http://buckeyeempire.com/blog/...3-star-success/

I always thought we had success with the 3's, but didn't realize how much.

I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

Simon was a 5 star on scout, I think they may have dropped him down a star towards the end or something but yeah he was a pretty highly rated guy, scout is the only one I look at though

also Spencer, Smith and Sanz were all 4 stars according to scout as well

everyone has 3* success. 

however, it's still a fact that 4 & 5* players have a much higher PERCENTAGE chance of developing into NFL caliber players.

tyvis powell is 6'4"? with his work ethic and dedication, i wont be surprised seeing him start somewhere on the defense soon. also, devin smith was a three star? i thought he was a 4 star all throughout the recruiting world?

mballer wrote: tyvis powell is 6'4"? with his work ethic and dedication, i wont be surprised seeing him start somewhere on the defense soon. also, devin smith was a three star? i thought he was a 4 star all throughout the recruiting world?

Tyvis is more like 6'3".  Still, that's a tall frame.

mballer wrote: tyvis powell is 6'4"? with his work ethic and dedication, i wont be surprised seeing him start somewhere on the defense soon. also, devin smith was a three star? i thought he was a 4 star all throughout the recruiting world?

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...11/ohiostate-33

Rivals had Smith as a 3.

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Floridabucknut wrote: Simon was a 5 star on scout, I think they may have dropped him down a star towards the end or something but yeah he was a pretty highly rated guy, scout is the only one I look at though

I think your exactly right...he was dropped a star towards signing day. Can't believe that he has used up all four years. Seems like his career flew by, compared to others.

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Really, rookie?  So one source is the definitive measure and the other 7-8 recruiting ranking sources are irrelevant.  Got it.

Well I just looked at scout and Simon is a five star as is Miller. Shazor is a four star
---------------------------------------------
--- tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

---------------------------------------------

          I believe the article said they were using only one rating service (Rivals) for all of those considered for the sake of continuity.   I don't believe the point of the article was that everyone saw guys like Simon, Hawk, etc. as 3-star guys; only that they came in with at least one of the rating services evaluating them as 3-star talent.

          The important point is, they all played like 5-star talent.   Star ratings are informative, but not dispositive.

BeastDog wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Really, rookie?  So one source is the definitive measure and the other 7-8 recruiting ranking sources are irrelevant.  Got it.

You wrote exactly:  "I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star"

He was a 3 star on rivals.  Sorry that is so hard to deal with.

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Really, rookie?  So one source is the definitive measure and the other 7-8 recruiting ranking sources are irrelevant.  Got it.

You wrote exactly:  "I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star"

He was a 3 star on rivals.  Sorry that is so hard to deal with.

And Rivals is not known for being an expert on Buckeye recruits, and was obviously dead wrong on Simon, as we ALL knew then. The only debate about Simon at the time was 4 versus 5, workout warrior versus football hero. 

The point of the article is what, that one of the most common types of Buckeye recruit (3 stars) will yield some really good players? Wow, I wouldn't have suspected that, with all of the starlight in my eyes.

JamesWright wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Really, rookie?  So one source is the definitive measure and the other 7-8 recruiting ranking sources are irrelevant.  Got it.

You wrote exactly:  "I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star"

He was a 3 star on rivals.  Sorry that is so hard to deal with.

And Rivals is not known for being an expert on Buckeye recruits, and was obviously dead wrong on Simon, as we ALL knew then. The only debate about Simon at the time was 4 versus 5, workout warrior versus football hero. 

The point of the article is what, that one of the most common types of Buckeye recruit (3 stars) will yield some really good players? Wow, I wouldn't have suspected that, with all of the starlight in my eyes.

Fair enough analysis but the article was about Rivals ratings, so pretty simply Simon was in fact a 3 star.  Both services get their fair share of recruits wrong also.  There are plenty of examples of underrated and overrated prospects from both.

---------------------------------------------
--- JamesWright wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote:

tOSUBuckeye wrote:

BeastDog wrote: I'm not a big Recruitnik, but I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star.  I recall him being fairly highly touted, on the border between 4 and 5 star level.  Of course, he performed like a 6 star at tOSU.

You would be wrong.

rivals.yahoo.com/ohiost...tDlXolIRixztJB4

Really, rookie?  So one source is the definitive measure and the other 7-8 recruiting ranking sources are irrelevant.  Got it.

You wrote exactly:  "I'm pretty sure John Simon was not a 3 star"

He was a 3 star on rivals.  Sorry that is so hard to deal with.

And Rivals is not known for being an expert on Buckeye recruits, and was obviously dead wrong on Simon, as we ALL knew then. The only debate about Simon at the time was 4 versus 5, workout warrior versus football hero. 

The point of the article is what, that one of the most common types of Buckeye recruit (3 stars) will yield some really good players? Wow, I wouldn't have suspected that, with all of the starlight in my eyes.

---------------------------------------------

+1. I can't believe someone took the time to write that. Now I know some 3 stars end up as good players. I bet you could make a list of 3 star recruits who didn't pan out.

I wonder our success rate on 5 star recruits?.

5 star recruits are better than 3 star recruits. Sometimes 3 star recruits exceed expectations. End of story. Doesn't take 15 paragraphs to explain the obvious.

The 3-star vs 5-star issue is more about perception than anything else.

It is perceived that a 3-star isn't a good recruit and it is perceived that every 5-star is a sure-fire star. Does not work that way in real life. On average...5s are better than 3s. But that's just an average.

BuckingA wrote: The 3-star vs 5-star issue is more about perception than anything else.

It is perceived that a 3-star isn't a good recruit and it is perceived that every 5-star is a sure-fire star. Does not work that way in real life. On average...5s are better than 3s. But that's just an average.

But the bigger issue is Survivorship Bias.  We remember the 5% 2 or 3 star guys that became players, and forget the 95% of the 2 or 3 star guys that did nothing in their career.  Consequently, we ascribe the qualities of the exceptions to the population as a whole. 

At a place like Ohio State, its actually a worse mistake than the 5-star issue -- as 5-star players typically have a significantly higher "hit" rate than 2 or 3 star guys.  And, Ohio State recruits more "high star" players.  Consequently, many remember the 40% of 5-star players that busted -- the Chuck Jones, the Mike D'Andrea, the Sam Maldenado, the Jason Gwaltney, the Marco Cooper, the Justin Zwick.  Those guys are atypical (for 5-star players), as well.  Guys like Mike Adams, Doug Worthington, Davier Posey, Alex Boone, Terrelle Pryor and Beanie Wells are more the norm for 5-star guys.