Rivals Recruting Rankings - Not Too Bad....

stebo · February 8, 2007

Rivals does a weird thing with their class rankings, they give teams more points for signing more players, even if those players are not ranked high on the scale. That confuses me, wouldn't a team be punished for going after quality rather then quantity? Also, what about a team that is flat out full and only needs to replace like 10-12 guys like San Jose State did last year? Just doesn' make sense to me. Lots of stuff that they do really doesn't make sense to me... when Jamario signed, he was originally going to sign with Tech - and they had him listed as a three star recruit. When he changed his mind and chose North Texas, he immediately was bumber down to a two star prospect. This just baffles me. How can they justify that? Finally, their "class" rankings should be an average of their point system, these are those scared points that separates the two star player from the three star player. Literally .1% makes a two star player into a 3 star player. Why have stars at all? Aren't numbers good enough? Very frustrating (to say the least) - so here are the teams that I consider to be our competition for recruits/bragging right for this year (and their current recruiting class' rank (as of now - a ton of players are missing from this list but this gives you the geberal idea.

For thius demostration, I am giving current ranks (including their current systen, wiHT - current point total average only, :

76 Miami-OH 23 2.17

77 Arkansas St. 2.12

78 Duke 21 2.19

79 Ball State 2.08

80 TCU 2.54

81 Florida Int'l 2.11

82 Western Michigan 2.05

83 New Mexico St. 2.11

83 Nevada 2.11

85 Eastern Michigan 2.04

86 Ohio 2.00

87 Texas-El Paso 2.27

87 Wyoming 2.32

89 Central Michigan 1.94

90 Louisiana Tech 2.26

90 Wake Forest 2.30

90 UNLV 2.29

90 Temple 2.21

90 Houston 2.21

90 Cincinnati 2.26

96 Memphis 2.21

97 Indiana 2.26

98 Tulsa 2.15

99 SMU 2.17

100 Rice 2.04

101 Kent 2.08

102 Bowling Green 2.10

103 New Mexico 2.08

104 San Jose St. 2.18

105 Idaho 2.05

106 Colorado State 2.04

107 UAB 2.04

108 Utah State 2.00

108 Middle Tenn St. 2.00

108 Louisiana-Mon. 2.00

108 Buffalo 2.00

108 Tulane 2.00

108 Air Force 1.69

114 North Texas 2.06

114 Louisiana-Laf. 2.06

116 Northern Illinois 2.00

117 Florida Atlantic 2.06

118 Army 1.78

119 Navy 1.64

120 Villanova 1.20

121 East. Washington 0.57

121 Northwestern St. 0.67

121 Illinois St. 1.14

124 UC Davis 3.00

125 Richmond 0.67

So, North Texas really comes in with an averaqge rank per player of 2.06, aqs you can see - Eastern Michigan is at 85 but has a 2.04 average. Our new players, indidually - and as a class average - rank higher then their recruits. There are exceptions to the rule, obviously, it is too late and I am too tired to re-work this whole list - but NT would be much higher with a simple grading system rather then that extra "Rivals Top Secret Special Super Duper Number" that is attached to each class. My point, Rivals sucks at rankings! No way in hell that this class is 114 out of 119 IA teams (124 if you actually pay attention to the IAA schmucks in there for some crazy reason)... Can someone see where we really stand - I gotta get to bed, night y'all....

OldTimer · February 8, 2007

Another example is the current Nebraska QB Zac Taylor...He was listed on NT site as a 3 star and on the Nebraska site as a 4 start at the same time.

PlummMeanGreen · February 8, 2007

Another example is the current Nebraska QB Zac Taylor...He was listed on NT site as a 3 star and on the Nebraska site as a 4 start at the same time.

OldTimer, has anyone ever questioned any of the Rivals.com recruiting gurus with this apparent indiscrepancy in their star rankings system when it comes to the upper echelon schools of the BCS versus the lower echelon schools of the BCS? I think an explanation by them would be quite interesting (if not one that they might have to get quite creative). :rolleyes:

Yet this is not a one time thing with a said recruit being a "3 star recruit with Big Time U then that same recruit who becomes a 2 star recruit if Aspiring Big Time U signs him to a letter of intent..................Charles, we nominate you as one of our GMG.com's recruiting gurus to ask Rivals.com officials for a "believable" explanation. :lol:

PS: If Rivals.com had been in business back in the day, wonder how they would have ranked Joe Charles Greene of Temple ((TX) Dunbar HS back in the mid-1960's? Would they have dared reduced the future College & NFL Hall of Famer Joe Charles, ie, Mean Joe Greene one less star back then, too?? :lol:

Edited February 8, 2007 by PlummMeanGreen

Cowtown · February 8, 2007

Funny how the Frogs are a perennial top 30 team and yet every year they seem to rank in the 70's - 80's on the recruiting list.

These ranking guys have a good grip of the top 10 teams because for the most part everyone is going after the same dudes. It just becomes a matter of who gets the most of the sought after kids. After that it is a crap shoot. I really doubt the rivals folks are driving out to watch the random corner from Gordon or the LB from Mule Shoe.

good_ken · February 8, 2007

Rivals does a weird thing with their class rankings, they give teams more points for signing more players, even if those players are not ranked high on the scale. That confuses me, wouldn't a team be punished for going after quality rather then quantity? Also, what about a team that is flat out full and only needs to replace like 10-12 guys like San Jose State did last year? Just doesn' make sense to me. Lots of stuff that they do really doesn't make sense to me... when Jamario signed, he was originally going to sign with Tech - and they had him listed as a three star recruit. When he changed his mind and chose North Texas, he immediately was bumber down to a two star prospect. This just baffles me. How can they justify that? Finally, their "class" rankings should be an average of their point system, these are those scared points that separates the two star player from the three star player. Literally .1% makes a two star player into a 3 star player. Why have stars at all? Aren't numbers good enough? Very frustrating (to say the least) - so here are the teams that I consider to be our competition for recruits/bragging right for this year (and their current recruiting class' rank (as of now - a ton of players are missing from this list but this gives you the geberal idea.
For thius demostration, I am giving current ranks (including their current systen, wiHT - current point total average only, :
76 Miami-OH 23 2.17
77 Arkansas St. 2.12
78 Duke 21 2.19
79 Ball State 2.08
80 TCU 2.54
81 Florida Int'l 2.11
82 Western Michigan 2.05
83 New Mexico St. 2.11
83 Nevada 2.11
85 Eastern Michigan 2.04
86 Ohio 2.00
87 Texas-El Paso 2.27
87 Wyoming 2.32
89 Central Michigan 1.94
90 Louisiana Tech 2.26
90 Wake Forest 2.30
90 UNLV 2.29
90 Temple 2.21
90 Houston 2.21
90 Cincinnati 2.26
96 Memphis 2.21
97 Indiana 2.26
98 Tulsa 2.15
99 SMU 2.17
100 Rice 2.04
101 Kent 2.08
102 Bowling Green 2.10
103 New Mexico 2.08
104 San Jose St. 2.18
105 Idaho 2.05
106 Colorado State 2.04
107 UAB 2.04
108 Utah State 2.00
108 Middle Tenn St. 2.00
108 Louisiana-Mon. 2.00
108 Buffalo 2.00
108 Tulane 2.00
108 Air Force 1.69
114 North Texas 2.06
114 Louisiana-Laf. 2.06
116 Northern Illinois 2.00
117 Florida Atlantic 2.06
118 Army 1.78
119 Navy 1.64
120 Villanova 1.20
121 East. Washington 0.57
121 Northwestern St. 0.67
121 Illinois St. 1.14
124 UC Davis 3.00
125 Richmond 0.67

So, North Texas really comes in with an averaqge rank per player of 2.06, aqs you can see - Eastern Michigan is at 85 but has a 2.04 average. Our new players, indidually - and as a class average - rank higher then their recruits. There are exceptions to the rule, obviously, it is too late and I am too tired to re-work this whole list - but NT would be much higher with a simple grading system rather then that extra "Rivals Top Secret Special Super Duper Number" that is attached to each class. My point, Rivals sucks at rankings! No way in hell that this class is 114 out of 119 IA teams (124 if you actually pay attention to the IAA schmucks in there for some crazy reason)... Can someone see where we really stand - I gotta get to bed, night y'all....

I think the problem comes from the fact that Rivals ranks teams based on total points, not average stars (other wise they would have USC as number 1). They give out 3 points for a 2-star, and 8 points for a 3-star. I think its like 32 points for a 4-star (hoepfully we will figure that out next year).

February 9, 2007

I'll never understand their point system either. In the statistics above, Central Michigan is ranked @89 with one three star recruit and an average of 1.94. They signed 16. Down in #97 spot is Indiana who signed five three star players, had a star average of 2.26 and signed 19 players. Yet, somehow, CMU gets ten more points than the Hoosiers.

Now as far as the Sun Belt, we had the greatest average rating. We only had one three star athlete but we had four more who were just under with a rating of 5.4. We were the only one to have noone rated lower than 5.1.

Here are the averages:

North Texas 5.26

Troy 5.21

Florida International 5.17

Louisiana-Lafayette 5.16

Middle Tennessee 5.13

Louisiana-Monroe 5.07

Florida Atlantic 5.06

Arkansas State 4.99

The team that got the highest rated players, however, is Troy. They had a four star and five three stars. They also had three rated 5.4. The problem is that they also had a bunch rated 5.0 amongst their 32 recruits.

GreenTiger_OriginalAcct · February 9, 2007

I believe LT of TCU and now the Chargers was 2 star recruit according to Rivals. <_<

ShopMeanGreen · February 9, 2007

As soon as I found names of potential recruits to NT I looked for them on Rivals. Most of them were not listed at all. As soon as they were listed as verbal they had 2 stars. Who evaluated them after they gave a verbal? My guess is no one. Just a WAG. If they didn't have offers from Big12 etc they must be 2 star quality. I don't understand how a kid who is 1st Team 5A All State from Texas is a 2 star anyway. Let's just watch them play.