MU offers / comitts?

Last one...I had a request to research Chatt's Stars/Starter 2015...so...Starting Lineup vs. JaxSt in 2nd round playoff game...


So...8 247Sports Stars / 22 Starters = 0.36 Stars/Starter
16 Rivals Stars / 22 Starters = 0.73 Stars/Starter
Average Stars / Starter = 0.54 (Same as NDSU...hmmm?)

You like that? How about this?

* Based on Starters listed in Final Game of 2015 and "Stars" for Players found on 247Sports and Rivals.com
** Ties in records 'broken' by head-to-head results

Does this tell you anything?

I would say "No" because I think the whole Star 'thing' and Recruiting Rankings for FCS Players is, as my Yiddish friends say, a bunch of facacta mishegas...but others may have different thoughts and may be able to draw some conclusions from this data. It was interesting to compile...even though I think it's useless...which makes me pretty darn mishegas...I know.

I wouldn't say "nobody" wanted him.  Just sounds like nobody in the Big 12 wanted him.  I'm sure some schools would love to have the #69 rated high school passer in the country.

Good story, though.  Reminds me of one of the beginning of "Moneyball" where Billy Beane throw a chair through a window because the A's drafted based only on size and fastball velocity.

So...I've found that when I become rather curious about something, I tend to have a bit of a problem controlling my curiosity. This caused me quite a few problems in my younger days, but I'll skip the details around that discussion....But since there were 8 SoCon Teams in 2015 and none of the those SoCon Teams made it to the "Elite 8" in the FCS Playoffs...and I had already looked, in terms of Stars/Starter at the 4 Semi-Finalists AND the SoCon, I only needed to looking into 4 more Teams to get a broad overview of this metric and see how the SoCon 'stacked up' with the Elite 8 in that regard....so, here's what I found...


So...what does this mean to anyone? Anything? As I've said....I do find it, obviously & ADDICTIVELY, interesting, but pretty much meaningless. Agree or disagree?

Yep - Michael Eubank was a 4 Star / 5.8 Rating on Rivals and a 3 Star / 85 Rating on 247Sports, but the guy who beat him out, Devlin Hodges, was a 2 Star / 5.4 Rating on Rivals and a 3 Star / 86 Rating on 247Sports, who had 9 or 10 FBS offers and was a much better fit for the "Hatch Attack" offense, IMHO. Hodges was the 'counter' for my data. If Eubank were in there, their Stars/Starter quotient would have been 1.00 vs. 1.02; so no change in where they would have 'ranked' among the Teams surveyed.
 
Mercer only had 1 3-Star Starter, Zach Jackson (S), a transfer from TCU. He was a 3 Star / 5.5 Rating on Rivals  and a 3 Star / 85 Rating on 247Sports.
For a total of 3, Mercer had only 2 other FBS Transfer Starters with "Stars." Bret Niederreither (OT) was a Temple Transfer with 2 Stars and a 5.4 Rating on Rivals & 2 Stars and 78 Rating on 247Sports and Wilson Heres (OG) was an Air Force Transfer with 2 Stars and a 5.2 Rating on Rivals & 0 Stars and "Not Rated" on 247Sports

Furman also had 2 FBS Transfer Starters with "Stars." Andrej Suttles (WR), an Air Force transfer, was a 3 Star / 82 Rating on 247Sports & a 2 Star / 5.4 Rating on Rivals and Jackson Buonamia (LT), also an Air Force transfer, was a 2 Star / 71 Rating on 247Sports. Buonamia had a Profile on Rivals, but he had 0 Stars and was "Not Rated" on that site.

You are right about Transfers altering the numbers. HS Players are 'awarded' Stars by these services when they can 'convince' somebody that they actually have an offer - more Stars / Higher Ratings if those 'offers' are from FBS Schools - Higher for P5 than G5. Also, "Stars" are often added and ratings increased on signing day if a Player has been 'under the radar' in the Recruiting process. I would add that there is some bias upward bias based on how 'young' an FCS Team's Starters are as, though it's still terrible, coverage of FCS-level Recruits has increased from 2010 to 2015. That's why I think Mercer's rating is relatively higher than many of the SoCon schools - they're just younger. I have to admit that I was surprised that WCU didn't have more highly rated Players. While I don't think their Players are quite as talented as WCU's fans think they are  , they do have some very good athletes starting up there that came from metro areas (ATL, CLT, RDU, etc.) and you wouldn't think they were so 'under the radar.' With the success they've had the past 2 years, it just MAY...MAY...say something positive about the Coaching Staff up in Cullowhee though in terms of identifying raw talent and 'coaching 'em up'...or it may be that WCU was so down-trodden when these players were recruited that they just didn't get that signing day 'bump' that I mentioned earlier. Who knows? - FCS Recruiting Rankings still are about a 1 on a scale of 1-10 in terms of predictive value of a team's future success, IMHO.

Do some people care?  I'm sure they do.  I'm sure locking a few good players into a program early helps recruit other guys later.

I think what everyone else on here is noting is that it does not have nearly the effect you think it does.  There are literally hundreds of reasons why a kid may go to Furman, UTC, Mercer, or somewhere else. Maybe its playing time.  Maybe it's a coach.  Maybe they like the city.  Maybe their dad played there.  Maybe they like the opportunity for a certain major. 

At the end of the day, is there some effect?  Maybe.  Does having a bunch of starred recruits equate to winning?  I don't think so.  Good football players and good coaches equate to winning.  Who cares what some guy behind a computer thinks about their potential?