Discussion: The Star Conundrum

[usc1]

Eh I've said it before, if our coaches could pick any 25 recruits in the country they would all be 4* and 5*. That goes for any team. We recruit well enough to compete with the big time teams and our great coaching does the rest. But we saw when our coaching is not there (Tennessee this year) our talent wasn't quite good enough to win the game on it's own. Gotta have stars and coaching to win championships.

[OldPat]

Looks like the crash & burn crowd are gonna give the ledge a good workout this season.
Eyes on the sky, guys; let your feet do the feelin'.
See you in the spring if you don't fall.
If you slip? Guess we'll make do w/o your genes in the pool.

[thekob]

Star rankings DO count for something, BUT they don't count for EVERYTHING.

They're a rough estimate of how good a kid currently is. There's a lot that happens between a commit and them graduating college. They're only based on available information, such as statisitics (performance, height/weight, 40 time, etc), how they look at the various camps and combines, and also pay attention to what big name schools have offered them. Now, a kid could very easily fly underneath the radar. He might know exactly where he wants to go, commit on getting one offer from a dream school and be done with it. He wouldn't attend all the combines, etc so the only thing that recruiting services have to go off of is their high school performance and the one offer. A recruit intent on going to that one school could also dissuade from getting more offers by telling coaches "sorry, not interested' so they wouldn't even bother extending an offer. Now all of this has to do with how good the recruit is RIGHT NOW.

What no recruiting service can measure just regarding an individual recruit is attitude and desire. Some kids are just plain morons who are all in it for the quick pay day. They're a big fish in their little high school pond and thing they're the second coming. They show up on campus and don't work hard and just plain rot in a festering pile of mediocrity. I think we can all remember a pair of running backs that fit that description.

Outside of the recruit themself, there's also the program that they get into. If a program isn't stable (coaching changes) or just doesn't develop talent very well, doesn't have a good S&C program, they're not going to develop like they could/should.

So stars do count for something, but they are by no means the end-all-be-all of a recruit. They shouldn't be relied upon nearly as much nor portrayed to be as meaningless as they are. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Extrapolate that further out...you can't get all caught up in class star rankings. In a sport where all the positions are so different, you've got to understand that it's all about addressing needs first, and then getting the best player second. A 5 star kicker probably is going to be an awful OT. A five star running back won't make a very good quarter back. It can get to be a square-peg/round-hole situation.

[PageUSC]

^^^well said.

You need the talent but you gotta have a good attitude, work ethic and dedication to go with it.

[Woody7687]

Originally Posted by sc455

With this class, sc will have over 30 4 star players..you make it sound like we are rutgers or something.

we aren't Rutgers and we aren't Alabama, we are somewhere in between. You guys need to understand that some very traditional powerhouses are above us in the sec. bama, uf, uga, auburn, lsu, tenn, etc...we will never ever consistently outrank those guys in recruiting. the sec is a bitch of a conference.

understand who we are and you guys will deal with this better.

I understand who we are very well, we finished 4th in the country ahead of all of those teams except Auburn. We have won 33 games the last 3 years, only Oregon, Stanford, and Bama can relate. We should not be getting out recruited by a Tenn, UGA, or UF because we are the team to beat in the East the last 3 years. UF and Tenn are dumpster fires and UGA just cleaned house of all of their coaches and their senior leaders graduated or drafted.

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by Woody7687

We should not be getting out recruited by a Tenn, UGA, or UF because we are the team to beat in the East the last 3 years. UF and Tenn are dumpster fires and UGA just cleaned house of all of their coaches and their senior leaders graduated or drafted.

And our unique situation of only have 4 seniors makes our recruiting difficult this year. It's alot easier for those teams to "out recruit" us simply based on numbers. Our coaches had to do their best to address specific needs with limited scholarships to do it. On the flip side, while these programs are bringing in a whole wrath of inexperienced guys, we've managed to keep guys in our program longer, meaning they have a better understanding of what the coaches want them to do and when.

