Rankbyoffers.com

[Caw Caw]

Here is a fascinating, simple recruiting website I think will become one of my favorites as it continues to grow. Just type North Texas in the search bar and all our commits come up. Guyton, Johnson and Krasniqi lead the  way for our class currently.

http://www.rankbyoffers.com/2017fbplayers/

Here is the table, under basically @BillySee58 system, of our conference sorted by AVG recruit score:

RANK	TEAM	CONFERENCE	COMMITS	COMMIT LIST	OFFER LIST	OFFER POINTS	AVERAGE
				Commit List	Offer List
74	Louisiana Tech	Conference USA	16	commits	offers	3,398.56	212.41
95	Florida Atlantic	Conference USA	10	commits	offers	1,704.79	170.48
86	Western Kentucky	Conference USA	17	commits	offers	2,586.74	152.16
73	Texas San Antonio	Conference USA	23	commits	offers	3,423.88	148.86
82	Florida International	Conference USA	20	commits	offers	2,668.26	133.41
79	Charlotte	Conference USA	21	commits	offers	2,741.19	130.53
93	Southern Mississippi	Conference USA	18	commits	offers	2,003.79	111.32
89	Middle Tennessee State	Conference USA	21	commits	offers	2,316.36	110.30
103	Rice	Conference USA	13	commits	offers	1,308.85	100.68
112	Marshall	Conference USA	10	commits	offers	1,000.46	100.05
106	North Texas	Conference USA	13	commits	offers	1,211.39	93.18
100	Old Dominion	Conference USA	18	commits	offers	1,495.24	83.07
105	Alabama Birmingham	Conference USA	21	commits	offers	1,276.11	60.77
127	Texas El Paso	Conference USA	7	commits	offers	231.73	33.10

 

Edited January 24, 2017 by Caw Caw

[greenminer]

Very intriguing.

[wardly]

Gee, 106th in the nation out of about 127 D1 programs.

[Cr1028]

I'm not convinced I like the ranking system when an offer from South Alabama is rated higher than an offer from Iowa. An offer from us is better than an offer from Memphis or Purdue while an offer from Texas State and UMass is better than an offer from us.

Team Weightings

[ChristopherRyanWilkes]

This is the system Billy essentially uses in his grading, glad you found a website for it. Basically coincides with our 24/7 ranking, which is main reason why many of us are concerned. 

[Wag Tag]

I like it as an additional way to measure a class.

Can one player skew this system? Look at JaCorion at La Techs offer sheet.

[greenminer]

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

I'm not convinced I like the ranking system when an offer from South Alabama is rated higher than an offer from Iowa. An offer from us is better than an offer from Memphis or Purdue while an offer from Texas State and UMass is better than an offer from us.

Team Weightings

Did you read the top of the page? This is not a pure ranking of perceived football power.

[Caw Caw]

1 hour ago, Cr1028 said:

I'm not convinced I like the ranking system when an offer from South Alabama is rated higher than an offer from Iowa. An offer from us is better than an offer from Memphis or Purdue while an offer from Texas State and UMass is better than an offer from us.

Team Weightings

His link was this for the lazy: 

he relative value of each program’s offers are determined using players’ commitments and the offers they rejected.  Using this approach, it is assumed that the offers players accepted are more valuable than those they passed up. In essence, program offers are ranked by the players themselves. The steps to arrive at the offer valuations are as follows:

1) For every commitment in the past three years, pairs of “winners” and “losers” are accumulated. The “winner” in each pairing is the team whose offer a player accepted. The “loser” is each of the teams whose offers that player rejected.

2) The pairings in step 1 are used to conduct an Elo ranking. Elo is a system for generating ratings based upon a collection of head-to-head matches. A description of Elo Ratings can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system . The Elo rankings are shown in the “Commit Elo” column in the table below.

3) The ratings in step 2 give an advantage to programs that extend fewer offers, and disadvantage programs that extend more offers. This effect is minimized in this step by calculating the average Elo rating of the teams each program beat out for their commitments. These averages are shown in the “Avg. Elo Beaten” column in the table below.

4) The ratings from step 3 are distributed proportionately over a range from 10 to 100 offer points to arrive at the “Offer Value” column in the table below. In the final valuations, an offer from the highest ranked team is worth 10 times the value of the lowest ranked team.

Offer Value Weightings Updated 2/6/2016

AND:

) The offers that Division 1 FBS colleges have extended to athletes are gathered from recruiting services.

2) Each offer is assigned a value based upon rankings derived from players’ commitments and the offers they decline. A description of the weighting methodology, along with the values for each program, can be found here: http://www.rankbyoffers.com/teamweightings/

3) All of the points for a player’s offers are added together to calculate that player’s total offer points.

4) The players are then ranked based upon their total offer points.

5) To determine rankings for college recruiting classes, all of the total offer points for each of their commits are added together. The total offer points for all of the Division 1 FBS recruiting classes are then compared to arrive at the recruiting class rankings.

[MeanGreen_MBA]

14 minutes ago, Caw Caw said:

His link was this for the lazy: 

he relative value of each program’s offers are determined using players’ commitments and the offers they rejected.  Using this approach, it is assumed that the offers players accepted are more valuable than those they passed up. In essence, program offers are ranked by the players themselves. The steps to arrive at the offer valuations are as follows:

1) For every commitment in the past three years, pairs of “winners” and “losers” are accumulated. The “winner” in each pairing is the team whose offer a player accepted. The “loser” is each of the teams whose offers that player rejected.

2) The pairings in step 1 are used to conduct an Elo ranking. Elo is a system for generating ratings based upon a collection of head-to-head matches. A description of Elo Ratings can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system . The Elo rankings are shown in the “Commit Elo” column in the table below.

3) The ratings in step 2 give an advantage to programs that extend fewer offers, and disadvantage programs that extend more offers. This effect is minimized in this step by calculating the average Elo rating of the teams each program beat out for their commitments. These averages are shown in the “Avg. Elo Beaten” column in the table below.

4) The ratings from step 3 are distributed proportionately over a range from 10 to 100 offer points to arrive at the “Offer Value” column in the table below. In the final valuations, an offer from the highest ranked team is worth 10 times the value of the lowest ranked team.

Offer Value Weightings Updated 2/6/2016

AND:

) The offers that Division 1 FBS colleges have extended to athletes are gathered from recruiting services.

2) Each offer is assigned a value based upon rankings derived from players’ commitments and the offers they decline. A description of the weighting methodology, along with the values for each program, can be found here: http://www.rankbyoffers.com/teamweightings/

3) All of the points for a player’s offers are added together to calculate that player’s total offer points.

4) The players are then ranked based upon their total offer points.

5) To determine rankings for college recruiting classes, all of the total offer points for each of their commits are added together. The total offer points for all of the Division 1 FBS recruiting classes are then compared to arrive at the recruiting class rankings.

[Cr1028]

2 minutes ago, greenminer said:

Did you read the top of the page? This is not a pure ranking of perceived football power.

Yes I did. Basically if you offer guys who'll stick you get more points. So stealth recruiting gets you extra credit. Shotgun blasting offers to pie-in-the-sky recruits hurts you tremendously. So offering a Rex Burkhead (who we knew we had little chance at) hurts your rating rather than saying, thats good they are trying to get better players.

[Aldo]

Tryna tell y'all about FAU getting after it

[UNTLifer]

On 1/24/2017 at 8:06 AM, ChristopherRyanWilkes said:

This is the system Billy essentially uses in his grading, glad you found a website for it. Basically coincides with our 24/7 ranking, which is main reason why many of us are concerned. 

I just took the time to look at our recruiting classes as far back as 2010.  The three star recruits we "signed" during that time were Wheeler, Johnson, Smith, Hamilton, Jenkins Ozougwu,  Dillman, McNair, Bradley, Barr, Gray, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Chumley, Goree, Fonzale Davis, Ivery, Garner,Tucker, Davis, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, DQ Johnson, Schrapps, Roberts, Lancaster and Dilonga.

Gone/Never Got Here: Johnson, McNair, Bradley, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Goree, F. Davis, Ivery, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, Schrapps and Lancaster.

Too Early To Tell/RS: Smith, Ozougwu

Early Signs Look Positive: Hamilton, Wheeler, Jenkins

Got Here But Didn't Contribute: DQ Johnson

Injured/Yet to Contribute: Dillman, Chumley

Remaining:

Barr: Off and on starter on OL.

Gray: Two year starter at safety.  Very solid, but I would argue McClain (2 star) has been better.

Garner: Contributed and improved a lot this year.  Could be a star.  Still has 2 years remaining.

Tucker: Productive backup RB.

Chad Davis: In and out of the starting lineup.  It has been reported that he struggled with injuries the last two years.  Productive, but was he our best DB?

Roberts: Productive DE that had his best year as a Jr. when he led the team in sacks.  Did he live up to 3 star expectations?

Dilonga: Another solid, productive DE who had a combined 5 sacks his last two year.

 

My point with this quick research is to note that ratings are just ratings, and highlights why I like to wait a couple of years before judging a class.  Yes, higher rated recruits would seem more likely to become productive, but at our level of recruiting this hasn't played out, for whatever reason.  The following 2 star recruits have been as good or better during the same time frame:

16: Bussey, Fine, Baulkman, Ejiya, Wilson, Muhammad, Turner,

15: Brooks, Murray, Combs, Thompson, Young, Finney, K. Smith, Woodsworth

14: Miles, Rutherford, T. Johnson, Tauaala, McClain, Moore, J. Wilson

13: McKinney, J. Jones, Schilleci, Scott, Ellis, Kidsy, Minor, Smiley, Moore

12: Wallace, Rollins, Kelly, Rentfro, C. Harris, Marshall

11: Akunne, Bellazin, Jimmerson, Lee, a. Orr, Polk, Lemon, Brooks*, Whitfield, Simpson**, Power**, Swarn**

10: Johnson, Y'Barbo, Z. Orr, Byrd, Chancellor, Wright, Abbe

* Brooks said he was leaving school to become a truck driver, ended up playing at a JUCO and being pretty darn good at Baylor.  Wonder if Baylor orchestrated this?

**Had great offer lists.  Swarn did nothing and was gone after a year or two, Sampson was a bust and Power was good, but not close to some of our more recent, and not as highly rated, TE's like Blount, Gardner, etc...

Ratings are for us to argue over and beat our chest on the first February of each year.  The real results show down the line.

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, UNTLifer said:

I just took the time to look at our recruiting classes as far back as 2010.  The three star recruits we "signed" during that time were Wheeler, Johnson, Smith, Hamilton, Jenkins Ozougwu,  Dillman, McNair, Bradley, Barr, Gray, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Chumley, Goree, Fonzale Davis, Ivery, Garner,Tucker, Davis, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, DQ Johnson, Schrapps, Roberts, Lancaster and Dilonga.

Gone/Never Got Here: Johnson, McNair, Bradley, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Goree, F. Davis, Ivery, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, Schrapps and Lancaster.

Too Early To Tell/RS: Smith, Ozougwu

Early Signs Look Positive: Hamilton, Wheeler, Jenkins

Got Here But Didn't Contribute: DQ Johnson

Injured/Yet to Contribute: Dillman, Chumley

Remaining:

Barr: Off and on starter on OL.

Gray: Two year starter at safety.  Very solid, but I would argue McClain (2 star) has been better.

Garner: Contributed and improved a lot this year.  Could be a star.  Still has 2 years remaining.

Tucker: Productive backup RB.

Chad Davis: In and out of the starting lineup.  It has been reported that he struggled with injuries the last two years.  Productive, but was he our best DB?

Roberts: Productive DE that had his best year as a Jr. when he led the team in sacks.  Did he live up to 3 star expectations?

Dilonga: Another solid, productive DE who had a combined 5 sacks his last two year.

 

My point with this quick research is to note that ratings are just ratings, and highlights why I like to wait a couple of years before judging a class.  Yes, higher rated recruits would seem more likely to become productive, but at our level of recruiting this hasn't played out, for whatever reason.  The following 2 star recruits have been as good or better during the same time frame:

16: Bussey, Fine, Baulkman, Ejiya, Wilson, Muhammad, Turner,

15: Brooks, Murray, Combs, Thompson, Young, Finney, K. Smith, Woodsworth

14: Miles, Rutherford, T. Johnson, Tauaala, McClain, Moore, J. Wilson

13: McKinney, J. Jones, Schilleci, Scott, Ellis, Kidsy, Minor, Smiley, Moore

12: Wallace, Rollins, Kelly, Rentfro, C. Harris, Marshall

11: Akunne, Bellazin, Jimmerson, Lee, a. Orr, Polk, Lemon, Brooks*, Whitfield, Simpson**, Power**, Swarn**

10: Johnson, Y'Barbo, Z. Orr, Byrd, Chancellor, Wright, Abbe

* Brooks said he was leaving school to become a truck driver, ended up playing at a JUCO and being pretty darn good at Baylor.  Wonder if Baylor orchestrated this?

**Had great offer lists.  Swarn did nothing and was gone after a year or two, Sampson was a bust and Power was good, but not close to some of our more recent, and not as highly rated, TE's like Blount, Gardner, etc...

Ratings are for us to argue over and beat our chest on the first February of each year.  The real results show down the line.

Now, what was UNT's combined football record over those years?...

Because my argument is that when you rely on hitting on 2 star recruits, your program is usually bad.

That has been the case at UNT.

 

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

Same type of recruiting class we've always had since returning to the D-IA/FBS level. 

Same type of player.  Year in, year out.

As stated before, the question then becomes can our current coaching staff coach them up better than the prior ones...and better than the other C-USA coaches coaching rosters full of 2-star prospects.

Cue Howard Schnellenberger...again:  "The only variable now...is time."

[UNT90]

2 hours ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

Same type of recruiting class we've always had since returning to the D-IA/FBS level. 

Same type of player.  Year in, year out.

As stated before, the question then becomes can our current coaching staff coach them up better than the prior ones...and better than the other C-USA coaches coaching rosters full of 2-star prospects.

Cue Howard Schnellenberger...again:  "The only variable now...is time."

Meanwhile, UTSA is getting better and better recruits.

 

[UNTLifer]

31 minutes ago, UNT90 said:

Meanwhile, UTSA is getting better and better recruits.

 

Based on what I am saying, time will tell.

[UNT90]

Just now, UNTLifer said:

Based on what I am saying, time will tell.

Based on what you said. Time has already told.

Are you seriously trying to argue that lower rated classes are better?

[MeanGreenMailbox aka TFLF]

On 1/25/2017 at 4:28 PM, UNT90 said:

Meanwhile, UTSA is getting better and better recruits.

 

So, go buy yourself a UTSA t-shirt.

[UNT90]

1 hour ago, MeanGreenMailbox said:

So, go buy yourself a UTSA t-shirt.

Or expect better, like a home and home that you said couldn't be done. 

Why do you hate UNT athletics so much?

[greenminer]

5 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Why do you hate UNT athletics so much?

just stop.

[UNT90]

6 minutes ago, greenminer said:

just stop.

Well, he wants UNT to drop a classification. He doesn't want better scheduling. 

What would you call it?

[Wag Tag]

On 1/25/2017 at 0:00 PM, UNTLifer said:

I just took the time to look at our recruiting classes as far back as 2010.  The three star recruits we "signed" during that time were Wheeler, Johnson, Smith, Hamilton, Jenkins Ozougwu,  Dillman, McNair, Bradley, Barr, Gray, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Chumley, Goree, Fonzale Davis, Ivery, Garner,Tucker, Davis, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, DQ Johnson, Schrapps, Roberts, Lancaster and Dilonga.

Gone/Never Got Here: Johnson, McNair, Bradley, D. Smith, Bendy, Grindle, Goree, F. Davis, Ivery, Nelson, B. Feldt, Busby, Lewis, Schrapps and Lancaster.

Too Early To Tell/RS: Smith, Ozougwu

Early Signs Look Positive: Hamilton, Wheeler, Jenkins

Got Here But Didn't Contribute: DQ Johnson

Injured/Yet to Contribute: Dillman, Chumley

Remaining:

Barr: Off and on starter on OL.

Gray: Two year starter at safety.  Very solid, but I would argue McClain (2 star) has been better.

Garner: Contributed and improved a lot this year.  Could be a star.  Still has 2 years remaining.

Tucker: Productive backup RB.

Chad Davis: In and out of the starting lineup.  It has been reported that he struggled with injuries the last two years.  Productive, but was he our best DB?

Roberts: Productive DE that had his best year as a Jr. when he led the team in sacks.  Did he live up to 3 star expectations?

Dilonga: Another solid, productive DE who had a combined 5 sacks his last two year.

 

My point with this quick research is to note that ratings are just ratings, and highlights why I like to wait a couple of years before judging a class.  Yes, higher rated recruits would seem more likely to become productive, but at our level of recruiting this hasn't played out, for whatever reason.  The following 2 star recruits have been as good or better during the same time frame:

16: Bussey, Fine, Baulkman, Ejiya, Wilson, Muhammad, Turner,

15: Brooks, Murray, Combs, Thompson, Young, Finney, K. Smith, Woodsworth

14: Miles, Rutherford, T. Johnson, Tauaala, McClain, Moore, J. Wilson

13: McKinney, J. Jones, Schilleci, Scott, Ellis, Kidsy, Minor, Smiley, Moore

12: Wallace, Rollins, Kelly, Rentfro, C. Harris, Marshall

11: Akunne, Bellazin, Jimmerson, Lee, a. Orr, Polk, Lemon, Brooks*, Whitfield, Simpson**, Power**, Swarn**

10: Johnson, Y'Barbo, Z. Orr, Byrd, Chancellor, Wright, Abbe

* Brooks said he was leaving school to become a truck driver, ended up playing at a JUCO and being pretty darn good at Baylor.  Wonder if Baylor orchestrated this?

**Had great offer lists.  Swarn did nothing and was gone after a year or two, Sampson was a bust and Power was good, but not close to some of our more recent, and not as highly rated, TE's like Blount, Gardner, etc...

Ratings are for us to argue over and beat our chest on the first February of each year.  The real results show down the line.

Ratings to me show the excitement and future surrounding a program! You should show an improvement over the last staff that had a DC that didn't even have to recruit! Coach up a class that is ranked 85 instead of one ranked 110! GMG 

[UNTLifer]

On 1/25/2017 at 1:52 PM, UNT90 said:

Now, what was UNT's combined football record over those years?...

Because my argument is that when you rely on hitting on 2 star recruits, your program is usually bad.

That has been the case at UNT.

 

Not the point of my post.  I understand that our record wasn't good, but the point, that you choose to miss, is that rati gs for 2 and 3 star players aren't terribly reliable.

[untjim1995]

15 hours ago, UNT90 said:

Well, he wants UNT to drop a classification. He doesn't want better scheduling. 

What would you call it?

I don't think he WANTS that drop to happen. I think he's saying that when it does, it's not the same as when we VOLUNTARILY stayed down at a lower classification when we didn't have to for 12 freaking years, causing us to play podunk schools that very few people cared about in Texas, while the SWC and Big Eight were at the top of the NCAA totem pole during our coma.

Just to be clear, I don't want to drop, either. I want us to be as great as we can and play in a conference with teams that can bring fans and media attention to our program. But without wins over teams that people care about across the country, no conference above us wants us. Yes, a lot of that is due to our ineptitude, but a lot is due to being considered the low guy on the DFW ladder. That I-aa fiasco cemented that fact for many other conferences above ours, so without winning against teams that people care about, we are just stuck below SMU and TCU. 

So, without your colossal "the small guys beat the big guys in a court ruling", the Big XII's demise in 2025 (if not before), will cause a massive realignment that I believe will cause the Power Teams to pull away for good. When that happens, the SBCUSA schools will have to realign geographically, like the MAC has done. So unless, we get into the MWC and the AAC, which will just wait until the Big xii falls apart, allowing them to add in TCU, Baylor, ISU, and KSU if they want, we are left out. And I just don't see how that ends well for us or any other CUSA school. Doesn't mean i want it, but it seems like the very likely scenario that I see happening. The hard part to know is what it will do to our fan support--if it will just drop suddenly because we aren't FBS anymore or if we will still get the same support because we are playing schools people recognize and teams that are close enough to bring fans to Denton.

[UNT90]

14 hours ago, UNTLifer said:

Not the point of my post.  I understand that our record wasn't good, but the point, that you choose to miss, is that rati gs for 2 and 3 star players aren't terribly reliable.

And what you aren't getting is missing on 3 stars is detrimental to your team.

You are acting like these 2 stars were saviors. They weren't. The team was awful during that time period. That's what happens when you miss in recruiting