For those interested in the Rivals scoring formula (long)...

#26
#26
Another oddity I noticed is in the WR rankings. We are 17th and Cal is 8th. We have one 4star and one 3 star while Cal only has one 4star. Additionally, our 4star(Bowles) is ranked three spots ahead of their 4star(Treggs). Just seems like things are off at this point in the numbers.
 
#27
#27
DBBaker26 said:
Another oddity I noticed is in the WR rankings. We are 17th and Cal is 8th. We have one 4star and one 3 star while Cal only has one 4star. Additionally, our 4star(Bowles) is ranked three spots ahead of their 4star(Treggs). Just seems like things are off at this point in the numbers.
Click to expand...

I agree...things are very off...and what's more is they aren't admitting to it..

I just hope that it gets worked out between now and NSD...alot of trolls on here use the Rivals rankings specifically as fuel for their flaming....that's the only reason I care as much as I do about them
 
#28
#28
Thunder, I need a favor. Can you see where we'd finish if we added these guys before NSD?

Jelks
Hamilton
Patterson
Taylor
Autry
O'Brien

I know that's a best-case scenario. But I believe it's very possible.

Also, we'd have 3-4 spots open, so it could/would get better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#30
#30
Kingston Vol said:
Thunder, I need a favor. Can you see where we'd finish if we added these guys before NSD?

Jelks
Hamilton
Patterson
Taylor
Autry
O'Brien

I know that's a best-case scenario. But I believe it's very possible.

Also, we'd have 3-4 spots open, so it could/would get better.
Click to expand...

1930 points...average finish of 11th place
 
#32
#32
PaceFLVol said:
I think your missing the point of almost all my posts in these 2 threads...is poking fun at you. Hold on..maybe I can come up with a formula to explain it.
Click to expand...


PaceFLVol said:
Facts are what a person wants to believe them to be.

Arkansas has a ranking of 3.08, Rutgers has a ranking of 2.92, Tennessee has a ranking of 2.90. It's not hard for me to see why we are rated behind them. :thumbsup:

I did not even need a 2 page formula to figure it out.
Click to expand...


PaceFLVol said:
Odd....2 % huh?

The Arkansas total comes out just right. The Rutgers total comes out just right...and both would be above Tennessee. Maybe you just gave us 2 bad examples as those were part of that 2% huh? I would guess that total class count comes into play as well and that would be why a team like Indiana while close to Tennessee's ranking # of 2.90 is higher as they have 4-5 more commits. As I said, unrated players may play into it as well.
Click to expand...


PaceFLVol said:
Ok, I will just trust you.

Arkansas= 1 (4) star, and (11) 3 stars = 37 stars. Divide that by 12 players rated. It comes out to 3.08..which is their exact ranking per rivals. But...I will trust you and your formula. Maybe Arkansas was a bad example. :thumbsup:

I did that with 1st grade math..no formula needed.
Click to expand...

PaceFLVol said:
"What do you mean we are not top 50"!!!! "I checked the damn formula"!!!:eek:lol:
Click to expand...

I just love looking back on gems like these from Pace...:eek:lol::eek:lol:

Especially after Rivals finally admiited that there was a glitch in the formula
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
thunder5 said:
1930 points...average finish of 11th place
Click to expand...

Good stuff, Thunder :good!:

And that's only with those 6 more players. They will get a commitment from 9-10 more. Top 10 here we come :)

If you added in 3 more, and lets say for arguments sake they were all 5.7 3stars, not even 4stars....where would that put us? I'm guessing 8th?
 
#34
#34
UTVOL02 said:
Good stuff, Thunder :good!:

And that's only with those 6 more players. They will get a commitment from 9-10 more. Top 10 here we come :)

If you added in 3 more, and lets say for arguments sake they were all 5.7 3stars, not even 4stars....where would that put us? I'm guessing 8th?
Click to expand...

Positional rankings would have an effect but that would put us at roughly 2025-2090 which would be 9-10th on average
 
#35
#35
thunder5 said:
Positional rankings would have an effect but that would put us at roughly 2025-2090 which would be 9-10th on average
Click to expand...

So closing with the players we should close with is going to give us a 9-10th place finish and that's without any real surprises. If the staff pulls out a couple Maggitt's and Lane's in January we'll finish better than that...I like it a lot.
 
#36
#36
thunder5 said:
I just love looking back on gems like these from Pace...:eek:lol::eek:lol:

Especially after Rivals finally admiited that there was a glitch in the formula
Click to expand...

It's never wise to spew off at the mouth about things that you are clueless about.

Pace would be wise to take note of that fact.
 
#37
#37
thunder5 said:
Here's an explanation of why I think their current total points calculations are all wrong:

This is the Rivals formula:

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation

Here is a link explaining how to calculate N:

Rivals formula for their rankings. - FalconsLIFE

Long story short, N is effected by a players position ranking and their placement in the Rivals 100, JUCO 50 or Prep 50...

There is also an average ranking factor...If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -<br> > 3)) to N...this is only in play if the average player rating is 3 or above...

Michigan's current class breaks down like this as far as scoring is concerned:

Ten 4*'s, nine 3*'s and one unrated player...they also have the following that effects their N value:

Rivals 100 players: 3 (Kalis, Stone, Magnuson)

Players that score at thier given position: 17 (Kalis, Stone, Magnuson, Bars, Funchess, Stacey, Williams, Bolden, Brown, Ruchardson, Ross, Strobel, Wilson, Gant, Goodin, Ringer, Standifer)

Average star rating: 3.43

With a m value of 50 (as described in the link that explains the formula) these things should give Michigan a total of 1783 points (they have a very solid class needless to say)....but currently they only have 1324...

I chose Michigan as an example because they have 20 total recruits and Rivals formula only considers the top 20 players...

Given the same formula Tennessee breaks down like this:

One 4*, seven 3*'s, one 2*, two unrated players...we also have the following factors affecting N:

Rivals 100: 0

Players that score at thier given position: 4 (Bowles, Peters, Peterman, Cross)

Average star rating: 2.82

With a m value of 50 (as described in the link explaining the formula) this should give Tennessee 320 points

I hope this clarifies my belief that the current points calculation in the team rankings are wrong...

If anyone has any questions please let me know
Click to expand...

I couldn't get that link to work, but I found it elsewhere.:

In case anybody else was having difficult with the link, here is how you figure out the n value

High School Players
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 ranked 11-20etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 ranked 91-100

Juco/Prep Players
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (juco/prep) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

POSITION RANKINGS:
24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...
*NOTE: Juco and Prep players are NOT given a position ranking point value.

The Following are the lowest ranked players by position that will receive position points. For example the 40th rated OT gets 8 points while the 41st rated OT gets 0 points.

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--T
ight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

I ran the numbers (it actually didn't take that long) and this is what I got:

H = 1825
L = 170

And so the larger the n value, the closer the score will be to the H value. And the lower the n, the closer to the L. We don't have anybody in the Rivals 100, which doesn't do wonders for our n. But anyway: I came up with:
N = 127

Plugging that back in I got 1357.
The actual rivals score is 1362.

It is weird that this formula is so close, but then a little bit off. But it's still ridiculously close, which is all that matters.

Thanks thunder.
 
#38
#38
I chose Michigan as an example because they have 20 total recruits and Rivals formula only considers the top 20 players...
Click to expand...

FYI, in case you didn't already know this. It only considers the top 20 players for determing the H and the L. It considers the whole class for determining the n.
 
#43
#43
It was beyond etertaining to see this bumped and to read PaceVols nonsense once again...

The recruiting season is so long it's easy to forget things like what we were seeing an hearing back in the summer...

What a freakin' tool
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top