On Stars

[cougjunkie]

[quote=SoCalCoug;184019]
2004: 1 4-star (Vince Feula), 6 3-stars (Bower, Collie, Luettgerodt, Eddie Scipio, Watkins, Joe Griffin); the rest were 2- and 1-stars (Bower, Scipio and Griffin never contributed, and I can't remember if Feula did, which should say a lot, itself - so we have 3 3-stars who contributed.
quote]


Very good post, Feula was a starter at BYU.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by cougjunkie

Oregon State and Utah offered like 7 of the same recruits this year.

So Oregon State has identified Utah as the premiere talent evaluator? Why not BYU? Does this mean Utah is even more undervalued by the stars system than BYU is? Why be selective about it? If Oregon State acknowledges Utah is better evaluator than the star system and their own coaching staff, why not offer all 23 recruits?

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

So Oregon State has identified Utah as the premiere talent evaluator? Why not BYU? Does this mean Utah is even more undervalued by the stars system than BYU is? Why be selective about it? If Oregon State acknowledges Utah is better evaluator than the star system and their own coaching staff, why not offer all 23 recruits?

Oregon State acknowledges that Utah does a good job of evaluating the top Utah HS football talent and lets them do their evaluating for them. Then once the offer is extended, Oregon State gives them a look and decides whether or not to pursue them.

It's hardly rocket science and it's actually a pretty efficient way of going after recruits. Due to the added panache of their BCS membership over Utah, they feel they can cede the groundwork needed for recruiting (being the first to offer, building early relationships, etc.) and step in later and still get the commit over Utah.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by SoCalCoug

Okay, let's look at the stars by year (using Scout.com):

2002: 3 5-star (Olson, Walt Williams, Scott Young), 2 4-star (Kuresa, Chad Barney), 2 3-star (Coats, Nu'a); the rest were 2- and 1-stars (so 7 recruits were 3-star or better, and only 5 ever contributed.

2003: 1 5-star (Ofa), 1 4-star (Brian Soi), 3 3-stars (Speredon, Dallas Reynolds, David Nixon); the rest were 2- and 1-stars (so 5 recruits were 3-star or better, and only the 3 3-stars ever contributed.

2004: 1 4-star (Vince Feula), 6 3-stars (Bower, Collie, Luettgerodt, Eddie Scipio, Watkins, Joe Griffin); the rest were 2- and 1-stars (Bower, Scipio and Griffin never contributed, and I can't remember if Feula did, which should say a lot, itself - so we have 3 3-stars who contributed.

2005: 2 4-stars (Matt Reynolds, So'oto), 3 3-stars (Tialavea, Spencer Hafoka, Chris Bolden) - all of which either have contributed or are expected to contribute - 5 recruits of 3-star or better; the rest are 2- or 1-stars.

2006: 2 4-stars (Lark, Matangi Tonga), 4 3-stars (Jacobsen, Ryan Freeman, Tico, Saulsberry) -the rest are 2- or 1-stars. Lark may or may not contribute, Jacobsen and Saulsberry did, and Freeman, I believe is in the mix somewhere. 6 recruits of 3-star or better.

2007: 4 3-star (Munns, Matthews, Cooper, Mauga), 11 3-stars; so that's 15 recruits of 3-stars or better.

2008: 3 4-stars, 8 3-stars; so that's 11 recruits or 3-stars or better.

The answer to your question is that Bronco's recruiting over the past 2 years has been 2-3 times better than the previous 5, going by the star ratings. If you factor in how few of the 4- and 3-star recruits actually contributed, (assuming Bronco can keep the 2007 and 2008 recruits around, it could be even more significantly better.

And, the point you seem to be missing is that BYU's gone 11-2 the last 2 seasons, and ranked in the top 15 in the country, with primarily 2- and 1-star recruits contributing.

Can you answer your own question now?

There's a major disconnect with the #63 and #80 then. Because I don't believe our recruiting has ever been that low in the past, has it?

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by jay santos

OK then, we can clearly say in this case that USC's getting better recruits than BYU.

Let's step it down a notch. Cal or Kansas State. These guys are always ahead of us in recruiting rankings and always could make a compelling case to a recruit to go there instead of BYU. Whey don't they sweep in and cherry pick our recruits after we've done the evaluating? This logic you guys are behind would support that Cal/Kansas State is blindly going by stars and getting sub-par recruiting classes.

You know, if you want to continue cherry-picking my statements without acknowledging the underlying logic, we're going to get nowhere real fast. As opposed to getting somewhere slowly, which is pretty much an impossibility considering the forum. But I digress...


Let's assume that each school has it's priorities for the upcoming class. For example, this year BYU's priority seemed to be WR, LB & DB. Now, let's assume you assign your team goals, such as: "We want to sign two Linebackers in this class."

