Fun with #'s

Donate To GopherHole
Either there is a bias in ranking players in the south and guys that commit to southern (SEC) schools, or that area is just light years ahead of the rest of the country. I'd guess a mixture of both.

Of the 12 SEC schools, 10 finished in the top 25 recruiting classes this year.
 

A kid's offer list certainly should influence his Rivals ranking. Those Rivals (and Scout, etc) "experts" sure as heck aren't better evaluators than the coaches of the top programs in the country.
 

I think it is also difficult for the sites to evaluate the players because the same player may be recruited by two different schools to play two totally different positions. Example, L'Danian Washington was the receiver we were recruiting that went to Mizzou. Minnesota was recruiting him as a safety while Nebraska was recruiting him to play WR, very different skill sets needed for those two positions and how do the ranking sites rates these players accurately as they are only rating them I believe at the position they list them at.
 

You know, I think it's rather strange they have the RR system if they only use stars to develop class rankings. I mean I know RR ranges determine stars, but I would think that if you had two classes of 25, all three stars, but one had 15 5.7s and the other had 15 5.5s, that the first one would be better by the RR system, but they would be the same by star average. Weird. Still, I'm happy with this class, regardless of rankings.
 

GoAUpher said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would rather see the services adjust rankings as a reflection of which schools a player has confirmed offers from, and not who the kids signs with. If Minnesota, Michigan, Ohio State and Texas have all offered the same kid, then that says a lot about him no matter where he signs. In this example, his ranking should not be lower if he signs Minnesota, or higher if he signs with Texas.
 


MinnMarchDTF said:
You know, I think it's rather strange they have the RR system if they only use stars to develop class rankings. I mean I know RR ranges determine stars, but I would think that if you had two classes of 25, all three stars, but one had 15 5.7s and the other had 15 5.5s, that the first one would be better by the RR system, but they would be the same by star average. Weird. Still, I'm happy with this class, regardless of rankings.
Click to expand...


I've wondered that myself. They take the time to divide each star into low, medium and high, but don't use the refined rankings for the school's overall rank. It seems like they're missing an opportunity to be more accurate.
 

I look at these rankings the same way I do for HS baseball players. The kids from the South and West have a lot more experience in youth leagues from longer seasons and more organized community sports programs. That elevates those kids initially because of the greater exposure they've received.

Add FB players from Ohio and Pennsylvania to the kids from the South and West and it's the same in HS football. There are still a lot of great players who arguably have more growth potential in the North, but it's harder to get a read on them.

The Star System/RR Rating hierarchy is imperfect, but I think it does measure "interest" fairly well and scouts' interest probably says a lot. But there's no way any system is going to get every kid.
 

WanderingGopher said:
Either there is a bias in ranking players in the south and guys that commit to southern (SEC) schools, or that area is just light years ahead of the rest of the country. I'd guess a mixture of both.

Of the 12 SEC schools, 10 finished in the top 25 recruiting classes this year.
Click to expand...

After looking at rivals and scout data for the last two years :)(), I know exactly why this happens. Northern schools recruit in the South more than Southern schools recruit in the North.

Since these rankings have strictly become a measurement of high-profile interest in a player, and far away the #1 factor determing a recruits scools choice is proximity to home, the SEC should crush The Big Ten and Big East in recruiting rankings. In fact, considering how the data is compiled, it is very surprising the ranking come out as well as they do for any Northern Schools.

The reason rivals an scout rankings are crap .... they don't account for the fact that Northern schools have already figured in their higher failure rate in the South to their recruiting practices.

In other words, Michigan is likely to make four times as many offers to Southern athletes in order to find out which 1 among those four is serious about going to school far away from home. Meanwhile, Florida only offers two .. because they know kids like to stay home and are therefore more likely to accept. Meanwhile, the Southern athletes stock soars becuase he's getting a crapload of offers.

But the SEC doesn't end up dominating on the field quite like recruiting fans expect based on all that recruiting "data". New Years Day comes around and Wisconsin nearly beats Tennessee and Michigan wins over Florida.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom