Rivals rankings Quantity vs Quality

[ChattaTNVol]

Obviously everyone has his or hern own way of looking at these things and figures don't lie but liars figure so make of this what you will. As is often pointed out in these threads rankings as published don't always paint a very accurate picture of the recruiting game. Other than raw numbers there are team specific issues which need to be considered. For example a team could have a highly rated class but nothing on the roster or in the recruiting class that could measure up as an SEC QB or RB. Generally, I think total points is misleading for another reason. For example MSU is presently ranked above TN in total points but they have a 3 star class overall. Hence, the attachment. Of course this will change as final numbers come in but looking at average points per recruit I would suggest might give you a better view of the overall quality of the class. jmo.

 

[AllVol11717]

Good post. Too many people live and die by the team rankings and don't actually understand that the quantity system isn't very accurate until NSD, if even then.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

My old man used to say that elephant shoes aren't worth a dime a dozen if you don't need elephant shoes. Same thing here. The factor that seems to be lacking in the team rankings is an assessment of how the class fits the particular need of the football team it will join.

 

[utvolkyle06]

Agreed, but if we were in the top five we would swear up and down that the system is the best ever devised, except we should have been rated #1.

 

[supersmo18]

Excellent post, great work

 

[KBVol]

Thanks for the perspective

 

[steino]

Using the Star Average per Rivals, we are currently 9th in the SEC and tied for 22nd nationally with a 3.24 average LSU leads the conference with a 3.74 average and USC leads the nation with a 4.43 star average.

 

[92volalum]

Agreed, but if we were in the top five we would swear up and down that the system is the best ever devised, except we should have been rated #1.

So true another post trying to validate its OK to be mid pack.. u can always find pros n cons in any type of analysis but the fact remains that the top teams consistently get the top recruiting classes..

To compete tn has to be top 5 min in sec in recruiting. Can u win 8 games with lesser classes sure but at some point u want to be in sec cg.

 

[ChattaTNVol]

So true another post trying to validate its OK to be mid pack.. u can always find pros n cons in any type of analysis but the fact remains that the top teams consistently get the top recruiting classes..

To compete tn has to be top 5 min in sec in recruiting. Can u win 8 games with lesser classes sure but at some point u want to be in sec cg.

I think you miss the point. If we had as many recruits as A&M (32) and maintained our avg pts per recruit we'd have 2,888 points and that would put us #1 in the Nation on the Rivals board, well ahead of A&M. Of course we can only get 27 this class so if we can hold our point avg we could end up with 2,438 points which is only good enough right now for #3 in the SEC but it's still ahead of A&M's 32 man class.

 

[Madkins8]

That is not how it works. The Rivals rankings are based off of your top 20 players. That means that any team with less than 20 commitments is going to be lower in the rankings. Once you reach 20, you only go up by landing higher ranked players than your lowest ranked playes. It actually works out well with a decrease in the points increased with each player after #20.

Right now we have 17 players, so for each of the next 3 players their point value is added to the total. Say that is Vonn Bell and 2 5.7 3 stars, then we would have an additional 201 points for Bell and 90 points for each 5.7 3 star, making a total of 1916 pts, putting us in 15th place.

After that, we would be replacing our lower ranked players in points, so Quinn (worth 15 points as a two star) would be replaced.

Personally, I think we finish in the 18-20 range, which is pretty fair.

 

[VolMaster14]

A lot of truth in the OP and when your program is in the shape ours is you're not going to get a top 5 class. As one poster said if you wanna win 8-9 games that's very possible but theres a reason bammer, Florida and LSU are your last seven NC, look at their classes and where they rank. I wanna play for NC not mid klevel bowls. I will say, I'm a lot happier with Butch now then I was when we hired him. He just pulled a top 40 recruit and may pull a couple more by next Wednesday. Win 6 or 7 this year, don't get blown out in your loses and win a bowl and the top recruits for 2014 may look a lot closer at Tennessee!

 

[Vols4us]

Thanks for the intelligent post, OP. One of the better on VN in recent memory. It's the argument many of us have been making without the actual analysis to support it.

All you need to compete at a high level in the SEC is 8-10 truly top guys each year, whether they be 3, 4, 5 star. You will lose a few to attrition or being over-rated. If you can develop a half dozen each season that stick on the roster for early playing time, while developing the other 3 stars, you can get to the top tier in a couple of seasons.

IMO that is the way back to the top with CBJ. Steady climb, not instant gratification. Too many other top coaches and programs to do it any other way.

 

[supersmo18]

So true another post trying to validate its OK to be mid pack.. u can always find pros n cons in any type of analysis but the fact remains that the top teams consistently get the top recruiting classes..

To compete tn has to be top 5 min in sec in recruiting. Can u win 8 games with lesser classes sure but at some point u want to be in sec cg.

Pretty sure that's not what OP was saying at all... nice spin...:blink:

 

[supersmo18]

Thanks for the intelligent post, OP. One of the better on VN in recent memory. It's the argument many of us have been making without the actual analysis to support it.

