In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1663
Online now 1662 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Wow...8% of five star players become all American's by their senior year. That's impressive...
Lets put it this way and see if it look different:
92% of 5 star guys don't become All American
97% of 4 star guys don't become All American
99.3% of 3 star guys don't become All American
99.992% of 2 star guys don't become All American.
Basically we are arguing over less than 8% of the recruits.
Remember also, only 1.1% of guys entering College Football at the FBS level will make it to the NFL wen they are finished. So basically the NFL believes 98.9% of the guys signed yesterday are not NFL talent, 5 stars or no stars.
None of this speaks to actual team success.
Sure you have better odds of having a 5 star player be an all star or NFL talent, but the odds at this point are so miniscule that it's really not worth arguing over. It's not a 50/50 proposition by any stretch. Recruiting is a huge crap shoot.
I think Hoke and Dantonio have both said that they have never looked at a public recruiting service.
We're basically getting 2 freshmen classes this fall. 37 players who haven't set foot on the field during an FBS game. 20 of those guys have been on campus, and adjusted to college life. 20 of those guys have been in the weight room and studying film and play-books with their peers and their coaches.
That's an important thing to remember when looking toward the future of this program.
Ha yeah. McShay and Kiper at least prove it over and over again.
I wonder how much of the rankings are just based off of offers. I am guessing a lot of it is.
Like I've said, this class isn't about finding the kids that we need in order to win right away. That 3 star kid in college with a year of conditioning and coaching would kick that 4 star HS player's ass.
I agree they do a great job developing all of the guys.
The lack of stars motivates some of our guys.
I agree, that's why it's hard to get excited on signing day like some do, and like the media play it.
Signing day to me...is kind of like the MLB draft.
Stars are more based off of Combine results than On the field results. Kids who go to camps adn are in the proper location to get evulated by these website gurus are the ones who become 5 stars. Tompkins did not go to many camps (if any). This is why he is only a 3 star. It's also why Baker who had an impressive forty, squat and bench press was a 4 star to Le'veon's 2 star.
Yes, but was RS'd this year after being injured vs. ND. Actually, Sims regained his RS from being suspended for all of '10. The only members of '09 who are "true" SRs this year are just Caper and Norman; Baker would be in there, but is doing the NFL thing.
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
The better measure is All-Conference; just by the few # of All-Americans relative to all players in college football skews that stat to almost being irrelevant. I forgot the poster who came up with it, but a 4-star has something like a 16 times better chance at being All-Conference than a 2-star.
I wish that was true; McGowan scored over 100 on the SPARQ test; the only OL in the country to do so.
There is no need to make excuses about our class. This is the class the coaching staff wanted. Looks like we'll have a lot of contributors in this class. Hoping a few of them can be stars.
I think 2013 is going to be Dantonio's best class.
Don't take what I'm going to say personally, but I'm SICK and TIRED of hearing the phrase 'the staff is really developing their players' or something to this effect. Maybe our 2 and 3 stars were in reality 4 and 5 stars to begin with, but some pencil dicked recuiting expert didn't see it. Anyone here think Le'veon Bell was really just a 2*? Did the staff really coach him up that much or is it just Bell's natural talent is being recognized for what it really is? Talent can't be coached - it can be molded to some extent, but you either have it or you don't.
Recuiting sites sell subscriptions. Whether they realize it or not, they will have certain preconceived ideas when it comes to some kid that has offers from certain programs - and these certain programs have more fans that buy from their sites.
There was some link I saw here several months ago that listed the most overrated programs that compared their recuiting rankings to their actual records - the 3 most overrated teams were Texas, um, and nd, in that order.
Last point - I don't care what Rivals, 247 or Scout rates our classes - the past 2 years we're the 2nd best team in the conference. First place, whether we like it or not, goes to Wisky, a team that hasn't finished in the Top 40 in the rivals rankings in years. Must be the cheeseheads up there don't buy too many subscriptions.
This post has been edited 3 times, most recently by Frank Ricard 2 years ago
I hadn't yet read your post before I posted mine. You're saying the same thing I'm trying to say, only you're much more eloquent than me. For example you use the term 'wannabe coach' and I used the term 'pencil dick'.
