Fun with #'s

[Schnoodler]

Because I'm getting tired of the radio guys emphasizing that we had the 6th ranked recruiting class in the B10 i thought I'd crunch a few #'s. i've often thought that the better way to analyze the teams to rank them was by using the RR value rather than the stars. And so I did.

I did it three ways, the first was simply to average the RR values and the second was to just use the top 20 values per team, the third using the top 10.

Why 20? It's a nice round number and the number of recruits we had. Plus it does give an indication to the level of depth that's being recruited. It also removes the penalty for a poorly ranked player. A couple of Rudy's (or diamond in the rough) doesn't hurt a team.

Why 10? Well 11 would have been more symbolic but 10 was easier math. I like this number because it demonstrates the level of play it will take to crack the starting lineup. If I had to choose the most predictive I'd probably create another category and average the 10 and 20 numbers.

Lastly I dropped off the whole number 5 in the 10 and 20 categories just to give greater emphasis to the difference. Because tenths and hundreths do matter, unless you want to argue that there is no difference between OSU's class and ours (Loon). I think there is. And it is demonstrated in the the tenths and hundreths.


Raw average

OSU 5.81
Mich 5.76
MSU 5.66
Minn 5.64
Ill 5.58
Wisc 5.56
PSU 5.54
NW 5.49
Ind 5.47
Iowa 5.43
Pur 5.42

Weighted (top 20)

OSU 86
Mich 81
MSU 71
Minn 64
PSU 63
ILL 58
Wisc 58
NW 49
Ind 47
Iowa 43
Purdue 42

Weighted top 10

OSU 95
Mich 89
MSU 86
PSU 80
ILL 79
Minn 75
Wisc 73
NW 64
Ind 57
Iowa 57
Pur 56

 

[50PoundHead]

Good analysis. Thanks for doing it and posting it.

 

[MilesTones]

Ditto. Nice job. Thanks for taking the time to do this and posting it.

 

[Tater]

Help me out here - what is the RR value?

 

[tree44]

Very nice. That's kind of where I felt we finished in a completely unscientific way of looking at things - not as many high-ranked guys as the 3 above us, but the overall depth and quality of the class should put us above the majority of the B10.

 

[MinnMarchDTF]

Here you go (taken from rivals.com):

Rivals.com Prospect Database
About Football Ratings

Rivals.com has assembled the top team of recruiting analysts in the nation with both national and regional experts based all throughout the country. With those strengths, players at a number of different positions will be ranked once a month from June until February.


The rankings are compiled after countless hours of film evaluation, personal observations and input from professional, college and high school coaches.


In the finished product, players are ranked a number of different ways but the most important ways are numerically by position, qualitatively by stars and a new ranking system that grades players on the expected impact they will make in college.


Players are ranked numerically on a national level at their positions. The numerical ranking at each position varies depending on the depth of the talent at the position.


Players are also ranked on their quality with a star ranking. A five-star prospect is considered to be one of the nation's top 25-30 players, four star is a top 250-300 or so player, three-stars is a top 750 level player, two stars means the player is a mid-major prospect and one star means the player is not ranked.


The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.


* 6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect

* 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

* 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team

* 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player

* 4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

 

[Tater]

ty. Nice post. Nice job putting this information together.

 

[MinnesotaBoiler99]

Purdue's Ranking

Because I'm getting tired of the radio guys emphasizing that we had the 6th ranked recruiting class in the B10 i thought I'd crunch a few #'s. i've often thought that the better way to analyze the teams to rank them was by using the RR value rather than the stars. And so I did.

I did it three ways, the first was simply to average the RR values and the second was to just use the top 20 values per team, the third using the top 10.

Why 20? It's a nice round number and the number of recruits we had. Plus it does give an indication to the level of depth that's being recruited. It also removes the penalty for a poorly ranked player. A couple of Rudy's (or diamond in the rough) doesn't hurt a team.

Why 10? Well 11 would have been more symbolic but 10 was easier math. I like this number because it demonstrates the level of play it will take to crack the starting lineup. If I had to choose the most predictive I'd probably create another category and average the 10 and 20 numbers.

Lastly I dropped off the whole number 5 in the 10 and 20 categories just to give greater emphasis to the difference. Because tenths and hundreths do matter, unless you want to argue that there is no difference between OSU's class and ours (Loon). I think there is. And it is demonstrated in the the tenths and hundreths.


