Oh no, we didn't accrue enough mystical internet star-points!

[CougarChief]

Man, what could've been, right?! We were so close to having more completely useless star-points than we ended up with!

What a bummer today was! I'm so upset I feel like I've been kicked in the nuts!

If only the completely subjective ratings performed by non-college coaches were more favorable to us, then we could've enhanced our standing on a list that puts an overall value to all classes based on factors unrelated to the actual program needs or coaching staff evaluations!

I mean, there's no real flaw in a system that would rate a class of 25 4 star linebackers as better than a class of 25 3 and 4 star kids who are spread around in positions of need for a particular program. You know, because that makes tons of sense.

But alas, it's February and what else do us non-pedophiles do other than obsess over the actions teenage boys? I certainly can't wait to get all this football out of the way so we can build up to next season's NSD.

 

[chipdouglas]

What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Well Chip, it is a good thing you are here to set us all straight. Yes, at the ends of the bell curve, having a top (or bottom) ten class makes a huge difference. It is easy to see the great, great players in high school. Being in the middle is less significant in my opinion. There is little difference between the 40th class and the 50th class.

So is it sour grapes? Maybe. Are you overreacting? Perhaps.

 

[chipdouglas]

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Well Chip, it is a good thing you are here to set us all straight. Yes, at the ends of the bell curve, having a top (or bottom) ten class makes a huge difference. It is easy to see the great, great players in high school. Being in the middle is less significant in my opinion. There is little difference between the 40th class and the 50th class.

So is it sour grapes? Maybe. Are you overreacting? Perhaps.

To get technical, the "ends" of a bell curve--outside 3 standard deviations--represent 1% of all data. Are you saying stars only matter for the Top and Bottom 0.5% of teams?

Because when I look at the Top 20% of teams (25 actual teams, give or take), I see schools like Alabama, FSU, Auburn, USC, Ohio State and more. All have national championships in the last 10 years and are highly successful almost every year. When I look at the Bottom 20%, I see teams like Old Dominion, New Mexico State, and Idaho. Even in poor conferences, most of these teams have had zero success.

So at a minimum, the Top and Bottom 20% of stars and class rankings--40% overall--would seem to matter quite a bit. This is not at all like the "ends of the bell curve" you suggest.

As I look up in the 30s and 40s, I'm seeing teams like Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, TCU, Nebraska, Louisville and more. There are dud teams in there too, but the takeaway is the star system is a good--but less consistent--indicator of success in the middle.

But as I look at that 50+ range, where we are, I'm not seeing a lot of teams who are consistently proving the star system wrong. We all hope we're the exception, but in the last 10 years our bottom-rung recruiting has been a pretty good indicator of the product on the field.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Well Chip, it is a good thing you are here to set us all straight. Yes, at the ends of the bell curve, having a top (or bottom) ten class makes a huge difference. It is easy to see the great, great players in high school. Being in the middle is less significant in my opinion. There is little difference between the 40th class and the 50th class.

So is it sour grapes? Maybe. Are you overreacting? Perhaps.

To get technical, the "ends" of a bell curve--outside 3 standard deviations--represent 1% of all data. Are you saying stars only matter for the Top and Bottom 0.5% of teams?

Because when I look at the Top 20% of teams (25 actual teams, give or take), I see schools like Alabama, FSU, Auburn, USC, Ohio State and more. All have national championships in the last 10 years and are highly successful almost every year. When I look at the Bottom 20%, I see teams like Old Dominion, New Mexico State, and Idaho. Even in poor conferences, most of these teams have had zero success.

So at a minimum, the Top and Bottom 20% of stars and class rankings--40% overall--would seem to matter quite a bit. This is not at all like the "ends of the bell curve" you suggest.

As I look up in the 30s and 40s, I'm seeing teams like Wisconsin, Georgia Tech, TCU, Nebraska, Louisville and more. There are dud teams in there too, but the takeaway is the star system is a good--but less consistent--indicator of success in the middle.

But as I look at that 50+ range, where we are, I'm not seeing a lot of teams who are consistently proving the star system wrong. We all hope we're the exception, but in the last 10 years our bottom-rung recruiting has been a pretty good indicator of the product on the field.

Chip, I like you and think you contribute a lot to this site. But, you are playing games. You are being like Ed and Chinook right now. You seem to think that only stars matter. Forget about coaching and development. Do you think that Alabama or Ohio State might have a better coaching staff than Idaho? Do you think they might have a better training table than New Mexico State?

Plus, I read your words and you seem to be trying to shout over me. The best teams get the best recruits. We both agree. Those great teams will get the most five and four star recruits. They will be better than the bottom teams that get zero star or two star recruits. Everyone else, their ranking may be right on or way off. We really do not know until we see how it plays out. Seriously, WSU's offense should have been closer to the 100's based on star rankings last season. But, it was much more than that.

If you want to whine about things, go ahead. For you, WSU's football team will suck now. Me, I'll wait to see.

 

[BleedCrimsonandGray]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

This ^^

Everything else is just fooling yourself with WDWHA.

While I don't really give a sh!t about stars or rankings, the plain and simple fact is that we lost a ton of recruits due to the fact that we got the raw dog from Simmons without the common courtesy of a reach around.

Those were GOOD recruits that would have improved our class substantially, not just for their talent but for their DEPTH. It was a huge blow to this years class, and to try to catagorise it any other way is just sticking your head in the sand.

This post was edited on 2/5 10:25 AM by BleedCrimsonandGray

 

[froropmkr72]

The difference between WSU's class being ranked 29th and 50th were two linebackers named Moi, Rudinski and Tezino. Then there's Burnett and Green. When Moi committed there wasn't a lot of fanfare because we had beat out Hawaii for his services. Now Oregon offers late and all of a sudden he has magical powers (see picture for proof). Rudinski and Tezino were undersized and if Tezino hadn't of had a 4 star next to his name....I guarantee no one would of had a legit argument for more stars than 3 next to 6-0 207 4.7. Green was a very recent decommit from Louisville and Burnett was on the back page before an All-Star game when he "became" a must have at wide receiver.

We'll see after a couple of years whether the absence of these players really warranted a drop of 20 in the rankings. Think of it in reverse. We don't have those commitments the day before yesterday.....ranked 50th ....then we get 4 of those mentioned and as a result....we're ranked 29th in the nation?? Would it really of been warranted? Personally, I would of been shaking my head a bit.

He glows of a super hero.

 

[CougEd]

Why denegrate Chip in that manner...how is he being like me and Chinook

He thinks evaluation of these sites matter, and that losing a number of recruits at the last minute hurts.

Where I 100% disagree with Chip is if a coaching staff proves to be good evaluators I tend to have that trust over what people on the net think. But he thinks stars really matter.

And probably to his greater point, so did many on this board. Just five days ago I was reading about how we were X in the country in terms of recruiting. Now I am reading how this class fell apart. How Simmons departure was the kiss of death.

But there is a greater truth. Receivers are D.A.D.---dime a dozen. They also come in and play and be fairly effective their freshman or redshirt year.

People should be jumping up and down that we got five big bodies on offense, and what looks to be at least three solid on dline.

The kids that jumped liked the process. They like the attention. Kids like that will struggle in the beach, or anywhere where the rubber meets the road and it now requires hard work and perseverance.

I think the question will be moving forward is will Leach recruit kids like Mason, Teznio, Green and Mason. And will he hold a spot in the future if they commit and then start sniffing around.

 

[chugspig]

I don't care about the Stars. I just wanted Burnett and green. Those two three stars were very high quality players. Much less hurt about the others. Green would have been damn near unstoppable in our offense.

 

[CougarChief]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Chip, these are entertainment websites. Remember that. Your coach doesn't care about recruiting rankings so take that in to account. I'm not going to talk you off your ledge - if you want to be depressed about these results for the next 3-5 seasons then go right ahead.

The fact of the matter is - if you're a program that nets a majority of 4 and 5 star players, landing you in the top 15 of recruiting classes, it's a pretty safe bet that you'll be a team that lands in the top 15 at the end of the season 2-3 years from now.

For everyone else, between #15 and #60 on that list, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Any of those teams can land anywhere from 1-120 in any given season (we've seen WSU hit both ends of that spectrum).

Why? Because it's easy to spot and predict the results of a 5 star kid. A bunch of 5 star kids, despite coaching changes, defections, etc, will typically still end up with a good team.

It's infinitely harder to do so with a 3-4 star kid. Coaching changes, defections and all the other typical program ups and downs can create much more of an impact on their results two years down the road.

If the difference for us this year (and any team any year) between #50-something and #20-something is a couple of 4 star kids, it's ridiculous to think that those two defections will be the difference maker in the 2017 season.

Had WSU fallen from the #5 class to the #30 class? Cause for concern, and probably reasonable to be upset. Falling from mid 20s to mid 50s? Not so much. Save today's consternation for something important. Or don't - it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: Why denegrate Chip in that manner...how is he being like me and Chinook

Originally posted by CougEd:
He thinks evaluation of these sites matter, and that losing a number of recruits at the last minute hurts.

Where I 100% disagree with Chip is if a coaching staff proves to be good evaluators I tend to have that trust over what people on the net think. But he thinks stars really matter.

And probably to his greater point, so did many on this board. Just five days ago I was reading about how we were X in the country in terms of recruiting. Now I am reading how this class fell apart. How Simmons departure was the kiss of death.

But there is a greater truth. Receivers are D.A.D.---dime a dozen. They also come in and play and be fairly effective their freshman or redshirt year.

People should be jumping up and down that we got five big bodies on offense, and what looks to be at least three solid on dline.

The kids that jumped liked the process. They like the attention. Kids like that will struggle in the beach, or anywhere where the rubber meets the road and it now requires hard work and perseverance.

I think the question will be moving forward is will Leach recruit kids like Mason, Teznio, Green and Mason. And will he hold a spot in the future if they commit and then start sniffing around.

We are more alike here than we are apart. For WSU, getting players for the offensive and defensive line will be the difference between going to a bowl and not going to a bowl. Leach will be able to find receivers. If not this year, then next. I went back to look at the 2013 recruiting class. In order, the top four recruits for that year are Bruggman, Brown, Lepua and McClennan. The bottom four were in order Madison, Ekuale, Su'a-Kalio and Lemora.

Right now, by far WSU will get more from the bottom four rated recruits than the top four. In fact, of those eight, the worst rated player, Madison, has a chance to play in the NFL.

 

[Coug90]

Haha. Like what you did with your post. The true grade of this class will be known in 4-5 yrs when we know if 60,70,80% of these guys stick. Could be a great class, who knows.

Right now, I just saw 7 or 8 kids give WSU the middle finger at the last minute. Sorry, but that's a punch in the gut that this program didn't need.

 

[Coug1990]

Originally posted by CougarChief:

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Chip, these are entertainment websites. Remember that. Your coach doesn't care about recruiting rankings so take that in to account. I'm not going to talk you off your ledge - if you want to be depressed about these results for the next 3-5 seasons then go right ahead.

The fact of the matter is - if you're a program that nets a majority of 4 and 5 star players, landing you in the top 15 of recruiting classes, it's a pretty safe bet that you'll be a team that lands in the top 15 at the end of the season 2-3 years from now.

For everyone else, between #15 and #60 on that list, it's pretty much a crapshoot. Any of those teams can land anywhere from 1-120 in any given season (we've seen WSU hit both ends of that spectrum).

Why? Because it's easy to spot and predict the results of a 5 star kid. A bunch of 5 star kids, despite coaching changes, defections, etc, will typically still end up with a good team.

It's infinitely harder to do so with a 3-4 star kid. Coaching changes, defections and all the other typical program ups and downs can create much more of an impact on their results two years down the road.

If the difference for us this year (and any team any year) between #50-something and #20-something is a couple of 4 star kids, it's ridiculous to think that those two defections will be the difference maker in the 2017 season.

Had WSU fallen from the #5 class to the #30 class? Cause for concern, and probably reasonable to be upset. Falling from mid 20s to mid 50s? Not so much. Save today's consternation for something important. Or don't - it doesn't really matter to me.

Thanks Chief. You wrote it much better than I did. We are not saying that losing those players are not a loss. But, they are at positions that can be made up in the next class.

 

[CougEd]

It would have been far more worrisome if Toki changed his mind

or doesn't qualify, and say two other lineman take off. The loss of the Dlineman that went to ASU was made up by the addition of the kid from Utah. Lineman simply take longer to develop. We seem to be in good shape. Now if they can just find the one kid that can consistently put the QB on his back, we will be in better shape..

Unless we have a run of bad luck on the oline we won't be starting any freshman this year, and we certainly won't be starting a 240 OG against USC like Wulff had to do early on. We are on much better footing, having walk-ons like Dahl and Eklund pan out is a great boost to the program and allows the younger guys to redshirt and develop.

 

[Coug1990]

Re: It would have been far more worrisome if Toki changed his mind

Originally posted by CougEd:
or doesn't qualify, and say two other lineman take off. The loss of the Dlineman that went to ASU was made up by the addition of the kid from Utah. Lineman simply take longer to develop. We seem to be in good shape. Now if they can just find the one kid that can consistently put the QB on his back, we will be in better shape..

Unless we have a run of bad luck on the oline we won't be starting any freshman this year, and we certainly won't be starting a 240 OG against USC like Wulff had to do early on. We are on much better footing, having walk-ons like Dahl and Eklund pan out is a great boost to the program and allows the younger guys to redshirt and develop.

I agree 100%. These are not meant to be rainbows and puppy's posts. But, whether it is baseball, football or basketball, the most important positions are always from the inside out. They checked the boxes on the inside. They will get the outside players soon enough.

 

[dgibbons]

Originally posted by chipdouglas:
What is WSU's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

What is Alabama's record with netting high-star recruits in the last 10 years, and what is its record on the field?

This post-NSD hangover rant about the supposed meaninglessness of the star system is a favorite with schools that don't do well in recruiting. And often don't do well in football.

