Exactly. That's why back in that original thread, I showed that the variance between NU and MSU is actually smaller than the one between Purdue and NU. And that if you control for walkons, which are clearly not adequately captured in this methodology, NU and MSU are tied and both outpace Purdue by a wide margin.I get that. But see my example about comparison for the range of values. It's important to establish how much weight to give to the variance.The scale is how each service ranks the playersI read the article and without seeing it in comparison to teams across the country, it doesn't mean as much. What's the scale being used? For instance, if Ohio State is a 5.9, and UCF is a 5.0, the spread is small, and it's not as close as it appears.From the thread about B1G West talent last week
We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep
![]()
http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/
Rivals
247The 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
110 - 101 = Franchise Player. One of the best players to come along in years, if not decades. Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "cant miss" talent.
100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 30 players in the nation. This player has excellent pro-potential and should emerge as one of the best in the country before the end of his career. There will be 32 prospects ranked in this range in every football class to mirror the first round of the NFL Draft.
97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. One of the top 300 players in the nation. This prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. He is an All-American candidate who is projected to play professionally.
89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential.
79 - below = Two-star prospect. This player makes up the bulk of Division I rosters. He may have little pro-potential, but is likely to become a role player for his respective school.
The entire premise that we should rely on unpaid (or very low paid) rivals recruitniks for determining a kid's ability out of high school based on an arbitrary decimal point is flawed. It actually just idiotic.