Rivals Team Rankings

[blackshirts5115]

What a joke.

USC is ahead of Florida now. USC has 5 five stars, 14 four stars, and 1 three star. Florida has 4 five stars, 18 four stars, 5 three stars, and 1 two star.

USC has one more 5 star, but four less 4 stars, and four less 3 stars. Here's the math equation that this is telling me.

1 Five star > 4 Four stars + 4 Three stars + 1 Two star

I'd take the latter every time.

I understand that the rankings of individual players are already flawed, but if you can't at least make a reasonable form of team rankings based on the flawed player rankings, then that's just pathetic.

 

[kchusker_chris]

What a joke.

USC is ahead of Florida now. USC has 5 five stars, 14 four stars, and 1 three star. Florida has 4 five stars, 18 four stars, 5 three stars, and 1 two star.

USC has one more 5 star, but four less 4 stars, and four less 3 stars. Here's the math equation that this is telling me.

1 Five star > 4 Four stars + 4 Three stars + 1 Two star

I'd take the latter every time.

I understand that the rankings of individual players are already flawed, but if you can't at least make a reasonable form of team rankings based on the flawed player rankings, then that's just pathetic.

USC now has 8 more scholarships next year to give 5* players...

I can see your point and I'm sure your correct, but at the same time if there were 25 in EVERY class, and we had redshirts you'd end up with 100+ kids on scholarship...so if it's not possible in reality, why pretend it is w/ your recruiting rankings. 20 is a good number, I see why the do it. Gotta be even across the board. That formula was develope by someone a lot smarter than all of us, I'm going to go w/ it until someone suggests better.

 

[husker B-rent]

they only add the top 20 recruits in each class to the equation so that plays a lot into it....

 

[zoogs]

What a joke.

USC is ahead of Florida now. USC has 5 five stars, 14 four stars, and 1 three star. Florida has 4 five stars, 18 four stars, 5 three stars, and 1 two star.

USC has one more 5 star, but four less 4 stars, and four less 3 stars. Here's the math equation that this is telling me.

1 Five star > 4 Four stars + 4 Three stars + 1 Two star

I'd take the latter every time.

I understand that the rankings of individual players are already flawed, but if you can't at least make a reasonable form of team rankings based on the flawed player rankings, then that's just pathetic.

I wouldn't look at it this way so much as, different classes have different requirements for # of recruits. When you're signing 28 kids it's not the same as when you're signing 18 - but in terms of rankings, that smaller class shouldn't be punished to a great degree just for being smaller.

For example: School A signs 18 kids, School B signs 19. The breakdown of stars is exactly the same, (let's say a 3.8 star average - these are heavyweights) except school B has an extra 3 star. Then it's fair I think for school B to be ranked just below school A, even though you could make the argument that School A would be better off with another 3 star recruit on top of their 18-kid class. But their class only has room for 18 so to an extent, you evaluate their class in the context of what was possible for them to work with. Let's say instead of another 3 star, School B signs another 4 star to make 19 kids. Then in that case, they would probably leapfrog School A by several spots.

It's not perfect, but I wouldn't say it's outrageous either.

 

[ESPY]

Now let's see Kiffin actually coach these recruits to consistent conference dominance & BCS relevance. I know his dad can do it, but I'm still not convinced he's anything more than a cheap salesman who knows how to get blue chippers on his squad.

 

[kchusker_chris]

Now let's see Kiffin actually coach these recruits to consistent conference dominance & BCS relevance. I know his dad can do it, but I'm still not convinced he's anything more than a cheap salesman who knows how to get blue chippers on his squad.

I think Kiffin's a snake like most, but I did respect his approach to being the head coach at Tennessee, and that's surrounding himself with quality assistants and solid recruiters. He's a CEO, he manages the team as a whole. Player development and scheme is mostly left to his assistants. Because of that his assistants are also paid accordingly. I hate it when someone like Mack Brown is making 5 million a year and then his assistants pull in 200k each. Bo is doing a good job of spreading that wealth as well, which I respect but he could do more. The gap is just growing too large between the head coach and the assistants. Eventually that will cause issues. When TO was around making like 200k, I highly doubt his assistants were pulling down 10% of his salary at the time. That's what it's come to. It's too bad.