatest recruiting class in Cal football history. Except it wasn't. In fact it was not good at all. Here's a reminder of the 4 and 5 star players in that clas
Chris Martin - 5 star - BUST
Keena Allen - 5 star - Superstar
Cecil Whiteside - 4 star - BUST
Gabe King - 4 star - BUST
Nick Forbes - 4 star - Solid but not spectacular career
Tevin Carter - 4 star - FLUNK OUT
David Wilkerson - 4 star - BUST
Chris McCain - 4star - Solid but not spectacular career
Alex Crossthwaite - 4 star - Below average starter/mostly a backup OL
Of the three most productive players in that class over their entire career, one was Allen and the other two were our lowest rated kids in the class - Michael Coley (Lowe) and Chris Adcock. Three of the top four were outright Busts.
The point is that you have to BOTH respect the value of stars AND respect your sense of the players ability based on HS production, film, academic profile and your confidence in the staff's scouting both to fit and talent. You cannot excuse bad recruiting ratings as they matter AND you have to recognize that having kids who stick around and develop who were well scouted are always more valuable than highly rated kids who don't.
One of the big things for me is not who we missed on and rather who we got. Too often, Cal has taken kids who had limited upside. I loved the two star gets last year of Turner and Saffle because those guys looked great on tape, had good measurables and have upside. What kills us is taking 2 star and low 3 star kids who don't have bodies that can develop, can't run and represent limited upside. Take your risks on kids who are skinny but tall, who aren't strong yet but can run.
Here's some perspective:
1.) Stars matter - the factual correlation between high star ratings and performance in college is real and meaningful. Here's a good read on the topic: http://www.econ.ohio-state.edu/trevon/pdf/Bergmen_Logan.pdf
2.) Stars are materially correlative BUT far from conclusively. Turns out ratings for players are inflated by the teams that recruit them, e.g. two players of equal rating will see the player who commits to a traditional power get a higher final rating by the services. Secondly and more importantly, do the players stick and perform or do they wash out because of character and/or academic issues?
3.) Scouting and player development matter a lot. That's why you can see over a number of years schools like Oregon, Wisconsin, Baylor, TCU and Stanford outperform UCLA, Texas, Michigan, Penn State and USC despite having lower rated classes.
Look at our own Cal Bears for a lesson in perspective. Our 2010 class was rated 7th nationally at 3.58 average stars per recruit. On paper, one of if not the greatest recruiting class in Cal football history. Except it wasn't. In fact it was not good at all. Here's a reminder of the 4 and 5 star players in that clas
Chris Martin - 5 star - BUST
Keena Allen - 5 star - Superstar
Cecil Whiteside - 4 star - BUST
Gabe King - 4 star - BUST
Nick Forbes - 4 star - Solid but not spectacular career
Tevin Carter - 4 star - FLUNK OUT
David Wilkerson - 4 star - BUST
Chris McCain - 4star - Solid but not spectacular career
Alex Crossthwaite - 4 star - Below average starter/mostly a backup OL
Of the three most productive players in that class over their entire career, one was Allen and the other two were our lowest rated kids in the class - Michael Coley (Lowe) and Chris Adcock. Three of the top four were outright Busts.
The point is that you have to BOTH respect the value of stars AND respect your sense of the players ability based on HS production, film, academic profile and your confidence in the staff's scouting both to fit and talent. You cannot excuse bad recruiting ratings as they matter AND you have to recognize that having kids who stick around and develop who were well scouted are always more valuable than highly rated kids who don't.
One of the big things for me is not who we missed on and rather who we got. Too often, Cal has taken kids who had limited upside. I loved the two star gets last year of Turner and Saffle because those guys looked great on tape, had good measurables and have upside. What kills us is taking 2 star and low 3 star kids who don't have bodies that can develop, can't run and represent limited upside. Take your risks on kids who are skinny but tall, who aren't strong yet but can run.
