|
Rivals 2017 Coots 1-2*, 17-3*, 7-4*, 0-5* = #16 class
storage
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.
|
Replies: 7
| visibility 2,481
|
Orange Blooded [3521]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 3859
Joined: 5/14/01
|
Rivals 2017 Coots 1-2*, 17-3*, 7-4*, 0-5* = #16 class
Feb 4, 2017, 3:53 PM
|
|
CU 5-3*, 6-4*, 3-5* = #22 class
What does this tell about Rival's class rankings weighted toward quantity vs quality?
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2017
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [36207]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 21509
Joined: 10/27/03
|
Crap we Need some 2 Stars***
Feb 4, 2017, 4:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14488]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11103
Joined: 4/2/12
|
Rivals is still the most accurate and unbiased recruiting site
Feb 4, 2017, 4:34 PM
|
|
They have to have some sort of quantifiable metric to "rank" the classes.
Obviously our class is "better," hence the higher avg rating per prospect
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4745]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8641
Joined: 2/7/02
|
Yep, it is all about the average ranking, whether we sign 14
Feb 4, 2017, 4:56 PM
|
|
or 25, I have always been more concerned about the average ranking. Quantity only matters if the quality matches the quantity.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4043
Joined: 2/15/11
|
I sort of agree but ...
Feb 4, 2017, 5:34 PM
[ in reply to Rivals is still the most accurate and unbiased recruiting site ] |
|
... the main ranking should be based on quality and not quantity. This is where all the ranking services tend to fail.
Clemson (or Stanford, etc.) will have the maximum number of players on scholarship and if their recruits on average are more highly regarded by the analysts, then they should not be penalized in any way for not having more scholarships to give out.
Giving any serious weight to sheer numbers is just stupid.
It simply means a school like SCAR had room for 5-6 more 3 star recruits while Clemson already had 5-6 those caliber of guys (or better) on their roster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [14090]
TigerPulse: 78%
Posts: 25448
Joined: 7/28/05
|
Recruiting publications base their rankings off of...
Feb 4, 2017, 5:21 PM
|
|
who there market is. Recruiting services market is SEC fans along with Clemson, FSU, Texas, Notre Dame, OSU, and Michigan. So they will over rate or bump up recruits based on either the region of the country they're from or what school is recruiting them or committed to. We even get a bump sometimes. I've notice that over the years with ours and our rivals 4 star players that are lower down on the top 300 or outside of, develop more along the lines of a 3 star player. Not saying they don't turn out good, but they don't contribute as fast as a 4 star ranking player is supposed to. So there is subjectivity based off of the audience of the recruiting services. Example, a good portion of the SEC gets higher rated recruiting classes than Oklahoma State. Yet Oklahoma State has been more consistent than a number of those SEC programs over the last decade.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [6153]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 4043
Joined: 2/15/11
|
Nothing matters but 56-7 and National Championship - oh and
Feb 4, 2017, 5:24 PM
|
|
also beating Alabama along the way.
It may be a bit frustrating for Clemson fans off season that recruiting analysts throw SCAR a bone to chew on and make themselves feel a bit better through their misery, but there is absolutely nothing about these recruiting rankings ... when coupled with the caliber of the players already on campus ... that gives SCAR fans any realistic hope for the foreseeable future.
56-7, three in a row, National Title, Win over Alabama.
That's all that matters right now and these recruiting classes don't help matters at all for SCAR.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Letterman [260]
TigerPulse: 80%
Posts: 432
Joined: 2/12/99
|
Re: Rivals 2017 Coots 1-2*, 17-3*, 7-4*, 0-5* = #16 class
Feb 4, 2017, 6:06 PM
|
|
Forget about recruiting rankings, counting stars, etc. it's pointless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 7
| visibility 2,481
|
|
|
|
50
