Just for kicks because I have absolutely no idea how the formula works. This morning we are sitting at the 20th right class where would that Ranking
- Thread starter wilmington-cock
- Start date
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.
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.
So Missouri is two spots ahead of us at 18. They have one more five star than us which is one of course. They also have one more 4-star than us. They only have 16 total recruits and we have 22. The rankings of the lower rank recruit start to fall off once you get so many. Well at least that's the way it used to work.
So you would have to figure if they were added to our class as incoming high school seniors... Of course I realized they are transfers so it's not exactly the same, then we would be somewhere higher than Missouri at 18 probably right around where you see some of the other schools that have 20 plus commitments with at least one five star or seven plus four stars.
All this depended upon but other schools do. But I imagine we would be somewhere between 12 and 15.
So you would have to figure if they were added to our class as incoming high school seniors... Of course I realized they are transfers so it's not exactly the same, then we would be somewhere higher than Missouri at 18 probably right around where you see some of the other schools that have 20 plus commitments with at least one five star or seven plus four stars.
All this depended upon but other schools do. But I imagine we would be somewhere between 12 and 15.
True, but I think it's going to be a mess for a while till things shake out.
Take a school that signs a 5 star qb out of highschool. Is that equal to rattler? One can contribute faster, making him more valuable, but one will be there longer, making him more valuable.
In the end, like now, I think people will gravitate to whichever service ranks their team the highest, and argue the circumstances that fit that particular year.
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?
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.
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.
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.
The real issue seems to be that the rankings devalue transfers for various reasons, but mostly because they have fewer years to be productive at their new school. So, Rattler goes from 5 star recruit to 4 star transfer. That’s obviously pretty silly as he’s played like a 5 star talent and will almost certainly have a 5 star impact at South Carolina, even if it is only for one year.
With transfers being so much a part of the game now, the rankings should be less concerned with overall productivity over three or 4 years, and just focus on immediate productivity. And as such, transfers as known commodities.
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.
