On Recruiting

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 1:01 PM EST

While reading Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell on the train the other day I got to thinking about SU football (as I usually do). The main message of the book is that its not just ability, hard work or potential that creates these great people (though we like to believe so) but much of it has to do with preparation and opportunities.

In his chapter about geniuses, he notes that there is a threshold level (130 iq) where beyond that your IQ has no bearing on how successful you will be. Things like how much guidance and direction you received growing up matter much more than the 60 points between a 130 and a 190. In athletics this is also true to a degree. Treat iq like size and ability. Perhaps some guys have more coming out of high school, but all of these people meet a threshold level that allows them to compete. From there its up to them to capitalize on the opportunities they are given. If you look at the first round of last year's NFL draft, not all the guys were 5 stars coming out of high school. In fact, there are almost as many 3 stars. Now consider how much you changed during college. I know I grew and inch and gained 20 lbs. So a 3 star guy may not be as polished as the 5 star guy, but he does have the same opportunities and is usually at the threshold combination of size and speed. Look at Victor Cruz, who went to UMass and is now staring for the Giants, ability and opportunity. Gladwell even goes so far as to do a basketball comparison where there is a threshold height to play in the NBA (6'-1 or so) and beyond that height helps and improves your chances, but wont be the reason you did or didnt make it.

The other chapter that stuck out was the 10,000 hour rule. This chapter says that it takes 10,000 hours of hard practice to master something. In many cases the difference between a 5star QB or DB and the 3star guy is not physical, its polish. The 5star has been to many more camps and combines. Hes from Florida and plays year round. Its technique. However, these guys make a mistake going to a school like Bama where they cant start right away. In that time they run scout team or 2nds. Where as the 3star kid goes to a school like SU and get the first team reps. This 3star kid closes in on 10,000 hours much faster than the 5star kid because he is getting hard coaching 40+ hours a week. Thats how these 3 star guys crack the first round. Many of them are 3 and 4 year starters who red-shirted a year to get even more coaching.

Am I saying all these 3star guys will be first round draft picks? No. Most wont. Probably none of them will. But if the stars align and they get the right opportunities, many of them could. So we cant write off these kids just yet.

Tweet Comment 22 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Huh.

I read Outliers a while ago and it never occurred to me to apply it to this discussion, but it fits perfectly. And I totally agree too.

Clear eyes, full bologna sandwiches!

by NOLACuse on Feb 2, 2012 1:20 PM EST reply actions

the thing is

there are way, way more 3-stars than 5-stars. A five-star is much, much more likely to be all-conference or a high draft pick than a 3-star. And a first round draft pick is much, much more likely to be an all-pro in the NFL than an undrafted free agent.

by drothgery on Feb 2, 2012 1:48 PM EST reply actions

This!

Bottom line…if your a 5 star kid your a better player at that age. Your better athletically and most likely played against top tier talent. Now, how you develop is based on the player and the coaching they receive. The % of 5 star kids who turn into all americans/1st round picks is SOOO much greater then the % of 3 star kids who do the same. I’m not bashing the class we brought in, I just like it when people are realistic as far as recruiting goes. We can all sit here and claim “I dont care about stars! I’d rather have a 2/3 star kid who works his tail off then a 5 star kid who think he is owed something”….Really? I’ll take a 5 star kid over a 2 star kid ANY day of the week. And I think everyone here would want the same. My point is, stars do mean something. The amount of stars is equivilent to NFL draft choices. I’d MUCH rather have my team (Eagles BTW) have numerous 1st round picks rather then numerous 6 th round picks.

by Mike Will is DoubleDown on Feb 2, 2012 2:40 PM EST up reply actions

Stars mean something

But are not the end all either. They’re a guide, not a guarantee.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Feb 2, 2012 3:01 PM EST up reply actions

Oh I totally agree

Just like 1st round picks arent a guarantee. You just feel better when you have a bunch of them because you know there is a greater chance that player turns into a stud

by Mike Will is DoubleDown on Feb 2, 2012 3:12 PM EST up reply actions

The thing is

a 5 star guy is 5 stars at 18. When he is 22 it may be a very different story. And the opportunities matter. If he goes to USC and sits the bench, he will never become the player he could have been had he come to SU and gotten first team reps since freshman year. Isaq is a good example. Hasnt played much for ND.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 3:52 PM EST up reply actions

Another thing

Is that a 5 star guy is likely to be closer to his maximum potential. He may be better now, but that won’t necessarily be true in 3 years. Its especialyl pertinent in football where even 5 star recruits are around for at least 3 years anyway.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Feb 2, 2012 3:58 PM EST up reply actions

Ashton Broyld

went from a 3 star kid to a 4 star kid because he got an extra year of experience. Had he been at SU and had reshirted, would he have gotten any less experience? he would not have gotten the first team reps but would have gotten higher quality instruction. So what makes him go from a 3 to a 4? Just that he has improved and is that much more polished when he gets to SU. Maybe instead of being at 50% of his potential, he is now at 60%, but it leaves less room for growth.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 4:03 PM EST up reply actions

Maybe

but arent these kids going against better competition in practice on a daily basis? I mean, who your teammates are can also dictate how successful you’ll be. If you go to USC as a WR you have Matt Barkley throwing you the ball. If your a DE playing at USC you could be going up against Matt Kalil daily. That will also improve your game as well. I’m just saying, look at what colleges produce the most guys currently in the NFL. I’m willing to bet you’ll see a lot of USC’s, Alabama’s, Miami’s, Florida’s, LSU’s more then your “2nd tier” schools who primarily bring in 3 star kids.

