So I’ll take the first crack at this list: to compete effectively in a better conference, you need better talent. I think we’ll agree the ACC has been perceived as the stronger conference the last few years. Here that plays itself out via stronger recruiting stats.

Another thing I wanted to discuss is on Saturday Reed wrote, In regards to Beast being a less competitive conference with less skilled players, “the only thing that matters is how that individual player is going to produce for your team with your competition.” Obviously it matters how well your players play in the games that matter. But, that statement ignores the fact that how well they play is a function of the competition they play against. You would never say, all things being equal, I’m going to take a 3* instead of a 5* because he matches up better with the 3* guys in my conference. That’s not how it works. I understand that you may recruit for a certain scheme or package, but I don’t think those strategic choices are the same as picking people based on raw skill and talent.

I think you’re painting too rosy a picture Reed. We shouldn’t be so agnostic about the recruiting rankings, because even though it’s a very noisy metric, it’s one of the best ones we have. I do really appreciate your posts though because they’re starting good discussions. If it wasn’t for your, I’d be studying for finals. That’s not something I want to subject myself to

Pitt’s 4-star QBs over the last decade (by at least 1 rating system) — Rutherford, Palko (Flacco wasn’t), Bostick, and Gonzalez … I assume that Voytik is being that he was an All-American

Hate to take a wishy-washy position on this, but it seems to be the best thing is a little of both.

Yes, 4 and 5’s aren’t guaranteed success, but, if I had my choice of 22 5’s or 22 3’s, c’mon, we don’t need to discuss that.

However, there is a lot to be said of coaching. That’s why they are called coachs. Learning techniques and getting stronger doesn’t end at 12th grade.

I think Coach Chryst has got the players he wants, and I think done an excellent job in a short span.

If he coaches them up, and we win some games, new conference, with some top teams, the players he wants and feels he can get will go higher also.

So, stars aren’t perfect, but, in general, they are a good barometer.

And with saying that, you can never count out the coaches impact on any player, regardless of what star he’s been given.

p.s. Great numbers crunching Reed, interesting stuff!!!

This is preferable to Wanny’s plan of getting 8 raw 4* D-lineman which pumped our recruiting rankings but didn’t translate to success on the field.

Safe to say, that whatever “star” level these guys come in at, our coaches had better prepare thme to play at their peak…I know wanny wasted talent and Fraud was looking to fit square pegs in round holes…I hope Chryst’s sake (I am going to use that till I drop) that his staff makes what the ingredients say they should.

How many days till fall camp?

LOL

Hail to Pitt!

It’s fun to do and the best part are the respectful conversations we have on here.

Guys – heads up. I’m going to post an article tomorrow asking for topics of interest that you all would like to see written. We have a ton of dead time from now until August camp and I’m sure we want to keep stuff being posted.

It’s much harder to separate an Offensive Guard or a Safety from their peers then it is for these skilled offensive players.

So much for being respectful, huh, Reed???

Ha ha, just having some fun Steve1!!!

Pens are out allready, and the Pirates….well.

Downtime is here!!

In football stars are definitely tied to statistics and size. Like basketball these can be deceiving. I agree with Dan coaching at the high school level especially in both sports, perhaps football even more is at best below average. Fundamentals are rarely taught so a bigger man dominates simply due to his size not his skill.
I never thought Graham was a D1 football coach but I think Chryst is the perfect fit. I wish he was hired after DW things might be different now. I emphasize might because their are few certanties. One Pitt certainty in my opinion is Adams (it is now speculated that Adams is far better than Nolens and Twarski after he dominated both).

My point is that there is so much slush inside the star ranking system, inherent in itself and also in the differences between the three major recruiting sites which sometimes is huge, that it is almost impossible to accurately say “This kid is a sure star in the college level and should be given four stars as opposed to three stars”.

To me the line is almost completely blurred there. Not so much with five star players IMO because the numbers there are so small.

Part of this is what the recruits actually think of the conferences themselves. The Big conferences like the SEC and the Big Ten are highly thought of and more 4* & 5* players want to play for those teams inside those conferences. Right off the bat the Big East has been hampered with that in the past.

I expect that to change with PITT’s entry into the ACC.

Anyway, I wasn’t really trying to say a 3* is always as good as a 4* at all and I don’t think that way. If the staff has two recruits who fit their specific needs and one is a 4* and one is a 3* then naturally I want that 4th star.

But I’m not going to criticize Paul Chryst at all if all he gets are a bulk of 3* kids and wins football games.