Master Capper
My point is all about the percentages. The "percentage" of a 5-star recruit being an impact player for a program is higher than the percentage of a 3-star player. Their are many many cases were a 3-star play has become not only an impact player but a SUPERSTAR!
Sun Tzu names 3-star players who did well. Let me throw some "imaginative" numbers out at you. There are 50 5-star players. Their are 200 4-star players. 500 3-star players. Pretty easy to pick out 3 stud 3-star players as an argument. Especially if you multiply 500 x 21 years = 10,500 players. Just fun numbers to prove a point. Its all about percentages if you base recruiting solely on the services. Thats leads me right into my response to Doughboy.
Doughboy
Congrats on AU fulfilling their recruiting needs. That a very important criteria in recruiting and surprisingly there are many coaches who fail to address it. My thumbs down was based solely on the recruiting rankings and I cited the recruiting rankings. I am a fan of the AU program but I do not follow the program closely so I do not know the ins/outs. The most important thing in recruiting is the coaching staff to evaluate talent on their own and developing it. I know the USC coaching staff pays no attention to the recruiting sits and they evaluate over 300 players every season on their own. Prob. is the same with many other coaching staffs. I do know there are many coaching staffs that put a lot of stock into what the recruiting sites rank players.
All in all, the most important thing is production on the field. Whether you bring in top 10, top 25, or top 50 recruiting class, W's are the only thing that is important. I think it is safe to say its easier to win football games with 5 and 4-star athletes vs a team with 3 and 4-star athletes. That is my argument.
My point is all about the percentages. The "percentage" of a 5-star recruit being an impact player for a program is higher than the percentage of a 3-star player. Their are many many cases were a 3-star play has become not only an impact player but a SUPERSTAR!
Sun Tzu names 3-star players who did well. Let me throw some "imaginative" numbers out at you. There are 50 5-star players. Their are 200 4-star players. 500 3-star players. Pretty easy to pick out 3 stud 3-star players as an argument. Especially if you multiply 500 x 21 years = 10,500 players. Just fun numbers to prove a point. Its all about percentages if you base recruiting solely on the services. Thats leads me right into my response to Doughboy.
Doughboy
Congrats on AU fulfilling their recruiting needs. That a very important criteria in recruiting and surprisingly there are many coaches who fail to address it. My thumbs down was based solely on the recruiting rankings and I cited the recruiting rankings. I am a fan of the AU program but I do not follow the program closely so I do not know the ins/outs. The most important thing in recruiting is the coaching staff to evaluate talent on their own and developing it. I know the USC coaching staff pays no attention to the recruiting sits and they evaluate over 300 players every season on their own. Prob. is the same with many other coaching staffs. I do know there are many coaching staffs that put a lot of stock into what the recruiting sites rank players.
All in all, the most important thing is production on the field. Whether you bring in top 10, top 25, or top 50 recruiting class, W's are the only thing that is important. I think it is safe to say its easier to win football games with 5 and 4-star athletes vs a team with 3 and 4-star athletes. That is my argument.
Last edited:
