ranking are a farce
- Thread starter herbyhawk
- Start date
BSpringsteen
Well-Known Member
Of course they do.
It is about averages. If a team has 20 commits and they are all 5 stars, doesn't it stand to reason that a team with 20 commits and 10 5 stars and 10 4 stars would be ranked lower?
It is about averages. If a team has 20 commits and they are all 5 stars, doesn't it stand to reason that a team with 20 commits and 10 5 stars and 10 4 stars would be ranked lower?
atxhawk
Well-Known Member
Scout and Rivals both do it off of some sort of points system they've devised and not off of the average stars recruits get. So a team with a higher total number of recruits can rank higher than a team with fewer, but higher rated recruits.
Scout has Texas ranked #1 with 23 total commits, 5808 points, 7 top 100, 5 five star, and 11 four star recruits with total average of 3.87. FSU is 9th with only 15 commits, 3843 points, 6 top 100, 4 five star, and 8 four star recruits for a class average of 4.07.
Over on Rivals, Texas is again ranked #1 with 25 total commits, 2368 points, 2 five star, 13 four star, and a 3.64 average. FSU is ranked 4th with 16 commits, 1831 points, 2 five star, 9 four star, and a 3.75 average.
So I'm guessing that other schools have been signing more people also. Interesting that the two sites have different numbers for the total amount of recruits for the two comparison schools.
Scout has Texas ranked #1 with 23 total commits, 5808 points, 7 top 100, 5 five star, and 11 four star recruits with total average of 3.87. FSU is 9th with only 15 commits, 3843 points, 6 top 100, 4 five star, and 8 four star recruits for a class average of 4.07.
Over on Rivals, Texas is again ranked #1 with 25 total commits, 2368 points, 2 five star, 13 four star, and a 3.64 average. FSU is ranked 4th with 16 commits, 1831 points, 2 five star, 9 four star, and a 3.75 average.
So I'm guessing that other schools have been signing more people also. Interesting that the two sites have different numbers for the total amount of recruits for the two comparison schools.
imported_ankle23
Well-Known Member
nothing like being able to sign 5 recruiting classes in a 4 year timeframe.......
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
What this doesn't explain is how a team like Virginia, with a 2.92 average star rating, is ranked #17 in the country. They also have Purdue at #3 in the Big Ten with zero players at four stars or higher:
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 Virginia Commitments
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 Purdue Commitments
What these schools have over Iowa's class is quantity, not quality. Seems like a silly way to judge recruiting especially when one conference always oversigns.
PatrickAdamovicz
Well-Known Member
I go with the ESPN rankings. I think they are more accurate.
archiehawk
Well-Known Member
Regardless of how rankings are done Iowa being near 50th in recruiting is unexcusable.
DeputyHawk
Well-Known Member
This. Our recruiting is a joke.
olivecourt
Well-Known Member
Would you be happier if we had the #17 recruiting class? Because I'm looking at it and I can't figure out why it's better than Iowa's at all, let alone 30+ spots better:
Yahoo Sports: Rivals.com 2012 Virginia Commitments
Because they have 25 commitments with 4 4* players and we have 14 with 3. Whatever formula Rivals is using obviously has some sort of total function in it.
As to the OP, it's probably not that the commit moved Iowa down, it's that they got jumped by other schools. Remember, the rankings are all relative. As Iowa was signing players other schools are too.
Winterhawk
Well-Known Member
If you can accurately explain the ranking philosophy of Rivals, and then look at the situation and still make this statement, I'll listen. But right now this is just bitterness.
The primary difference between the classes are that Virginia has 25 commitments and Iowa has 14. The systems are setup to sum the points associated with each recruit. You get points for every single recruit, and you further get points for relative ranking at each position in addition to their star ranking. (This does have some specific impact because of Eli Harold in the Virginia class) Essentially the only argument you could make here is that our recruiting is a joke because we don't have as many verbal commitments at this point in the year as a Virginia or Purdue. Come back and visit in the second week of February and we will be able to have a conversation with some intelligence - until then the way you have structured your judgment is ridiculous.
You're obviously not paying attention. The argument being put forth is that the rankings aren't a good representation of how good the class is. I'm not one of those guys that buys into the number of stars next to a name as the end-all-be-all, but for those that are.
Iowa has 3-4* and 9-3* guys and 15 commits overall with an overall rank below 50.
BYU has 2-4* and 9-3* with 15 commits and a rank of 49.
Missouri has 0-4 star and 14-3* and 14 commits with a rank of 48.
Ole Miss has 2-4* and 8-3* and 10 commits and is 47.
See where I am going? Quantity weighs higher on their rankings than quality as evidenced by teams like Cincinnati with 1-4* and 22-3* and 28 commits overall. Keep in mind that a lot of the top guys haven't committed yet and rankings will change a lot between now and signing day.
