[Husker] Fwd: More fuel for the recruiting fire

[Scott Stewart]

TOTALLY, THIS IS NOT GOING TO MEET THE COMMON OPINION. IGNORE IF
APPROPRIATE!!!!

Look, from a "Star" opinion. If there are 4,000 (very conservative) players
nationally at a position. Stars pick 10 of the 4,000 position players as
"high value" players. 4 of the 10 players make "All xxx status".

In my opinion, that is pretty darn good.

That means that even though the population was proportion vs. population
.0025 that they predicted .40. That is really impressive statistically.

There are so may intangibles that occur between High School and College. To
even be in line with chance would be acceptable. To be 100 x chance is
impressive.

What intangibles are in play: 1. Ability to succeed in college, 2.
Transition from High School (speed) to College (speed), 3. Transition from
High School pressure to College pressure...

To be able to predict success at better than the average base rate in light
of these challenges I consider to be impressive. It appears that the "star"
rating is at least 4 x better than guessing. Is it perfect No, is it better
Yes.

Now, can coaching and mentoring improve the success potential? Sure! That
is not factored into the high school rating.

Scott



On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Andy Knipp <andy at knipp.com> wrote:

>
>
> Yea I expect you would see the biggest difference in the OL (and kickers).
> OL for a couple reasons, in HS there can be such a huge difference in size
> that players get by on power with simple blocking schemes.  College not so
> much, the blocking schemes are much more complex and difficult to learn.
> There is a reason that the Academic AA teams always have plenty of QB and
> OL
> candidates, you need to be smart.
>
>
> From: Paul Dalen <quesohusker at gmail.com>
> Date: Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [Husker] More fuel for the recruiting fire
> To: Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
>
>
> Is there a position that recruiting rankings are more or less accurate when
> looking back on four years of college ball?
>
> I'm guessing that QB and RB rankings are probably pretty closely
> correlated...OL and DL probably less so.  To me, the more that the position
> requires technique and physical development as opposed to pure, raw
> ability, the lower the correlation between draft status and recruit
> rankings.
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I saw a similar analysis after last year's NFL draft.  About half of the
> > first round draftees were former four or five star recruits.  Several
> were
> > either two-star or went unranked.
> >
> > I don't know that everybody realizes that stars do not guarantee
> > anything.  The rating services are wrong almost as often as they are
> > right.  Sometimes comically so.  It's really a glass half-empty/half-full
> > argument.
> >
> > Talent is important, no doubt about it.
> >
> >
> > Mike Jaixen
> > http://huskermike.blogspot.com
> > http://www.cornnation.com
> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> >  From: Andy Knipp <andy at knipp.com>
> > To: 'Husker List' <husker at tssi.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 11:03 AM
> > Subject: [Husker] More fuel for the recruiting fire
> >
> > I think we all realize that stars do not guarantee anything.  The higher
> > the
> > stars, the more likely success is.
> >
> > Post from ESPN looking at the All-SEC team and how they were rated out of
> > high school.  Just under half (10 of 22) were on the ESPN top 150. 2 were
> > unranked/slightly recruited.
> >
> >
> >
>
> http://espn.go.com/blog/sec/post/_/id/37864/how-2011-all-sec-team-ranked-as-
> > recruits
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> > _______________________________________________
> > husker site list
> > husker at tssi.com
> > http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
> >
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>