There's a difference between 3* players and late round players. There are just as many 5th round guys as 1st round guys, but there are 10 times as many 4 star players as 5 star players and hundreds more 3 star players compared to 4 star. So if the odds of a 3 star player becoming a success in the NFL is 1/100 and for a 5 star is 1/3 you'll have more 3 stars succeeding in the NFL overall.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Robot Santa

Member since Oct 2009

44349 posts

Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:44 am to JIB

That's not the point. Only so many players on an 85 man roster can get meaningful playing time. With pay for play masked as NIL, nothing being done to rein in tampering, and transfer waivers about to become a thing of the past, there's just no reason to believe that you'll be able to stash top 100 recruits on your bench for very long until someone buys them out from under you. Coaches still need to recruit talent. No one is saying that. The point is that success going forward for all but the programs who can spend whatever it is they need to spend might be as much a question of which coaches will be able to most effectively identify the undervalued recruits who turn into early round draft picks as it is a question of who are the best recruiters. You can stick those under the radar guys on your bench for a couple of years and develop them. I think you still want to sign a bunch of blue chip recruits because the hit rate on them is so much higher, but creating depth is going to be all about player development instead of recruiting going forward. You can't just go 3 deep with former top 100 recruits every season anymore unless you're able to pay them enough to sacrifice playing time. Even a program like Texas has limitations there.

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by Gideon Swashbuckler

Member since Sep 2019

5775 posts

Posted on 1/22/24 at 10:57 am to Robot Santa

quote:
That's not the point. Only so many players on an 85 man roster can get meaningful playing time. With pay for play masked as NIL, nothing being done to rein in tampering, and transfer waivers about to become a thing of the past, there's just no reason to believe that you'll be able to stash top 100 recruits on your bench for very long until someone buys them out from under you. Coaches still need to recruit talent. No one is saying that. The point is that success going forward for all but the programs who can spend whatever it is they need to spend might be as much a question of which coaches will be able to most effectively identify the undervalued recruits who turn into early round draft picks as it is a question of who are the best recruiters. You can stick those under the radar guys on your bench for a couple of years and develop them. I think you still want to sign a bunch of blue chip recruits because the hit rate on them is so much higher, but creating depth is going to be all about player development instead of recruiting going forward. You can't just go 3 deep with former top 100 recruits every season anymore unless you're able to pay them enough to sacrifice playing time. Even a program like Texas has limitations there.

This. Moving forward, do you want a guy that wants to recruit 5* guys that will leave after year 1 for a bag of money that BAMA can't deliver? Or do you want a guy that has a system in place that can take a 3* guy that fits his system and be competitive?

I'm not saying DeBoer can do this at BAMA, but whoever can will still win big here. I believe DeBoer is the guy BAMA needs to bring BAMA into this new Era of college football. He has won everywhere he's ever been. Who GAF about star ranking and recruiting class ranking?
Saban was the master at recruiting. No doubt. Also, guys are coming out of highschool ready to play more and more. Highschool football is evolving, as well. Players are better prepared now for the college game across the board.
A 3* today is a 4/5* ten years ago. Especially the skill guys.

This post was edited on 1/22/24 at 10:58 am

Page 1 2 3 4