I know I'm pretty new here, and this subject has likely been beaten down hard over the years, but this subject keeps taking over threads and I think there's some education that still needs to occur with some (not all) of those who use this board. I myself am still learning, but I definitely view the recruiting trend at Cal in a positive light. When commenting, dissecting offers/commitments and considering strengths and weakness of recruits try considering these factors.
1) Of all High School Football players (330,000 plus seniors) only a small percentage become/are capable of being rated a two star athlete or better.
5 stars: The difference between 5 stars and the rest are glaring: athletically gifted beyond normalcy. Size and ability typically out of whack, don't have to work as hard as the rest to be successful in their current level and their measurables are off the charts (size relative to 40/shuttle/vertical). It's not difficult to spot these athletes at combines and camps, they stick out like a sore thumb, even to the most uneducated eye. Their film is on another level and their level of play is like an adult playing among children. They are all "All Americans". They probably got their first offer as a freshman, sometimes sooner. Character, grades, work ethic do not play a role in their initial evaluations. Of all the Power 5 schools very few will secure more than one. Currently UG and Ohio State have more than 1 of these commits. There are currently about 13 available
4 stars: Easy to spot among their peers. More normal measurables, but film jumps! All State/All League in their communities, on the verge of making All American. Attends all the camps (Opening/Rivals and any and every camp opportunity that offers exposure) Dominates the camps but doesn't have the freakish measurable to hit 5 star status. A lot of media hype around this athlete. The offer list may be the single biggest criteria for the lower 4 star athletes early on with them receiving offers before Stars. Some will be over rated due to offer list and many will be over ranked based on the HS they attend.
2-3 stars: P5/G5 athlete based on film and physical measurables (Ht/Wt). Doesn't have deep offer list but has the potential too. More will be under ranked based on the HS they attend, lack of camp and off season media exposure. Athlete may not be as active on social media. This recruit is more of an unknown. The best athletes (who are 3 stars) are located and recruited by the best recruiters/staffs. (See UCF Reference) The under rated 3 stars will have tremendous impact at the collegiate level and make up the majority of collegiate athletes. The differences between a HIGH 3 star and a low to middle 4 star athlete are small and completely subjective and probably includes factors outside of his ability: not as likable by analysts, poor relationships with HS Coaches resulting in less exposure, not as recruitable due to grades/character flaws etc.
Here is the break down according to Rivals:
- 33 five-stars, or 0.01 percent of the class (currently 12 available)
- 399 four-stars, or 0.13 percent of the class
- 1,409 three-stars, or 0.47 percent of the class
- 1,842 two-stars, or 0.61 percent of the class
- 296,317 unrated, or 98.77 percent of the class
2) To say that a 3 star is a 3 star and a 4 star is a 4 star with out consideration for their total score is incorrect. I've seen it in this forum in the past and is completely wrong. Even the ranking system accounts for the difference between low and high stars. If Stars matter to you, than every fraction of a point should count. It matters to the system that ranks teams based on commitment lists. Fact is there is a significant difference between a typical high 3 Star and a typical low 3 star. Same with 2 and 4 star athletes. Looking at the Cal commitment list you will see all 3 stars. We haven't secured the 4 star players yet, but of the 3 stars that we got, when analyzing them among the other rating services, you will see a majority if higher 3's. Maybe more so than in than in recent years. More surprisingly you wont see 0-2 star offers/commits
If you look at 247, the top 9 commits are all within striking distance of being 4 stars. Example: our 9th highest commitment (according to 247) has a star rating of .087! A score of .08903 will get you a 4th star. Our highest ranked commit has a score of .089. it's debatable that many of these dudes would be 4 stars if they had waited and committed to another program.
There are 3 Rating systems now that Scout and 247 have become one. (247/ESPN/Rivals). Some on this board seem to think that Rivals has the one and only say. 247 had a huge presence at off season events this past winter and were extremely active in sports writing covering the class of 19' early. My perception was that Rivals became more involved later in the spring when the combine season began. Both are good sources of information, but I believe 247 has the edge in accuracy for early ratings. (Prior to Spring 18' with presence at 7v7 and MITT events.). Time will tell this fall who is more accurate. I'm sure it will be close. This isn't a discussion about who is better, but Rivals definitely has the strong advantage with Cal coverage.
3) Take a quick glance at UCF 2017. They have had very few if any 4 stars since 2010. Multiple 0-2 stars and a majority of 3 stars. Final result: 13 wins zero lsses with a score difference of 627-329.and an AP Ranking of 6. My final point being, it takes far more than stars to achieve greatness. Unfortunately, the Cal fan base has been jaded with unsuccessful programs over the years.
4) Be the judge for yourself. Instead of judging a recruit by his "offer list" and number of Stars (assigned by someone who may or may not have as much knowledge and experience as you) , watch his film, review his accomplishments, measure it all against his level of competition and judge for yourself. I welcome this kind of feedback! I personally have watched tons of film and I often scratch my head at the ratings of many kids who are on the commitment list of the most major programs. (underrated and overrated)
5) Btw, most of the Cal commits are still being courted by schools that include
your most hated Pac12 counterparts.
6) My view is that this staff is different. They aren't targeting athletes because of Star rankings and or pure measurables. They are finding players who are DUDES, but who are fits (character/academics etc), obtainable and sometimes unknown. Just because a dude is good enough to achieve a great status, doesn't mean hes going to be a fit in any given program. A closer look might reveal the true story on many of these athletes/higher ranked players who Cal didn't go hard after and have since committed elsewhere or remain available with destinations unknown. I'm not going to name names, but as with a lot of prospects, many of them reveal weaknesses not previously known at camps and combines. I see Cal following a model seen at Stanford and at UW. Are there 4/5 stars out there that fit Cal's mold? Yep. Are they going to have to put the product on the field in order to win those 4/5 Stars in order to beat out those schools and others? Wins will definitely make it easier
In the mean time, sit back and watch growing success in a program of underdogs. There is no win like the win that is earned when no one expects it out of you.
.
1) Of all High School Football players (330,000 plus seniors) only a small percentage become/are capable of being rated a two star athlete or better.
5 stars: The difference between 5 stars and the rest are glaring: athletically gifted beyond normalcy. Size and ability typically out of whack, don't have to work as hard as the rest to be successful in their current level and their measurables are off the charts (size relative to 40/shuttle/vertical). It's not difficult to spot these athletes at combines and camps, they stick out like a sore thumb, even to the most uneducated eye. Their film is on another level and their level of play is like an adult playing among children. They are all "All Americans". They probably got their first offer as a freshman, sometimes sooner. Character, grades, work ethic do not play a role in their initial evaluations. Of all the Power 5 schools very few will secure more than one. Currently UG and Ohio State have more than 1 of these commits. There are currently about 13 available
4 stars: Easy to spot among their peers. More normal measurables, but film jumps! All State/All League in their communities, on the verge of making All American. Attends all the camps (Opening/Rivals and any and every camp opportunity that offers exposure) Dominates the camps but doesn't have the freakish measurable to hit 5 star status. A lot of media hype around this athlete. The offer list may be the single biggest criteria for the lower 4 star athletes early on with them receiving offers before Stars. Some will be over rated due to offer list and many will be over ranked based on the HS they attend.
2-3 stars: P5/G5 athlete based on film and physical measurables (Ht/Wt). Doesn't have deep offer list but has the potential too. More will be under ranked based on the HS they attend, lack of camp and off season media exposure. Athlete may not be as active on social media. This recruit is more of an unknown. The best athletes (who are 3 stars) are located and recruited by the best recruiters/staffs. (See UCF Reference) The under rated 3 stars will have tremendous impact at the collegiate level and make up the majority of collegiate athletes. The differences between a HIGH 3 star and a low to middle 4 star athlete are small and completely subjective and probably includes factors outside of his ability: not as likable by analysts, poor relationships with HS Coaches resulting in less exposure, not as recruitable due to grades/character flaws etc.
