National Signing Day - Wednesday.

[BelligerentBobcat]

It’d be an interesting exercise to correlate the percentage of “success” to star ratings. First, would be to define what success is. Starter, multi-year starter, all-conference, all-American?? Like, does a 3 star guy have a 60% chance of being a starter? 30% chance at all-conference? (Pulled those numbers from my rear). I’m sure there is correlation, but no idea how strong it is.

Star ratings have been shown to have a correlation to players being drafted into the NFL, at least at the FBS level. The data from an article I'll give a link to below showed that:

61% of five-star recruits were drafted into the NFL.
23% of four-star recruits were drafted
5% of three-star recruits were drafted
0.5% of zero-star or two-star recruits were drafted

This would also suggest that there was a correlation between "star" status and success at the college level if we make the safe assumption that the best college players are the ones getting drafted into the NFL.

At the FCS level, I'd guess there is at least some correlation but it's going to be muddied by the fact that some FCS players aren't receiving a star rating more based on geography than based on their actual talent level. Troy Andersen didn't have a star-rating as a recruit, even though obviously he deserved one.

https://lastwordonsports.com/collegefoo ... 0the%20NFL.

There is a correlation to higher ranked players succeeding better, especially with 5 stars, but one should remember there aren’t very many 5 star recruits per year. I think 30-40. Meanwhile there’s probably a thousand 3 stars every year, so it stands to reason that percentage wise, it’s a low number. There’s probably more 3 stars and lower drafted every year than 5 stars too. It’s a numbers game.

[BelligerentBobcat]

My reasoning for saying stars don’t matter is because for the most part, their ratings come from offer lists. You’ll often see a player shoot up the rankings based on who offers him and when. There aren’t scouts coming out to watch all of these kids, and usually the only time they see anybody other than the premier recruits is at 7 on 7 camps.

Now I’m not saying an offer list isn’t a valid form of evaluation, on the broad spectrum it’s probably the best, and it works well for the top recruits. Once you hit the G5 and lower, I don’t think it means much. Heck, the Ivy’s and Campbell seem to always have the highest ranked classes. Stars are nice for fans to talk about, but at the end of the day, they don’t mean squat. Just look at MSU’s top ranked recruits. Most of them didn’t pan out.

[VimSince03]

My reasoning for saying stars don’t matter is because for the most part, their ratings come from offer lists. You’ll often see a player shoot up the rankings based on who offers him and when. There aren’t scouts coming out to watch all of these kids, and usually the only time they see anybody other than the premier recruits is at 7 on 7 camps.

Now I’m not saying an offer list isn’t a valid form of evaluation, on the broad spectrum it’s probably the best, and it works well for the top recruits. Once you hit the G5 and lower, I don’t think it means much. Heck, the Ivy’s and Campbell seem to always have the highest ranked classes. Stars are nice for fans to talk about, but at the end of the day, they don’t mean squat. Just look at MSU’s top ranked recruits. Most of them didn’t pan out.

247Sports is 100% just an aggregate site. They just collect information, consolidate it, and make updates as kids get more offers. The "scouting" doesn't really exist.

[blueandgoldblitz]

If Rollins were to show up this year in football shape, what spot on the OL do you think he'd push the most to play? I'm thinking RT with Wehr moving to RG, but I'm open to what everyone else thinks

[VimSince03]

If Rollins were to show up this year in football shape, what spot on the OL do you think he'd push the most to play? I'm thinking RT with Wehr moving to RG, but I'm open to what everyone else thinks

If JT Reed or Cole Sain aren't healthy enough to play, Rollins has a shot to be the starting LG or RG. They said they are going to start him out at tackle but if JT Reed were to go down at LG, I'm not sure they are going to ask Marcus to change from right to left and Dylan was primarily left side throughout high school and played LG his senior year. We are flexible overall which is a great thing and Dylan will have to compete against some other young stud offensive lineman.

[Montanabob]

If Rollins were to show up this year in football shape, what spot on the OL do you think he'd push the most to play? I'm thinking RT with Wehr moving to RG, but I'm open to what everyone else thinks

If JT Reed or Cole Sain aren't healthy enough to play, Rollins has a shot to be the starting LG or RG. They said they are going to start him out at tackle but if JT Reed were to go down at LG, I'm not sure they are going to ask Marcus to change from right to left and Dylan was primarily left side throughout high school and played LG his senior year. We are flexible overall which is a great thing and Dylan will have to compete against some other young stud offensive lineman.

i think we should have 10 guys that are fighting for 3 starting spots. i like that we have some depth and hope we get them all lots of playing time. With 12 games to the playoffs and hopefully a bye week and 3 more to frisco, we NEED experienced depth.

[Montanabob]

My reasoning for saying stars don’t matter is because for the most part, their ratings come from offer lists. You’ll often see a player shoot up the rankings based on who offers him and when. There aren’t scouts coming out to watch all of these kids, and usually the only time they see anybody other than the premier recruits is at 7 on 7 camps.

