Seeing Stars: The Recruiting Debate
14 comments so far
June 23, 2008 by
With not much meaningful football activity to consume (at least from a fans point of view) in the summer, recruiting becomes a big topic of interest and conversation. But the danger is we can make mountains out of molehills, we can have raging debates over issues of little genuine consequence, and we can again divide the Husker nation into believers and non-believers.
Nowhere is this more apparent than in the discussion of recruiting to date. Some fans seem especially concerned that the players that have committed to date have been assigned three star rankings. Needless to say, this won’t be the final rankings for these players. It’s not uncommon for players to get a bump up from three to four stars (or vice versa) as sites like Scout.com and Rivals.com revisit their rankings.
But beyond whether or not the grades are “final”, is the issue of whether it makes sense to be concerned that a player has received “only” a three-star grade. For example, Major Culbert received “only” three stars as a prospect and yet logged more meaningful playing time as a true freshman than anyone in his recruiting class. Likewise, Brandon Jackson emerged ahead of players like Marlon Lucky and Kenny Wilson who received more stars from recruiting services.
One of the main weaknesses with the “star system” is that these services impose a false distribution on players. That is, they pre-determine how many players can receive a particular number of stars regardless of how many players might be equally good prospects. They rank players as best they can, despite the fact that they’re all facing different competition, receive different levels of help from the teams and coaches around them, and have different potential in terms of future physical and mental development.
So of course the rankings will be loaded with error. Then they force a hard cutoff for assigning stars on what are very shaky rankings. They say, it keeps them from giving 1000 four-star rankings to players that could be viewed as equally gifted. I say, if 1000 players are basically equivalent prospects, then the rankings ought to reflect that equality because that’s the reality.
That’s not to say star rankings are useless. A five-star player is someone who stands out in a rare way. There might be a few other players the sites would like to rank similarly (but don't), but if one or two players are selected as being worthy of being singled out in that way, you can bet that it’s a recruit worth getting excited about. Four star players are generally better than three star players – but not by much because many in both groups are essentially equivalent. Two star rankings are fairly informative. They tell you that in one way or another, the recruit is fairly unimpressive either because of the competition they faced, their production, their measurables, or all of the above. A zero or one star player is either completely disrespected (e.g. Cory Timm) or completely unknown (e.g. Matt Slauson).
Getting specific about the first five recruits in Nebraska's 2009 recruiting class, we see that Scout.com ranks three of them as among the top ten at their positions. These players get three-star rankings in part because fullback and center are not positions where they rank a lot of players, so the artificial distribution says that since they aren’t ranked #1 or #2 that they have to be three-star players. But if the goal is become a perennial top ten team again, shouldn’t fans be happy to find players that are considered among the ten best at their position (even if they might be equivalent to the 15th or 20th best)? No, they haven’t been singled out as being otherworldly. But they are absolutely good enough to compete with the best teams in the country. Isn’t that what matters most?
» Enjoy this article?
Send it to your friend or get Husker news by email!
Related Stories: Recruiting
Post a comment
carlinthemarlin Jun 23 08
I've never understood the hating on three stars: Rivals, in it's descriptions, says:
All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team.
I'll take that.
Ackos Jun 23 08
Career results are all that i care for. I would rather see a hard working "no star" work his way up through the depths, than a 5 star prima donna.
James Moore Jun 23 08
As for Colorado, no not at the moment (By the way I'm not sold on Scott, there were quite a few
instances of when I looked at film where the first defender to the him brought him down). We have a deeper class as of today, and truthfully I like the guys we have at the moment. The only cause for concern (and it's not really a cause for concern) is that we only have 5 commitments. As for the rest of the conference we're still behind Oklahoma and Texas (at this point to be expected), and right in line with Missouri and Texas A&M. Again the four conference schools mentioned here have MUCH deeper classes as of today and some more highly ranked recruits, but as a whole I'll take these 3-star kids for now. A question to ponder is will these guys suddendly become acceptable to their naysayers if they get 4-stars?. . .
BUT we have quite a bit to be potentially optimistic about. You have to DEVELOP talent once you get it. That takes coaching. It's fair to say that the previous regime was not too good at doing this. More than anything else you have to get your players to play hard!!! Be optimistic Husker Nation!!! LOOK at film when you can if you're concerned. I posted on Robinson that what seemed apparent was a versatile back who could block, run in the hole, didn't go down on initial contact, caught the ball with his eyes downfield, and was quite unselfish. After all how many 6'-1" 215-lb HS players would play FB? Especially running a 4.5?
Expect to see a lot of IB recruits. These could be turned into WLB, MLB, SLB, and FS/Rover as well. Athletes, athletes, and more FOOTBALL-minded athletes. Coach Pelini will maximize every drop of talent and effort that these guys had. Corey McKeon looked pretty good with him, didn't he? McKeon wasn't exactly an earth-shaking recruit coming out of HS. We're winners here in Husker Nation. We don't throw up our hands like prima donna's and scream that the sky is falling (unless it's last year). We got our guy, and the guy that WE ALL wanted. Let's support him, and the decisions that he's making regarding the guys the staff is chosing to bring in here. We will be more than OK. . .
GO BIG RED!!!
extrapoint Jun 23 08
Ackos hit the nail on the head. The star system is great for fan discussion but not much else. Look at Jimmy Claussen at ND
Not sure about Gabbert's quality of opposition either.
