New Rankings Formula - our recruiting class

#1
T

tabrams

Supportin' the Cause
Joined
Jul 27, 2008
Messages
2,782
Likes
672
#1
I don't like Rival's new formula, but think their star rankings are pretty decent......

So here is my formula....

# of commits - #1 in top 25
Star average - #5 in top 25
Combined 4/5 stars - #2 in top 25

So by my count we should be ranked #2 in the nation, behind only Alabana.... I would weight heavy in the overall # of commits and the combined 4/5 star players.......

The overall star average is not as important bc that doesn't do anything except provide an average......

Under Dooley, our classes were worse than they were rated generally, but this class is the biggest and best since the Fulmer days.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5
#5
Better way is to calculate the total # of stars for the entire class.
That puts us @ 113 total stars, and in 1st place.
It puts Bama and FSU in a tie for 2nd with 100 each.
It measures total evaluated talent coming in..
Its the raw truth, and captures the whole picture.
Not just the top 20 players, and not just avg, but the class as a whole.
 
#6
#6
VolenteerSpirit said:
Better way is to calculate the total # of stars for the entire class.
That puts us @ 113 total stars, and in 1st place.
It puts Bama and FSU in a tie for 2nd with 100 each.
It measures total evaluated talent coming in..
Its the raw truth, and captures the whole picture.
Not just the top 20 players, and not just avg, but the class as a whole.
Click to expand...
Well I was just guessing OP's logic. Your formula has substance.
 
#7
#7
hB91E3A4B
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#8
#8
tabrams said:
I don't like Rival's new formula, but think their star rankings are pretty decent......

So here is my formula....

# of commits - #1 in top 25
Star average - #5 in top 25
Combined 4/5 stars - #2 in top 25

So by my count we should be ranked #2 in the nation, behind only Alabana.... I would weight heavy in the overall # of commits and the combined 4/5 star players.......

The overall star average is not as important bc that doesn't do anything except provide an average......

Under Dooley, our classes were worse than they were rated generally, but this class is the biggest and best since the Fulmer days.....
Click to expand...

the avg star rating isnt important in rivals formula either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#9
#9
RoyNWendy said:
Well I was just guessing OP's logic. Your formula has substance.
Click to expand...

Lolz .. ty.
Its the simplest way, and doesn't allow for interpretation!!!
The services evaluate the talent, then the evaluate how the talent is calculated.
They do a fair job of evaluation of talent, but skew the class ratings to showcase the elite talent.
IMO it should be calculated for the whole class, and not just the elite talent in the class.
In the simple math version, ties are determined by best average rating.
That means UT is 1st, Bamer is 2nd, and FSU is 3rd , ect..ect..
 
#10
#10
All these ranking sites are pretty much a joke anymore. They base too much of their rankings on whether or not that kid showed up to their camps, where they willing to give them "exclusive" interviews, and did they refuse to give them an interview. The worst part of all of them is that the actual reviews they actually do is from a single year of play and highlight films.
Think about that. how many kids have had 1 great year in college and then fell off, how many kids get hurt and can't play for a year and how many of these kids were playing at full health and how may were struggling with an injury the whole season, how many are able to only play a single position and side and how many play on small teams where they are forced to play both sides of the ball at whatever position they are needed.
 
#11
#11
VolenteerSpirit said:
Better way is to calculate the total # of stars for the entire class.
That puts us @ 113 total stars, and in 1st place.
It puts Bama and FSU in a tie for 2nd with 100 each.
It measures total evaluated talent coming in..
Its the raw truth, and captures the whole picture.
Not just the top 20 players, and not just avg, but the class as a whole.
Click to expand...

You might could do that for one year in a vacuum but there no way that works over time. The 15 3 stars signed this year will eliminate the possibility of more 4+ star players next year.

Your way says signing 33 3 stars is as good as 25 4 stars or 20 5 stars. Ok, what can you sign next year if you do that?

I don't know what the number should be but there is no way a system can rank a higher quantity of lower rated players higher than a few less higher rated players.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
sanefan said:
You might could do that for one year in a vacuum but there no way that works over time. The 15 3 stars signed this year will eliminate the possibility of more 4+ star players next year.

Your way says signing 33 3 stars is as good as 25 4 stars or 20 5 stars. Ok, what can you sign next year if you do that?

I don't know what the number should be but there is no way a system can rank a higher quantity of lower rated players higher than a few less higher rated players.
Click to expand...

Recruiting classes are closer in talent than most think.
If your short on bodies, you are better off signing 5x4* than you would be with 4x5*.
I realize we have been taught that that is incorrect, based on probability it should be more successful.
The more players you bring in the less likely a bust will damage win %.
Obviously the math is not sustainable because attrition would have to be higher.
Signing limitations also prevent it as well.
With where we were talent/depth wise, it was better to sign more players this year.
But, yes, your examples are equivalent.
To put them in sustainable numbers as an example.
I would prefer 10 4*, and 10 3* vrs 8 5*, and 10 3*
20 players are better than 18 players.
8 5* looks great, but so is 10 4*.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
The new formula is Butch takes who he wants, when he wants.

Guaranteed to have a top 5 class every year that he's our coach. Pretty simple.
 
#16
#16
If 6 Five *s leave Chicago at 3:00pm and head west and 9 Four*s leave Des Moines at the same time going east,
 
#17
#17
Total stars is a horrible way to rank teams. That assumes that the #1 player in the county is only 25% more valuable than the scores of unranked 4*'s.
 
#18
#18
VolenteerSpirit said:
Recruiting classes are closer in talent than most think.
If your short on bodies, you are better off signing 5x4* than you would be with 4x5*.
I realize we have been taught that that is incorrect, based on probability it should be more successful.
The more players you bring in the less likely a bust will damage win %.
Obviously the math is not sustainable because attrition would have to be higher.
Signing limitations also prevent it as well.
With where we were talent/depth wise, it was better to sign more players this year.
But, yes, your examples are equivalent.
To put them in sustainable numbers as an example.
I would prefer 10 4*, and 10 3* vrs 8 5*, and 10 3*
20 players are better than 18 players.
8 5* looks great, but so is 10 4*.
Click to expand...

Agree. That's why there has to be a cap, whatever it may be. 1-2 player counts are not that different, but loading on up 3* talent to the tune of 5-10 more than another team is not sustainable and certainly should not create a ranking higher over time.

Bottom line is this large class filled needs and provided quality. That is all you can ask. Where it gets ranked right now is less important that what is done with it once it gets on campus.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top