Interesting Post By Brian Bennett on ESPN.COM

[BullFan98]

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigeast/post/_/id/17449/how-all-big-east-team-ranked-as-recruits

[redfisher78]

Very interesting

[The Great 8]

Interesting

[tau.reanb]

I think this illustrates our last head coach may deserve some credit.  He took relatively well-regarded recruits and developed them into pretty good players (Genus and McClain). 

I think it also illustrates that ultimately stars mean nothing OR that players who choose Big East schools are just inherently less well-regarded.  Almost as though they are punished for picking Big East schools. 

[smazza]

give me a 5 star player anytime

i will take my chances

[gobulls83]

give me a 5 star player anytime

i will take my chances

Yeah, because that's really the decision coaches in this league are making. They're saying, "no, sorry, I don't want these highly touted and highly productive prospects because I think 'project' guys are who I should build my team around." It's amazing to me that you haven't landed a head coaching gig yet.

[Kizarvexis]

Recruiting stars aren't all they are cracked up to be.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/recruiting-is-44-in-the-40-real-or-a-dream-run/1148531

[gobulls83]

Recruiting stars aren't all they are cracked up to be.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/recruiting-is-44-in-the-40-real-or-a-dream-run/1148531

That story says zero about recruiting stars.

Of course there are players who are not highly touted out of high school who end up being good, and guys who are highly touted who end up being busts. There are far more highly touted guys who end up being good and not-highly touted guys who end up being nothing special though. Like smazza*, I'd take a team of 5-star guys every single time, and anyone who wouldn't is crazy. That doesn't mean teams without them can't win, but it's certainly harder.

* - This does not rescind my previous post mocking smazza, because smazza apparently believes Big East coaches are consciously making a decision to forgo five-star talent in favor of more under-the-radar guys, when that's obviously clueless nonsense.

[Kizarvexis]

Recruiting stars aren't all they are cracked up to be.

http://www.tampabay.com/sports/college/recruiting-is-44-in-the-40-real-or-a-dream-run/1148531

That story says zero about recruiting stars.

Of course there are players who are not highly touted out of high school who end up being good, and guys who are highly touted who end up being busts. There are far more highly touted guys who end up being good and not-highly touted guys who end up being nothing special though. Like smazza*, I'd take a team of 5-star guys every single time, and anyone who wouldn't is crazy. That doesn't mean teams without them can't win, but it's certainly harder.

* - This does not rescind my previous post mocking smazza, because smazza apparently believes Big East coaches are consciously making a decision to forgo five-star talent in favor of more under-the-radar guys, when that's obviously clueless nonsense.

Blustein said no college scout relies solely on the 40 time. He said those scouts focus on finding kids who can play. But, he said, recruiting services give more weight to the 40, even adjusting their rankings based on the latest times.

Brandt said 50 percent of the people timing players don't know how to do it right. Callahan said that to record a 40 time to sell to a college, he's unwilling to let someone he doesn't know or who isn't qualified do it as a hedge against getting a time that could end up hurting one of his players.

Bolding added above.

"Everybody says they run a 4.4," said Larry Blustein, a Miami recruiting analyst who has been scouting Florida for more than 40 years. "But very few do."

The magic number: 4.4.

"It's going to catch people's eyes," said Charles Fishbein, director of Elite Scouting Services. "But I think it's one of the most overrated things out there."

The last two quotes are a synopsis of the article. The part I bolded shows recuiting services modifying the ranking based on the latest 40 time which is subject to lots of variability depending on who is doing the timing. Recuit-niks on this board have noted athletes that were interested in USF getting one rating, but then that same athlete switches to a school with a bigger perception and the ranking goes up.

Recruiting stars aren't all they are cracked up to be.

This does not mean throw out all rankings, but take rankings with a grain of salt. (Sometimes a rather large grain of salt according to some of the recuit-niks here.)

[BDYZR]

I wonder what the recruiting status would be in the other conferences. My guess is that the higher up the "conference rankings" the more stars you'll see on the all-conference teams.