I Dont Understand Rivals.

[calvin]

It really doesnt bother me too much but I dont like how it looks.

Help me understand this. We sign 20 guys and three 3 star recruits and are ranked 102. FAU signs 20 guys with two 3 star recruits and is ranked 87, and Ark St. signed 14 guys with one 3 star recruit and they are ahead of us as well at like 95 or so. I dont get it ?

[Mean Green 93-98]

The team rankings are stacked against schools from Texas and Florida. There are other factors taken into consideration besides the Rivals ratings of its players. When a team signs a player that is highly ranked within a state, that team gets major points. So, basically, a team could get more points for signing a 2-star player who is a top 10 player in the state of Rhode Island than for signing a 3-star player who is not on the top 100 in Texas. Personally, I think the best way to rank the teams would be to take the average Rivals rating of its commits (not star, but points rating).

[KRAM1]

Doen't matter AT ALL. I quit trying to figure Rivals out some time ago. Just ignore it. Who cares what they have to say about ranking recruiting classes anyway...unless you are a coach who has a contract up for renewal. Ha!

[greenminer]

It's really only as complicated as you don't want it to be.

[mathman]

We have complained about the same thing on our board. Look at Rice compared to SMU.

[H-towngreen]

The team rankings are stacked against schools from Texas and Florida. There are other factors taken into consideration besides the Rivals ratings of its players. When a team signs a player that is highly ranked within a state, that team gets major points. So, basically, a team could get more points for signing a 2-star player who is a top 10 player in the state of Rhode Island than for signing a 3-star player who is not on the top 100 in Texas. Personally, I think the best way to rank the teams would be to take the average Rivals rating of its commits (not star, but points rating).

Exactly if you signed the top 10 from Deleware and Rhode Island, rivals would prolly have you in the top 25. Like you said look at the average points rating is the best way to judge.

[nana21]

Also, all three of North Texas' recruits are Juco transfers which also hurts the ranking since Rivals prefers 4 year players to juco transfers.

[KAjunRaider]

It really doesnt bother me too much but I dont like how it looks.

Help me understand this. We sign 20 guys and three 3 star recruits and are ranked 102. FAU signs 20 guys with two 3 star recruits and is ranked 87, and Ark St. signed 14 guys with one 3 star recruit and they are ahead of us as well at like 95 or so. I dont get it ?

Board moderators, or local site owners for Rivals, can boost star rating up to a certain point for Rivals. If your school does NOT have a Rivals site, your rankings are lower. On Scout, board owners and admins do NOT have the permission to hand out stars like tater chips.

Over the years, Scout.com has been much more accurate on their abilities to judge potential of players. Scout.com is slower to get the recruits in the databases, however.

But non-Power Schools often times suffer the "lower star" syndrome when it comes to Rivals.com.

[DirtySavage]

Rivals is a joke and always has been. They know about as much as we do about how players will make the transition. Of the top twentyfive players nationally ranked in 2005, ten didn't finish their career on the team that signed them. That's not my research. I heard it on the ticket who were reading it from a national news article, so take it for what you will. Bottom line, rivals is flawed.