Stars matter

[gerntz]

OK, I'll bring it up again.

http://www.athlonsports.com/college-football/13422/nfl-stars-how-recruiting-translates-to-the-draft

Net, our coaches are doing a very good job with the talent level we've been getting. But they've got to do that, or better, meaning wins, for the long haul, not just 2-3 years, in order to attract the higher talent level that will allow us to go further. Perceptions of UK have not & will not change overnight.

Patience is still the order of the day. But a results fall back will be a long-term setback IMO.

[sardiscat]

Stars (the recruiting services type, anyway) didn't matter in the Music City Bowl. There, experience is what mattered. Even with their player losses, the team FSU put on the field had a whole lot more recruiting stars than the team UK put on the field.

[SBCatMan]

You know, we have debated this thing to death, and I don't really want to bring it up again. Yet, I suppose I am doing just that.

There are many points and many arguments to be made pro and con on the star system. And both sides of the discussion have some very valid points. I want to address just ONE aspect of the star sytem here. And that is this: (How's that for Nixonian?) -- I think we put more emphasis on the star system when it works to our advantage and less emphasis when it does not. Case in point -- many will argue quite convincingly that the star system is meaningless and over-rated and just a bunch of crap. But, as of this very moment, the thread directly beneath this one says "Four-Star WR Targets Kentucky." The implication of that headline is that stars DO matter. But then, we like to think that because he is considering UK.

When the stars are aligned in our favor we seem to put more stock in them than when they are not.

[gerntz]

Stars (the recruiting services type, anyway) didn't matter in the Music City Bowl. There, experience is what mattered. Even with their player losses, the team FSU put on the field had a whole lot more recruiting stars than the team UK put on the field.

True.

What bowl might we have been playing in with that experience and more stars?

[Hendo/Atlanta Cat Fan]

I am a UK fan deep down, but have been a FSU fan for a while b/c UK has not been great, but the talent did look very similar at the Music City Bowl!

[RV]

My position is that the higher level guys (4 and 5 star) probably deserve to be ranked at that level due to exposure to those that are ranking them however;

there are so many kids going from high school to college that it is virtually impossible for the services to see and evaluate all of them therefore;

I believe many of the 2 and 3 star guys are as good as those rated 4 and 5 star, just lack the exposure or publicity and a good staff will ferret them out.

Ours does.

[sardiscat]

"I believe many of the 2 and 3 star guys are as good as those rated 4 and 5 star and a good staff will ferret them out."

That was proved in the recent NFL draft. Guys were selected from Winston-Salem State, Tennessee State, Wheaton, St. Augustine, Northern Iowa, Appalachian State, Troy State, and a whole lot of other places that nobody considers to be major football schools. I think it's safe to assume that any of those players would have considered UK a better place to play football had UK offered them, and they all thus may be considered misses by UK's coaches. But not just by UK, but every other BCS school, too. And every recruiting guru.

[lextownboi]

"I believe many of the 2 and 3 star guys are as good as those rated 4 and 5 star and a good staff will ferret them out."

That was proved in the recent NFL draft. Guys were selected from Winston-Salem State, Tennessee State, Wheaton, St. Augustine, Northern Iowa, Appalachian State, Troy State, and a whole lot of other places that nobody considers to be major football schools. I think it's safe to assume that any of those players would have considered UK a better place to play football had UK offered them, and they all thus may be considered misses by UK's coaches. But not just by UK, but every other BCS school, too. And every recruiting guru.

I agree 100%

[poodoo]

"I believe many of the 2 and 3 star guys are as good as those rated 4 and 5 star and a good staff will ferret them out."

That was proved in the recent NFL draft. Guys were selected from Winston-Salem State, Tennessee State, Wheaton, St. Augustine, Northern Iowa, Appalachian State, Troy State, and a whole lot of other places that nobody considers to be major football schools. I think it's safe to assume that any of those players would have considered UK a better place to play football had UK offered them, and they all thus may be considered misses by UK's coaches. But not just by UK, but every other BCS school, too. And every recruiting guru.

