5 star system is broken

[Harrelson55]

One thing that doesnt get discussed enough and the attention it deserves is the five star recruiting system. It's broken.

Sure you have your stud five stars. But alot of these kids the scouting and media have vastly overrated from the jump.

When you tell me guys like Quade Green, Richards, Quickley etc were five star recruits. There is something off. How?

You always hear that bs that Calipari should win all these championships because he loads up on five stars. But I think its even more impressive. Because alot of these kids are incredibly raw. Talented. But raw.

Not surprisingly, Calipari doesn't get enough credit for the success he has with these kids.

 

[UK90]

Are you just now learning that scouting is an imperfect science?

The system ain't broken, it just has flaws.

 

[sosoblue]

One thing that doesnt get discussed enough and the attention it deserves is the five star recruiting system. It's broken.

Sure you have your stud five stars. But alot of these kids the scouting and media have vastly overrated from the jump.

When you tell me guys like Quade Green, Richards, Quickley etc were five star recruits. There is something off. How?

You always hear that bs that Calipari should win all these championships because he loads up on five stars. But I think its even more impressive. Because alot of these kids are incredibly raw. Talented. But raw.

Not surprisingly, Calipari doesn't get enough credit for the success he has with these kids.

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

 

[KYCAT78]

The Coach's should be able to determine if a kid is a high, medium, low whatever star is attached to a player.

 

[Drcats2025]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

The ignorance from people like you never ceases to amaze me. He has been to 4 final fours and won 1 title in 10 years. At that rate, in our history, we would have around 50 final fours. More than twice any other school, and 11 titles. Can’t win them all, but he gives us a chance. Now, gtfo with your ignorance

 

[HerrosHeroes]

The ignorance from people like you never ceases to amaze me. He has been to 4 final fours and won 1 title in 10 years. At that rate, in our history, we would have around 50 final fours. More than twice any other school, and 11 titles. Can’t win them all but he gives us a chance. Now, gtfo with your ignorance

[smoke]

 

[ruppcat]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

But how many more chances than Tubby?

I'm frustrated with only the one title. There should be at least 3....if not four total titles.

 

[wcc31]

Yeah, just the last few years they started overrating and underrating recruits. Good post.

 

[TBCat]

One thing that doesnt get discussed enough and the attention it deserves is the five star recruiting system. It's broken.

Sure you have your stud five stars. But alot of these kids the scouting and media have vastly overrated from the jump.

When you tell me guys like Quade Green, Richards, Quickley etc were five star recruits. There is something off. How?

You always hear that bs that Calipari should win all these championships because he loads up on five stars. But I think its even more impressive. Because alot of these kids are incredibly raw. Talented. But raw.

Not surprisingly, Calipari doesn't get enough credit for the success he has with these kids.

The 5 star ratings are meaningless in basketball. In football it kind of works even though they are often wrong but in basketball you just go by how high they are rated in the top 50. Anyone in the top 50 should be capable of a NBA career even though they all won't end up being that. And yes there are some guys that are rated too high but Quickley and Richards aren't amoung them. Green however would have been about 100+ in my book.

 

[TBCat]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

Only 1 less that legendary Dean Smith and he had Michael Jordan on one of them. Coaches need at least one championship to be judged as great but it kind of stops there. Everything with the NCAA is about random chance so you can't ding a coach for only having one. Cal has had at least 2 other teams that should have one and would have if this were the NBA and had best of seven series.

 

[Wall2Boogie]

One thing that doesnt get discussed enough and the attention it deserves is the five star recruiting system. It's broken.

Sure you have your stud five stars. But alot of these kids the scouting and media have vastly overrated from the jump.

When you tell me guys like Quade Green, Richards, Quickley etc were five star recruits. There is something off. How?

You always hear that bs that Calipari should win all these championships because he loads up on five stars. But I think its even more impressive. Because alot of these kids are incredibly raw. Talented. But raw.

Not surprisingly, Calipari doesn't get enough credit for the success he has with these kids.

Welcome virgin poster. What took you so long to join the party?

 

[fatguy87]

There's a big difference between the top few kids in the class and the rest. A 5 star player should be a decent player as a freshman, but there are 0-3 in a given class that are in a class of their own. Davis, Zion, and Durant level guys should get a rating of their own because the gulf between them and a guy like EJ Montgomery is gigantic.

 

[MbergCat]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

Yeah, because he hasn't had any success at all here. Get outta here dude.

 

[Bogansistheman]

The ignorance from people like you never ceases to amaze me. He has been to 4 final fours and won 1 title in 10 years. At that rate, in our history, we would have around 50 final fours. More than twice any other school, and 11 titles. Can’t win them all, but he gives us a chance. Now, gtfo with your ignorance

This is false. The NCAA started in 1939. That’s 80 years ago. 1 title every ten years would be 8, exactly what we have. Cal is a great coach but it drives me crazy when you all act like we need Cal. He’s done what every other good coach at Kentucky has done, he won big. So will the next one.

 

[Bigkyfan88]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

But how many more chances than Tubby?

I'm frustrated with only the one title. There should be at least 3....if not four total titles.

CLEARLY you are troll. Should he probably have 2 titles, yes... but 3 or 4. What are you on? Only one coach in the history of the sport won at least 4 Titles in a 10 year period.

 

[Harrelson55]

Welcome virgin poster. What took you so long to join the party?

Lol long time lurker man. I don't know. I'm in a Kentucky basketball group on Facebook and another college basketball group.

Just finally figured I'd post a few things

 

[RACdad]

I think they probably hand out that 5* too much.

 

[Harrelson55]

Yeah, just the last few years they started overrating and underrating recruits. Good post.

You are missing the point.

I see a kid like Richards and I'm just shocked this guy was so high on the list. That ain't no five star.

He's been improving some, but I'm just curious how a kid like that gets so overhyped.

He must have just dominated kids in high school with his size and length. Because he's not very skilled.

Skal Labissiere is another story. How did a guy like that fool every scout in America?

 

[Jkwo_rivals113955]

The ignorance from people like you never ceases to amaze me. He has been to 4 final fours and won 1 title in 10 years. At that rate, in our history, we would have around 50 final fours. More than twice any other school, and 11 titles. Can’t win them all, but he gives us a chance. Now, gtfo with your ignorance

Okay, my turn.

But how many more chances than Tubby?

I'm frustrated with only the one title. There should be at least 3....if not four total titles.

This talking point needs to end. Today. It is for mathematical and statistical illiterates, and I expect more of my fellow cats fans.

If you take two coaches, and you criticize one for leading his team to the same number of championships with more final fours, you are literally penalizing him for success.

So exactly what is it you're criticizing here? Again, it's not overall coaching ability.

Say you have two 20 year careers:
Coach A: 20 NCAA appearances, 12 Final Fours and 3 championships, Coach B: 10 NCAA appearances, 3 Final Fours, 3 championships.

When the phrase "more chances" escapes your keyboard, you're literally entertaining the idea of propping up Coach B over Coach A.

But JKWO, I hear you say, even if Coach B doesn't have a better overall coaching resume, can't we argue that he is more clutch, and that he wins when it counts?

Well no, ruppcat, we can't argue that. You know why not?

Because Coach B sure as hell isn't clutch when he drops regular season games that keep him out of the tournament 10 years out of 20.

Coach B sure as hell isn't clutch in those 7 years where he lost early round tournament games, which usually happens against weaker-than-Final-4 teams.

One more time for the people in the back:

Both coaches had 3 Final fours where they took home the trophy. That part is the same.

Now let's look at those other years aside from the three championships:

Coach A is losing against better teams at the rate you'd expect (he loses 75% of the time in the Final Four, when there are four participants, which tend to all be top 10 teams in the country). He wins a quarter. That's his fare share against other great teams and coaches.

Meanwhile, Coach B is losing to Southwest Poop State in the second round, and often even in the NIT.

So again, I ask you, what does Coach B have over Coach A other than the fact that he lost earlier and to worse teams?

The answer is nothing.

Please, for the love of all that is good, find a different argument.

That one is for idiots.

 

[Jdhays21]

I think they probably hand out that 5* too much.

Exactly, not that it really matters but they should reduce the amount of players that get a 5* ranking. The 30th ranked player in a class shouldn’t be given the same status as a top 10 kid.

 

[akaukswoosh]

Wouldn’t get too hung up on the rankings. If you don’t have balance, chemistry, and some experience to go along with the balance, you might be disappointed.

 

[keefsopeng]

there are 5 super star freshmen in a great year. 1 or 2 in a down year. outside of that there is a great chance that recruit ranked #12 is the same skill type and level as recruit #31.

 

[Drcats2025]

This is false. The NCAA started in 1939. That’s 80 years ago. 1 title every ten years would be 8, exactly what we have. Cal is a great coach but it drives me crazy when you all act like we need Cal. He’s done what every other good coach at Kentucky has done, he won big. So will the next one.

Yea; just like Tubby and BCG before him. It’s not about needing Cal, it’s about appreciating the success he’s had, and not expecting a title every 2-3 years. Just doesn’t work that way. We are the gold standard, but I’m sorry sunshine, it takes a great coach to win, even at the highest level. So, what you’re saying is actually false. Nice try, though.

 

[Drcats2025]

Okay, my turn.

This talking point needs to end. Today. It is for mathematical and statistical illiterates, and I expect more of my fellow cats fans.

If you take two coaches, and you criticize one for leading his team to the same number of championships with more final fours, you are literally penalizing him for success.

So exactly what is it you're criticizing here? Again, it's not overall coaching ability.

Say you have two 20 year careers:
Coach A: 20 NCAA appearances, 12 Final Fours and 3 championships, Coach B: 10 NCAA appearances, 3 Final Fours, 3 championships.

When the phrase "more chances" escapes your keyboard, you're literally entertaining the idea of propping up Coach B over Coach A.

But JKWO, I hear you say, even if Coach B doesn't have a better overall coaching resume, can't we argue that he is more clutch, and that he wins when it counts?

Well no, ruppcat, we can't argue that. You know why not?

Because Coach B sure as hell isn't clutch when he drops regular season games that keep him out of the tournament 10 years out of 20.

Coach B sure as hell isn't clutch in those 7 years where he lost early round tournament games, which usually happens against weaker-than-Final-4 teams.

One more time for the people in the back:

Both coaches had 3 Final fours where they took home the trophy. That part is the same.

Now let's look at those other years aside from the three championships:

Coach A is losing against better teams at the rate you'd expect (he loses 75% of the time in the Final Four, when there are four participants, which tend to all be top 10 teams in the country). He wins a quarter. That's his fare share against other great teams and coaches.

Meanwhile, Coach B is losing to Southwest Poop State in the second round, and often even in the NIT.

So again, I ask you, what does Coach B have over Coach A other than the fact that he lost earlier and to worse teams?

The answer is nothing.

Please, for the love of all that is good, find a different argument.

That one is for idiots.

YES

 

[CincinnatiWildcat]

I don't think you all realize exactly how the system works. Basically what they do is rank the players overall then regarless of the talent gap between the players 1-25 are 5 stars, 26-250 become 4 stars and then 251-750 become 3 stars. It does not mean that the gap between 25 and 26 is larger than between other players, in fact it very likely is a negligible difference. The only way to really avoid this would be to just not do star ranking at all.
side note: I'm pretty sure alot of the websites give players a score from .000-1.0 for this very reason, as a way to tell how much they rank the actually difference between these players. Not sure how accurate this has proven to be though

 

[morgousky]

That’s why I say the closest thing to a sure bet is the top 3-5. And people still no not understand there’s a difference in number 9 and number 2. They are usually not the same.

Number 9 could be number 30. Number 2 is probably not worse than top 10.

 

[morgousky]

There is a MASSIVE difference in Tubby Smith and Cal. If Cal left today their resumes are nowhere near the same. Cal is however not too far removed from Joe Hall status and yes he should be better than that but he has a long way to go.

And expecting Cal to have 3 or 4 titles just because it almost happened doesn't mean that's some sort of measuring stick. 2? Sure. 3-4? I can't even go there with you.

 

[Bogansistheman]

Yea; just like Tubby and BCG before him. It’s not about needing Cal, it’s about appreciating the success he’s had, and not expecting a title every 2-3 years. Just doesn’t work that way. We are the gold standard, but I’m sorry sunshine, it takes a great coach to win, even at the highest level. So, what you’re saying is actually false. Nice try, though.

