TAMUallen said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Way too many crying little titty babies in here.

---

More like too many people who don't like a correlation between money spent and results. We are seriously the most consistently underperforming program.

---

like he said, way too many crying tittle babies in here. Prove us wrong and nut up.

Yep, we're back to getting a bunch of three stars, just like in the good ol days. But hey, at least we'll solidify the 7 wins seasons and early December bowl games!

22nd ranked class

JimAggie said:

---

Yep, we're back to getting a bunch of three stars, just like in the good ol days. But hey, at least we'll solidify the 7 wins seasons and early December bowl games!

22nd ranked class

---

titty baby much?

Good that areas of critical need such as LB are being addressed.

JDCAG (NOT Colin) said:

---

JimAggie said:

---

Yep, we're back to getting a bunch of three stars, just like in the good ol days. But hey, at least we'll solidify the 7 wins seasons and early December bowl games!

22nd ranked class

---

We have half the commits of the schools around us and it's June. What a short sighted evaluation.

---

It's also not even accurate seeing as we have mostly 4 stars still, and most of the prospects we are after are also 4 stars. Some really forget what 3 star recruiting looks like, and how much better Fisher's recruiting has been than Fran/Sherman/Sumlin, even when he is perceived to having a "down" year like 2023 or 2024:

Average star ranking

2024 90.15 (still early. With who we are in on, I'd expect it to be over 91 soon enough. It will likely be 90.63 after today)
2023 91.60
2022 95.00 (this is obviously closer to where we would all like to be, but we are still worlds better than pre-Fisher)
2021 91.92
2020 91.11
2019 91.05
Going back to the years of Sumlin
2017 87.93
2016 88.70
2015 89.03
2014 90.99
2013 89.21
2012 89.99
Sherman's last 3 years
2011 83.51
2010 87.72
2009 hard to find good data this far back, but roughly 86 range.

We went through a 20-year period where the only recruiting class that could confuse itself for one of Fisher's was the 2014 class.

Looking at 3 stars? Here is the 4 star or higher to 3 star or lower ratio :

2024 7:5 (with 15 more commitments to come. Best guess would be 17-18 versus 7-8 is what we finish with)
2023 13:6
2022 28:2
2021 16:6
2020 15:11
2019 16:11
Sumlin
2017 8:16
2016 8:13
2015 13:14
2014 14:8 (only good ratio)
2013 15:17
2012 10:9
sherman
2011 4:18
2010 8:16

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

I agree with your last point, but I don't think there is a coach out there that would rather have a roster full of 3 stars over 4 stars.

Are we expecting good news soon?

Yes

Is less than 7 hours soon enough?

whatthehey78 said:

---

Are we expecting good news soon?

---

We all woke up today. That's good news.

vander54 said:

---

Yes

Is less than 7 hours soon enough?

---

So any minute now????

whatthehey78 said:

---

vander54 said:

---

Yes

Is less than 7 hours soon enough?

---

So any minute now????

---

Less than an hour

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

That depends on the program. 4 stars are the lifeblood of national championship winning programs like Alabama and Georgia.

https://www.youtube.com/live/bDErqFf-i-0?feature

Boom!

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

Sure they are. For Okie Lite or Vanderbilt.

If we jad a roster full of 3 stars, we arent competing for titles. Hard data proves that point year in and year out. Sure, you get the occasional Swope or Evans that is way underrated or who figures things out and physically matures at the right time, but those guys are the exception by far.

A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that.

You want 5 stars and high 4 stars, saying otherwise is just dumb.

Quote:
"A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that."

Talk about dumb.

Manziel was a 3 star

whatthehey78 said:

---

Quote:
"A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that."

Talk about dumb.

---

Obviously it's dumb with regards to the extremes. Like a 5 star that drops out of school, or a 3 star like Manziel

But I think the better way to word it is, we have some 3 stars that end up better than their ranking. Lets take a DeShawn Capers-Smith. He was very solid for us in 2018 as our nickel. Most 3 stars never start, fwiw. So Capers-Smith outplayed the average 3 star. Not an extreme case like Manziel, or Mike Evans, but just a solid story.

Now, lets take a 5 star like Ricky Seals-Jones, often considered a disappointment here. Still a better player than Capers-Smith, and still in the NFL. If RSJ was a 3 star, people would be talking about how he overachieved and made it to the NFL. In other words, you can disappoint as a 5 star and still be better than 95% of three stars.