Here's the break down of our player classes in 2013. We had
1 RS SR
4 SR's
14 RS JR's
11 JR's
17 RS Sophomores
11 Sophomores
21 RS Freshmen
25 Freshmen

We are building a base of players from the bottom up. Many of our best recruits for the past couple of years have taken redshirts. If someone doesn't understand what a extra year of coaching and physical development can mean for a 17/18 year old then I won't ever be able to change ones mind, and you'll (that's a generic you'll) simply remain, star struck.

[CHSgc]

Originally Posted by Woody7687

We should not be getting out recruited by a Tenn, UGA, or UF because we are the team to beat in the East the last 3 years.

Nobody cares a/b that and only fans of either team know the W-L record going back several years (what's the 5 year record of Ole Miss and MSU? I dunno, doubt you do either). We finished #4 this year, that's awesome, but it doesn't matter much outside of our fanbase. Quick question: who finished fourth in 2011? 2009? 2004? Who gives a shit.

You need hardware. UT, UF, UGA have hardware. That stays in people's heads. Until we win the SEC, those guys will always out recruit us. (And even then, UGA and UF are likely to outrecruit us given the talent goldmine they sit on).

[GarnetSwarm1990]

It's not like we don't recruit the big time guys. SC just doesn't have the pull that the Bama's, FSU's, Texas's of the world have. It's more than just having good teams. It's more than having nice facilities. It's more than having good academics. It's more than having a good college town. It's all of it as a package. SC is still building to the top level of all of those things.

If we can keep putting together teams that have a chance to win the SEC year in and year out, sooner or later we will be in the top of recruiting rankings year in and year out too. But really, at the end of the day who give a rat's ass if ESPN or rivals or 247 puts us at # 3 or #23 in recruiting rankings? All that has to do with numbers and individual site bias or whether or not they went to specific camps. If we finish the football season #3 rather than #23, that's what matter's. That put's us in position to win championships. That's what we all want.

[Gamecocks1137]

Edward Ashoff's Q&A today, I was the guy who asked him about South Carolina turning 3 and 4 star players into 5 star caliber players on the field. He even linked an image mimicking what I asked. Safe to say, I am a tad proud of myself on this one.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/i...y-chat-wrap-68

[Lonnie]

Number of Rivals 5*'s per year.



So there are about 120 FBS teams competing for about 30-ish 5*'s per year.

If you look at where they end up, I think I can make the case that championships get you 5* players, not the other way around...

[CockTail]

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Number of Rivals 5*'s per year.



So there are about 120 FBS teams competing for about 30-ish 5*'s per year.

If you look at where they end up, I think I can make the case that championships get you 5* players, not the other way around...

That is great analysis. If you want to win a NC you had need to get 2-3, 5* players to get there. We would be 7th in our own league.

[GamecockInHell]

I know a lot of you will disagree because we don't get them, but if you get enough five star players you can win championships. The problem is that USC just can't get them. If Marcus or Clowney had been from any other state we probably would have had no chance to get them. There are very few 5 stars from the state of South Carolina and we aren't getting them from somewhere else. I agree that we do a good job with the players we get, but we keep coming up short for a reason.
But, I'll take 11-2 every year, as long as two of the wins are against the taters and the doggies.

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by CockTail

That is great analysis. If you want to win a NC you had need to get 2-3, 5* players to get there. We would be 7th in our own league.

By your analysis why hasn't So Cal won one???

[b381l]

Originally Posted by ctgarric

I don't think stars are everything. I think that our recent success is proof of that. I am also not trying to bash our recruiting, but I found something on ESPN's SEC blog that I found interesting.

It shows the number of 4 and 5 star players taken by each SEC school over the last 4 years. Alabama, Florida, and Georgia are averaging 6-8 more 4/5 stars a year than SC. That's a pretty significant difference in talent. While one, two, or maybe even 3 highly ranked recruits in a given class may not pan out, and one or two 3-stars may develop into high caliber players, when you're getting 20-30 more highly ranked recruits on a given roster, it makes a difference.