Also, there's certainly no doubt this staff does just that, and thankfully so. Just look at the recent draft in that regard, too. I believe Andre was the only player who had been given four stars. Some of the UK players had only two stars and will likely make NFL rosters and quite possibly be big contributors.

By the way, Coach Brooks himself has said that he and his staff do not "get into" how many stars a player has. Naturally, though, it's a good thing also to get some of those very highly rated players. :)

[Brian McCat]

Keep winning, and the 4 and 5 star athletes will come. until then, win with what you have.

[Diz2]

I assume the star system is based primarily on football skills, athletic ability and past accomplishments. None of these areas guaranteed to continue, though physical ability is certainly a good indicator of one's ability to compete.

"football speed" is a term I hear used to describe how some players seem to get the jump on every play, whereas the fastest players do not automatically get the jump. Therefore some of the physical ability is negated when the player understands the game enough to focus.

Strength is something that obviously increases dramatically after high school. Those young men who get the muscle tone and density early in life don't continue developing as fast as those who are still maturing. Therefore it seems the red-shirt year is a good way to even out the star advantage. Work ethic is the other equalizer.

Our coaches seem to put emphasis on work ethic and character. The work ethic allows the late bloomers to catch-up and compete. Whereas character keeps them from giving up or developing bad habits.

It may be my imagination, but bad habits seem to be more prevalent among 4 and 5 star recruits. Possibly, we have had so few, that we had to take some with bad habits. Developing early for some of these players had the negative effect of making them think hard work is optional.

Working hard is always important, but one must remember that they cannot win unless the team wins. This brings us the unquantifiable quality of leadership. We now seem to get guys who understand this difficult concept. While leadership does not look the same on every person, it does seem to be magnetic. The star system certainly has a difficult time quantifying the most important characteristics.

So.. stars are okay, but over-rated.

[zuma]

With reference to the Fla St game, they had to replace some starters with more inexperienced players with a lot of talent and not much talent dropoff. Football is a team game, all the stars in the world can't win unless they play as a team, gain experience, have sufficient leadership, and gain confidence. A team with less talent can always win if they have all of the ingredients necessary and the stars team does not play with the same confidence or intensity. I would say from all my years of following Ky, coaching staffs are not all equal. I made an assumption previously that Ky always had a staff which was comparable. I now believe Ky has a better staff than many previous and Barnhart and administration have become more dedicated to winning at Ky.

[bigblueben]

You know, we have debated this thing to death, and I don't really want to bring it up again. Yet, I suppose I am doing just that.

There are many points and many arguments to be made pro and con on the star system. And both sides of the discussion have some very valid points. I want to address just ONE aspect of the star sytem here. And that is this: (How's that for Nixonian?) -- I think we put more emphasis on the star system when it works to our advantage and less emphasis when it does not. Case in point -- many will argue quite convincingly that the star system is meaningless and over-rated and just a bunch of crap. But, as of this very moment, the thread directly beneath this one says "Four-Star WR Targets Kentucky." The implication of that headline is that stars DO matter. But then, we like to think that because he is considering UK.

When the stars are aligned in our favor we seem to put more stock in them than when they are not.

Good point and well put. My personal opinion is that stars matter more in basketball because there are less athletes to scout, and a higher percentage of the kids actually see playing time. In football, I think stars definitely show the top of the class, but for the same reason above, scouts tend to miss kids on the gridiron much more frequently.

[Ukosumu]

Good point and well put. My personal opinion is that stars matter more in basketball because there are less athletes to scout, and a higher percentage of the kids actually see playing time. In football, I think stars definitely show the top of the class, but for the same reason above, scouts tend to miss kids on the gridiron much more frequently.
Stars are for where the kids rate at the time. In football a kid may not see the field until his Junior year. A lot of coaching and training can take place in that time. Some guy are late bloomers.

[gerntz]

Just so you know, Rivals now has all three of our 2009 commits as 3*.

So if they don't mean anything, don't be happy. But I'm happy.

[poodoo]

Just so you know, Rivals now has all three of our 2009 commits as 3*.

So if they don't mean anything, don't be happy. But I'm happy.

We ALL are surely happy about that, gerntz. :icon_lol: Too, thanks for sharing. :)