Actually it wasn’t. It was 100% factual. The opposite of yours. Tubby was a great coach. I’d take another one just like him. BCG was a train wreck that is really inexcusable. At Kentucky you just pretty much don’t hire a drunk and you win. Not all win at Cals level and you’re right we should appreciate him but he wasn’t the first and won’t be the last to win big at UK.

 

[uk78_rivals88018]

There is buried within this post a good question that has resulted instead about defending Cal. I thought this wasn't about Cal or Kentucky as much as how do some of these 5 stars be so highly ranked but clearly are not head and shoulders above recruits ranked less than them. I suppose because the OP only identified Kentucky recruits the focus was lost.

It seems there are a few issues. The star ratings always seems focused on offense, athletisim, participation in AAU basketball and tournaments, or attendance at some prominent high schools. Plus, some of these kids may have peaked in High School and at the college level dont improve. So, they look like superstars in High School but they are often facing easier competition. Skal was one that I think faced almost fake competition as a Senior if I recall. Other factors may be work ethic, distractions, attitude, or even the programs style of play.

 

[Bogansistheman]

There is a MASSIVE difference in Tubby Smith and Cal. If Cal left today their resumes are nowhere near the same. Cal is however not too far removed from Joe Hall status and yes he should be better than that but he has a long way to go.

And expecting Cal to have 3 or 4 titles just because it almost happened doesn't mean that's some sort of measuring stick. 2? Sure. 3-4? I can't even go there with you.

This is ignorant and border line racist.

 

[Drcats2025]

Actually it wasn’t. It was 100% factual. The opposite of yours. Tubby was a great coach. I’d take another one just like him. BCG was a train wreck that is really inexcusable. At Kentucky you just pretty much don’t hire a drunk and you win. Not all win at Cals level and you’re right we should appreciate him but he wasn’t the first and won’t be the last to win big at UK.

But that was never my point, and very few of anyone else’s that I’ve noticed.

 

[Bogansistheman]

But that was never my point, and very few of anyone else’s that I’ve noticed.

All I said were your stats were false. You turned it into me saying Cal sucks which I in no way shape or form even suggested.

 

[morgousky]

This is ignorant and border line racist.

My racism showed there for sure.

 

[Panthur]

There is buried within this post a good question that has resulted instead about defending Cal. I thought this wasn't about Cal or Kentucky as much as how do some of these 5 stars be so highly ranked but clearly are not head and shoulders above recruits ranked less than them. I suppose because the OP only identified Kentucky recruits the focus was lost.

It seems there are a few issues. The star ratings always seems focused on offense, athletisim, participation in AAU basketball and tournaments, or attendance at some prominent high schools. Plus, some of these kids may have peaked in High School and at the college level dont improve. So, they look like superstars in High School but they are often facing easier competition. Skal was one that I think faced almost fake competition as a Senior if I recall. Other factors may be work ethic, distractions, attitude, or even the programs style of play.

This. I'm glad someone finally got around to the actual question.

 

[Bogansistheman]

My racism showed there for sure.

So go ahead and do a quick comparison of Joe B and Tubbys resumes for me.

 

[Drcats2025]

All I said were your stats were false. You turned it into me saying Cal sucks which I in no way shape or form even suggested.

You said it was par for the course what Cal is doing at UK. That is incorrect.

 

[Gothic1960]

1 damn NCAA Championship same as Tubby. I'm sure he do better than that.

How many championships do you have in your profession? I'm guessing 0

 

[Bogansistheman]

You said it was par for the course what Cal is doing at UK. That is incorrect.

That’s not what I said at all. You just keep making stuff up. I said he’s not the first and won’t be the last to win big at UK.

 

[Gothic1960]

This is ignorant and border line racist.

Racist? Give me a break. Horrible and ignorant take

 

[Drcats2025]

That’s not what I said at all. You just keep making stuff up. I said he’s not the first and won’t be the last to win big at UK.

Hence the par for the course reference. You know what you’re implying, and it has nothing to do with the original point I made, in which you just had to drop your negative 2 cents into. Now, goodbye, troll.