I think we can win an SEC championship with the recruits we're getting. But I also think we need to be recruiting better if we expect to make it to ATL regularly.

http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/i...ars-in-the-sec

generally speaking I agree with you.....but when you start to be more specific than just 1-5 stars. For example, the last couple of years, we have had 5-7 high 3* players....there's very little difference between them and 4* players. Also, in each class there is usually only 10-14 players that really contribute to a team's performance. So if our top 10 players are almost as good as their 12-14 players, we can compete with them. Also important is that the states of Georgia and Florida are very large, and those schools will almost always get the cream of the crop each year.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by usc1

Eh I've said it before, if our coaches could pick any 25 recruits in the country they would all be 4* and 5*. That goes for any team. We recruit well enough to compete with the big time teams and our great coaching does the rest. But we saw when our coaching is not there (Tennessee this year) our talent wasn't quite good enough to win the game on it's own. Gotta have stars and coaching to win championships.

they'd all be 5 stars according to the coaches, not Rivals or 247 or Scout. Because they don't care one bit what these guys are ranked by recruiting services and they are going to think some guys with 2 or 3 star grades should be 5 stars.

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by thekob

Star rankings DO count for something, BUT they don't count for EVERYTHING.

They're a rough estimate of how good a kid currently is. There's a lot that happens between a commit and them graduating college. They're only based on available information, such as statisitics (performance, height/weight, 40 time, etc), how they look at the various camps and combines, and also pay attention to what big name schools have offered them. Now, a kid could very easily fly underneath the radar. He might know exactly where he wants to go, commit on getting one offer from a dream school and be done with it. He wouldn't attend all the combines, etc so the only thing that recruiting services have to go off of is their high school performance and the one offer. A recruit intent on going to that one school could also dissuade from getting more offers by telling coaches "sorry, not interested' so they wouldn't even bother extending an offer. Now all of this has to do with how good the recruit is RIGHT NOW.

What no recruiting service can measure just regarding an individual recruit is attitude and desire. Some kids are just plain morons who are all in it for the quick pay day. They're a big fish in their little high school pond and thing they're the second coming. They show up on campus and don't work hard and just plain rot in a festering pile of mediocrity. I think we can all remember a pair of running backs that fit that description.

Outside of the recruit themself, there's also the program that they get into. If a program isn't stable (coaching changes) or just doesn't develop talent very well, doesn't have a good S&C program, they're not going to develop like they could/should.

So stars do count for something, but they are by no means the end-all-be-all of a recruit. They shouldn't be relied upon nearly as much nor portrayed to be as meaningless as they are. The answer is somewhere in the middle.

Extrapolate that further out...you can't get all caught up in class star rankings. In a sport where all the positions are so different, you've got to understand that it's all about addressing needs first, and then getting the best player second. A 5 star kicker probably is going to be an awful OT. A five star running back won't make a very good quarter back. It can get to be a square-peg/round-hole situation.

More like "educated guess."

[ReadR00ster]

Originally Posted by CockTail

That is great analysis. If you want to win a NC you had need to get 2-3, 5* players to get there. We would be 7th in our own league.

If you want to win a championship, you do it on the field and win all your games. You don't win championships with your roster card.

[usc1]

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

they'd all be 5 stars according to the coaches, not Rivals or 247 or Scout. Because they don't care one bit what these guys are ranked by recruiting services and they are going to think some guys with 2 or 3 star grades should be 5 stars.

Not sure what you mean. Coaches go out and actively recruit the guys with whom which they have a realistic shot at given geographical location or some kind of connection to. If our coaches knew they'd get Leonard Fournette without trying I'm sure they would. He's a 5* whether our coaches think he is or not. Same goes for a lot of guys.

[CockTail]

Originally Posted by Lonnie

By your analysis why hasn't So Cal won one???

Simple: coach

[CockTail]

Originally Posted by ReadR00ster

If you want to win a championship, you do it on the field and win all your games. You don't win championships with your roster card.

Players make plays. You aren't winning a NC with mediocre talent. There is a clear path between recruiting and winning consistently on a national stage. This is the only weakness of our program. Why is that so hard to accept?