I ask this question in all seriousness. Both of our DTs appear very good on tape, showing quickness and tenacity as well as great size. Both also have lots of offers, including several from perennially outstanding programs headed by well-respected coaches. Yet, each of the rating services that I read deems them low 3* recruits. I am not overly concerned with star ratings, but the ratings for Edwards and Butler baffle me. Lou, can you or anyone else help explain the seeming inconsistency between the ratings given our two DT recruits and their offers, on-field performance, and film?
What am I missing?
- Thread starter Aging Booster
- Start date
We've been tracking NU recruiting for a while, and our thought is that this has a lot to do with opportunity for evaluation. Rivals, for example, has camps it uses to evaluate prospects, which means ratings are going to have to do with whether prospects attend these camps and how they perform at them.
There are other factors too, like amount of tape Rivals might have on a player, chance to evaluate in person, etc. If USC, Michigan, Penn State, etc had the chance to see Edwards and Butler in person or evaluate a ton of film on them, they might have had the opportunity to see the potential in these guys that Rivals didn't get the chance to see.
We would also be interested in Louie's thought on this, though.
There are other factors too, like amount of tape Rivals might have on a player, chance to evaluate in person, etc. If USC, Michigan, Penn State, etc had the chance to see Edwards and Butler in person or evaluate a ton of film on them, they might have had the opportunity to see the potential in these guys that Rivals didn't get the chance to see.
We would also be interested in Louie's thought on this, though.
"I'm not overly concerned with star ratings, but I'm going to make a post explicitly asking for an explanation for their star ratings."
I love this place.
There are nearly 3000 players who end up matriculating to D1 football programs and presumably another several hundred or more who are scouted but don't get to D1 or choose a lower level. So in aggregate they are helpful, for individual players a lot of variability and inconsistency due to the sheer volume of players that nobody can scout in depth and then compare in a meaningful way.
ESPN has Butler as a 4*, top 300 recruit. For some reason, ESPN generally regards our guys more highly than Rivals or 247 do. Counting Atkinson, who is no longer an NU recruit, ESPN has us with four 4* and three top 300 guys.
Yes. The answer to all of life's enigmas, riddles, conundrums, and mysteries--including the star ratings systems--can be found on The Rock.
It is the wellspring of eternal enlightenment. It is the key to the knowledge of the Ages. It demystifies the mystical. It opens locked doors. It breaks the chains of ignorance that enslave our minds. It beaches the chasm between fear and the knowable. Truth, justice and honor can be found there. It is waiting for you.
I generally think that the 4- and 5-star ratings are reserved for players who are 1) exceptionally talented and/or 2) physically ready to play. 5-star guys are typically both. 4-star guys might need some development to prepare their talent for Power conference play (often QBs), or are physically ready and are very good, but perhaps not elite athletically (at the time of rating).
3 stars are projectable talents. The physical skills are evident, but there is uncertainty as to when they will be ready to contribute, and how much they will be able to contribute. It is a huge pool (~2,000 athletes), so as with any normal distribution, the outlier tips and tails can create variable outcomes.
2 stars are generally underscouted types.
Did Heard see the field at all this year? I don't remember ever seeing him out there or hearing his name even once? I would think he would have been a guy that would have gotten at least a few games on special teams or maybe even an opportunity late in the year considering all of our injuries at the cornerback position.
And they post tomorrow's winning lotto numbers there as well.
We have a 5 star at the local high school going to Clemson. Athletic freak, man-child, respectfully, are words that come to mind. Tosses quality HS o-linemen around like bowling pins, all with exceptional quickness. So, yep, talented and ready to play.
He is saying that my theory is unassailable as the empirical sample fits my model perfectly.
/s
You forgot all 4 stars attended Rivals Camp.
