Top 25 2013 Recruiting Rankings Per Star Average

[nebraskafaninwi]

I averaged the star ratings for Rivals and Scout for a good 40 teams and came up with a Top 25. As you can see there really isn't that much of a difference from #11 to # 19. Doing this type of data analysis is a much better indicator of where your recruiting class fits in with the rest of the country. The rankings Rivals and Scout does is an overall point value. Yes these rankings below are technically also derived from the points ranking since a star rating/position ranking provides a point value. I feel as long as your team is in the Top 20 in this type of ranking on a yearly basis you have a great shot at competing for a BCS game and in the near future a playoff spot.

 

Everyone can clearly see that USC brought in the most talented players even though they are not found at the top of the rankings for Rivals or Scout. There really isn't that much of an overall talent difference between Florida State's class and Alabama's class.

 

Nebraska would have finished third in the PAC 12, 2nd in the ACC, and 9th in the SEC. It is the SEC rankings is where the difference is. Otherwise Nebraska is near the top of every conference in the country.

 

1: USC 4.42

2: OSU 3.93

3: Notre Dame 3.92

4: Alabama 3.88

5: Michigan 3.72

5: UCLA 3.72

5: LSU 3.72

8: Florida 3.60

9: Ole Miss 3.59

10: Texas A&M 3.50

11: Florida State 3.49

12: Auburn 3.46

13: Georgia 3.44

14: Texas 3.42

15: Mississippi State (what helps them is the highly rated 5-star DE)

16: Nebraska 3.32 (I added in Singleton for Rivals)

17: Clemson 3.30

17: Oregon 3.30

19: South Carolina 3.28

20: Oklahoma 3.23

21: Washington 3.20

22: Vandy 3.09

23: Oklahoma State 3.02

24: Baylor

25: Pittsburgh

[NoLongerN]

Huskers are a distant 3rd in the B1G .... which is fascinating to me. I like our class. In a year that we did better then we have ... OSU and Michigan stepped it up even better.

 

We shall see if we can coach them up better, hold onto our studs, manage the roster more effeciently and Lord willing achieve better results with the walk-on program.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Is it though? I mean, a team could take in one 5 star and win this ranking system. So I think class size has to factor in to the rankings.

[nebraskafaninwi]

Huskers are a distant 3rd in the B1G .... which is fascinating to me. I like our class. In a year that we did better then we have ... OSU and Michigan stepped it up even better.

 

We shall see if we can coach them up better, hold onto our studs, manage the roster more effeciently and Lord willing achieve better results with the walk-on program.

 

Indeed. In the B1G we have OSU and MI...then Nebraska, and then the rest with disappointing classes. Penn State I can understand though. It is clear who the top four classes are for the B1G and the rest are not even close IMO.

[nebraskafaninwi]

Is it though? I mean, a team could take in one 5 star and win this ranking system. So I think class size has to factor in to the rankings.

 

Class size does have a major impact. I don't have a clue how to take that into account though when doing this type of analysis. I'm not a math person...lol.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I hear ya, math is gross. That's why i let SPSS do all of it for me! The trouble with all these recruiting rankings is there is no correct standard to rank a recruiting class. There are so many factors outside of a players raw potential that goes into a star.

 

For example, whenever a player gets a big time offer, they're ranking improves. I'm not a big kid, not even a football player, but if Alabama offered me, i bet I'd become an instant 4 star.

 

Another factor is how prevalent your high school is. If you're in the spotlight, chances are you're going to have a higher ranking.

 

So these perceptions are skewed by rather unimportant factors. There needs to be a more comprehensive way of projecting potential.

[Comish]

A tangential twist to this: I listened to a "numbers guru" on the radio the other day. He is not even a college football fan, but LOVES crunching numbers so he puts out some interesting data.

 

His take is that your trajectory is easily measured by how a particular class jives vs. your own "standard" and historical rating. On this basis, he rates the Huskers as a jump of +8 spots. (significant).