Now I’m not saying an offer list isn’t a valid form of evaluation, on the broad spectrum it’s probably the best, and it works well for the top recruits. Once you hit the G5 and lower, I don’t think it means much. Heck, the Ivy’s and Campbell seem to always have the highest ranked classes. Stars are nice for fans to talk about, but at the end of the day, they don’t mean squat. Just look at MSU’s top ranked recruits. Most of them didn’t pan out.

247Sports is 100% just an aggregate site. They just collect information, consolidate it, and make updates as kids get more offers. The "scouting" doesn't really exist.

Exactly. and just had it come across my facebook feed about the top FCS high school recruiting classes. they had 3 sources. 2 didn't have NDSU and UM in the top 10. one didn't have MSU in the top 10. And real squirrelly about which schools made each list.

[MSU01]

It’d be an interesting exercise to correlate the percentage of “success” to star ratings. First, would be to define what success is. Starter, multi-year starter, all-conference, all-American?? Like, does a 3 star guy have a 60% chance of being a starter? 30% chance at all-conference? (Pulled those numbers from my rear). I’m sure there is correlation, but no idea how strong it is.

Star ratings have been shown to have a correlation to players being drafted into the NFL, at least at the FBS level. The data from an article I'll give a link to below showed that:

61% of five-star recruits were drafted into the NFL.
23% of four-star recruits were drafted
5% of three-star recruits were drafted
0.5% of zero-star or two-star recruits were drafted

This would also suggest that there was a correlation between "star" status and success at the college level if we make the safe assumption that the best college players are the ones getting drafted into the NFL.

At the FCS level, I'd guess there is at least some correlation but it's going to be muddied by the fact that some FCS players aren't receiving a star rating more based on geography than based on their actual talent level. Troy Andersen didn't have a star-rating as a recruit, even though obviously he deserved one.

https://lastwordonsports.com/collegefoo ... 0the%20NFL.

There is a correlation to higher ranked players succeeding better, especially with 5 stars, but one should remember there aren’t very many 5 star recruits per year. I think 30-40. Meanwhile there’s probably a thousand 3 stars every year, so it stands to reason that percentage wise, it’s a low number. There’s probably more 3 stars and lower drafted every year than 5 stars too. It’s a numbers game.

I agree, very low sample size of the five-star players. But the draft percentages for 4/3/2 star players where the sample sizes are much higher show that there definitely is at least some level of correlation between star rating as a high school recruit and success at the college/pro level. Will that correlation apply to every single player, absolutely not. There will always be five-star busts and zero-star guys like Troy Andersen who become high NFL draft picks. It's almost impossible to measure this for a school like MSU that recruits a lot of zero-star Montana players who are just as good or better than the 2/3 star players who come from the more populated states.

[BLACKnBLUEnGOLD]

I don't think that study has much validity at all for talking about MSU recruiting.

For one thing, being drafted into the NFL isn't a useful measure of success here, or even a way to pick out who the best players at MSU were. Was Joey Thomas really that much better or more successful than Deonte Flowers? I dunno, they were both pretty damn good. Was Thomas 3 inches taller and 2-tenths faster. Yes, for sure. I'm not saying that to pick on Joey Thomas, you could make a similar comparison for every star who got drafted out of MSU and another star who didn't: Andersen/Owens, Hardy/Stark, Sandland/Bostick, Person/Catalano. The biggest factors are probably fitting a prototype and being lucky in catching a GM's eye.

Which brings me to the other problem with star ratings at this level: a huge part of being rated 3 stars and above is having measurables that fit the mold big colleges and NFL teams are looking for. You don't see many 3-stars who are 5'10" linebackers or 240-pound offensive linemen. But plenty of good or great MSU players have fit those descriptions.

I think a 3-star player is guaranteed to have the physical talent to succeed at MSU. I think star ratings are less reliable than that for measuring skills and mental game, and don't measure factors like work ethnic or availability at all.

I have a pet theory that the single biggest difference between 2-star recruits and no-star recruits is what high school they went to, but I can't prove it

[Montanabob]

It’d be an interesting exercise to correlate the percentage of “success” to star ratings. First, would be to define what success is. Starter, multi-year starter, all-conference, all-American?? Like, does a 3 star guy have a 60% chance of being a starter? 30% chance at all-conference? (Pulled those numbers from my rear). I’m sure there is correlation, but no idea how strong it is.

Star ratings have been shown to have a correlation to players being drafted into the NFL, at least at the FBS level. The data from an article I'll give a link to below showed that:

61% of five-star recruits were drafted into the NFL.
23% of four-star recruits were drafted
5% of three-star recruits were drafted
0.5% of zero-star or two-star recruits were drafted

This would also suggest that there was a correlation between "star" status and success at the college level if we make the safe assumption that the best college players are the ones getting drafted into the NFL.

