Part 2 - Beyond the Stars: Unpacking the Reality of College Football Recruiting Ratings
Separating hype from hidden gems
If you missed Part 1 in this series, you’ll want to go back and read it before proceeding.
Weaknesses in 247’s rating system
Let’s lead off with the biggest weakness of 247’s rating system: it does not factor in mental or emotional intelligence. So, the 247 rating tells us nothing about a player’s ability to play in a complex system or how well a player holds up in moments of acute stress.
It also does not offer any clue about the degree to which the player is likely to make other players around him better. And, as a recently retired head coach of some repute once explained, that matters.
A shorter version of that speech by Coach Saban made the rounds on Twitter/X earlier this month. This longer version really captures the sheer amount, and importance, of intangibles that are found in winning football players. None are measured in the 247 ratings.
Leadership skills are easily measured by looking at which players were captains on their high school team. Getting that data for every high school player would be a nightmare, and 247 is not explicit either way about its inclusion.
Additionally, there is no qualitative component measuring dedication, willingness and ability to play through pain, or home life and mentors.
Physically, the 247 ratings do not measure a recruit’s fit for a given system. That would be nearly impossible on a macro level, with coaches constantly moving around and, even when they stay, making tweaks depending on their personnel.
Strengths of 247’s rating system
The 247 ratings are quite good at projecting physical ability. Not perfect, but pretty darn good. Remember, it’s all about percentages. A two-star prospect is considered an FCS-level player. But players get drafted off FCS rosters every year. It just happens at a much lower percentage than FBS players, than 4-star players, and than 5-star players.
For this reason, it is a great starting point. The last mile problem remains, though, and to my knowledge, there is no comprehensive (read: national) solution.
For Virginia Tech, the best solution is Chris Coleman’s modified star ratings. Unfortunately, TSL does not give those ratings their own section on their website. Still, if you are a regular TSL reader, you will see them pop up from time to time, and they are, to my mind, the most accurate measure of Virginia Tech recruits.
Do recruiting ratings matter?
In November 2019, Justin Fuente received a verbal commitment from Dematrius Davis, a highly decorated 4-star quarterback out of Houston. At that point in the cycle, Fuente and the Hokies were rolling sevens in recruiting, and excitement was returning within the fanbase after the disastrous 2018 season.
Then, on May 6, 2020, Davis de-committed. Eleven days later he committed to Auburn, where he signed, despite the mess that was the dismissal of Gus Malzahn and the hiring of Bryan Harsin.
After one season at Auburn, Davis hit the portal and ended up at FCS Alabama St., where he plays for Eddie Robinson Jr. (son of the Hall of Fame Grambling coach). In two seasons, Davis has thrown for 1,614 yards, with 10 TDs and 7 INTs. He has been sacked 29 times (despite only 219 passing attempts).
It’s safe to say that Davis has been a complete bust and that his de-commitment was probably for the best. But at the time, it was a big deal.
There were two schools of thought at the time:
High school recruits are fickle - ignore the noise and only pay attention to those who sign on the dotted line
This is a big loss for Fuente and the Virginia Tech program, and may mortally wound this staff
In the end, both opinions were correct. No one actually knew whether or not Davis would be any good at Tech, but Davis was in high demand, and the fact that Fuente & Co. could not maintain his commitment through signing day signaled a weakness within the Virginia Tech football program.
Evaluating recruits based on their ratings
Alright, so what’s a fan to make of all this?
On the individual level, here are the guiding principals I abide by:
In the aggregate, higher ratings are better than lower ratings
Take note of five-star recruits, but four- (90-97) and high three-star (87-89) recruits are fungible, meaning that fit matters, so group them together in your mind
Regular three-star recruits (84-86), who 247 projects to become capable starters, can and do reach that potential and more, but in big games, their lack of ideal size and/or athleticism often becomes noticeable
Keep an eye out for low three (80-83) and two-star (70-79) recruits; while too many signify a struggling recruiting operation, if there are one or two in a class, they are potential diamonds in the rough who could become impact players (e.g., Dorian Strong and Christian Darrisaw)
On the team level, to compete for a bid to the expanded playoff, the Hokies will need a team talent ranking in the mid-30s, and probably in the 20s or better to actually make the playoff. Here, it’s less about the individual rating and more about the ranking, or how the rating compares to other teams.
A few spots difference either way in team talent does not matter. What is important is being in the same ballpark. Size and athleticism are necessary, but not sufficient. There are many other determinative factors that are not currently quantifiable on a macro scale.