Recruiting Forum Football Talk XXXII

Status
Not open for further replies.
#3,701
#3,701
VolGee4 said:
22...top 5 teams had at least 24. Clemson was sixth, had 22, and only had 2 more 4/5 stars. Comparative to Butch Jones classes, it was low. I would rather be ranked 15th with 22 commits than with 28. It means the extra 6 didn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

2 isn't a big difference. Most of the classes ahead of us were in 20-25 range.

Yes, it was lower than the mega classes before.
 
Last edited:
#3,703
#3,703
VolGee4 said:
22...top 5 teams had at least 24. Clemson was sixth, had 22, and only had 2 more 4/5 stars. Comparative to Butch Jones classes, it was low. I would rather be ranked 15th with 22 commits than with 28. It means the extra 6 didn't make a difference.
Click to expand...

Normal classes are in the 22-25 range. Not 28
 
#3,706
#3,706
AV_12 said:
Normal classes are in the 22-25 range. Not 28
Click to expand...

Never said otherwise. I just said that we had less numbers last year than most and definitely less for us. We were only a couple of 4/5 stars behind Clemson and UGA and actually one more than UF (who was ranked ahead of us). Like I said I would rather have a class ranked 15th with 22 than with 28. It means the extra 6 didn't move the needle.
 
#3,708
#3,708
While 247 does count all recruits towards the ranking, it scales the total by the number of commits. So that brings up two points,

1. Our bottom 10 commits contribute less than 1% of our total score each. Combined they contribute 8.15 points to the total of 236.23.

2. If you add a recruit like Ray in the class calculator, Deandre Johnson's contribution to the total score drops from 2.06 to 1.64.

I don't think many realize how 247 works. Large classes don't boost your score as much as most think.

One more example. Florida has a commit Stiner that has a rating of 0.85 that contributes about 4 points. Palmer is similarly rated, but only contributes 1.62 points.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,709
#3,709
Volnukem said:
While 247 does count all recruits towards the ranking, it scales the total by the number of commits. So that brings up two points,

1. Our bottom 10 commits contribute less than 1% of our total score each. Combined they contribute 8.15 points to the total of 236.23.

2. If you add a recruit like Ray in the class calculator, Deandre Johnson's contribution to the total score drops from 2.06 to 1.64.

I don't think many realize how 247 works. Large classes don't boost your score as much as most think.
Click to expand...

I don't follow 247, so I don't know how they do it. But just because a formula uses a certain number of commits, doesn't mean a bigger class doesn't help your ranking. This is all assuming you are comparing "like" teams. If you only take the top 20 commits, would you want a 22 person class or a 28 person class? Of course you would want the 28 person class because you get to choose from 6 more players that could boost your ranking. If even 1 of the 6 are ranked higher than 3 in the 22 class, then you have moved up. So, more commits doesn't per se make you ranked higher, but it certainly allows you 6 more chances to improve your rank.
 
#3,710
#3,710
Why are we talking about bigger classes improving rankings?

We have the biggest class of anyone at present so I am confused why anyone would want to bring that up other than to be negative about the quality of this class.
 
#3,711
#3,711
BruinVol said:
Why are we talking about bigger classes improving rankings?

We have the biggest class of anyone at present so I am confused why anyone would want to bring that up other than to be negative about the quality of this class.
Click to expand...

You either didn't read or comprehend my post...
 
#3,712
#3,712
BruinVol said:
Why are we talking about bigger classes improving rankings?

We have the biggest class of anyone at present so I am confused why anyone would want to bring that up other than to be negative about the quality of this class.
Click to expand...

Because someone suggested that this would be the second year in a row with an average class. Last year's class was better and had lower numbers, thus the ranking was a little off. I agree that a class like this next year would not be good.
 
#3,713
#3,713
BruinVol said:
Why are we talking about bigger classes improving rankings?

We have the biggest class of anyone at present so I am confused why anyone would want to bring that up other than to be negative about the quality of this class.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with this class.
 
#3,714
#3,714
VolGee4 said:
Because someone suggested that this would be the second year in a row with an average class. Last year's class was better and had lower numbers, thus the ranking was a little off. I agree that a class like this next year would not be good.
Click to expand...

Got you. Sorry for being lost. I agree with you that Years class was smaller than normal. Although I don't agree that it slanted the rankings that much. Last years class was borderline average imo.
 
#3,715
#3,715
McGeesPub said:
Count me in the camp that 16 was an aberration as far as a Shoop defense goes, and we will have a much better year next year. I think if that happens, Kongbo and Kirkland will go pro, and Shoop will be a real threat to leave. Until I see more on the field from KMac, and better injury luck from Shy, I wont consider them as DTs who can take us to a championship. Regardless, I can't reconcile the secondary- specifically the CBs- being much more than a liability for the next couple of years. So we are going to likely have to overcome that both next year and 2018.

Offensively, I have big concerns at WR. I do think that Kelly will have a very, very good year next year, and as an RB, could use that as a springboard to declare. If he does, we will likely take a step back at RB, and we aren't sure if we have a QB yet.

So to sum up, I think 9-3 or 8-4 next year. Two or three of our top juniors go pro, and beyond them, I think the depth we've built for the most part is very average, due to the defections we've had through the years. Most will shrug this off, because absolutely, we didn't lose any AAs, but this is where your depth comes from. Plus, that's when the 16 and 17 classes will start to see the field in earnest, and I just feel those were a big step back from championship caliber.

I think if there is one big hope, it is the OL. I think that position has been extremely well managed under Butch, and it's an important one.
Click to expand...

These are pretty good points, and I think our ends only deviate based on our assumptions, as I'm hoping we have Kongbo, Kirkland, ST, & KM still on board for 18 as well as Shoop. With the addition of Warren I can see the secondary being better than anytime in the past 3 or so years by 18. I'm honestly not very concerned on offense, as I'm putting my faith on Gaurantano to surpass Dobbs behind a better OL and I think we have enough talent at RB & WR to continue to be a dangerous offense. Not much else to say about it now though esp since it's 2 years out. Just have to wait and see.:dunno:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#3,716
#3,716
BruinVol said:
Got you. Sorry for being lost. I agree with you that Years class was smaller than normal. Although I don't agree that it slanted the rankings that much. Last years class was borderline average imo.
Click to expand...

Last year's class had our highest 247 Composite rating of CBJ's classes before we added our 2 summer commits. Adding those 2 dropped us slightly below '14 and '15. Surprise - you're wrong.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#3,718
#3,718
Looking at where the players are ranked at their positions is one I look at. We have several ranked between 40 and 150 at their positions in the composite.

We went to 3 lower tier bowls with higher ranked players. CBJ better get out the way and hope he gets the best staff in the.....SEC east. Saying America would have been way to much to ask for ha
 
#3,724
#3,724
A real Vol For Life

C3Y0MCkUEAAqmWM.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 29 people
#3,725
#3,725
Kristy* said:
You're not smart enough to look at the number they calculate for you? It's listed at the top of the commit list.
Click to expand...

Lol. It would mean more if you told me how it's figured and what the hell it is. You might want to look closer as well since the the only numbers I see on their ratings that is close to your post is 89 And not .89. Which further proves my point what on earth do those numbers mean......

Star average is only stat worth knowing imo.
 
New posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement





Back
Top