In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1833
Online now 2371 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I like the idea of having 32 players that are ranked 5 star to match up with the NFL 1st Round selections each year:
-Most kids grow up dreaming of being a "1st Round Draft Pick". Heck, I used to refer to women that were "wifey" quality as "First Round Draft picks" and eventual wife as "My overall #1 Draft Pick". Hence, matching high school class 5 stars with 1st Rounders makes sense in this regard IMO.
-In a given draft, there will be 32 1st Round selections regardless of whether the draft class that particular year is as good as previous drafts or not. Not like there will be 24 guys with a 1st Round grade and the NFL says...."OK, pick Number 25 is the 1st pick in Round 2". If there is no "franchise player" in the NBA Draft they don't make the 1st pick that year "the number 8" pick.
-In society, after high school most things are based on how good you are relative to others in your cohort (ie. high school class, draft class, college classmates, job applicants, political candidates, etc). The smarter your classmates in college (especially in the hard science courses) the more difficult it is to make an "A"in the class because the coursework will be difficult enough to achieve a certain class average/median regardless of how smart the class is. If the average/median is below the target they curve up. Many standardized entrance & certification exams curve to "NORMALIZE" the data around a certain mean. So if you take the exam with a less intelligent cohort your odds of passing are better.
****I really like this site because of the more "logical", clearly delineated methods implemented. I'm a numbers, trends junkie and prefer data that can to some extent....be replicated. Perhaps I'm a bit atypical from my posters as I actually took about 30-45 minutes a few weeks ago to figure out how to calculate the Team Ranking [based on a Gaussian distribution] Formula using Formulas in Excel. So needless to say I like the "logical" methodology of 247Sports.
"You must show no mercy nor have any belief whatsoever in how others judge you, for your GREATNESS will silence them all." -ULTIMATE WARRIOR
BBD- That may have been your best post ever and not because you were saying good things about us.
E-mail: jc@247Sports.com/Twitter: @jcshurburtt/Instagram jcshurburtt
Really? Show me your five stars you've gotten correct and then compare them to ours. Go.
Well go kick a puppy or throw a kitten off a bridge and I'm sure you'll feel better.
Hold let me pull up my list. It's around here somewhwre
GET AT ME
JC if you ask me using the NFL first round as the benchmark of a 5 star, you are really losing the purpose of evaluations. For the longest time I always valued a players production in college to determine their prep rankings. If start using the NFL draft then you might as well start emphasizing kids combine numbers way more than on the field production.
By nature most of us who subscribe to your sites are fans of college football. We get it that a kid who performs at a high level in college will not always translate to the NFL. Take Eric Norwood for instance, if you were to ask the common South Carolina fan we would most all agree he performed at a 5 start level. When he was draft eligible his measurables would never make him first round material, no matter what his college production. My point is that it does not devalue what he did on the field of play at the college level.
I hate to think that barometer of a 5 star whether or not he was drafted in the first round.
That being all said since this is the direction you are heading then I suggest you guys really put your skills to the test and mark the top 5 as the cream of the crop. These are the kids that will be making the most money on Sundays in 3-5 years.
This post was edited by Hating_on_CU 15 months ago
Seeing as how most are not liking the 32 5 stars I wanted to let you know that I do like it.
So many times I see people complain about the rankings and use draft picks as examples as why certain rankings are wrong. You have the 99-102 (or whatever) number to separate 5 stars. That's good enough for me.
Didn't see your post before I posted mine. Much better explanation than I had. Completely agree.
You are devaluing the value of a five-star with this stupid quota every year.
On another note with the nfl projections, how's a guy like tebow get rated going by these parameters? Superstar in college (what we on this site value most) Terrible in NFL
This post was edited by BlueToothJimmy 15 months ago
Nobody is rating college or pro players, I'm missing your hissy fit, I mean point.
How do injuries factor into the final rankings?
For example, how does the evaluation for a kid like Greg Webb, who had some trouble at the USAAG but is coming off of an ACL injury, differ from the final evaluation of a kid like Tramel Terry, who suffered an ACL in the Shrine Bowl?
JC, it seems running back has become undervalued in the NFL. Teams rely on a committee approach. Also, a lot of teams select RBs after the first round. Will RBs be devalued in your rankings?
