What's new
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

Wall Street Journal article on Recruiting

buffaholic

Club Member
Club Member
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610421544186330.html

There is also commentary at insider.espn (must be an insider to view - premium I guess) from Bruce Feldman. His input was:

In summary, Feldman makes a case that it's the 2-star and 3-star guys that the big programs (such as Alabama) are relying on much more than the 4-5 star guys. It's called hunger.

At a minimum, it's a less than perfect science judging teenagers. Some kids are already good enough to be stars at the college level. The WR at Alabama was that way as a true freshmen last year. Many others are given 5-stars because there's no projection needed at least physically. Ryan Miller comes to mind. He was big and strong enough to play in the B12 when he was in High School. Still, development is necessary to get to the next level and that jury's out.

And yes, I'd take 4-5 star kids in most case over 2-3 star kids. But it seems that our track record is at least about industry average for 4-5 star kids working out or not. And we've had a lot of the 2-3 star kids seemingly developing into players....
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610421544186330.html

There is also commentary at insider.espn (must be an insider to view - premium I guess) from Bruce Feldman. His input was:

In summary, Feldman makes a case that it's the 2-star and 3-star guys that the big programs (such as Alabama) are relying on much more than the 4-5 star guys. It's called hunger.

At a minimum, it's a less than perfect science judging teenagers. Some kids are already good enough to be stars at the college level. The WR at Alabama was that way as a true freshmen last year. Many others are given 5-stars because there's no projection needed at least physically. Ryan Miller comes to mind. He was big and strong enough to play in the B12 when he was in High School. Still, development is necessary to get to the next level and that jury's out.

And yes, I'd take 4-5 star kids in most case over 2-3 star kids. But it seems that our track record is at least about industry average for 4-5 star kids working out or not. And we've had a lot of the 2-3 star kids seemingly developing into players....

Thanks for linking that. I saw Feldman's piece earlier and it occured to me that the debate over the value of star rankings for recruits is one we have simply not had often enough around here. But I was too lazy to link the WSJ article he was drawing from.... :thumbsup:
 
But where has that development of 2* and 3* players gotten us?

The biggest issue with that article is singling out USC, the same team that has played in six straight BCS bowls prior to the 2009 season, as the reason rankings do not matter.
 
But where has that development of 2* and 3* players gotten us?

The biggest issue with that article is singling out USC, the same team that has played in six straight BCS bowls prior to the 2009 season, as the reason rankings do not matter.

By all accounts, with the talent they have at USC, they should have played in 6 straight BCS Championship games. A team of superstars doesn't always perform to it's potential. In fact, I believe it rarely does. I think USC would do well to go and get a few 2* players just to keep it real in the lockerroom.
 
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704304504574610421544186330.html

There is also commentary at insider.espn (must be an insider to view - premium I guess) from Bruce Feldman. His input was:

In summary, Feldman makes a case that it's the 2-star and 3-star guys that the big programs (such as Alabama) are relying on much more than the 4-5 star guys. It's called hunger.

At a minimum, it's a less than perfect science judging teenagers. Some kids are already good enough to be stars at the college level. The WR at Alabama was that way as a true freshmen last year. Many others are given 5-stars because there's no projection needed at least physically. Ryan Miller comes to mind. He was big and strong enough to play in the B12 when he was in High School. Still, development is necessary to get to the next level and that jury's out.

And yes, I'd take 4-5 star kids in most case over 2-3 star kids. But it seems that our track record is at least about industry average for 4-5 star kids working out or not. And we've had a lot of the 2-3 star kids seemingly developing into players....

Thanks for the recruiting story, but I prefer Terra Firma's view on things...
 
Here is a rebuttal to that Article... I think the article in the WSJ was a guy being very limited in his analysis.


While i agree with the assessment about the sample size i am VERy confused by how that table supports anything he is arguing? the top for schools have 9 BCS births, but OSU, OU, and 'Bama have less than half the total top 100 recruits and just as many births as the top 4.
 
Back
Top