Rivals Rankings...WTF?

#1
VOLorNuttin

VOLorNuttin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2011
Messages
7,192
Likes
1,833
#1
They have Ohio State at #2 and us at #4....ok let's do some math, here.

Tennessee has 2 Five Star commits/signees + 15 Four Star commits/signees

Ohio State has 1 Five Star and 12 Four Stars

Go figure! They have 22 commits. We have 33! WTF, over? We get penalized because WE HAVE MORE 3*s?...simply because it brings our average down? How much sense does that effectively make? If we have more blue chip players than they do...and A&M, too...and have more 3* athletes...that benefits US, not them!!!

These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 20 people
#2
#2
VOLorNuttin said:
They have Ohio State at #2 and us at #4....ok let's do some math, here.

Tennessee has 2 Five Star commits/signees + 15 Four Star commits/signees

Ohio State has 1 Five Star and 12 Four Stars

Go figure! They have 22 commits. We have 33! WTF, over? We get penalized because WE HAVE MORE 3*s?...simply because it brings our average down? How much sense does that effectively make? If we have more blue chip players than they do...and A&M, too...and have more 3* athletes...that benefits US, not them!!!

These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
Click to expand...


My initial response was going to be that Rivals only counts the top 20 commits and scores are based off of that but I'm not entirely sure that would even make sense of it so I'm just gonna go with the obligatory Rivals hates us.

Sorry I couldn't help more
 
  • Like
Reactions: 20 people
#4
#4
VOLorNuttin said:
They have Ohio State at #2 and us at #4....ok let's do some math, here.

Tennessee has 2 Five Star commits/signees + 15 Four Star commits/signees

Ohio State has 1 Five Star and 12 Four Stars

Go figure! They have 22 commits. We have 33! WTF, over? We get penalized because WE HAVE MORE 3*s?...simply because it brings our average down? How much sense does that effectively make? If we have more blue chip players than they do...and A&M, too...and have more 3* athletes...that benefits US, not them!!!

These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
Click to expand...

they have a very elaborate points system. some 4*'s are rated higher than others which means they have a greater point value. OSU's 4*'s are ranked fairly high and this gives them enough points to be ranked above us.

I'm sure someone else will explain the system or provide a link to how they score recruits.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5
#5
Jayoung21 said:
OSU = Overrated State University. In every aspect including their rivals ranking.
Click to expand...
Yeah....I don't get it. They have less of EVERYTHING than we do. Yet, because of the way Rivals bases their overall rating (average of the total), both OSU and TAM are rated ahead of us. Makes sense....doesn't it?
 

Attachments

  • zpjhojL.gif
    zpjhojL.gif
    536.6 KB · Views: 1,645
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#6
#6
This has always bothered me too. Rivals should revisit how they grade class rankings. The force is strong with you young VolorNuttin.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#8
#8
UTvol1fn said:
they have a very elaborate points system. some 4*'s are rated higher than others which means they have a greater point value. OSU's 4*'s are ranked fairly high and this gives them enough points to be ranked above us.

I'm sure someone else will explain the system or provide a link to how they score recruits.
Click to expand...
No...that wouldn't be enough to overcome the fact that we have one more 5*s and 3 more 4*s. It's because our higher number of 3*s pulls the overall percentage down.

It should be based on the SUM of all the numbers....not an average. It should be based exclusively on the basis of how much talent is an entire class bringing in. An average doesn't mean squat to a coach. Sheer #'s do.

More 5*s. More 4*s. More 3*s....game over.
 
Last edited:
#9
#9
VOLorNuttin said:
No...that wouldn't be enough to overcome the fact that we have one more 5*s and 3 more 4*s. It's because our higher number of 3*s pulls the overall percentage down.

It should be based on the SUM of all the numbers....not an average.
Click to expand...

it's not based on average....read the link i posted.

the #60 overall player is a 4* and the #220 player is also a 4*....the #60 player will be worth more points to the overall total. bonus points are also awarded for how highly ranked you are. study the formula i posted...it's fairly simple to follow.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 people
#10
#10
VOLorNuttin said:
No...that wouldn't be enough to overcome the fact that we have one more 5*s and 3 more 4*s. It's because our higher number of 3*s pulls the overall percentage down.

It should be based on the SUM of all the numbers....not an average. It should be based exclusively on the basis of how much talent is an entire class bringing in. An average doesn't mean squat to a coach. Sheer #'s do.

More 5*s. More 4*s. More 3*s....game over.
Click to expand...

i see what you are sying, but rivals doesn't score classes that way and they won't change the system because they will tell you it is time tested and proven.

also, they only count the best 20 commits to the overall score of a class. keep that in mind
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#11
#11
VOLorNuttin said:
They have Ohio State at #2 and us at #4....ok let's do some math, here.

Tennessee has 2 Five Star commits/signees + 15 Four Star commits/signees

Ohio State has 1 Five Star and 12 Four Stars

Go figure! They have 22 commits. We have 33! WTF, over? We get penalized because WE HAVE MORE 3*s?...simply because it brings our average down? How much sense does that effectively make? If we have more blue chip players than they do...and A&M, too...and have more 3* athletes...that benefits US, not them!!!

These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
Click to expand...
qKOQz.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#12
#12
VOLorNuttin said:
They have Ohio State at #2 and us at #4....ok let's do some math, here.

Tennessee has 2 Five Star commits/signees + 15 Four Star commits/signees

Ohio State has 1 Five Star and 12 Four Stars

Go figure! They have 22 commits. We have 33! WTF, over? We get penalized because WE HAVE MORE 3*s?...simply because it brings our average down? How much sense does that effectively make? If we have more blue chip players than they do...and A&M, too...and have more 3* athletes...that benefits US, not them!!!

These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
Click to expand...
The rankings don't count for the guys average 40 and bench press so stop complaining if your too stupid to understand the system are class is good.
 
#14
#14
VOLorNuttin, the link that UTvol1fn provided truly does give you everything that you need to know in order to calculate the number of points any recruit ranked within the Rivals Top 250 will contribute to overall team rankings.

The major difference is that we have 5 players ranked in the Top 100; OSU has 8, six of which are in the Top 55, so they receive greater bonus points compared to us. In terms of the Top 250, we have 10; OSU has 12; all but one of theirs is ranked in the top 200, so again they receive more bonus points.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#15
#15
These recruiting ranking really are a farce.[/QUOTE]

because you cant figure out a formula that is openly available on the internet? its not hard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#16
#16
VolFaninV said:
because you cant figure out a formula that is openly available on the internet? its not hard.
Click to expand...
You don't have to be an a$$ about it. I didn't say they don't follow their formula, just that the way they reach the conclusion makes no sense.

Yes, they go by a points system, but it's still rather retarded to say that because OSU has more 4* players in their top 200 than we do, that it effectively trumps the fact that we have more 4* players.

And how would that also trump us having one more 5* and 11 more players total. Bottom line is this...if you are a coach building a new team, which would you rather have? A team with more 5, 4, and 3 star players and 11 more total...or the reverse?

Look at Orlando Brown, for example....the kid is already NFL size, and has an offer from most every major program, but they have him listed as a 3*. I'm saying Rivals system is crap.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
VolFaninV said:
These recruiting ranking really are a farce.
Click to expand...

because you cant figure out a formula that is openly available on the internet? its not hard.[/QUOTE]

It's not that it is hard to figure out, it's really quite simple, but it is the fact that the formula itself is absurdly stupid. I am talking about the 20 player limit. It doesn't line up with reality at all. I mean there is probably no way Meyer wouldn't trade classes with Butch right now. Adding 33 players as opposed to 22 is a huge difference in actuality. However, its not NSD yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#18
#18
JDisThereThere said:
It's not that it is hard to figure out, it's really quite simple, but it is the fact that the formula itself is absurdly stupid. I am talking about the 20 player limit. It doesn't line up with reality at all. I mean there is probably no way Meyer wouldn't trade classes with Butch right now. Adding 33 players as opposed to 22 is a huge difference in actuality. However, its not NSD yet.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm pretty sure CBJ could care less that OSU has more of their 4*s rated in the Top 200. He has more elite athletes....period...than CUM does. Plain and simple.
 
#19
#19
Screw rivals. Their ranking isn't all that important, our class this year is still amazing whether it's rated #2, #4, or #50 by recruiting services.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
VOLorNuttin said:
You don't have to be an a$$ about it. I didn't say they don't follow their formula, just that the way they reach the conclusion makes no sense.

Even though they calculate the total somewhat differently...it's still rather retarded to say that because OSU has more 4* players in their top 200 than we do, that it effectively trumps the fact that we have MORE 4* players.

And how that would also trump us having one more 5* and 11 more players. Bottom line is this...if you are a coach building a new team, which would you rather have? A team with more 5, 4, and 3 star players and 11 more total...or the reverse?

Look at Orlando Brown, for example....the kid is already NFL size, and has an offer from most every major program, but they have him listed as a 3*. I'm saying Rivals system is crap.
Click to expand...
If you try using less emotion, actual facts, and avoid synonyms like WTF in the title - people might actually be less inclined to hassle you.

Rivals does have a flawed system, that much goes without saying. Should our class be ranked higher? Its debateable. I consider it a crime that JUCOs do not receive a point boost to scale for the misappropriated "bonus" points. Bonus points should not be limited to Rivals250 members, but instead should be awarded based on their rivals rating (for example a 5.9 4star), ie "bonus points" are only given to the best prospects. So if Rivals took this into account then yes, I think our points would much better reflect the talent we have. Which I believe is on par with #2 or #3 (Ala still the clear cut leader).

Another point that needs debate are the amount of commits they count for the class. Rivals uses 20, not sure about 247 but I know they use a Guaussian function in their ratings. I am convinced 20 is too low and that it should be 22 or 23, based simply on the fact that d1 college football has, on average, a 20%> attrition rate per class.

As a side note those offers for Mr. Brown were given out his soph year so most were not considered commitable.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#21
#21
VOLorNuttin said:
Exactly. I'm pretty sure CBJ could care less that OSU has more of their 4*s rated in the Top 200. He has more elite athletes....period...than CUM does. Plain and simple.
Click to expand...

Also, I've always thought ranking guys that high was a little bit ridiculous as well. I can understand ranking who you think the really top, top players are; for the most part they really stand out. But once you get past the top 50 or 100, aren't most of those guys pretty much very close together talent wise. Its just kinda weird to say that the 168th player counts more than the 178th player. IDK we gotta have our rankings hahaha.

Also, I was just thinking the rankings for this year really are completed wrong going by all these formulas and calculations. If you just think about it, Tennessee's class is the best one in the country simply because of its importance to us. This class means more to us than the other top schools' classes mean to them. I'll admit Bama may have better players than UT, but they are already stacked. Same with any other school with a class comparable to ours (not many at the moment). This class is about getting UT back into the upper echelon of elite recruiting.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#25
#25
Recruiting sites are pointless. I do look at them to see the players UT has verbals from and who they are targeting. That's about all they are good for

Some of the classes that Fulmer signed and then flopped (largely his fault, but still...) were top 5 in the country. Know what I mean? So I've always taken those sites with a grain of salt.

Then they lost all legitimacy to me after Kiffins class. None of those kids amounted to squat compared to what they were hyped to be....
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement



Back
Top