by Mike Will is DoubleDown on Feb 2, 2012 4:26 PM EST up reply actions

Example

Look no further than the current edition of our basketball team. Better ability athletes practicing against each other leads to better play on game day.

by AleChemist on Feb 2, 2012 4:36 PM EST up reply actions

I think it can go both ways

Going against a top OT could also shatter a DE’s confidence. Would Chan Jones have had as much swag if he got pushed into the mud every rep at practice? Probably not. And thats if a guys is good enough to come in and right away go up against that great tackle. Odds are hes not, he sits 2 years while the guys who went to middle of the road school gets first team reps from day one and more focus from the coaches. As for other things, a 100 lb weight weighs the same at USC as it does at SU.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 5:31 PM EST up reply actions

I understand

it can go both ways. You’ll always find examples of kids going to smaller schools becoming stars. I’m just looking at the majority. The majority says kids who play against better competition become better players.

by Mike Will is DoubleDown on Feb 3, 2012 10:13 AM EST up reply actions

right

They’re still 18-year-old kids (mostly) and so what they’ll actually do is highly unpredictable (which is why we’re mostly saying say 50% of 5-stars turn out to be great players and 5% of 3-stars do1), but your odds are better with the highly-rated guy.

1 Not based on any actual numbers, as much too lazy to re-check them, but probably is pretty close to the truth anyway.

by drothgery on Feb 2, 2012 4:52 PM EST up reply actions

I can't argue with Gladwell's overall arguement

But don’t realy agree with some of the specific examples. Take the basketball player example. Yes, there is a sort of height threshold to the League. If you’re under 6’, you’re not likely to make it all, much less make it big. That being said, there are many, many examples of guys “making it” simply because they’re bigger (Kwame Brown, Manute Bol, Shawn Bradley, etc.).

Take this example; Landry Fields vs. Andy Rautins. They’re essentially the same player. Same skill set, same style of game, both guys who ground out 4 years in college to become team leaders and overall winners. So, why does Fields get the starting spot while Andy rarely even dressed for the Knicks? I’m not privy to Mike D’antoni’s decision making process, but I’ll bet a lot had to do with the fact that Fields is the bigger, stronger player. In sports, if all other things are equal, you take the bigger, stronger, faster guy (unless we’re talking jockeys). So the IQ= physical attributes anology doesn’t really work.

"If I ain't gonna be part of the greatest, I gotta be the greatest myself." Busta Rhymes

by FeloniousPhunk on Feb 2, 2012 1:57 PM EST reply actions

Not same player

Their similarities were superficial and circumstantial. Yes, Landry is a few inches taller and the better athlete, but they played vastly different roles as seniors in contrasting systems, especially on the defensive side (M2M vs. zone).

Fields had more experience in an NBA-style system, and developed into a more versatile player, since nobody else on his team was any good, while Andy is a better shooter and passer (or was in college, anyway). So Landry has a different skill set that works better in the NBA and on that particular team, which apparently had more need for a glue-guy type than a sharpshooter/rifle-passer who excels at the top of a zone.

Just kind of nitpicking here. I was thrilled when they got picked together and bummed when Andy got the ax.

by Cardinal&Orange on Feb 2, 2012 3:19 PM EST up reply actions

Landry

had opportunities Andy didnt. Landry was healthy and Andy wasnt. Landry got to practice and learn they system, Andy didnt. Then Landry got into the starting line up and got more coaching which further widened the gap between the two.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 3:55 PM EST up reply actions

Its like nobel prize winners

there are more from Harvard, but still only a few. By all accounts ALL nobel prize winners should be from Harvard as it has top pick of all the top students coming out of high school each year. How does Holly Cross have one? Alabama has the 25 of best high school kids each season. So how come they dont have 10 of the 32 first rounders? Its not an exact science. It helps if a guy is bigger, faster, stronger, played against better competition, had rich parents who sent him to camps all summer because those kids have a head start, but its not the end all be all. I just dont want to see people writing off this recruiting class based on a 3rd parties 1-5 scale evaluation of them.

May Doug Marrone bless you and keep you.

by ryanwk628 on Feb 2, 2012 4:08 PM EST up reply actions 1 recs

More evidence

I don’t follow Cuse football recruiting closely, so someone else can do this analysis for the Orange, but by my rough count, of the 15 Stanford players on NFL teams who were drafted or picked up as FAs from last year’s team, or projected to be drafted from this year’s team, exactly one was as high as a 4-star recruit: Andrew Luck. (Konrad Reuland, now on the 49ers practice squad, was a 4-star who transferred from Notre Dame.)

Two of this year’s projected 1st-rounders, David DeCastro and Jonathan Martin, were 3-star recruits.

by Cardinal&Orange on Feb 2, 2012 2:05 PM EST reply actions

Well,

The honey badger for LSU was a relatively under the radar recruit, LSU was the only one who offered him I believe.

by fatmofo55 on Feb 2, 2012 3:39 PM EST reply actions

I hate the word honey badger

All I can think of every damn time I see that word is the youtube vid

A Georgetown degree is life's technical foul. - H/T HoyaSuxa
Jim Boeheim is Mick Jagger of college basketball. He gets cooler as he gets older. - Jay Wright

by theNYsportsguy on Feb 3, 2012 6:41 AM EST up reply actions