At the FCS level, I'd guess there is at least some correlation but it's going to be muddied by the fact that some FCS players aren't receiving a star rating more based on geography than based on their actual talent level. Troy Andersen didn't have a star-rating as a recruit, even though obviously he deserved one.

https://lastwordonsports.com/collegefoo ... 0the%20NFL.

There is a correlation to higher ranked players succeeding better, especially with 5 stars, but one should remember there aren’t very many 5 star recruits per year. I think 30-40. Meanwhile there’s probably a thousand 3 stars every year, so it stands to reason that percentage wise, it’s a low number. There’s probably more 3 stars and lower drafted every year than 5 stars too. It’s a numbers game.

I agree, very low sample size of the five-star players. But the draft percentages for 4/3/2 star players where the sample sizes are much higher show that there definitely is at least some level of correlation between star rating as a high school recruit and success at the college/pro level. Will that correlation apply to every single player, absolutely not. There will always be five-star busts and zero-star guys like Troy Andersen who become high NFL draft picks. It's almost impossible to measure this for a school like MSU that recruits a lot of zero-star Montana players who are just as good or better than the 2/3 star players who come from the more populated states.

busts.... think a kid from great falls fits that category.

[TomCat88]

I don't think that study has much validity at all for talking about MSU recruiting.

For one thing, being drafted into the NFL isn't a useful measure of success here, or even a way to pick out who the best players at MSU were. Was Joey Thomas really that much better or more successful than Deonte Flowers? I dunno, they were both pretty damn good. Was Thomas 3 inches taller and 2-tenths faster. Yes, for sure. I'm not saying that to pick on Joey Thomas, you could make a similar comparison for every star who got drafted out of MSU and another star who didn't: Andersen/Owens, Hardy/Stark, Sandland/Bostick, Person/Catalano. The biggest factors are probably fitting a prototype and being lucky in catching a GM's eye.

Which brings me to the other problem with star ratings at this level: a huge part of being rated 3 stars and above is having measurables that fit the mold big colleges and NFL teams are looking for. You don't see many 3-stars who are 5'10" linebackers or 240-pound offensive linemen. But plenty of good or great MSU players have fit those descriptions.

I think a 3-star player is guaranteed to have the physical talent to succeed at MSU. I think star ratings are less reliable than that for measuring skills and mental game, and don't measure factors like work ethnic or availability at all.

I have a pet theory that the single biggest difference between 2-star recruits and no-star recruits is what high school they went to, but I can't prove it

I used to have a spreadsheet with every player MSU and UM recruited. After about 7-8 years I tallied up the players that ended up starting or playing meaningful minutes. The percentage for star rated players was higher. I don’t recall the numbers but there was a significant difference. Maybe that has changed over the past few years but I doubt it. Obviously, star ratings aren’t exact, but it isn’t too difficult to spot players who have superior athleticism and skill. If you’ve ever played pickup basketball, you know what I mean.

[coloradocat]

I don't think that study has much validity at all for talking about MSU recruiting.

For one thing, being drafted into the NFL isn't a useful measure of success here, or even a way to pick out who the best players at MSU were. Was Joey Thomas really that much better or more successful than Deonte Flowers? I dunno, they were both pretty damn good. Was Thomas 3 inches taller and 2-tenths faster. Yes, for sure. I'm not saying that to pick on Joey Thomas, you could make a similar comparison for every star who got drafted out of MSU and another star who didn't: Andersen/Owens, Hardy/Stark, Sandland/Bostick, Person/Catalano. The biggest factors are probably fitting a prototype and being lucky in catching a GM's eye.

Which brings me to the other problem with star ratings at this level: a huge part of being rated 3 stars and above is having measurables that fit the mold big colleges and NFL teams are looking for. You don't see many 3-stars who are 5'10" linebackers or 240-pound offensive linemen. But plenty of good or great MSU players have fit those descriptions.

I think a 3-star player is guaranteed to have the physical talent to succeed at MSU. I think star ratings are less reliable than that for measuring skills and mental game, and don't measure factors like work ethnic or availability at all.

I have a pet theory that the single biggest difference between 2-star recruits and no-star recruits is what high school they went to, but I can't prove it

I used to have a spreadsheet with every player MSU and UM recruited. After about 7-8 years I tallied up the players that ended up starting or playing meaningful minutes. The percentage for star rated players was higher. I don’t recall the numbers but there was a significant difference. Maybe that has changed over the past few years but I doubt it. Obviously, star ratings aren’t exact, but it isn’t too difficult to spot players who have superior athleticism and skill. If you’ve ever played pickup basketball, you know what I mean.

I don't know what it takes to get a 3 star rating, especially in Montana, but I would think that if you're getting enough attention/offers to reach that level you're probably good enough to be successful at the FCS level. It doesn't mean you will, as raw talent at 17 or 18 isn't enough, but there's likely something there. That doesn't take anything away from the 0*/2* guys as they may just be victims of circumstance/geography.

[Hawks86]

The 3 star pool is large. The top could be a 4 star and the bottom more of a 2. In years past we generally signed the bottom. The transfer portal is making more of the upper level available.