Recruiting rankings thread

Rivals Camp Series ‏@RivalsCamp 2m
Full schedule: 2014 Updated Rankings: 12/2 - #Rivals100; 12/3 - #Rivals250; 12/3 - 4-stars outside #Rivals250; 12/4 - Positional Rankings
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Rivals Camp Series ‏@RivalsCamp 2m
Full schedule: 2014 Updated Rankings: 12/2 - #Rivals100; 12/3 - #Rivals250; 12/3 - 4-stars outside #Rivals250; 12/4 - Positional Rankings

Medley is way underrated by Rivals, but I doubt they will be raising all the way to a forth star. They should though, if star ratings are about "game impact" potential as they say.
 
@Rivals 2015
Rankings: 12/9
Rivals100 12/10 -
Rivals250; 12/11 - 4-stars outside
Rivals250; 12/12 - Positional rankings
 
Rivals just updated the team rankings after the Malone signing. We are now sitting at 2602 points, with a 3.56 star average. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
Does Rivals do another update after the All-American games or was this the last one for the 2014 class?
 
Mathematically, you are, of course, correct. I believe, however, that Rivals uses the top 20 only for the purposes of calculating total points for each class, which is 2602 in our case. That 3.56 figure must be predicated upon an average of all 33 commitments.
 
Mathematically, you are, of course, correct. I believe, however, that Rivals uses the top 20 only for the purposes of calculating total points for each class, which is 2602 in our case. That 3.56 figure must be predicated upon an average of all 33 commitments.
Thanks for explaining the obvious part for us. :)
 
Ok guys, I am slightly confused.

I have been trying to keep up as best I can with our recruiting. My question, is about the rankings, specifically Rivals, because that is the site I have warmed to. The rankings currently show Alabama #1 with 23 commits, and three 5 stars, while we are #2 with 34 commits and 2 5 stars.

My question is why we are number two? We have more commits. Is it because Bama haven't had many of their class commit and that includes more 5 star players than us? So effectively it is like a team being higher in the standings because it hasn't played as many games?

Thanks.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Ok guys, I am slightly confused.

I have been trying to keep up as best I can with our recruiting. My question, is about the rankings, specifically Rivals, because that is the site I have warmed to. The rankings currently show Alabama #1 with 23 commits, and three 5 stars, while we are #2 with 34 commits and 2 5 stars.

My question is why we are number two? We have more commits. Is it because Bama haven't had many of their class commit and that includes more 5 star players than us? So effectively it is like a team being higher in the standings because it hasn't played as many games?

Thanks.

look at the post above yours
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
look at the post above yours

This. They only count the highest rated 20 commits. Even tho we have 30+ they only count our highest rated 20.

Also, with Rivals you're better off looking at their numerical ranking as opposed to the stars. Each recruit is broken down as a 5.7/5.8/5.9 etc. So two recruits could both be 4 stars but one would receive more points for being a 6.0 as opposed to a 5.9. They also used to give bonus points for players ranked in the top100/250 and players rated at the top of their position rankings. Not sure if this is still the case tho.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Unfortunately that doesn't mean anything to me... Forgive my lack of knowledge.

When Rivals.com calculates class rank, it only calculates the 20 highest ranked recruits that a school has comitted. So it doesnt matter if we have 20, 35, 400, or 345345 commits. They will only take our top 20 guys into consideration. This gives a more logical ranking so that a school with 30 low ranked players wont automatically be ahead of a school with 15 highly ranked players just because of sheer volume.

Alabama's top 20 players have a higher combined score than our top 20.

hope that helps
 
This. They only count the highest rated 20 commits. Even tho we have 30+ they only count our highest rated 20.

Also, with Rivals you're better off looking at their numerical ranking as opposed to the stars. Each recruit is broken down as a 5.7/5.8/5.9 etc. So two recruits could both be 4 stars but one would receive more points for being a 6.0 as opposed to a 5.9. They also used to give bonus points for players ranked in the top100/250 and players rated at the top of their position rankings. Not sure if this is still the case tho.

beat me to it!
 
Stephen, this page (Rivals.com Football Recruiting - Rivals.com Football Team Recruiting Rankings Formula) is absolutely critical to understanding just how many points are awarded to any specific recruit. As an illustration of their methodology, consider our recent 5-star wide receiver commitment, Josh Malone. As a 5-star prospect, he automatically receives a "Rivals Rating" of 6.1, which gives him a base total of 150 points. As the 20th ranked prospect nationally (see his Rivals profile or the complete list of Rivals Top 250), he receives an additional 60 points, which means that his commitment to UT is worth 210 points.

The fact that Alabama is rated higher with far fewer commitments is the product of three factors:

(1) Rivals only counts the top 20 recruits in each class for the purposes of comparative ranking.

(2) Alabama has more players ranked high in the Top 250 or even the Top 50, so they receive more bonus points for their commitments than we do.

(3) Tennessee has a sizable number of JUCO commitments. Despite the fact that we have five commitments among the Top 50 JUCO prospects nationally, which is the most for any program in the nation, JUCO players do not receive bonus points for their ranking, only the base total derived from their "Rivals Rating" (e.g. 120 points for a 5.9, 4-star prospect).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
It doesn't matter cause in about 3 weeks when Nick Satan is at Texas, we'll have the number 1 class after Bama loses some of their commits
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Advertisement





Back
Top