Home
Articles
Photos
Interviews
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Georgia Tech Recruiting
Dashboard
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Chat
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CPJ's Comment on no Top-10 Recruiting Classes at Tech
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="forensicbuzz" data-source="post: 9314" data-attributes="member: 198"><p>Well, since I never went ahead and created a thread of it's own, I'll complain about the way the schools are ranked by the individual sites. My data is solely from Rivals and taken from 9/5 (so the numbers have changed slightly since then). These rankings reward total number of commits much higher than I think it should. In other words, if you bring in a mediocre recruiting class, but have 32 kids listed, you've got a chance to make the Top 25. I've only included the Top 60 schools, so there may be some schools that would slide onto or off this list if you included all schools in the calculations and then only reported the top 60.</p><p></p><p>The first column is the Rivals ranking based on their formula. The second column takes the total points for the given school divided by the total number of commits. The third column is sorted by average star rating, and the last column takes the average star rating and multiplies it by the number of commits. As you can see, even with their own data, depending on how you want to look at the teams can wildly swing the rankings.</p><p></p><p>For instance, Tennessee is only ranked second and Kentucky 7 because they have a ton of recruits. If you normalize their points over the number of recruits have, they fall dramatically. On the flip side, UVA, USCw and Oregon (all who have smaller classes right now) are ranked low right now, but will probably be ranked much higher as their classes grow.</p><p></p><p>I tend to like the second column because is takes the size of the class out of the equation. All that being said, I think the ranking of individual athletes by these services to be a total farce. It's better than it used to be (higher demand for better evaluations from the clients/fans), but it's still rather arbitrary.</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">[ATTACH=full]31[/ATTACH]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="forensicbuzz, post: 9314, member: 198"] Well, since I never went ahead and created a thread of it's own, I'll complain about the way the schools are ranked by the individual sites. My data is solely from Rivals and taken from 9/5 (so the numbers have changed slightly since then). These rankings reward total number of commits much higher than I think it should. In other words, if you bring in a mediocre recruiting class, but have 32 kids listed, you've got a chance to make the Top 25. I've only included the Top 60 schools, so there may be some schools that would slide onto or off this list if you included all schools in the calculations and then only reported the top 60. The first column is the Rivals ranking based on their formula. The second column takes the total points for the given school divided by the total number of commits. The third column is sorted by average star rating, and the last column takes the average star rating and multiplies it by the number of commits. As you can see, even with their own data, depending on how you want to look at the teams can wildly swing the rankings. For instance, Tennessee is only ranked second and Kentucky 7 because they have a ton of recruits. If you normalize their points over the number of recruits have, they fall dramatically. On the flip side, UVA, USCw and Oregon (all who have smaller classes right now) are ranked low right now, but will probably be ranked much higher as their classes grow. I tend to like the second column because is takes the size of the class out of the equation. All that being said, I think the ranking of individual athletes by these services to be a total farce. It's better than it used to be (higher demand for better evaluations from the clients/fans), but it's still rather arbitrary. [INDENT][ATTACH=full]31[/ATTACH][/INDENT] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
What is the name of Georgia Tech's mascot?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
CPJ's Comment on no Top-10 Recruiting Classes at Tech
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top