How do you look at rankings?

[Cock-a-Doo]

On one hand… by the Rivals scoring system we are 12th national and 4th in the SEC

On the other hand…by avg. stars we are tied 31st nationally and tied 10th in the SEC

Obviously there is a ton to be said of depth and signing a class that has consistency throughout, which is how Rivals seems to really lean in on their ranking system.

There is also a lot to be said for big time playmakers and I think we’ve seen we generally have a lower amount of these vs the top performing teams.

I feel like it should be weighted, maybe 60% weighted towards the depth ranking while 40% should go towards the avg star ranking.

That would put us around a composite ranking of #17 if I’m doing the math right.

Thoughts on this? I’ve never thought the Rivals point system was the best judge…saying all that I’m not complaining, I think Beamer seems to be doing a great job so far and is making the right moves when he has an opportunity.

 

[Lurker123]

Imho, average stars eliminate the class size variable. That's why I would go with that.

But stars don't mean much to me anyway. I usually look at a recruits other offers.

 

[LazyIslander]

There is no way to accurately gauge any given team's current needs, and how a recruiting class addresses those needs. So ratings will always be skewed.

For instance, a team could have a terrific OL and 2 future NFL RBs, yet are in dire need for quality DBs and LBs. But meanwhile their recruiting class is filled with 4 and 5 star OLs and RBs and no defensive athletes. They may be ranked in the top 5 recruiting classes, but actually be no better, or even worse, after signing the class.

In fact, this happens quite a bit, as recruits are more inclined to go to schools that have shown a propensity for developing their position group. And they are less inclined to go play for schools not known for their group.

With that said, a #17 ranked class which addresses positions of need is more desirable than higher ranked class filled with talented duplicates.