I hear the walkon program is going to be emphasized again. Colorado also has paid a lot more attention to walkons since the "Barnet Club" has gone.
Those are some guys you can realy cheer for.
BTW I see Pensick's star count rising during the coming season.
Brad Jun 23 08
It's not the stars that concern me.
What concerns me is the following:
1) Our coaches belittled the importance of 'star' recruits when they arrived here with a bunch of cocky bs.
2. Our coaches seem obsessed with walk-ons and hidden gem type players, guys that never amount to anything in staggering numbers but absorb astronomical amounts of attention when they actually see the field.
3. Bo Pelini built his reputation at LSU and Oklahoma where he had more talent than he knew what to do with.
4. No one is exactly fighting us for the guys who committed to us thus far.
Ignoring the importance of recruiting is completely idiotic. Coaches and their respective fan bases only try to convince themselves obtaining top talent isn't important when they aren't getting it.
There's a long ways to go and our coaches are ridiculously new. A Cody Green or some other top player could really get the ball rolling for us. However, if we continue to scrape up Pelini's relatives and guys no one else is really after then we are going to re-Solichize our talent base all over again.
Recruiting is just as important as coaching. You've got to have both.
extrapoint Jun 23 08
it is still early.
I dont mind how OU and TX round up a bunch of early recruits. This leaves, especially in TX, a whole bunch of good players wide open and in some cases, feeling snubbed. (Reesing come to mind?)There is an old blues tune title "never make your move too soon"
JBLING22 Jun 23 08
You can't compare OU and TX's recruits to Nebraska's at the moment.... 10 years ago yes, but the truth is OU and TX are above us on the national stage, we weren't even .500 last year.. A kid that has dreams of going to the pros (which is about 90% of the kids coming out of highschool to college ball)is more likely to sign with someone they seeing playing good ball year in and year out.. Not to mention those great players that they are pulling up are home grown talent from the Texas area... We have to establish a recruiting presence there again and then start wining games or your not going to compete with teams like Texas or OU in recruting...So far it looks like we are putting in a good amount of time in the Texas area and thats a plus, give it time....
Another thing is that with high profiled recruits is that if they are going to a team thats not considered national championship material, they usually select later on in the process. ( We aren't a NC contender yet)but we have offered plenty of 4 and 5 stars.. Im guessing that if Green would have signed with only 1 player you would have been happy up to this point?????
brad Jun 23 08
There are three types of 'three-star' recruits:
1) Ones you compete with other major programs for.
2) Ones you fight Ohio, Buffalo, and Army for.
3) Ones who don't get any other division I offers but end up getting a sympathy third star from Rivals because one of their employees figured, 'What the hell. Nebraska offered them. They make up a really large chunk of our customers.'
If you are getting a lot of guys out of category 1 you are doing really well. If you are loading up on categories 2 and 3 then you are either going to be a coordinator again soon or taking a year off before applying to head coaching jobs in the MAC because no one really wants you...either way you have no business coaching at a major DI program.
Josh Marshall Jun 23 08
Nice article, Steve!
I agree with a couple of brads points. You'd have to admit, Bo was a little cocky about putting his "own stars" on recruits. I'm not doubting his ability to evaluate football talent, but making such a statement so early in his head football coaching career is awfully bold.
I also enjoyed brads second comment regarding the obsession with the walk-on program and the hidden gems. Don't get me wrong, I think the historical emphasis on the walk-on program does hold merit. But, the walk-on players we secure must merely play a complimentary role in securing marquee recruits. Oftentimes, the walk-ons will "push" those marquee talents to "bring it" every day. The bottom-line here is that you win national championships with titles. Look at the national title teams of the 90's. Sure, there was a walk-on here or there that had an impact on special teams, etc. But, these players also had great talent (Frazier, Green, Wistrom, and others) around them.
Fleeingpepper Jun 23 08
Weren't our rankings in the early 90's ranked about 20? The only guy I can think of that was highly praised coming out of HS was Frazier.
Greg Morrow Jun 23 08
If you were to "level out" Callahan's recruiting classes, the reaching for numbers would dilute the depth of the more highly touteds, diluting the depth of the entire team. Which they did. So many JC's didn't contribute, which repeated the cycle, or, finally bringing in more frosh, when you could have had frosh developing the whole time.
My perception of reality is, Nebraska's class will be ranked inside the top 30, right about where it was ranked last year and near where Callahan's last two classes were perceived. I think Callahan's last two classes will help Pelini a lot, in gaining some winning performances. The team finishes in the top 25, then Nebraska's traditional credibility will net more highly touteds, like that kid, Green.
Heart is back. Or, it'd better be back. Pelini most definitely will have to bring in some stars, but emphatically not by someone else's definition or, authentication.
Or else, you'd simply hire recruiting consultants to identify prospects and set up visits. Like the hiring seach consultant Chuck Neinas.
If Pelini can get the team reinspired with result to show, I'd think you could add an extra star to each contributor's name.
Then, "swagger" might make a comeback!
Dwayne Jun 24 08
I think it was pretty clear to Osborne (while attending practice) that frosh weren't developing the whole time Callahan was at NU, there-in was some of the problem.
brad Jun 24 08
On a down note, I heard we just lost Jon Lechner to Wisconsin.
Dwayne Jun 24 08
...maybe at this point in the calendar.