Great post! And haven't the rankings always been determined by what the kids NFL future was? Or at least high five stars? Anyways I love the idea of 32 five stars! Keep up the good work 247
JC, I appreciate all the work you guys do and I love the transparency. This may be a question for the off-season, but why the insistence on NFL potential as the barometer for the rankings? There are a ton of guys who make an immense impact on the college football field each year who are mid-round picks or lower; for college recruiting, shouldn't the projection just be how the kid plays in college? Sometimes the stud NFLers aren't always seen in the college game, like Willie Parker (back-up on his own team), and there are plenty of college-AAs who had 2 or 3-star ratings. I also think that could help with the accuracy; instead of projecting how a kid is going to look 5 years down the road, it's only a 2-3 year projection.
Just my 2-cents. What brought this on is that these are college recruiting rankings and it seemed a bit weird to say "Hey, we're going to rank these HS kids to help give college fans an indication of how well the kid will do in college . . . by predicting which ones will be NFL draft picks." Just seems that it jumps the gun a bit. Anyways, thanks for all the work again, looking forward to the final rankings (and hopefully a boost for MSU's Damion Terry and his 50 TD, 7 INT, 66.67% completion season )
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
My only question is, is the "1st Round Draft Pick" based off of 3, 4 or 5 years in school. It's conceivable that some kids could be a first round pick after 3 and others after 4 or 5 years. Which COULD mean more than 32 5* kids entering any one draft.
“There is no off switch on a tiger”
This isn't something new that we are doing. We are only setting a five-star quota. We've always projected to the highest level. Otherwise, there isn't much to differentiate on. They are projections, not high school All-American teams.
Eric Norwood made his share of big plays, but was not consistent enough to be considered a five-star performer at South Carolina. Granted, he should have been a four star coming out of high school for sure. He also was drafted in the 3rd-4th round, so had we had him among the top 100-150 it would have been accurate.
Tebow was drafted in the first round I think in the 20s. That's exactly the area we ranked him when I was at Rivals. Also, my scouting report on Tebow is in this article below from after he went to the NFL.
This is true, but not all of them will develop, some will have injuries, some will have off the field issues that sidetrack them. You always have a wider delta that narrows as you move forward.
We've always done it this way. There has to be some sort of way to separate the top prospects in the country from one another. For example, you have a defensive end that is 6-1, 230 that is an edge rusher in a college scheme that fits his skill level. He has 15 sacks as a junior and 15 sacks and a senior. Great college player. Do you rank him over the guy that is 6-5, 250 that may not be as productive in college, but he's still a great player, but projects to the highest level better?
At the same time, take a guy like Derrick Henry. Who knows what position he's going to play and if he's used as a jack-of-all-trades type at Bama, his college production is not going to equal All-American status most likely. Well, he goes to the NFL Combine. He's 6-foot-4, 265 pounds and runs 4.5, verticals 41 inches, they work him out as a tight end and he's the next Vernon Davis. He's a five-star high school prospect.
It's all just a way to differentiate and we've done it this way for years. The only thing we are changing is we are going to have a set number of five stars.
It depends on the running back. Leonard Fournette, top three prospect right now for 2014 because he's that good. Alex Collins, Kelvin Taylor, etc., 15-20 types.
All five stars, though.
That's true. The point I was trying to make is that, IMHO, 32 5* kids is too many. I think there are too many 3, 4 and 5 stars. If you're going to say a 5* kid is a first rounder. Then a 4* would be a 2-4 rounder, and a 3* would get drafted. That would make anyone outside of the top 224 a 2* or below.
You make a great point, but as I mentioned you always have a larger pool when you are projecting this far out.
I agree that industry-wide we have too many four star prospects. It's completely de-valued the three-stars IMO. Most of those guys are excellent players and good prospects.
I am not saying rank HS All-Americans all us fans truly care about is how these kids are going to perform on Saturdays, not on Sundays. This is going to become combine central, and how kids perform in pads will matter less and less. Obviously measurables matter, but its always going to be the intangibles that will separate the boys from the men. Those intangibles are found on the field of play.
As far as Norwood goes you are way wrong. Really inconsistent Player? if you ask me if half the five star player you rate played at the level he did in college you would be happy. Listed below are his accomplishments from time he was a freshman and I don't have time to list his stats. He was selected in the 4th round.
2009 First Team All-American (AP, Walter Camp)
2009 First Team All-SEC (Coaches, AP)
2008 First Team All-SEC (Coaches, AP)
2007 First Team All-SEC (Coaches)
2006 First Team Freshman All-American
Did the class rankings system change? Just curious cause PSU fell from about 16 to 32 in the past day without any decommits or anything.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports