1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Dave Plati calls B.S. on the recruiting "star system"

Discussion in 'University of Colorado Recruiting Archive' started by Buffnik, Jan 30, 2012.

  1. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,578
    Likes Received:
    16,197
    I think he's a bit too hard on it. Not because they have qualified scouts looking at guys or do a thorough analysis of guys outside their top 250. Mostly, they don't. But just like Kiper's NFL draft forecast is pretty accurate by draft day, the star system becomes a pretty good indication by national signing day. It's not that the analysis gets better or deeper. It's because they have the offer lists and the ratings of other services so they can all get close to a consensus of where guys should generally be ranked. (It's no accident that CU's class is in the 30s on all 4 sites. Independent analysis of player film in a vacuum would not yield such similar results from 4 different scouting groups.)

    Without further ado, here's Dave Plati's take:

    Q: Like many, I am concerned that we’re only getting two- or three-star players to commit. What’s your take on the “star” system?
    A: (Licking my chops). The star system is perhaps the biggest joke in all of college athletics. Those services assign stars based on who is recruiting them (e.g., they get lists from some of hot schools and make them four or five stars), and also based on schools that heavy subscription bases to their services. I have been told this several times through the years by people who work for these places, so if anyone contests this, they’re flat-out lying. Example: Tyler Hansen commits to CU, is a 1-star QB; Michigan and Iowa show some interest, and he’s a 3-star, or as Tyler put it, he had a heckuva week playing Madden on his couch that week. Most of these guys aren’t the experts they say they are, they have coaching sources slipping them info. Always go back five years earlier and all of these places easily miss on half of their top 100 or 150 players; they just never tell you. Sure Coach Mac built our programs with some top kids, but an eye for talent and potential didn’t hurt either; FACT: since 1989, CU has had 67 first-team All-Conference performers (or better); 34 were high school All-Americans, 33 were not (and those 34 were not all 4- and 5-star players).


    Want more proof? I had an interesting conversation with Ted Miller (ESPN.com) at the Rose Bowl. He told me ESPN’s 150 is skewed for the same reason—lists from certain schools and picking more players from areas where the fan bases are rabid about recruiting. This year’s ESPN 150 has 18 players from Georgia (population 9 million) and 11 from California (population 41 million). Statistically, that can’t happen but there are more rabid fan sites in the south than in California, so it caters to that fan base. And if you look at the so-called team rankings, isn’t it amazing that certain schools either have none or at most one two-star (or less) player? They haven’t spotted any one in their camps or on film that’s not a “three” star performer that they have a commitment from?


    So don’t be suckered in, it’s a business that recruiting spun off, and apparently, a very lucrative one. But it’s almost all bull, and most coaches will agree with the above assessment.


    http://www.cubuffs.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_LANG=C&ATCLID=205370317&DB_OEM_ID=600
     
  2. Duff Man

    Duff Man Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    39,651
    Likes Received:
    4,637
  3. J.R. Ewing

    J.R. Ewing Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2011
    Messages:
    13,850
    Likes Received:
    3,582
    I certainly agree about the geographic slant in awarding 5* and top end 4* ratings. West coast and midwest guys get marginalized. Ohio usually puts out soemthing like the 4th or 5th most FBS players, but they don't seem to get many recognized as "elite".
     
  4. BinaryBuff

    BinaryBuff mmmm...beer Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    1,578
    Likes Received:
    64
    I'd agree that the system is flawed... however, I think discounting it entirely like Plati is doing is just as flawed. When I read his response, all I hear from him is "If we can't recruit the 4 & 5 star kids, well don't worry because the 2 & 3 star kids we did get are just as good!!!"
    There is a reason that USC/Texass/OhioSt/Florida/LSU/... are generally pretty damn good year in and year out, and it's not because their coaches and facilities are that much better, it's because their consistent top 15 recruiting classes are that much better.
     
  5. NWD Buff

    NWD Buff Club Sandwich Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    5,212
    Likes Received:
    605
    I couldn't agree more with Plati, and that is not always the case. I hate the star system. I think it actually hurts some kids who get "blue chip" rankings, because they are not mature enough to handle the pressure that goes with that, especially if it is known that they are the top recruit in the class that they are in.
     
  6. jahbrahakala

    jahbrahakala New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    184
    Likes Received:
    3
    Chicken = USC, Texas, Michigan, tOSU, Alabama.....

    Egg = 4-5 Stars

    That's some highly correlated data
     
  7. Duff Man

    Duff Man Moderator Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    39,651
    Likes Received:
    4,637
    I doubt anyone agrees that the recruiting ratings/rankings should be taken as gospel, but to completely and unequivically dismiss them is foolish as well. Plati talks about the recruiting sites missing on half of the elite players in a given year. You are supposed to read that and say, "Wow, 50% seems like a really high number... the recruiting sites really have no idea." The problem is that 50% figure (if true) is meaningless without any context.

    As Nik and I have said repeatedly, the elite players are not hard to pick out of a crowd. It is not a coincidence that most of the guys our staff honed in on also happened to have high ratings as well. It also goes the other way as well. Does it really take much analysis to realize that the last couple classes under Hawk just were not very good top to bottom? Did the rankings lie with those classes? Not in the least.
     
  8. Unleash Hell

    Unleash Hell Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    22,243
    Likes Received:
    636
    I was looking at past classes the other day. 4 out of the past 7 national champions had a top 5 recruiting class 4 years prior to their national championship season.
     
  9. BlackNGold

    BlackNGold Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,489
    Likes Received:
    605
    I really disagree with Plati on this. I think the original question was flawed though. Teams have to have a few difference makers to compete at the elite level (conference championship and BCS Bowl) if you are in the PAC 12, SEC, Big 12, Big 10. I don't think you have to have a team loaded with 4 and 5 star players but you need solid players. I thought Ringo's answer to a similar question was much better.

    Alabama has been recruiting 4 * players mixed in with 1 or 2 - 5 * and a bunch of 3 stars. I don't think any regional bias has distorted the ratings that much.

    The objective is to build you team with the best talent available. The recruiting services just feed the fans interest but it is nothing new about who the top recruits are coming out of HS. Everyone knew that Dick Anderson, Bobby Anderson, Dave Logan, Erik McCarty, etc. were the top Colorado recruits and that was way before any recruiting service.
     
  10. CVilleBuff

    CVilleBuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2010
    Messages:
    19,523
    Likes Received:
    1,608
    Per-capita, a state such as Georgia has a huge leg up on California when it comes to talent. Surprised people even consider that debatable.
     
  11. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,578
    Likes Received:
    16,197
  12. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,458
    Likes Received:
    4,463
    Dave Plati has a hard time counting all the way up to 5*.
     
  13. zbuff

    zbuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    707
    It's not just the star system that is flawed - they also weight everything with some formula that measures team needs or whatever. Is Nebraska really going to get more help from their 14 recruits than we are from our 27? Doubt it, but Rivals' process says so.
     
  14. BuffsNYC

    BuffsNYC Uptown Club Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2007
    Messages:
    2,658
    Likes Received:
    993
    It all seems pretty simple to me. If Plati is correct, the services give higher ratings to athletes being recruited by "hot schools." If, by hot schools, he means programs who usually win a lot of games, then those schools have shown that they recruit good football players. Why, then, wouldn't a recruiting service use that criteria to rank a player? And why would such a rating be suspect? A scholarship offer means a program has put skin in the game, it's an objective measure of what type of program wants the player. If a highly selective program (like USC, Alabama, Florida, or Oregon) offers a scholarship, then there's evidence the player can play. If numerous programs offer a player, that's more evidence the guy's a player.

    I think Plati is 180 degrees off. The problem with the services isn't that they base rankings on who's recruiting somebody, it's that they stick to the fiction that they're providing some sort of independent, objective analysis. I'd be more likely to believe some rating system that simply reflected the number and quality of a player's scholarship offers.
     
  15. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,458
    Likes Received:
    4,463
    I heard Plati was so upset about the ranking system that he demanded a refund from Rivals for his subscription. The folks at Rivals said they wouldn't dignify that request with a response.
     
  16. BehindEnemyLines

    BehindEnemyLines beware the habu Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    14,567
    Likes Received:
    915
    He lost my attention when he started talking about Mel Krapper. The "Big Board" and his predictions? Krap. Hell, you or I could guess the first 5 players drafted every year, and then whiff on the next 27. Difference is, he remains employed while doing just that.
     
  17. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,578
    Likes Received:
    16,197
    You might want to re-read. The stuff in italics is from Plati.
     
  18. BehindEnemyLines

    BehindEnemyLines beware the habu Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    14,567
    Likes Received:
    915
    Oops, didn't mean to insult ya, Nik.
     
  19. Burrito Palazzo

    Burrito Palazzo huff my smug Club Member

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2010
    Messages:
    31,657
    Likes Received:
    4,349
    Whoever wrote the first part is a dumbass.
     
    Buffnik likes this.
  20. Buffnik

    Buffnik Real name isn't Nik Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2009
    Messages:
    80,578
    Likes Received:
    16,197
    :lol:
     
  21. Darian3Hagan

    Darian3Hagan '89 Player of the Year Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2007
    Messages:
    11,930
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    What a ****ing moran.
     
  22. DBT

    DBT Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Aug 18, 2005
    Messages:
    58,442
    Likes Received:
    4,665
    Dave, would you rather have twenty 5 stars or twenty 2 stars? I'll guarantee you Plati would be thumping his chest if we signed all 4 and 5 star kids.

    I agree with a few things he said. But the top rated kids, the 4 and 5 star kids, are, generally, pretty damned good. Sure, a lot of them don't pan out but I'd take my chances. I actually think it takes a better coaching staff to find talent with the lesser acclaimed kids. This is where I hope Embree and Bienemy excel. I'd also argue that it is easier for a Saban and a Meyer to recruit a top class than for our staff. Our coaches have to actually evaluate talent.
     
  23. Jaximus

    Jaximus Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2011
    Messages:
    1,744
    Likes Received:
    294
    I think part of his point is that our recruits aren't 4 or 5 star recruits BECAUSE they are committed to CU. If Dillon had chosen Ohio State, I'd bet on him not losing his 4 star rating.

    Measuring a talent by the amount and quality of their offers speaks more about the kid than the star system. But that isn't a perfect way either. It's all just educated guess. Even at the next level, they get it wrong more than they get it right.
     
  24. Darth Snow

    Darth Snow Hawaiian Buffalo Club Member Junta Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2008
    Messages:
    56,896
    Likes Received:
    4,914
    Funny timing. Plati is dumb.
    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/star-power-defense-recruiting-rankings-214251813.html


     
  25. zbuff

    zbuff Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    7,401
    Likes Received:
    707
    You mean like the Happy Days chick?
     
  26. GoonieBuff

    GoonieBuff Not really Club Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,547
    Likes Received:
    322
    It is what it is - a predictor of future success. The SAT and ACT aren't perfect, but they're the best current indicators that are used across the country for predicting collegiate academic success.

    A person who scores a 20 on the ACT might have a lot of success at college, but of course good schools won't touch that person. This is the academic version of a 2* athlete who becomes an All-American. It's not expected, and it doesn't happen as often as it doesn't, but it can happen.

    A person with a 34 ACT score can go anywhere, and will have elite schools fighting for him/her, but due to knowing how to handle partying and living on his own, he might flunk out after a semester. This is the academic version of a 5* athlete who has his choice of schools and is wanted everywhere, and one of the "good" programs will land him. However, he might be lazy, a troublemaker, or just plain be overrated, and not amount to anything.

    These services are the best widespread indicators currently out there, but that doesn't mean you have to like them. However, I think Plati comes off as a bit whiny in the Q&A. The data he used was only from one school, therefore not the largest sample size.
     
  27. aeroxx

    aeroxx New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2011
    Messages:
    156
    Likes Received:
    4
    There was a well known study done by researchers at UCLA in 2007 that demonstrated that there is no correlation between SAT/ACT scores and college success. There is a very weak correlation between test scores and grades during freshman year of college.

    This might be surprising, but lots of people who get perfect scores on the SAT/ACT are still turned down from top schools like Stanford and MIT. Like rankings, test scores are not predictors of success.

    As far as the larger argument, being rated as a 5-star player is better for a player than not to be. The evidence suggests a 50% chance of success, which is a bet anyone would want to make. But many five star recruits never develop enough to play in the NFL. Whether this rating system is advantageous to those not picked as 4 or 5 stars is open to debate, notwithstanding the economic and educational distortions that ratings agencies create in society.
     
    Last edited: Jan 31, 2012
  28. sackman

    sackman Club Member Club Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2005
    Messages:
    48,458
    Likes Received:
    4,463
    You like words. Have you met Mtn Buff?
     
  29. GoonieBuff

    GoonieBuff Not really Club Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,547
    Likes Received:
    322
    Mr. Words,

    I never mentioned that the TESTS were good, just the best widely used indicator for collegiate success.

    I was stating facts, not making an argument. The star system is anything but perfect.

    To counter, there are plenty of 5* players not recruited by top programs as well.

    Next time read what was written and stop thinking so much. Your brain might get hurt. You are dismissed.
     

Share This Page