And his had nothing to do with mine… he posted aggregate rating I posted recruiting rating from 247. Are you trying to be the forum police?
Updated recruiting rankings: Gamecocks in CFP contention!
- Thread starter GarnetBeamer
- Start date
If you look at average rating, Clemson sits at 3.75, we are 3.23. Coastal is 2.23. Clemson's average rating puts them at 6th. We are at 33. Coastal is down there at 83.
By any measure I'd say we're much more similar to Clemson than Coastal.
Clemson had a 2 star kicker weighing down their average. Take him out and it’s a 4.0 versus 3.2. A world of difference. Much bigger than 3.2 versus 2.2.
lol, well, sure, if you start tinkering with the class to remove recruits you can engineer an artificial rating. Nevertheless, 3.2 is more similar to 4.0 than it is to 2.23. Much more.
Coastal has zero 4* recruits. We have 3. Coastal has five unrated 0* recruits. We have none like that.
Yep, much more similar to Clemson (as good? obviously not. but you're leaning on the vague "similar" argument).
Last edited:
It isn’t an artificial ranking.
Only a fool would want to include kickers who aren’t distributed on the same bell curve as other positions. There is only one position ranked kicker on rivals and he’s a 3 star.
You know this.
Class rating is class rating.
But, I'm granting you that anyway, because you really need it 4.0-3.2 = 0.8. 3.2-2.23 = 0.97, yep, math don't lie. 3.2 is more similar to 4.0 than it is to 2.23.
You’re assume that rating are proportionally linear. That’s faulty logic.
The difference between a 5 star and 4 star is greater than a 3 star and 2 star.
You are wasting your time with this guy, time to cut and run.
Sounds like our newest secret commit will be our first consensus four star commit.
We are not gonna be able to change the average star rating of our class very much at this point, being as we have a hefty # of 3* players already committed. However, if we can add a couple more 4*, this will be a very solid class. Coming off last year's class and the debacle of the previous 2 seasons, a class with five 4* recruits would be a huge win in Beamer's first shot.
From here which is the composite rankings (https://247sports.com/Season/2022-Football/CompositeTeamRankings/?Conference=SEC)
we have average recruit score of: 87.61
who has lower:
vandy: 85.2
Ark: 87.06
Miss state: 86.82
Tenn: 87.25
Auburn: 86.93
that’s five teams, I said earlier three so we are trending up
we have average recruit score of: 87.61
who has lower:
vandy: 85.2
Ark: 87.06
Miss state: 86.82
Tenn: 87.25
Auburn: 86.93
that’s five teams, I said earlier three so we are trending up
Muschamp's last class (yes, he was the architect of the 2021 class), was the lowest rated P5 class, or close to it. It was going to be a crap class whether he was retained or not.
Muschamp never had to recruit on the heels of consecutive 4-8 and 2-8 seasons.
Nobody ever really questioned Muschamp's recruiting that much. But, Beamer is still largely unknown to everyone. If he could get four or five 4* recruits to sign on in his first class as a rookie head coach taking over a team that has gone 6-16 in the previous 2 season (looking worse than our record would indicate), that would be a tremendous start.
There's really no way to put much of a negative spin on this class. Short of bringing in an established coaching legend as HC, recruiting was going to be a tremendous uphill battle in this class. So far, Beamer has given a pretty clear answer to the question "Can he recruit?" The answer "Yes." If he can a handful of 4* to commit to a 6-16 team, it signals that he'll be able to do even better if he's able to improve the product on the field.
He still has to prove it of course, but anyone who is still worried about his recruiting isn't someone whose opinion needs to be taken seriously.
lol at blaming Muschamp for Beamer’s first class. That’s the epitome of not arguing in good faith.
Muschamp’s first class came off a loss to the Citadel and 3-9.
Only a disingenuous asshole would claim that was Beamers class.
What was the class ranking before muschamp was hired? I am guessing better than 50
Muschamp was hired on December 6, 2015. There was no early signing period then, so he still had roughly 2 months to recruit.
Beamer was also hired on December 6, 2020. The early signing period was 10 days later.
As usual, you're wrong. Thanks for not disappointing.
Look man. There is obviously a reason why Beamer’s first class was awful. I’m not blaming him for it.
You’re the one blaming a previous coach for it being so bad. You’re the one wrong and arguing like a child.
I don't think that is true. Not that it will make us any better on the field, but the way they rank is a stupid mathematical calculation that really shouldn't be taken seriously at all. They only rank the top 20 recruits, but each team is allowed to sign up to 25 players. We are at 15 commits so far which means we could sign 10 more (assuming all these commits sign as well). If those 10 guys are higher rated by these services than the lowest 10 we have now, it could move us up a good bit depending on how much better they are. Not saying this will be the case but it is very possible the ranking could be higher. Of course the opposite is true as well. It could be a lot lower if we don't get any highly rated prospects to round out our 20 and other teams do. The only reason we are ranked as high as we are is due to the # of commitments we have vs other teams, not necessarily the quality of the commitments.
I'm just saying with our current rating of 3.2, even if we signed 3 more 4* recruits, we'd only bump up to 3.33. That would move us up from 34th to 26th (based on average rating). The overall quality of the class is still very good, no doubt about that.
I’m sure if you spent some time you could find and article that showed the class ranking when spurrier quit and when Muschamp was fired.
Would be interesting to see.
But you're not considering if we sign several more 3* that are ranked higher than the current 3*. We've only got a little more than half of the 25 we are allowed to have. Remember it's not the avg as of now, it's the avg of the top 20 you sign. It really doesn't matter anyway as this is all bogus to begin with. We'll see how they fare when they get on the field. Our supposed 5*s got pushed around on the DL last year, so you really can't put much faith in this stuff.
And let’s see what role coaching plays. If we see improvement from those same players that were pushed around…
Development will be the key. We will see how much they improved from last year. It better be by a bunch if we expect to win. However that will be up to each individual. Coaching won't play nearly as big a role as some are making it out to be. It will be up to each player to work hard to improve. The coaches can encourage them but they can't lift the weights for them or run the agility drills for them in the off season.
Based on current committed recruits and the top schools with high average star ratings better than Carolina, we will probably finish around 18 to 20 which wuld be great with a late start and our last years record.
