Stars

[Huskerpapa]

How does a player receive "stars?"  It sounds as if they have to attend camps and AAU events and then "experts" who perhaps get the expertise by their ability to gain an audience, rate certain abilities.  I have always wondered what truly differentiates players, because right-wrong or otherwise, many people trust those stars as gospel. 

 

I can look at a player and say "that dude can stroke it" or "he has good lateral movement" but is that how the star system works?  Just wondering.

[49r]

I always assumed it was based on a witches brew of a whole bunch of objective and subjective factors that may or may not determine whether a player will succeed at the next level sprinkled with a heavy dose of which schools are recruiting/offering him.

Edited June 9, 2017 by 49r

[colhusker]

Some guy/gal or multiple folks at Rivals or Scout or 247 goes to watch a kid play and evaluates them on how they thing he does.  What they look for I don't know.  The kid big kid from Illinois that just switched to Missouri is a 5 star and yet the video clip I have seen on local sportscasts, I don't see it.  Not saying the kid won't be a beast, just don't see a fluid player with video I've seen.

[Norm Peterson]

Yeah, I don't know for sure, but I doubt it's based on any objective criteria.  I think they get out and try to watch as many players as they can, especially over the summer.  But some guys just fly under the radar.  They aren't getting out and being seen in the right places.  I suspect AAU coaches know a lot about which tournaments you need to go play in during the summer in order to get your kids noticed. 

 

But then I suspect a committee of people from each recruiting service will make their lists and compare and cross check and then decide their top 25 or so who get 5 stars and then the next 75 or so who get 4 stars.

 

After that, it gets very general and there are probably 300 or more kids who get 3 stars as assigned by the committee of whichever recruiting service you're looking at.

 

I'm sure it's all subjective and I'm sure it's done by committee because no one single person can go out and watch all the kids there are to see and decide which kids are the best.

[Bugeaters1]

I always assumed it was based on a witches brew of a whole bunch of objective and subjective factors that may or may not determine whether a player will succeed at the next level sprinkled with a heavy dose of which schools are recruiting/offering him.

And by the hair on their legs


Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

[49r]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

I doubt it's based on any objective criteria

 

There are a few measurables that I can think of that are purely objective that probably go into rating a kid.  But yeah, seems a lot more subjective.

[Handy Johnson]

I think it has something to do with how far up Fran Fraschilla  a** you are.