That would be all well and good, but you've got kids that are not only lowly ranked by "pencil dicked recruiting experts", but you've got kids that just aren't getting scholarship offers from people being paid to be able to coach and evaluate talent. Lots of people saw Greg Jones, but who offered him? Minnesota? Illinois? You get a lot of kids that go to camps and just get passed over, yet the staff sees the kid and brings them in. It's not an indictment of recruiting services. Other coaches aren't seeing it either. Our staff is great at identifying and developing players. That's a fact.
Class size plays a very important factor though. If you sign 25 kids rather than 17, the chances of having more kids succeed is greater. Part of the reason the SEC is so good is because of this. They sign such large classes and have a greater sample size to have kids succeed.
They also, in the past, had the safety net of "over-signing."
They could miss on a guy and replace him with someone else much easier.
If you sign 25 kids every class, you're also going to have a larger amount of attrition. The sign large classes specifically so they can kick out the other kids that they signed that haven't panned out yet.
That doesn't really prove anything for many reasons. Primarily, the pool of two stars and three star players is massive compared to four and five star players, meaning the likelihood of three star and two star players will inherently be lower because there are only so many all-conference spots. For example, if I create a catagory for MSU three stars and lower, the percentage of those players making all-conference would be much closer to the number of all Big Ten four stars making an all-conference team.
As RP is noting, the percentage of four stars that actually make all-american--or as you suggest all-conference--doesn't demonstarte a significant correlation, and thus is statistically irrelevant.
This post was edited by Gus Chiggins 2 years ago
We are 3 Star U
PM ACCSpartan cause he thinks MSU sucks at recruiting
Ok. Enough of the "PM ACCspartan" crap.
I think a big part of it are coaches recognizing the kids that are willing to continue working their asses off to become better.
The difference can turn out to be Blair White v. Fred Smith.
I think Dantonio looks at recruits differently than most coaches do too. I know Tressel had, at one time, eluded to this.
I think Dantonio is very good at looking at a recruit, knowing his body type and how it can and will change in a college football program, and how the skills the recruit is showing will translate with that body change.
I really think Dantonio and his staff looks at physical traits (Ht, weight, frame, etc...) and mental capacity more than shown football skills. And views these football skills as more of a bonus. I know "commodities" is kind of a bad word in terms of recruiting and people in general, but I think Dantonio looks for physical/mental "commodities" over pure football talent.
I think he hordes these commodities. I think he believe that if a recruit has a lot of them, the football talent can be brought out and molded by his program easier then molding a guy who may already have previously established football skills.
Like training a horse....easier to break one down to rebuild if it hasn't been trained before.
I'm not saying it works for everyone they bring in and recruit, and I'm not saying the recruit guys based only on their mental/physical capacities, but it seems to me that the guys with high physical commodities/ mental capacities are the guys that succeed under Dantonio regardless of their recruiting status.
This post was edited by RPMadMSU 2 years ago
I agree and slightly disagree. It is an indictment of the recuiting services - like Gus said earlier, they're more for information and entertainment purposes.
I'll agree with you that the staff has done beyond a great job of recognizing talent. Not disputing that fact. But for the VAST majority of the people on this board and fans in general, they equate talent with Stars. So when a team does better then their recuiting rankings would indicate, a lot of people think they were all 'coached' up, when in reality they had FAR more talent than anyone thot.
It might sound like I don't want to give credit to all our coaches for our success - that's not true. And your point is well taken they get HUGE points for recognizing talent when they see it. But lelt's use MSU vs UM as an example. On paper, if you go by recent recuiting ratings, in theory, UM has more talent. Now let's switch coaches - put Dantonio and crew over to UM and put Hoke over on our side and tee it up 7 times or so. My guess is that MSU wins most of these matchups because, in reality, MSU had more talent! At QB it's Cousins vs. Denard - no contest. Running Backs - MSU. OL - we're better. Receivers - MSU. DL - MSU. LB's - MSU by a mile. DB's - not even close. Special teams - no sense in even comparing the two. You get my point.
You can only develop so much. Truth is we have more talent than most people give us credit for. Your absolutely right that we probably have a Top 5 coaching staff who's greatest talent is seeing it and getting those players to MSU. My point is that they're not exactly developing chopped liver - hell, even a JLS type coach would have won here had he had the talent we have now.
This post has been edited 4 times, most recently by Frank Ricard 2 years ago
Dr Opti, providing wisdom;one message at a time.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports