Recruiting Services

[dans4au 1]

I know 247Sports, Rivals, ESPN, and Scout all use different criteria when ranking players, but can someone please explain Rivals criteria. Currently, Auburn is ranked #9 on Rivals with 11 commits (3.5 avg.). Florida State is ranked #7, with 9 commits (3.5 avg.). My question is, if both AU and FSU commits average 3.5, shouldn't AU be ranked ahead of FSU just based on AU having two more commitments? I'm confused

[au_bsci_04 407]

Don't think they have graded JUCOs yet, so we have guys without scores.

[dans4au 1]

ok, that makes more sense. Thanks

[AuburnNTexas 7,127]

Two Juco's and D'Anferneee McGriff have not been rated yet. Even once Juco's are rated it won't move us up as much as new players because Juco's don't get bonus points. That said some of our 3 *s will probably get a 4th and even if Juco's don't help with bonus points more importantly they help on the field which is way more important.

[ellitor 33,062]

I know 247Sports, Rivals, ESPN, and Scout all use different criteria when ranking players, but can someone please explain Rivals criteria. Currently, Auburn is ranked #9 on Rivals with 11 commits (3.5 avg.). Florida State is ranked #7, with 9 commits (3.5 avg.). My question is, if both AU and FSU commits average 3.5, shouldn't AU be ranked ahead of FSU just based on AU having two more commitments? I'm confused

Complete explanation on Rivals system is in the OP of the All Things Rankings thread. A 4 * is not just a 4* on Rivals. There are 3 levels. a 6.0 4* is worth 135 points. A 5.9 4* is worth 120 points. A 5.8 4* is worth 105 points. 6.0, 5.9, & high 5.8 4*s also get bonus points based on their overall ranking in the Rivals 250.

Using last year's final rankings you can have a dramatic difference in scores of 7 high 4*s and 9 low 4* that get no bonus points. 7 6.0 4*s have the same point value as 9 5.8 grade 4*s...945. Hypothetically let's say the 7 commit team has the top 7 rated 4*s and the 9 team has 4*s with no bonus points. With the bonus points for the 34-40 ranked player the 7 commit team would have a total of 1292 because of 347 bonus points while the 9 commit team stays at 945. As you can see that is a wide gap from a potential 7 4* commit team to a 9 4*s commit team.

[AU64 10,122]

A good description by E of the ranking process.....and a good reason why nobody should get too excited one way or the other about the rankings of AU versus other to schools. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Does anyone really think that these services are able to accurately differentiate between a linebacker playing in Georgia and a similar sized linebacker playing in Texas and somehow determine that one should be a 6.0 and the other is a 5.9? While it might be fun to track the rankings, there is absolutely nothing scientific about the process. Sure we can tell that some kids are better than others and maybe better than most of their peers in a given state....but to then go so far as to split hairs over whether the guy in Texas might be just slightly better than the kid in Georgia (and how do they determine that?) so they will give his school a few bonus points for sighing him.

Still, even after E makes it clear that this ranking process is a bigger con game than Bernie Madoff ran, somehow,sports fans apparently think there is something objective about a system where there is ZERO basis for the relative rating...or the bonus points that accompanies the rating of two different players rated as 4* or such. And of course there is little effort to come back in a couple years and validate the system or even to check six or 8 months later to see how many kids actually enrolled at their chosen school.

Sorry to be such a grouch, but there is just no science here .....and only a loose correlation between the recruiting ranking and subsequent W-L records..

JMO but only a bammer could read anything meaningful into being rated #1 in a system with so little validity.

[ellitor 33,062]

A good description by E of the ranking process.....and a good reason why nobody should get too excited one way or the other about the rankings of AU versus other to schools. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Does anyone really think that these services are able to accurately differentiate between a linebacker playing in Georgia and a similar sized linebacker playing in Texas and somehow determine that one should be a 6.0 and the other is a 5.9? While it might be fun to track the rankings, there is absolutely nothing scientific about the process. Sure we can tell that some kids are better than others and maybe better than most of their peers in a given state....but to then go so far as to split hairs over whether the guy in Texas might be just slightly better than the kid in Georgia (and how do they determine that?) so they will give his school a few bonus points for sighing him.

Still, even after E makes it clear that this ranking process is a bigger con game than Bernie Madoff ran, somehow,sports fans apparently think there is something objective about a system where there is ZERO basis for the relative rating...or the bonus points that accompanies the rating of two different players rated as 4* or such. And of course there is little effort to come back in a couple years and validate the system or even to check six or 8 months later to see how many kids actually enrolled at their chosen school.

Sorry to be such a grouch, but there is just no science here .....and only a loose correlation between the recruiting ranking and subsequent W-L records..

JMO but only a bammer could read anything meaningful into being rated #1 in a system with so little validity.

You never listen to the big picture. You and I have had this debate specifically numerous times. The services do matter in that even though they miss on some individual prospects they do give a picture of the teams who truly have the team talent to win national titles as evidenced by the fact that every national champion in the BCS era had at least 2 top 10 recruiting classes preceeding their title run (Most cases 3 top ten classes) and every natty game loser had had at least 2 top 13 classes leading to their title game appearance (Most cases 3 top ten classes). No matter what you believe bringing in top 10 talent is not just correlaryly related to winning big. The immies and Joes are important as well as the Coach development.

And besides all that it's fun for most of us to keep up with it.

[auadmin 20]

Correlaryly ...E I like that word but I don't know what it means. But you were on a roll so who's to stop you.

[aujeff11 6,243]

A good description by E of the ranking process.....and a good reason why nobody should get too excited one way or the other about the rankings of AU versus other to schools. It's all smoke and mirrors.

Does anyone really think that these services are able to accurately differentiate between a linebacker playing in Georgia and a similar sized linebacker playing in Texas and somehow determine that one should be a 6.0 and the other is a 5.9? While it might be fun to track the rankings, there is absolutely nothing scientific about the process. Sure we can tell that some kids are better than others and maybe better than most of their peers in a given state....but to then go so far as to split hairs over whether the guy in Texas might be just slightly better than the kid in Georgia (and how do they determine that?) so they will give his school a few bonus points for sighing him.

Still, even after E makes it clear that this ranking process is a bigger con game than Bernie Madoff ran, somehow,sports fans apparently think there is something objective about a system where there is ZERO basis for the relative rating...or the bonus points that accompanies the rating of two different players rated as 4* or such. And of course there is little effort to come back in a couple years and validate the system or even to check six or 8 months later to see how many kids actually enrolled at their chosen school.

Sorry to be such a grouch, but there is just no science here .....and only a loose correlation between the recruiting ranking and subsequent W-L records..

JMO but only a bammer could read anything meaningful into being rated #1 in a system with so little validity.

You never listen to the big picture. You and I have had this debate specifically numerous times. The services do matter in that even though they miss on some individual prospects they do give a picture of the teams who truly have the team talent to win national titles as evidenced by the fact that every national champion in the BCS era had at least 2 top 10 recruiting classes preceeding their title run (Most cases 3 top ten classes) and every natty game loser had had at least 2 top 13 classes leading to their title game appearance (Most cases 3 top ten classes). No matter what you believe bringing in top 10 talent is not just correlaryly related to winning big. The immies and Joes are important as well as the Coach development.

And besides all that it's fun for most of us to keep up with it.

very valid points on both sides I think.....at the end of the day it is all about filling needs. If we have coached-up 3 and 4 stars all over the field with some five stars sprinkled in...we are good to compete

[ellitor 33,062]

Correlaryly ...E I like that word but I don't know what it means. But you were on a roll so who's to stop you.

I create my own words sometimes. It mesny the act of being corelary.

[Mikey 16,550]

The ranking services provide jobs for a number of people and keep us amused throughout the year. Therefore, they provide a useful service. Beyond that they are like cotton candy, fun but hardly essential.

[McLoofus 35,182]

FWIW

Final 1st round #NFLDraft breakdown: four 5-stars, 13 4-stars, 12 3-stars, three 2-stars. 14 former #Rivals250 members.

@RivalsWoody

[auburn4ever 1,266]

I thought we were ranked #2.

[ellitor 33,062]

I thought we were ranked #2.

Penn St. picked up 3 commitments and passed us right back after we passed them.