All things rankings

[Mikey 16,603]

How many consecutive #1-ranked classes does a school have to have for the governing body to raise a suspicious eye their way? Asking for a friend.

There is no limit. Success breeds success. They aren't necessarily cheating, though it's entirely likely. Now, we've never consistently outrecruited UAT, UGA, UF or Tennessee yet we do really well against them on the field. All we have to do in the recruiting chase is stay close.

[doc4aday 1,887]

How many consecutive #1-ranked classes does a school have to have for the governing body to raise a suspicious eye their way? Asking for a friend.

There is no limit. Success breeds success. They aren't necessarily cheating, though it's entirely likely. Now, we've never consistently outrecruited UAT, UGA, UF or Tennessee yet we do really well against them on the field. All we have to do in the recruiting chase is stay close.

Amen!!!

I have always taken the position of maintaining recruiting classes in the top 15 year in and out. We do this, we will be fine and can compete and win against any team in America.

[cooltigger21 0]

How many consecutive #1-ranked classes does a school have to have for the governing body to raise a suspicious eye their way? Asking for a friend.

There is no limit. Success breeds success. They aren't necessarily cheating, though it's entirely likely. Now, we've never consistently outrecruited UAT, UGA, UF or Tennessee yet we do really well against them on the field. All we have to do in the recruiting chase is stay close.

Amen!!!

I have always taken the position of maintaining recruiting classes in the top 15 year in and out. We do this, we will be fine and can compete and win against any team in America.

Despite all those #1 classes they still felt that they had to go get Coker and this guy they just brought in this year

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

11 on 247, 12 on Rivals, 10 on Scout, and 10 on ESPN.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Florida DB Dinson Commits to AU.

http://auburn.247sports.com/Article/Florida-CB-Dinson-commits-to-Auburn-35086026?utm_source=247Sports+Newsletter&utm_campaign=b17682d10f-150126_Auburn+Tigers&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b5300ae947-b17682d10f-220528581

[ShocksMyBrain 9,366]

[cooltigger21 0]

I believe that JC players don't figure into the rankings. Is that correct?

[ClaytonAU 4,606]

I believe that JC players don't figure into the rankings. Is that correct?

On Rivals maybe

[AuburnArch13 185]

I believe that JC players don't figure into the rankings. Is that correct?

I believe they count toward rankings on every site, though generally not as heavily as their star counts would indicate. For example, I believe that on rivals, the class would get the points from the players rating, but not the bonus for their position rankings or ranking within the top 250. There are others on the board that could likely get more specific, but the gist is that they count, though proportionally not as much.

[ellitor 33,093]

I believe that JC players don't figure into the rankings. Is that correct?

All 4 sites rank jucos now and they do count. Only parts of a class that don't count in rankings are D1 transfers.

[cooltigger21 0]

Ok cool. Thanks for the info guys.

[McLoofus 35,182]

Looks like Godwin would put us in 6th, possibly comfortably so. No additional commits would likely leave us 9th.

[Sig Sauer 0]

Is it true? I heard there were no 5 star former recruits playing in the Super Bowl. Is that possible?

[cooltigger21 0]

Is it true? I heard there were no 5 star former recruits playing in the Super Bowl. Is that possible?

It's true.

[AU-24 3,096]

Forgive me if this is old news, but I just saw where Scout.com has our recruiting class #3 in the nation!

http://www.scout.com/a.z?s=143&p=9&c=14&yr=2015

[AUIH1 1,515]

A much more accurate evaluation of our class would be a composite score based on Scout, Rivals. 247, ESPN, etc.

wde

[cooltigger21 0]

We're right around 6 or so which is excellent.Scout is not the most reliable one out there. We got some impact players at positions of need.

[AU-24 3,096]

We're right around 6 or so which is excellent.Scout is not the most reliable one out there. We got some impact players at positions of need.

I agree. Was just happy to see AU ranked so high, so I thought I would share.

[ellitor 33,093]

Is it true? I heard there were no 5 star former recruits playing in the Super Bowl. Is that possible?

Considering less than 1% of all recruits are ever a 5* that should be expected. People like to skew an arguement to promote falicies and wrongful perception.

[metafour 4,969]

The stat itself is a bit bloated to bend reality. While Marshawn Lynch was technically a "4-star" he was actually ranked 28th nationally by Rivals in 2004. The significance here is that since then Rivals (and 247 when they came out) have added a few more 5-stars each year, thus Lynch was essentially a "5-star". Rivals has had 32+ 5-stars in each of the past ~5 classes (possibly more, I stopped looking back). A lot of the veteran players in the Super Bowl would also have been signed before the whole internet recruiting thing blew up, thus it would be hard to make any sort of intricate evaluation on their "star rankings". Vince Wilfork is a player who fits into that category: he was an elite recruit coming out of HS. Was he a "5-star"? Who knows, but he was elite.

[cooltigger21 0]

The stat itself is a bit bloated to bend reality. While Marshawn Lynch was technically a "4-star" he was actually ranked 28th nationally by Rivals in 2004. The significance here is that since then Rivals (and 247 when they came out) have added a few more 5-stars each year, thus Lynch was essentially a "5-star". Rivals has had 32+ 5-stars in each of the past ~5 classes (possibly more, I stopped looking back). A lot of the veteran players in the Super Bowl would also have been signed before the whole internet recruiting thing blew up, thus it would be hard to make any sort of intricate evaluation on their "star rankings". Vince Wilfork is a player who fits into that category: he was an elite recruit coming out of HS. Was he a "5-star"? Who knows, but he was elite.

Vince was a4 star. There were 8 4 stars on the rosters. Brady was thought to be a 4 star even though they didn't have the star system when he was recruited. Look up and down the roster of each team and you'll find quite a few players that weren't as highly rated.

[cooltigger21 0]

We're right around 6 or so which is excellent.Scout is not the most reliable one out there. We got some impact players at positions of need.

I agree. Was just happy to see AU ranked so high, so I thought I would share.

no problem. It is cool to get that recognition. Thx for putting it up.

[ellitor 33,093]

Look up and down the roster of each team and you'll find quite a few players that weren't as highly rated.

That should be expected given 95% of all players who get ranked are 3* or lower. If a team has 3 or more 4*s+ on their team those players are beating the odds.

[AU64 10,122]

Look up and down the roster of each team and you'll find quite a few players that weren't as highly rated.

That should be expected given 95% of all players who get ranked are 3* or lower. If a team has 3 or more 4*s+ on their team those players are beating the odds.

You may want to brush up on your statistics. Consider how many kids play HS ball and even if the best 1% are classed as 5*, that is still a decent number of kids.....and the actual number of 4* kids is pretty substantial. Climb the pyramid past college, toward the NFL and the % of HS kids who will make it to each level diminishes hugely until we find that the percent of HS kids who make the NFL is miniscule ...not even 1% probability.

SO...if the star rating predictors are correct/valid, all the 2*, 3* and many 4* should be winnowed out along the way until the NFL rosters SHOULD be predominantly populated by 5* HS players.

Making an NFL roster is not a lottery or random chance where the larger the population, the greater the chance of making it. The fact that 95% of HS players are 3* or less means nothing because if you figure the pool of candidates over 5 or 6 years, there are more than enough 5* players coming through the system to dominate every NFL team with some left over.

The problem is the star system is subjective...and fortunately for the people making money off it, they do not have to actually prove that their "system" predicts much of anything.

http://www.shmoop.com/careers/football-player/odds-of-getting-in.html

[ellitor 33,093]

Look up and down the roster of each team and you'll find quite a few players that weren't as highly rated.

That should be expected given 95% of all players who get ranked are 3* or lower. If a team has 3 or more 4*s+ on their team those players are beating the odds.

You may want to brush up on your statistics. Consider how many kids play HS ball and even if the best 1% are classed as 5*, that is still a decent number of kids.....and the actual number of 4* kids is pretty substantial. Climb the pyramid past college, toward the NFL and the % of HS kids who will make it to each level diminishes hugely until we find that the percent of HS kids who make the NFL is miniscule ...not even 1% probability.

SO...if the star rating predictors are correct/valid, all the 2*, 3* and many 4* should be winnowed out along the way until the NFL rosters SHOULD be predominantly populated by 5* HS players.

Making an NFL roster is not a lottery or random chance where the larger the population, the greater the chance of making it. The fact that 95% of HS players are 3* or less means nothing because if you figure the pool of candidates over 5 or 6 years, there are more than enough 5* players coming through the system to dominate every NFL team with some left over.

The problem is the star system is subjective...and fortunately for the people making money off it, they do not have to actually prove that their "system" predicts much of anything.

I don't have to brush up on anything here.. I've already done the research. Of all ranked players in this class on 0,5% are 5*s. 4* are in no way at all substantial. They only make up 4.5% of the class.

And of course it's subjective. Everything to with with humans besides being born, need to eat, need to sleep, need to get rid of excess waste, aging, and dying is all subjective. There is no pure scientific method on any other aspect of human nature. Therefore it's pointless to try to discrerdit rankers by implying something so dumb as to say they aren't scientific. It is not even possible to be scientific, especially with how 17-18 year oid kids will pan out in the future. Hell, even they admit that. All most of them do is try to do the best they can and that's all we can ask of them. Lastly. You are blowing a 5 and 4*s potential of making the league over 3 and lower *s WAAAAAAAY out of proportion.