Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don’t believe RIVALS recruiting rankings include transfers. We’d obviously be somewhat higher with Rattler and Stogner.That is going to be a very weird formula to figure out.
Rattler, for example, is a 5 star, but much shorter term than a highschool 5 star.
I think you'll see the rankings vary even more than they do now because different people will weigh the transfers drastically different.
I don’t believe RIVALS recruiting rankings include transfers. We’d obviously be somewhat higher with Rattler and Stogner.
It doesn't work. It's BS. Assuming their "evaluations" are accurate to begin with (which they are not), that is only a piece of pie. They value quantity as much as quality, which is asinine. I saw in another thread someone ranting about how we are ranked ahead of clemsux. We are 20 and they are 28. However, they have an avg rating/player of 3.62 and ours is 3.09. We may have more numbers at this point, but not better quality. So how is it we are "ranked" higher?
SIAP....a competitor site has ratings including recruiting/transfer...they admit it's new approach, but fwiw....21st in recruiting, 21st after you factor in all the other teams transfer activity in their "overall" rankings.
Rankings have always been a snapshot of incoming talent, and their individual and collective ability to be productive during their college careers. They’ve never tried to account for roster management and it would be far too hard to do so.My issue with that is it can inflate teams getting lots of transfers while losing high rates transfer off the roster. Feel like the transfer grades need to be created separately than HS ranking and be a gain vs loss through transfers.
It is BS. I didn't say it was complicated, just bogus. The average I quoted came right off the Rivals rankings. So if its wrong, they posted it wrong, however, you would have no way of knowing that since they do not show their computations.It's not really BS. It's a quite simple formula actually. You get points for your top 25 rated players. The ranking is based off points.
Your average rating is wrong also if you want to compare. You would have to match their total number with our top rated guys of the same amount.
The numbers always work outIt doesn't work. It's BS. Assuming their "evaluations" are accurate to begin with (which they are not), that is only a piece of pie. They value quantity as much as quality, which is asinine. I saw in another thread someone ranting about how we are ranked ahead of clemsux. We are 20 and they are 28. However, they have an avg rating/player of 3.62 and ours is 3.09. We may have more numbers at this point, but not better quality. So how is it we are "ranked" higher?