Then, you immediately look for the 3-4 linebackers you're going to focus on, hoping to sign two of them. You already know about three linebackers, all from 'pipeline schools' you recruit often, whom you've already watched playing over the last two years while evaluating LAST year's recruits. The fourth, a friend of a coach calls and tells him about this kid that's tearing it up, and plays only a hundred or so miles from the school.... AND THEN, you do a little research and find this other kid playing in Cal that's being touted as the next Brian Urlacher.


WHY THE HELL would you bother looking at a linebacker who has nice stats, playing in the state of Utah? Therefore, that Utahn gets little attention from most BCS schools, and little attention from the recruiting sites, since hey - the only teams interested are Utah & BYU, so the kid can't be that good, right?



Thus, you see a kid who, had his family moved to that same pipeline school in California, would have been a four-star recruit, and instead ended up with just two stars.

Would that 'poor soul' have been 'incorrectly evaluated' by the recruiting sites, had they taken the time to evaluate him? Probably not. Would he have been identified by another college that spent the necessary time evaluating him? Probably. Is there any reason for another school to spend a second thought on the kid? NO!


Your argument in this case is flawed.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Oregon State acknowledges that Utah does a good job of evaluating the top Utah HS football talent and lets them do their evaluating for them. Then once the offer is extended, Oregon State gives them a look and decides whether or not to pursue them.

It's hardly rocket science and it's actually a pretty efficient way of going after recruits. Due to the added panache of their BCS membership over Utah, they feel they can cede the groundwork needed for recruiting (being the first to offer, building early relationships, etc.) and step in later and still get the commit over Utah.

Doesn't this kind of support my premise, that there really is no such thing as building a recruiting strategy on finding diamonds in the rough. Because every staff is looking for them (either directly or by cherry picking others). There's no such thing as BYU being undervalued, because so is Utah and so is CSU and so is Boise State and Fresno State--all focusing in on those second tier guys the USC's are ignoring. And now apparently even the BCS schools like Oregon State's recruiting classes are undervalued because they're using the Utah's of the world to find these understarred players to cherry pick.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

There's a major disconnect with the #63 and #80 then. Because I don't believe our recruiting has ever been that low in the past, has it?

I would agree that there appears to be a disconnect. I would disagree if you say that the 2008 class is not that great. It appears that compared with classes going back to 2002, it's very good.

If the star rankings are accurate, then we are getting much better athletes on the whole than we have been getting.

Therefore, Bronco's doing a very good job at recruiting.

It also seems that whether it's because they're better at evaluating talent, or better at getting production out of their players, Bronco and BYU have done a very good job the last 2 years, relying primarily on lower-rated players to propel the team to two top-15 rankings.

Or maybe the stars just don't matter as much as you think, like Bronco says.

[Indy Coug]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Doesn't this kind of support my premise, that there really is no such thing as building a recruiting strategy on finding diamonds in the rough. Because every staff is looking for them (either directly or by cherry picking others). There's no such thing as BYU being undervalued, because so is Utah and so is CSU and so is Boise State and Fresno State--all focusing in on those second tier guys the USC's are ignoring. And now apparently even the BCS schools like Oregon State's recruiting classes are undervalued because they're using the Utah's of the world to find these understarred players to cherry pick.

2008 Scout.com rankings:

BYU - 58th
Oregon State - 61st
Utah - 64th

http://byu.scout.com/a.z?s=338&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

[Spaz]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Doesn't this kind of support my premise, that there really is no such thing as building a recruiting strategy on finding diamonds in the rough. Because every staff is looking for them (either directly or by cherry picking others). There's no such thing as BYU being undervalued, because so is Utah and so is CSU and so is Boise State and Fresno State--all focusing in on those second tier guys the USC's are ignoring. And now apparently even the BCS schools like Oregon State's recruiting classes are undervalued because they're using the Utah's of the world to find these understarred players to cherry pick.

No, it does not support your premise.

1. Yes, most non-BCS (and even lower-tier BCS teams) are undervalued.
2. The star system IS still reliant upon PROPER evaluation of talent.
3. All talent does NOT receive the same amount of evaluation.
4. 'second tier guys the USC's are ignoring' are being ignored NOT because they're LESS TALENTED, but because they're NOT PROPERLY EVALUATED.


Without the scholarship restrictions, I have no doubt that many of the '3-star' BYU recruits would have been offered by USC.

[SoCalCoug]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

2008 Scout.com rankings:

BYU - 58th
Oregon State - 61st
Utah - 64th

http://byu.scout.com/a.z?s=338&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

Past years' rankings:

2007: 42
2006: 46
2005: 53
2004: 55
2003: 59
2002: 46

Bottom line for Jay: if the star rankings mean as much as he says, there's no way BYU should have finished in the top 15 the last 2 years, based on the talent level recruited.