Raw average

OSU 5.81
Mich 5.76
MSU 5.66
Minn 5.64
Ill 5.58
Wisc 5.56
PSU 5.54
NW 5.49
Ind 5.47
Iowa 5.43
Pur 5.42

Weighted (top 20)

OSU 86
Mich 81
MSU 71
Minn 64
PSU 63
ILL 58
Wisc 58
NW 49
Ind 47
Iowa 43
Purdue 42

Weighted top 10

OSU 95
Mich 89
MSU 86
PSU 80
ILL 79
Minn 75
Wisc 73
NW 64
Ind 57
Iowa 57
Pur 56

While I'm not surpised to see Purdue at the bottom, there is one little caveat to keep in mind. The Boilers signed 14 players from Florida, 2 from Georgia, and one each from Texas, Kentucky, New York, and New Jersey - for a total of 20. Not one single recruit from Indiana or even the Midwest. That's amazing if you ask me. They were in on some highly ranked prospects up until the very last minute, but those guys decided to go elsewhere - 4* DE Michael Buchanan to Illinois, 3* LB Jordan Barnes to Oklahmoma St., and 3* WR Sterling Griffin to South Florida.

This begs the age old question. Would you rather have a 3* from Florida or a 4* from the Midwest? I think we can all agree that the level of competition in the south is far better. A 3* from Florida is usually much more seasoned and likely a better player than a 3* from Minnesota, Indiana, or Wisconsin. The next question is whether (pun intended) the Florida kids can handle below zero temps in January or better yet, possibly playing in snow in November.

Personally, I'm not too disappointed in Danny Hope's 1st class despite its low ranking. If you recall, Joe Tiller's 1st class was also ranked dead last in the Big Ten and they went to the Rose Bowl as Seniors and the QB was some guy name Drew Brees. The recruiting guru that season as well you ask? Mr. Danny Hope.

 

[tree44]

I think the star system should be equal across the country based upon how these guys rate each player - I have to believe they factor in the competition level when coming up with an overall rating to begin with. When you say a 3* from FLA is better than a 4* from the midwest, I don't think that's accurate. Obviously, the south has more overall talent, but I think there are plenty of players from the midwest that can compete at the same level. It also depends on which positions you're recruiting - the speed is overwhelmingly in the south, but if you're looking for 300lb big fellas you shouldn't have a problem with a 3* or 4* midwest kid.

Maybe another project for someone: what is the dispersal of 4* kids by area? I'm sure the south would come out ahead by a large margin, but it doesn't mean that recruiting mostly in the midwest and getting the best talent out of that region is worse than taking the 2nd tier talent in the south.

As for PUR's class, like all of them it's a wait and see approach, but if this works and their speed is drastically upgraded I'm sure you'll see many more teams follow suit.

 

[GoAUpher]

This post has been up for almost 2 hours and 74's hasn't come by to scoff at Schnoodler's voodoo and witchcraft?

 

[WAGopher]

This post has been up for almost 2 hours and 74's hasn't come by to scoff at Schnoodler's voodoo and witchcraft?

74's might be the first, and only poster, to get banned for arguing about math. That would be looney.

 

[Gophers09]

Interesting to note - I believe your weighted top 10 produces the exact same order as rivals team rankings.

 

[Goldy74s]

I was going to pass on this exciting "how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?" discussion without making fun of either the thesis or the methodology. But, if you insist, I will point out the obvious: it does not matter how many angels fit on the head of a pin unless you think it matters.

Certainly, good men and women have been burned at the stake over less.

 

[Schnoodler]

What's really missing from Rivals rankings is some sort of a floating four year ranking. Just to see how strong a team ought to be versus how they're performing. I've done this with a weighting mechanism to shift weight to the more senior classes.

Here's how the year we just finished looks along with actual finishing place.

Mich 81.5-----10th,....-9
OSU 81--------1st,....+1
PSU 72.5------1st,.....+2
Iowa 64--------4th,....even
Illinois 61-------6th,.....even
Wisc 61--------6th,.....even
MSU 54-------3rd,......+4
Minn 51.5-----6th,.....+1
Purd 50.5-----9th,.....even
NW 42.5------4th,....+6
Ind 33-------11th,....even

Northwestern exceeded expectations, and Michigan did considerably worse. Michigan State probably did over perform but they have an anomoly in their data. They had a couple years of many kids without RR values including four star kids. Juco's?

