Not nec. you, but there are a lot of people out there that, almost give the impression that they are annoyed/disgusted with JV's production since that great Freshman season of '03 and any time he was in a game and running well (like this past Sugar Bowl), more people were annoyed that KW wasn't in the game. As for JV's 5-star rating coming out of high school, and it's association of being labled as a "bust", then I don't think that's particularly true. Rivals defines a 5-star player as a player capable of having a major impact at the college level and a player that's more than capable of playing on the professional level. Few players on the '03 National Championship team had more of an impact on the outcome of that season--especially the two championship games we played in--than JV. ...now...fastforward 4 years, and JV is currently in an NFL mini-camp preparing for the start of training camp. "Impact + Pro" = 5-stars met, IMO. Reguardless of his troubles between his Freshman year and undrafted FA signing, when a player gives you two title game MVP awards, a 4-year letterman, completes his collegiate career with, I'm assuming a degree, as well as lands on an NFL training camp, that shouldn't be considered a "5-star bust"--but that's just me. A 5-star bust, IMO, is a player like Maurice Clarett....leaves your school after 2 seasons...tries to sell you down the river in the process...tries to sue you...flops in his only NFL camp and THEN gets arrested and thrown in jail....now....THAT'S "5-star-BUST" material right there....
Well first off you have a much more liberal definition of a 5 star talent than I. That's fine it's an option. However, you seem to believe I feel or implied that JV was a bust because he did meet 5 star expectations. This is not true. There is a middle ground. Finally, a person off the field behavior during and after college has nothing to do with their star ranking. Star ranking is a measure of a HS player’s ability to play at the next level. I understand your point and I completely agree that JV was a great asset to LSU and MC an ultimate bust. This really has nothing to do with the point I was making however which has to do with Rivals/Scouts accuracy in rating the athletic ability of HS players. It was never my intent to insult an LSU player because I personally hate when people tear down student athletes.
The way I feel about the star system is thus: It really doesn't matter in the over-all long-run between most 3-stars through 5-stars. Some 5-stars might be given too much credit if they play on a dominant high school team and on the flip side, a recruit that's a 3-star might be better than his ranking but plays on a bad team that gets little to no exposure. If you have a solid coaching staff and solid depth, then it really doesn't matter if you don't land 12, 5-star players in a recruiting class. You can have all the talent in the world on you team, but if you don't have a coaching staff capable of using that talent, then it doesn't matter. Even the most sure-fire blue chipper can't just go out on the field and dominate. Sure, everyone wants to have the distinction of landing the #1 recruiting class--more so than not, it does translate into success...but those programs with top 5 recruiting classes have a constant: good coaching. I'm more concerned with "needs being met" than I am with star rankings--especially when you're comparing players with 1-star difference.
Clarett & Mike Williams were not bust. They were both great at the college level, which is all their 5 star billing predicted. Now, whether they were great for their respective programs as a whole is another question entirely. But they were not busts. A 5 star bust, IMO, is a player that never turns out to be any good, like someone who never starts. A 5 star player that just doesn't live up to expectations isn't a bust, he just should've been ranked a little lower - perhaps a 4 or 3 star.
As for recruiting rankings, they are important, and yet at the same time they aren't. Obviously, coaching the players you have up is necessary. But coaching cannot continuously overcome talent. To be a consistently great team, you have to have consistently great talent. That being said, all that matters is the talent on the field in the game. It doesn't really matter what their ranking was according to Rivals/Scout coming out of high school. A top recruiting class assures only one thing: hype. Every year we get 3 or 4 star players who our coaches value over the other 5 star players out there. Rivals & Scout are guessing just like every one else. Judging by our coaches' success vs theirs, I'll trust our coaches. If our coaches like a prospect enough to offer this early in the process and accept a commitment, then we think they can be good players. In the end, all that matters is how our coaches big boards look. If St. Julien is one of their top rated CBs, then who cares what Rivals or Scout thinks. As long as our coaches don't feel that we're settling, then as far as I'm concerned we aren't settling.
I think the rankings should try to predict college success, but that's not what Rivals' rankings profess to do. The mathmetician who came up with the formula, along with JC, confirmed the rankings revolve around NFL ability. 5* is akin to 'pro bowl' ability.
They don't revolve around NFL ability, they simply figure it in. A 5 star is much more akin to college All-American ability than it is to pro bowl ability. Here is the highest ranking a player can receive and what Rivals says it means. As it says, pro potential is a factor. However, it's not really an attempt to say that this player could be necessarily a pro bowler, just capable of being a good player in the NFL.
They changed their position, 1.5 years ago there was a big thread on the national board and they tried to explain it. I haven't been there since then, I guess they refactored it because of the outrage.
