DC Candidates?

[kchusker_chris]

sbnation? next up bleach report?

[Blackshirt96]

sbnation? next up bleach report?

Funny thing is your backup is a message board. Good job though.

[zoogs]

Rivals does not release thier formula, but many analyst have said it is flawed due to counting all of the recruits.

 

Read the third shaded analysts review.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/12/19/2647343/nebraska-football-recruiting-tracking-huskers-signing-day-2012

 

There is no flawless way of quantifying the un-quantifiable.

 

The rankings favor larger classes, but there is a solid reason to, as well. Larger classes yield more fruit.

[kchusker_chris]

sbnation? next up bleach report?

Funny thing is your backup is a message board. Good job though.

Funny how the calculation, when applied to any team matches the numbers Rivals has. It's not wrong - it's all over the place on the internet. People have excel spreadsheets set up as well. The FACT is that for the main criteria - like points given to players...Rivals uses the top 20. For the average stars, Rivals does use all players like you say. However, you claim the only reason that class was ranked highly was because the number...when in fact those lower level players brought down the ranking. That's all I'm saying...

 

Otherwise, how do you explain Texas in 2011...with 22 commits being ranked ABOVE USC with 30 committs. UCS had 7 more 3* recruits, and only 1 less 4* recruit. Why the difference. Because they only count the points for 5 of those 13 3* recruits...and the rest just drug their average down.

[kchusker_chris]

Rivals does not release thier formula, but many analyst have said it is flawed due to counting all of the recruits.

 

Read the third shaded analysts review.

http://www.sbnation....igning-day-2012

 

There is no flawless way of quantifying the un-quantifiable.

 

The rankings favor larger classes, but there is a solid reason to, as well. Larger classes yield more fruit.

Only up to 20, or if your recruits above 20 knock some of your lower ranked players out of the top 20. A class with 20 will be favored over a class with 12. Or, if your 21st player is a 4* recruit, and you have a 2* committed...you'll jump. If your 21st player is a 2*...you'll gain nothing or fall if your average star ranking drops and you lose points.

 

EDIT: However, if you have 20 4* recruits, and you add a 21st...you should remain the same (which is probably ranked #1 regardless). because you won't gain any points from the additional 4* and you're average won't change

[Blackshirt96]

Rivals does not release thier formula, but many analyst have said it is flawed due to counting all of the recruits.

 

Read the third shaded analysts review.

http://www.sbnation....igning-day-2012

 

There is no flawless way of quantifying the un-quantifiable.

 

The rankings favor larger classes, but there is a solid reason to, as well. Larger classes yield more fruit.

I completely agree. Larger classes give more opportunity. The problem is that we had to take a smaller class & it has hurt us in the rankings, but we still have the opportunity to have a quality recruiting class.

[zoogs]

Oh yeah, definitely. I think it can be a criticism towards roster management as to why we currently are in a position to have to take a smaller class (this is the second time in three years, isn't it? how often have we heard the 'we'll need to be real selective this year' lately?). Makes it tough on depth when some guys do not pan out.

 

kc, thanks for the added info on that one. I had forgotten about the line drawn at 20.

[Blackshirt96]

sbnation? next up bleach report?

Funny thing is your backup is a message board. Good job though.

Funny how the calculation, when applied to any team matches the numbers Rivals has. It's not wrong - it's all over the place on the internet. People have excel spreadsheets set up as well. The FACT is that for the main criteria - like points given to players...Rivals uses the top 20. For the average stars, Rivals does use all players like you say. However, you claim the only reason that class was ranked highly was because the number...when in fact those lower level players brought down the ranking. That's all I'm saying...

 

Otherwise, how do you explain Texas in 2011...with 22 commits being ranked ABOVE USC with 30 committs. UCS had 7 more 3* recruits, and only 1 less 4* recruit. Why the difference. Because they only count the points for 5 of those 13 3* recruits...and the rest just drug their average down.

[kchusker_chris]

?

[Blackshirt96]

reread your logic. I have faith you will figure it out.

[kchusker_chris]

the fact that the main criteria (points give to players) is based on the top 20? the only time all players are used, is in average star ranking...which since a large class has a lot more lower ranked players (see this years class versus the 2005 class you said is only ranked highly because of that number) then that average brings you down. so more players = lower ranking.

 

i can't figure out your logic. you say that class was ranked high because of the number...yet it would have been ranked higher had Callahan just signed the top 20 of that class. What's so hard for you to understand?

[redblooded]

reread your logic. I have faith you will figure it out.

 

You're arguing wording when the math is right there for you to actually go prove wrong (and people are trying to explain it to you), saying the messageboard post with the actual math and logic behind how they do the calculations is less credible then some random "expert" quoted on an sbnation blog (again with the math right there for you to prove wrong). Simply not believing math and posting links where other people speculate without any sort of proof other then being quoted as an "expert" isn't an argument, it's the message-board equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "la la la." Double check the calculations, show where they are wrong.

[Blackshirt96]

Less then 20 = lower ranking also correct???

[kchusker_chris]

reread your logic. I have faith you will figure it out.

 

You're arguing wording when the math is right there for you to actually go prove wrong (and people are trying to explain it to you), saying the messageboard post with the actual math and logic behind how they do the calculations is less credible then some random "expert" quoted on an sbnation blog (again with the math right there for you to prove wrong). Simply not believing math and posting links where other people speculate without any sort of proof other then being quoted as an "expert" isn't an argument, it's the message-board equivalent of covering your ears and yelling "la la la." Double check the calculations, show where they are wrong.

to make it easier Blackshirt here is a spreadsheet I found. I haven't used it...but on the rivals pay side they reference it (along w/ the calculations) frequently in discussions like this.

 

https://docs.google....TEE&hl=en#gid=0

 

You'll have to do your research on the players, but it'll get you started. You should be able to see the formulas that reference the top 20 as you go through. Fill it out, see how to get your number to match other teams.

 

EDIT: It would be nice if someone created one of these and posted it to google docs and linked it on the recruiting site. then we could plug in potentials and see the impact.

[kchusker_chris]

Less then 20 = lower ranking also correct???

no, when you're less than 20 you definately get penalyzed. You want to be close to 20, without using lowly ranked players to get there (obviously)