I doubt you're finding a lot of threads about the pointlessness of the star system on USC's or Alabama's board right now.

This is sour grapes in its purest form.

Well, this class is still the best one we've had in a long time, even with the late flips.

And to answer your question, its seems like very few of the blue chip guys really pan out at WSU. And since all Bama gets is blue chip guys, they do just fine with blue chip players, unless they're playing tOSU. But are guys that go to Bama blue chips because they're really that good, are they the blue chips because they're getting recruited by Bama? Bama has plenty of washouts and transfers.

 

[froropmkr72]

Re: It would have been far more worrisome if Toki changed his mind

Originally posted by Coug1990:

Originally posted by CougEd:
or doesn't qualify, and say two other lineman take off. The loss of the Dlineman that went to ASU was made up by the addition of the kid from Utah. Lineman simply take longer to develop. We seem to be in good shape. Now if they can just find the one kid that can consistently put the QB on his back, we will be in better shape..

Unless we have a run of bad luck on the oline we won't be starting any freshman this year, and we certainly won't be starting a 240 OG against USC like Wulff had to do early on. We are on much better footing, having walk-ons like Dahl and Eklund pan out is a great boost to the program and allows the younger guys to redshirt and develop.

I agree 100%. These are not meant to be rainbows and puppy's posts. But, whether it is baseball, football or basketball, the most important positions are always from the inside out. They checked the boxes on the inside. They will get the outside players soon enough.

Man, Ed almost ran an end around towards coherency when he was closed-lined by images of the previous regime. Truth be told, he's very in touch with those players that actually panned out. He definitely wasn't one of those questioning Jacobsen and Gonzales' ability to start their first year as others were claiming it was delusional to think that they could take the place of the great Tyson Pencer. or Ayer or Epelle orMaxwell ....or Freitag....or

This post was edited on 2/5 1:02 PM by froropmkr72

 

[SCglory]

"completely subjective?" ?? huh? That is utter baloney. If that were the case, then it stands to reason teams ought to just pick kids at random. Or let Tom Cruise and Scientology help. Or the innards of goats. Or tea leaves.

Chip is right: this is pure sour grapes.

Is there "subjectivity" in the process? Of course, but it's not "completely" that way. These kids are measured half to death by the time they're 16, and if they make more tackles, run faster, for more yards, throw more, etc., then they get tons of film on them. Film that is poured over like it's Ed looking at Jenna Jameson. And you just can't miss the correlation between great recruiting and success. Of COURSE it's not a perfect correlation. Hardly anything ever is. But so what. Leach & Co. go over all the data, all the film, and it's not purely subjective to them....or to any coach. Silly.

 

[Fab5Coug]

The "stars don't matter" and "we do more with less" cliches were a ton of fun in 2003. But, ever since then, we've seen a bunch of classes finish in the 8-12 range of the conference rankings, and a bunch of seasons end in the 8-12 range of the conference standings.

Does this ever become anything more than coincidence to some of you?

 

[405 Coug]

Statistically speaking stars do matter, the more 4 or 5 stars you have typically the better your team is. The problem I have with the rankings is not the stars it's the depth. They don't take into account where the players will play, You can sign a couple of 5 stars, 1 RB and 1 WR, and 6 other WR all 4 stars and only sign 1 3 star offensive lineman. Well that has the makings of a very highly ranked class, the only problem is there is no one upfront to block for the RB, QB or WR.

What I really like about this Coug class is the balance, on offense 1 Rb 1 QB ,4 OL , 4 WR, and a Kicker, on defense you have 5 on the DL, 2 LB, 4 DB's a minor gap at LB, but maybe one of those DE's ends up being a LB, maybe a DB will be a LB. Great class balance IMO, and all these guys really wanted to be here, so I think this class will stay together.

 

[wulffbone]

WSU won't change the minds of many 4 & 5 star recruits until it starts winning more that 3-5 games per year. Winning football solves a lot of problems.

Just win baby

 

[kayak15]

One thing to keep in mind while looking at our comparative star rating is that WSU is going to have one strike against it from the start. Why? Our recruiting in A.S. by big Joe. Nobody has seen these kids so they are listed as NR, later raised to the obligatory two stars after our offer. When and if they get around to viewing the film the kid may be lifted to three stars at most. Getting a couple of Samoan kids means at least one if not both will be given only a low rating despite what Joe thinks, thus lowering the overall rating number. If Big Joe wants the kid then so do I. Rather have a two star Samoan with Joe's sanction than a three star from the states listed as such by one of the scouting services.

As far as the star system is concerned it is interesting to see what the scouting services think. But not, to me, as important as what other coaching staffs think. And not as much as what our own staff thinks.