I used my own after-their-career evaluations of all players recruited from 2005-2009 to correlate with the "stars".
For scout:
Players they rated 1 star (they no longer give this rating) - I rated 2.8 stars
Players they rated 2 stars - I rated 2.8 stars
Players they rated 3 stars - I rated 2.7 stars
Players they rated 4 stars - I rated 3.5 stars
So... No difference at all between players they rate 1-3 stars, but players rated 4 stars are better.
For Rivals:
Players they rate 4.9 (they no longer give this rating, meant unknown) - I rate 3.0
Players they rate 5.0 (they no longer give this rating, meant low 2-star) - I rate 2.4 stars
Players they rate 5.1 (they no longer give this rating) - I rate 3.2
Players they rate 5.2 (now their current lowest rating) - I rate 2.6
Players they rate 5.3 - I rate 2.9
Players they rate 5.4 - I rate 3.4
Players they rate 5.5 - I rate 3.3
Players they rate 5.6 - I rate 2.9
Players they rate 5.7 - I rate 3.0
Breaking it down differently:
4.9 = unknown player = I rate 3.0
5.0-5.3 = 2-star players = I rate 2.6
5.4and up = very high 2-star players and up = I rate 3.1
so...It's better to have someone they don't know than someone they know, but don't like that well. Anything 5.4 and up is good.
ESPN - rarely rates any Ohio players, so these results aren't statistically significant, but...
unrated - 2.9
6.5-6.9 => 2.5
7.0-7.5 => 2.4
above 7.5 = 3.2
Like Rivals, the best players are either unknown, or rated very highly.
Overall conclusions - During this time period, Ratings from Scout and ESPN weren't particularly useful. Until you get to the 4-star level, there is no difference. Rivals was the rating that correlated best to on-the-field performance. The best groups of player were players rated 5.4 or better, and players they don't know at all. I think the same remains true today. By that standard, this class looks good - they two they know are rated 5.4 or better, and the rest are unknown.
Last Edited: 7/12/2013 11:24:31 PM by L.C.