 

But, he argues that alone fails to account for the wide disparities between yearly classes of H.S. seniors. According to him, this year's national class is quite strikingly above the last couple of years. So factoring in the +8, meshing with a substantially improved overall talent pool, makes this years class extra impressive.

 

fwiw..........

[RedDenver]

I hear ya, math is gross. That's why i let SPSS do all of it for me! The trouble with all these recruiting rankings is there is no correct standard to rank a recruiting class. There are so many factors outside of a players raw potential that goes into a star.

 

For example, whenever a player gets a big time offer, they're ranking improves. I'm not a big kid, not even a football player, but if Alabama offered me, i bet I'd become an instant 4 star.

 

Another factor is how prevalent your high school is. If you're in the spotlight, chances are you're going to have a higher ranking.

 

So these perceptions are skewed by rather unimportant factors. There needs to be a more comprehensive way of projecting potential.

Your last sentence made me laugh. The NFL spends millions trying to figure that out. And on a bigger stage, billions upon billions are spent trying to figure that out on the stock market.

 

"Projecting potential" is simply educated guessing. There's no magic bullet to figure it out.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

That's a falsehood, perhaps; maybe due to the setting, so what I'm doing is making an over generalization. Anyways, I think projecting potential is entirely more than an educated guess.

 

Job selections, graduate school selections, etc all use regression equations and discriminant functions to predict who will be better than the pool of other candidates.

 

But I think, in the case of competitive sports, it's difficult to quantify and project tackles sacks, touchdowns, rushing yards etc.

[huKSer]

That's a falsehood, perhaps; maybe due to the setting, so what I'm doing is making an over generalization. Anyways, I think projecting potential is entirely more than an educated guess.

 

Job selections, graduate school selections, etc all use regression equations and discriminant functions to predict who will be better than the pool of other candidates.

 

But I think, in the case of competitive sports, it's difficult to quantify and project tackles sacks, touchdowns, rushing yards etc.

The ACT and SAT do a very good job of predicting college performance

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for one semester. Then the environment and internal motivation kicks in.

[Creighton Duke]

A thing to consider when looking at stars is the numerical range for each star. I think we had something like 10 guys that were 5.7s, right on the cusp of being 4 star players. In theory, you could have a school with 9, 5.5 3 star players and 1, 4 star player vs. a teams with 10, 5.7 3 star players that will have a higher star average as a result.

[C N Red]

Huskers are a distant 3rd in the B1G .... which is fascinating to me. I like our class. In a year that we did better then we have ... OSU and Michigan stepped it up even better.

 

We shall see if we can coach them up better, hold onto our studs, manage the roster more effeciently and Lord willing achieve better results with the walk-on program.

 

One thing people freak out about on here are transfers and attrition. And i guarantee in a year or two there will be highly "rated" transfers and attrition out of both Michigan and OSU recruiting classes from this year. It will happen and happens every year. Not all the "studs" they recruited this year will pan out and this goes for all the schools with highly ranked classes. I'd bet money our transfer and attrition rate here is way below average. We recruit kids to keep them, not to have them transfer or pull schollies.

[EZ-E]

Rivals got some things flat out wrong this year. Hopefully that's a shot at some of their egos. Tom Lemming has been popping off about our class as well. Douche boy.

[B.B. Hemingway]

F

Rivals got some things flat out wrong this year. Hopefully that's a shot at some of their egos. Tom Lemming has been popping off about our class as well. Douche boy.

 

What did Lemming say?

[EZ-E]

F

Rivals got some things flat out wrong this year. Hopefully that's a shot at some of their egos. Tom Lemming has been popping off about our class as well. Douche boy.

 

What did Lemming say?

 

Basically said that Michigan and tOSU had far superior talent than anyone in the Big. Also said that there wasn't much disparity between the 3rd best recruiting class and the worst in the conference.