Here's how the weighted four year data looks going into next year.

OSU 86
Mich 83
PSU 75.5
Illi 69
Wisc 62
MSU 60
Minn 58
Iowa 58
Pur 50.5
NW 44
Ind 39

What this does for me is highlight the recruiting curve. We've been neck and neck with Illinois the last two years and yet they still bring a significant edge into this year over us. In two years we'll look like them or better.

 

[grunkiejr]

This begs the age old question. Would you rather have a 3* from Florida or a 4* from the Midwest? I think we can all agree that the level of competition in the south is far better. A 3* from Florida is usually much more seasoned and likely a better player than a 3* from Minnesota, Indiana, or Wisconsin.

MinnesotaBoiler, I'll agree with your assertion that a Florida player is more seasoned (or polished) and given that a Florida 3-star is probably more ready to make an impact as a freshman than a Minnesota 3-star.

However, outside of that I think your conclusion is the opposite of reality. The star rankings are generally consistent from state to state except that their is a slight bias given to overrating states like Florida and Texas and underrating states like Minnesota. I'm not going to be able to find the post any longer but a guy from Michigan actually tracked the stars given by Rivals since 2002 and compared it to players that made it to the NFL. The midwest as a whole was the most underrated region and Minnesota in particular was actually one of the 3 most underrated states in the country.

Your guess for the reason is as good as mine but I will give some observations and my own conclusions:
1) Players from Southern states tend to be more polished (you said seasoned) which helps them receive higher ratings. The reasons A) better coaching (full time coaches) B) more playing opportunities (TX has 7 on 7 as a spring sport whereas Minn football players either do track, baseball or nothing in the spring not to mention the weather allows more time to play) C) Better competition makes them work harder.

2) This observation comes directly from a college coach that is a friend of mine: The HS coaches in the South work full time and there is a greater expectation that they will help their athletes make it to the next level. It is much easier to get film from them, the quality of the film is better, they are much more accessible for recruiters (and recruiting services) because they don't teach during the day, etc. This results in higher rankings for Southern players.

3) The athletes from MN that receive a 4-star rating are generally superior athletes than a 3-star from FL and probably even a 4-star from FL because they received the 4-star rating despite inferior coaching and less playing time. When the northern players receive college coaching and have a heightened focus on football the northern players blossom. The same is true for 3-star players from Minnesota which is why a 3-star LB like Lauranitis blossoms in to a 2-time All American with college coaching/weight training. I would rather have a 3-star from Minnesota than a 3-star than Florida. I would rather have a 4-star from anywhere than a 3-star from anywhere.

Supporting evidence--Fact: every Minnesota player that has participated in the UA or Army AA games in the last two years received a bump in their position ranking (and a bump to 5 star from 4 for Floyd) after the week of practice & game. When ratings services see the Minnesota athletes compete against players from other regions they bump them up which indicates there was systematic under rating going on before the All Star game. Just my guess but the players that didn't receive the benefit of playing in an All Star game were also systematically under rated. This seems to be supported by the analysis of the Michigan fan that shows Minnesota puts out a larger number of NFL players than their Rivals ratings suggests should happen.

Outside of that, I don't have much opinion on Purdue's class but you really came on strong at the end and improved what looked like a weak class in November. I'm personally happy to see Purdue pick up the players in FL, GA, etc. To me the programs like Ohio State, Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and Purdue that have increased national recruiting within the last 5 years are helping to make the whole Big Ten better. Instead of fighting over the Michigan & Ohio recruits these programs are bringing in players that would have gone to the Big 12 & SEC. This strenghtens the conference while hurting the other conferences and all of a sudden schools like MSU are coming away with their best class in 50 years with 90% of their recruits coming from the region (Michigan indirectly helped MSU become better while landing a top 10 class itself).

Sorry, I can't believe I wrote that much but I think it is a good discussion.

 

[GopherGod]

Our talent level is increasing but do people feel like we are gaining ground on the top teams of the big ten or are they increasing their level of talent at the same or greater rate as we are? I would hope that we set our sights and expectations beyond simply beating Wisconsin. I also feel like Michigan State is a team with tons of potential to join that upper echelon of the Big Ten.

