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
Recruiting Potential
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="JacketOff" data-source="post: 756658" data-attributes="member: 4572"><p>While the math you did to come up with those averages is correct, it’s not how they’re ranked. Washington signed 23 players; 10 4-stars, 9 3-stars, and 4 2-stars for a star average of 3.26. TCU signed 19 total players; 1 5-star, 6 4-stars, 10 3-stars, and 2 2-stars for a star average of 3.32. Washington would’ve had a better star average if they just hadn’t signed those 2-star players, which is the biggest reason why I think using average stars is a flawed metric.</p><p></p><p>As far as the rest of your comment is concerned, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the rankings themselves. Recruiting rankings aren’t a metric for a team’s success in the future because they aren’t supposed to be. They’re supposed to give a gauge on how much talent a team has. If anything they’re only useful to determine which teams are underperforming, exceeding expectations, or playing to their potential. Do I think the 20th ranked class is absolutely and wholly better than the 30th ranked class? No. And I’ve said as much in 2 different ways. The rankings don’t take a team’s current depth or needs into account, <em>and </em>there’s not a ton of difference between the 20th and 30th ranks anyway. It’s generally only a difference of 1 or 2 players between 30 and 20. That’s why in a previous comment on this very thread I said I though the choices for the poll should’ve been changed. I think recruiting, just like the final rankings, generally line up in tiers. The top 5 have their own tier, 6-12 are all pretty close, 13-20 close again, 21-30, 31-40, etc. All of those tiers generally have a difference of 1 or 2 players between the last team in a tier and the first team.</p><p></p><p>But regardless of where a team finishes in recruiting, it’s up to them where they’ll end up in the final rankings. Having the recruiting rankings just lets us know where they stand relative to their talent.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JacketOff, post: 756658, member: 4572"] While the math you did to come up with those averages is correct, it’s not how they’re ranked. Washington signed 23 players; 10 4-stars, 9 3-stars, and 4 2-stars for a star average of 3.26. TCU signed 19 total players; 1 5-star, 6 4-stars, 10 3-stars, and 2 2-stars for a star average of 3.32. Washington would’ve had a better star average if they just hadn’t signed those 2-star players, which is the biggest reason why I think using average stars is a flawed metric. As far as the rest of your comment is concerned, it doesn’t really have anything to do with the rankings themselves. Recruiting rankings aren’t a metric for a team’s success in the future because they aren’t supposed to be. They’re supposed to give a gauge on how much talent a team has. If anything they’re only useful to determine which teams are underperforming, exceeding expectations, or playing to their potential. Do I think the 20th ranked class is absolutely and wholly better than the 30th ranked class? No. And I’ve said as much in 2 different ways. The rankings don’t take a team’s current depth or needs into account, [I]and [/I]there’s not a ton of difference between the 20th and 30th ranks anyway. It’s generally only a difference of 1 or 2 players between 30 and 20. That’s why in a previous comment on this very thread I said I though the choices for the poll should’ve been changed. I think recruiting, just like the final rankings, generally line up in tiers. The top 5 have their own tier, 6-12 are all pretty close, 13-20 close again, 21-30, 31-40, etc. All of those tiers generally have a difference of 1 or 2 players between the last team in a tier and the first team. But regardless of where a team finishes in recruiting, it’s up to them where they’ll end up in the final rankings. Having the recruiting rankings just lets us know where they stand relative to their talent. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Who was Georgia Tech's starting QB in 2023?
Post reply
Home
Forums
Georgia Tech Athletics
Georgia Tech Football
Recruiting Potential
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