I think that is what he's referring to. A 3 star, in general, most are never heard from again, so you don't hear about the disappointments. Only the 1 out of 10, or even 15-20 successes depending on what level you are recruiting them (three star range varies from the 400th player in the world to a few thousand). A high 3 star with multiple offers will still hit higher than a low 3 star with FCS offers, on average.

Hubert J. Farnsworth said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

That depends on the program. 4 stars are the lifeblood of national championship winning programs like Alabama and Georgia.

---

Yep, most P5 programs have 4 & 5 stars as their starters with 3 stars sprinkled in, and 3 stars for depth/practice players.

UGA, Bama, and Ohio State have almost completely 4/5 stars in their starting lineups and have 4 star players for depth. Then they have a handful of 3 stars as practice players. Now of course 3 stars can crack the big dog's starting lineups. It that's the exception, not the rule.

Stars are just the probability you have a great player on your hands. The higher the star value the greater the probability. UGA and Bama are stacking the deck against the house increasing the probability they will have a great team each year.

Schools that load up on 3 stars with a couple 4 stars have a much lower probability of having a great team each year, but not impossible. This is why you see a team like OKST, Ole Miss, or TCU having a great season once in awhile.

Anyone who says taking 3 stars is the path to success in reaching a playoff consistently is off their rocker

whatthehey78 said:

---

Quote:
"A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that."

Talk about dumb.

---

Quoting another person in order to call him dumb while demonstrating that you can't figure out the quote function... a single, obvious button on the face of the post you are quoting... is, well... how should I put this nicely...

4 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Quote:
"A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that."

Talk about dumb.

---

Quoting another person in order to call him dumb while demonstrating that you can't figure out the quote function... a single, obvious button on the face of the post you are quoting... is, well... how should I put this nicely...

---

Didn't want the entire quote...just the 'dumb' part. Now...how shall I make another valid point.

Some good insight in this article showing that recruiting and stars definitely matter.

Some interesting nuggets:

- No program has won a national championship without signing at least one top 10 recruiting class in the four years leading up to and including their appearance in the national championship game since the beginning of the 247Sports Composite in 2001.

- Consider this: players in 11 of the last 19 No. 1 classes in the 247Sports Composite have won at least one national championship at their school, and 13 of the last 19 at No. 1 have at least reached the championship game. Only three programs with a No. 1 signing class failed to reach the national championship within its class life of four years: Florida State (2001 and 2004); USC (2006); and Florida (2010).

https://247sports.com/article/college-football-national-champions-have-in-common-alabama-clems-160642199/

schmellba99 said:

---

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

Sure they are. For Okie Lite or Vanderbilt.

If we jad a roster full of 3 stars, we arent competing for titles. Hard data proves that point year in and year out. Sure, you get the occasional Swope or Evans that is way underrated or who figures things out and physically matures at the right time, but those guys are the exception by far.

A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that.

You want 5 stars and high 4 stars, saying otherwise is just dumb.

---

I assume the bold is just poorly worded? Makes no sense.

ea1060 said:

---

- Consider this: players in 11 of the last 19 No. 1 classes in the 247Sports Composite have won at least one national championship at their school, and 13 of the last 19 at No. 1 have at least reached the championship game. Only three programs with a No. 1 signing class failed to reach the national championship within its class life of four years: Florida State (2001 and 2004); USC (2006); and Florida (2010).

---

I'm willing to bet it'll soon be 4 programs failing to reach the NC, unfortunately. I'd love to be wrong.

vander54 said:

---

For anyone here in the zoo that still cares about recruiting it may be a fun few days for y'all. We may see a couple big names fall our way soon.

---

I hope so. We are No 15 and have zero 5* recruits this year.

Divining Rod said:

---

3 star recruits are the lifeblood of a program. You need the right guys, and need to develop them (same as the 4 and 5).

Anyone who disses a 3 star recruit just because they have 3 stars beside their name, is an idiot.

---

ha ha.
Lifeblood yes, but of places like UTEP.
Not of Alabama or Georgia.

Now let me sit back while some moron says but but what about JFF?? He was a 3*.

whatthehey78 said:

---

4 said:

---

whatthehey78 said:

---

Quote:
"A 5 star that doesnt pan out is going to be better than a 3 star that plays above their head. You cant argue that."

Talk about dumb.

---

Quoting another person in order to call him dumb while demonstrating that you can't figure out the quote function... a single, obvious button on the face of the post you are quoting... is, well... how should I put this nicely...

---

Didn't want the entire quote...just the 'dumb' part.

---

You mean like this?

If don't develop players, tt doesn't matter whether its a 5* or a 3*