All you need to compete at a high level in the SEC is 8-10 truly top guys each year, whether they be 3, 4, 5 star. You will lose a few to attrition or being over-rated. If you can develop a half dozen each season that stick on the roster for early playing time, while developing the other 3 stars, you can get to the top tier in a couple of seasons.

IMO that is the way back to the top with CBJ. Steady climb, not instant gratification. Too many other top coaches and programs to do it any other way.

 

[ChattaTNVol]

That is not how it works. The Rivals rankings are based off of your top 20 players. That means that any team with less than 20 commitments is going to be lower in the rankings. Once you reach 20, you only go up by landing higher ranked players than your lowest ranked playes. It actually works out well with a decrease in the points increased with each player after #20.

Right now we have 17 players, so for each of the next 3 players their point value is added to the total. Say that is Vonn Bell and 2 5.7 3 stars, then we would have an additional 201 points for Bell and 90 points for each 5.7 3 star, making a total of 1916 pts, putting us in 15th place.

After that, we would be replacing our lower ranked players in points, so Quinn (worth 15 points as a two star) would be replaced.

Personally, I think we finish in the 18-20 range, which is pretty fair.

You're right re: Top 20 Recruits. I'd forgotten about that and thought it went away when they changed their formula. A quick recheck reveals otherwise. If we finish as you say 18-20ish, does that include landing Bell, Lawson, Levenberry, et al.?

 

[ionaVOL]

I think 18-20 is a little conservative right now. Bell alone would get us close to that range I believe. With Miller, M Brown, hopefully Lawson Levenberry, Bellamy, Boyd, Dobbs all still in play among others. We have a real chance to add a lot of points down the stretch, top 15 should be the expectation here imo.

 

[ChattaTNVol]

I think 18-20 is a little conservative right now. Bell alone would get us close to that range I believe. With Miller, M Brown, hopefully Lawson Levenberry, Bellamy, Boyd, Dobbs all still in play among others. We have a real chance to add a lot of points down the stretch, top 15 should be the expectation here imo.

I like it.

 

[VFLPastor]

Just a quick contribution to the OP thought:

This would seem to make the most sense over the long haul, not on a single-year analysis. Since we actually have to put our "best" players on the field each week and not the "average" of the team. Ranking this one class wouldn't be averageable (is that a word?) feat. But, over a several year span to check that averages would seem to show a which way we are trending in attracting real talent.

I agree and it does seem clear that the current rankings don't show how much talent is actually in our class compared to others, and averaging it out does help make that point. But again, if on any given Saturday the talent on our side of the ball doesn't outmatch their side, we get burned.

It seems to me like a VERY interesting graph would be to chart out the "average" players for the last decade and see where the trend line is headed. Anyone volunteer for the task?

 

[cjvol29]

I looked this up yesterday as I was curious how new coaches fared in their first recruiting classes via Rivals.

Kelly, N.D. ->15th
Meyer, FL ->15th
Saban, AL ->10th
Kelly, OR ->32nd
Miles, LSU ->22nd
Fisher, FS ->10th
Spurrier, SC ->23rd

AVG = 18th

We should get a top 20 class, hopefully make it to a bowl game next year, and have a monster 2014 class.

 

[UTChicagoV]

Even the Avg. Star Rating is not totally accurate; it just makes it easier to get past the Quantity issue.

The difference between LSU with their 3.74 Avg. Star Rating and our 3.24 Avg. Star Rating is minor. Why? Because in those Star Ratings, a 6.0 rated 4 Star and a 6.1 rated 5 star seem miles apart when in actuality they are not that much different.

I wish that Rivals would calculate an average Rivals Rating to go along with the Avg. Star Rating to give fans a better picture. Maybe in their next Formula Update...

 

[MyrtleVol]

I have always looked at the avg star rating. You kind of have to when teams bring in 32 recruits one year vs another one that brings in 20.

 

[supersmo18]

I have always looked at the avg star rating. You kind of have to when teams bring in 32 recruits one year vs another one that brings in 20.

With exception of this year, the new rule only allows maximum of 25 per team (new SEC bylaw).

 

[UTChicagoV]

I looked this up yesterday as I was curious how new coaches fared in their first recruiting classes via Rivals.

Kelly, N.D. ->15th
Meyer, FL ->15th
Saban, AL ->10th
Kelly, OR ->32nd
Miles, LSU ->22nd
Fisher, FS ->10th
Spurrier, SC ->23rd

AVG = 18th

We should get a top 20 class, hopefully make it to a bowl game next year, and have a monster 2014 class.

The way that some of the 2014 targets are tweeting each other, it seems like they want to play together...we have the potential to kill it with that recruiting class. Very highly rated guys and NUMEROUS Vol Legacies.

 

[17Vols]

My old man used to say that elephant shoes aren't worth a dime a dozen if you don't need elephant shoes. Same thing here. The factor that seems to be lacking in the team rankings is an assessment of how the class fits the particular need of the football team it will join.

wait...what????

you lost me at elephant shoes...

 

[17Vols]

elephant shoes aside, i'm liking the talent that's commited so far. hopefully we can pull a couple of these remaining big dogs. and hopefully vonn bell is one of them!