 

[MilesTones]

Our talent level is increasing but do people feel like we are gaining ground on the top teams of the big ten or are they increasing their level of talent at the same or greater rate as we are? I would hope that we set our sights and expectations beyond simply beating Wisconsin. I also feel like Michigan State is a team with tons of potential to join that upper echelon of the Big Ten.

Excellent question. Personally, I think several teams in the conference (notably Michigan State and Illinois) are increasing their talent level, but I don't think anyone is making better strides than the Gophers. We've gone from near the bottom-of-the-pack in talent to upper-middle the past couple years. Now we need to take that next step and bring home a Top-15 class if we're really going to contend with OSU/Michigan.

 

[GopherGod]

Excellent question. Personally, I think several teams in the conference (notably Michigan State and Illinois) are increasing their talent level, but I don't think anyone is making better strides than the Gophers. We've gone from near the bottom-of-the-pack in talent to upper-middle the past couple years. Now we need to take that next step and bring home a Top-15 class if we're really going to contend with OSU/Michigan.

I am not to worried about Illinois contending for a big ten title often. I think Zook is a great recruiter but a average coach at best. I think Urban Meyer showed what could be done at Florida when you combine recruiting with coaching. Mark Dantonio I think is an excellent coach who atleast this year is showing he can recruit, which makes him a real threat.

 

[MinnMarchDTF]

I think analyzing recruiting is somewhat like predicting weather. There are a LOT of factors (many that people don't even realize) and while you can make a prediction based on some information, it really in the end is a crap shoot.

It's nice to know that the midwest has a good foothold in the NFL (probably because at least 1/3 of the NFL cities play in places that are really cold come November and December)

 

[MilesTones]

I think analyzing recruiting is somewhat like predicting weather. There are a LOT of factors (many that people don't even realize) and while you can make a prediction based on some information, it really in the end is a crap shoot.

Yeah, but in some respects the 'crap shoot' is what makes analyzing recruiting rather fun!

 

[grunkiejr]

Our talent level is increasing but do people feel like we are gaining ground on the top teams of the big ten or are they increasing their level of talent at the same or greater rate as we are? I would hope that we set our sights and expectations beyond simply beating Wisconsin. I also feel like Michigan State is a team with tons of potential to join that upper echelon of the Big Ten.

If we look at just this year I would definitely take OSU, Michigan's, MSU's & PSU's classes over ours. Illinois class isn't very much different than our class. Their top players are better than our top players but the middle and bottom of our class is much better. Right now I think our class is better for us than Illinois class would be for us because we need a stronger two deep to build on last year's class rather than needing guys to step in immediately and play.

So anyway, on a one year basis there are four (to five) teams that did a better job recruiting. However, if you look at what OSU, Michigan and PSU did recruiting in 2005 (the class that just graduated) the difference between our class and there class was much bigger which means we are closing the talent gap from where it had been.

If you look at it on a two-year basis, OSU & Michigan are clearly the top two and then it gets a little hazy for the teams in the middle. I would probably rank us in about a tie for 3rd in the conference 1) OSU 2) Michigan 3) Minnesota/Illinois 5) PSU 6) MSU 7) Wisconsin (this is just my estimate).

My guess is that if we continue to recruit like this we will be fighting with a few other teams for finishing 3rd in the conference on an annual basis within 3 years. In a good year we catch a few breaks and somebody blows up and we could make a Rose Bowl run (Brees w/ Purdue, Dayne w/ Wisconsin, Banks w/ Iowa).

 

[grunkiejr]

I am not to worried about Illinois contending for a big ten title often. I think Zook is a great recruiter but a average coach at best. I think Urban Meyer showed what could be done at Florida when you combine recruiting with coaching. Mark Dantonio I think is an excellent coach who atleast this year is showing he can recruit, which makes him a real threat.

100% agree with you. I think by RR focusing more nationally than regionally in recruiting he is indirectly allowing Dantonio to turn MSU in to a power. It's very interesting to me that they had such a great class and yet hardly left Big Ten country to do it. I don't believe MSU can sustain beating out Michigan or OSU for recruits but if Michigan goes elsewhere it makes Dantonio's job easier.

However, I want to see MSU sustain this for more than one year. They won a lot of close games against the middle of the Big Ten this year and then got blown out by PSU & OSU. With a few different bounces they could have lost to Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin and all of a sudden the perception about the team is different.

I do really like the attitude that Dantonio has brought to the program though. He's not afraid to mix it up and the team is clearly much more hard nosed than they were in the past. I have great respect for what he has done there.

 

[GoAUpher]

Our talent level is increasing but do people feel like we are gaining ground on the top teams of the big ten or are they increasing their level of talent at the same or greater rate as we are? I would hope that we set our sights and expectations beyond simply beating Wisconsin. I also feel like Michigan State is a team with tons of potential to join that upper echelon of the Big Ten.

I'd say overall we are improving and gaining ground. That is due to the simple math that the players we're bringing on are better athletes all around that previous classes. I think OSU/Mich have continued to do what they've always done and bring in Top 10 level classes. They really are at the ceiling so to speak so I think we've made some small gains on them by virtue of the fact that they can't go much higher. I think the wildcards have been UI and MSU. Both have started to recruit (Zook for a while now) better than they had traditionally. I agree with GG that I think MSU has the better chance for lasting success b/c I hold a similar view of the Zooker.

If we're talking recruiting against our B10 foes I think the best we can shoot for is to beat out OSU/Mich once in a blue moon. I think finishing 3-5 in the B10 is more realistic, especially if MSU/UI/PSU keep recruiting strongly. What I'm looking for is the overall quality of the class. If we finish 5th but have a class that is very comparable to the #3 team, then I think we're doing ok. I don't think that should be our goal (#1 is always the goal with everything) but I think if Brewster were to bring in a Top 30-Top 15 class most years with occasional forays into the Top 15 and above we'll have the athletes we need to compete at a high level (assuming they get the coaching they need).

 

[GopherGod]

100% agree with you. I think by RR focusing more nationally than regionally in recruiting he is indirectly allowing Dantonio to turn MSU in to a power. It's very interesting to me that they had such a great class and yet hardly left Big Ten country to do it. I don't believe MSU can sustain beating out Michigan or OSU for recruits but if Michigan goes elsewhere it makes Dantonio's job easier.

However, I want to see MSU sustain this for more than one year. They won a lot of close games against the middle of the Big Ten this year and then got blown out by PSU & OSU. With a few different bounces they could have lost to Iowa, Illinois and Wisconsin and all of a sudden the perception about the team is different.

I do really like the attitude that Dantonio has brought to the program though. He's not afraid to mix it up and the team is clearly much more hard nosed than they were in the past. I have great respect for what he has done there.

Good points, I would suspect that Dantonio will be able to sustain the recruiting especially in that area as he has so many ties there with being at Michigan State, U of Cincinnati, and Ohio State. Rodriguez has no ties there but does have significant ties in Florida and the South from his days West Virginia so truly has no need to work to try and expand his base in Michigan. I agree with your assessments of Dantonio's approach, I have a ton of respect for him as well. I wonder how long before Dantonio asks for a new stadium, they need one.

 

[Goldmember]

Because I'm getting tired of the radio guys emphasizing that we had the 6th ranked recruiting class in the B10 i thought I'd crunch a few #'s. i've often thought that the better way to analyze the teams to rank them was by using the RR value rather than the stars. And so I did.

This is an excellent example of how how ridiculous the practice of fans following recruiting has become. I'm not slamming you or your post -- I think you just did this for fun. But it is entertaining to see people use Scout's and Rivals's highly questionalble, compromised data in the types of analysis that are used in science and statisctics. Scout's and Rival's data just doesn't stand-up to this type of analysis. The quality of the data is just lacking.

For instance, one thing both sites frequently do is change a player's ranking after more schools have shown an interest in him. How does that work? Using their logic, a guy actually becomes a better football player when Florida and Oklahoma show interest in him. If Florida and Oklahoma fail to notice him, or decide to not to go after him because they already have the need met on their roster ... he stays a mediocre prospect.

This is just one of dozens of examples. The point is ... recruiting "data" is not adequate for any sort of real comparative analysis. Basically, it's all just for fun.

 

[GophersInIowa]

I'd say overall we are improving and gaining ground. That is due to the simple math that the players we're bringing on are better athletes all around that previous classes. I think OSU/Mich have continued to do what they've always done and bring in Top 10 level classes. They really are at the ceiling so to speak so I think we've made some small gains on them by virtue of the fact that they can't go much higher. I think the wildcards have been UI and MSU. Both have started to recruit (Zook for a while now) better than they had traditionally. I agree with GG that I think MSU has the better chance for lasting success b/c I hold a similar view of the Zooker.

If we're talking recruiting against our B10 foes I think the best we can shoot for is to beat out OSU/Mich once in a blue moon. I think finishing 3-5 in the B10 is more realistic, especially if MSU/UI/PSU keep recruiting strongly. What I'm looking for is the overall quality of the class. If we finish 5th but have a class that is very comparable to the #3 team, then I think we're doing ok. I don't think that should be our goal (#1 is always the goal with everything) but I think if Brewster were to bring in a Top 30-Top 15 class most years with occasional forays into the Top 15 and above we'll have the athletes we need to compete at a high level (assuming they get the coaching they need).

I think too many people (including myself) sometimes look too much into where we are ranked for recruiting. We are ranked 6th in the Big Ten right now but the gap between #4 through #7 is not that much. I don't think we will ever be able to recruit on the level of Ohio St. and Michigan, at least not consistantly. But if we're finishing just behind them in the #3-#6 range, I think that is still pretty good.

A also think it is important to get good players across the board like we did this year. Brewster has shown the past two years that we can get a class full of very good recruits with a few studs thrown in there like Gray last year and Carter, Hayo this year.

Certainly, coaching and developing the players is just as important, but getting better players here is a good start.

 

[Goldy74s]

No, it is just an evolving science. After I design my new pay per view site devoted to ranking the players who have left programs (certainly more accurate than ranking high school players) I will be to unveil my "Net Star Index" (copyright pending) through which fans will be able to accurately predict future game scores. For example, you would add the net 3.2769 stars x 21 players the Gophers added this year to the minus 1.0858 stars x 17 leaving and you see that we have gained 2.191 stars this year per player added which would rank in the top two in the Big Ten this season. When netted out with the players remaining we would have a net, average per player of 0.5872 stars per player. In turn, using the existing Shnoodler Index of stars per point, one could accurately predict that our team will, for example, gain 7.2 points against Iowa. "Yes, I know, we still lose the game AT Iowa, but it will be a lot closer."

 

[Schnoodler]

It is cool to see how teams do compared to the rankings. Penn State for expample recruits very differently than the other teams. Their overall scores typically would put them in a tier just below the Ohio States and Michigans of the world but yet they consistently perform at the same level as them. What are they doing differently?

What prompted Northwestern to out perform there low ranking.

And how could Michigan suck so much even with the big change. We're talking about the best college athletes in the country.

But mostly, counter to alot of claims, rankings when taken in groups of four years rather than one is very predictive. It does matter. Is it the final word, of course not. But teams typically don't stray more than one or two spots off where they should based on a four year analysis of rankings.

And I would argue that although it seems goofy that a kids ranking improves when a big school show interest that's a pretty big piece of data that goes into the analysis. If a top school thinks a kid is worthy of a schollie, and they're the experts maybe the kid is better than they thought. So i don't think that phenomena discounts the ranking process.

 

[GoAUpher]

And I would argue that although it seems goofy that a kids ranking improves when a big school show interest that's a pretty big piece of data that goes into the analysis. If a top school thinks a kid is worthy of a schollie, and they're the experts maybe the kid is better than they thought. So i don't think that phenomena discounts the ranking process.

I hate when this happens but I think the bigger issue (and the one most likely to affect teams like MN) is how players get downgraded after they verbal with a non-prestige program like us. If UF, OSU, etc doesn’t pursue them as hard post-verbal then suddenly the player isn’t as good. The whole prestige factor is my biggest complaint about how the rankings work.

 

[WanderingGopher]

I'd rather get to the point someday where we're not having to come up with alternative theories to bolster our perception of our ranking.
That said, I agree that the average RR of the top 20 is a decent measure, although Rivals' team formula also gives "bonuses" for super-elite players, which I think is rational. I'd rather have ten 5*s and ten 3*s, than twenty 4*s.

One final, oft-overlooked point is that our only two Rivals 2*s were (1) a punter (a position almost automatically ranked 2* or lower, and not included in most teams' LOI classes), and (2) a guy from rural MN who was hurt almost his entire Sr year (thus almost impossible to accurately rank).

So I bet if you took the avg RR of the top 18, we'd pass MSU and have the 3rd best class.