Here is the break down according to Rivals:
- 33 five-stars, or 0.01 percent of the class (currently 12 available)
- 399 four-stars, or 0.13 percent of the class
- 1,409 three-stars, or 0.47 percent of the class
- 1,842 two-stars, or 0.61 percent of the class
- 296,317 unrated, or 98.77 percent of the class
2) To say that a 3 star is a 3 star and a 4 star is a 4 star with out consideration for their total score is incorrect. I've seen it in this forum in the past and is completely wrong. Even the ranking system accounts for the difference between low and high stars. If Stars matter to you, than every fraction of a point should count. It matters to the system that ranks teams based on commitment lists. Fact is there is a significant difference between a typical high 3 Star and a typical low 3 star. Same with 2 and 4 star athletes. Looking at the Cal commitment list you will see all 3 stars. We haven't secured the 4 star players yet, but of the 3 stars that we got, when analyzing them among the other rating services, you will see a majority if higher 3's. Maybe more so than in than in recent years. More surprisingly you wont see 0-2 star offers/commits
If you look at 247, the top 9 commits are all within striking distance of being 4 stars. Example: our 9th highest commitment (according to 247) has a star rating of .087! A score of .08903 will get you a 4th star. Our highest ranked commit has a score of .089. it's debatable that many of these dudes would be 4 stars if they had waited and committed to another program.
There are 3 Rating systems now that Scout and 247 have become one. (247/ESPN/Rivals). Some on this board seem to think that Rivals has the one and only say. 247 had a huge presence at off season events this past winter and were extremely active in sports writing covering the class of 19' early. My perception was that Rivals became more involved later in the spring when the combine season began. Both are good sources of information, but I believe 247 has the edge in accuracy for early ratings. (Prior to Spring 18' with presence at 7v7 and MITT events.). Time will tell this fall who is more accurate. I'm sure it will be close. This isn't a discussion about who is better, but Rivals definitely has the strong advantage with Cal coverage.
3) Take a quick glance at UCF 2017. They have had very few if any 4 stars since 2010. Multiple 0-2 stars and a majority of 3 stars. Final result: 13 wins zero lsses with a score difference of 627-329.and an AP Ranking of 6. My final point being, it takes far more than stars to achieve greatness. Unfortunately, the Cal fan base has been jaded with unsuccessful programs over the years.
4) Be the judge for yourself. Instead of judging a recruit by his "offer list" and number of Stars (assigned by someone who may or may not have as much knowledge and experience as you) , watch his film, review his accomplishments, measure it all against his level of competition and judge for yourself. I welcome this kind of feedback! I personally have watched tons of film and I often scratch my head at the ratings of many kids who are on the commitment list of the most major programs. (underrated and overrated)
5) Btw, most of the Cal commits are still being courted by schools that include
your most hated Pac12 counterparts.
6) My view is that this staff is different. They aren't targeting athletes because of Star rankings and or pure measurables. They are finding players who are DUDES, but who are fits (character/academics etc), obtainable and sometimes unknown. Just because a dude is good enough to achieve a great status, doesn't mean hes going to be a fit in any given program. A closer look might reveal the true story on many of these athletes/higher ranked players who Cal didn't go hard after and have since committed elsewhere or remain available with destinations unknown. I'm not going to name names, but as with a lot of prospects, many of them reveal weaknesses not previously known at camps and combines. I see Cal following a model seen at Stanford and at UW. Are there 4/5 stars out there that fit Cal's mold? Yep. Are they going to have to put the product on the field in order to win those 4/5 Stars in order to beat out those schools and others? Wins will definitely make it easier
In the mean time, sit back and watch growing success in a program of underdogs. There is no win like the win that is earned when no one expects it out of you.
.
Last edited:
