Team Rankings

[Husker Lover]

Rivals Avg. Star Rankings in B1G

1. Ohio State = 25 (3.72)

2. Michigan = 25 (3.56)

3. Nebraska = 17 (3.35)

4. Michigan State = 17 (3.12)

5. Wisconsin = 12 (3.08)

6. Purdue = 25 (3.00)

7. Iowa = 24 (2.96)

8. Penn State = 19 (2.79)

9. Northwestern = 21 (2.76)

10. Illinois = 19 (2.74)

11. Indiana = 25 (2.72)

12. Minnesota = 27 (2.70)

 

Scout Avg. Star Rankings in B1G

1. Ohio State (3.76)

2. Michigan (3.64)

T3. Michigan State (3.17)

T3. Wisconsin (3.17)

5. Nebraska (3.00)

6. Penn State (2.95)

7. Northwestern (2.76)

8. Illinois (2.67)

9. Iowa (2.62)

10. Purdue (2.60)

11. Indiana (2.60)

12. Minnesota (2.33)

 

24/7 Avg. Team Rankings in B1G

1. Ohio State (90.76)

2. Michigan (90.48)

3. Nebraska (87.76)

4. Michigan State (86.11)

5. Wisconsin (86.00)

6. Penn State (84.68)

7. Iowa (83.28)

8. Northwestern (81.62)

9. Indiana (81.36)

10. Purdue (81.23)

11. Illinois (80.44)

12. Minnesota (80.15)

 

ESPN Avg. Team Rankings in B1G

N/A

 

O yeah, that's why I have Scout

[Husker Lover]

How did you figure out the point values of each recruit?

coded out the formula (i have it from a couple seasons ago) - plugged in this years guys, plugged in our hopefuls in order of my personal confidence, and boom...rivals points.

 

That my friend, is very impressive. Good luck trying crack 247's formula

The Formula

 

where c is a specific team's total number of commits and R_n is the 247Rating of the nth-best commit

Explanation

 

Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.

Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.

 

I wish I was smart

[kchusker_chris]

^ I just cut/pasted that from their website. I didn't mean to pretend I had any idea what it means...

[jsneb83]

Is it sad that I could understand that? I guess being an engineering major helps with some things in sports.

[cscott2win]

All one can say basically is that it's a consensus.... this is an average class at best if that according to analysts. Probably not going to win a NC if recruiting is correct. Texas proves it's a myth, Bama proves it's right on. You be the judge.

[HuskerShark]

All one can say basically is that it's a consensus.... this is an average class at best if that according to analysts. Probably not going to win a NC if recruiting is correct. Texas proves it's a myth, Bama proves it's right on. You be the judge.

 

Just goes to show that coaching is a very crucial part of the success of a team (obviously). IMO, as long as you have above-average athletes, good to great coaching will trump great talent with poor coaching (Texas). Unfortunately, Bama has both.

[Hoosker]

All one can say basically is that it's a consensus.... this is an average class at best if that according to analysts. Probably not going to win a NC if recruiting is correct. Texas proves it's a myth, Bama proves it's right on. You be the judge.

 

Just goes to show that coaching is a very crucial part of the success of a team (obviously). IMO, as long as you have above-average athletes, good to great coaching will trump great talent with poor coaching (Texas). Unfortunately, Bama has both.

 

Truth.

[bshirt]

All one can say basically is that it's a consensus.... this is an average class at best if that according to analysts. Probably not going to win a NC if recruiting is correct. Texas proves it's a myth, Bama proves it's right on. You be the judge.

 

Just goes to show that coaching is a very crucial part of the success of a team (obviously). IMO, as long as you have above-average athletes, good to great coaching will trump great talent with poor coaching (Texas). Unfortunately, Bama has both.

 

Bingo.

 

KSU, Boise St, TCU, etc go a long, long ways on superb coaching with very little talent but Bama is the king of the mountain. Actually, I wouldn't rate Saban as high as Snyder & a few others "coaching" but he's still very good and he's smart enough to use the assets a prestigious SEC school like Alabama has.

 

I remember TO totally annihilating Saban twice when he was at MSU. Heh, on 2nd thought those were TO's best teams ever so really that shouldn't count.