why is Texas Tech 21st and we're 24. They have 2- 4 star commits and 12- 3 star commits. While we have 2- 4 star and 15- 3 star commits. I don't get it.
Question about rivals.com
- Thread starter Tidetill I die
- Start date
Please, do yourself a favor and don't get caught up in that. The reason TTU has a higher ranking is due to their average stars--because they have fewer 3 stars, their average is higher. It just goes to show that quantifying recruiting is not an exact science. So take it for what it's worth. Trust me, I used to look way too much into that stuff. It's addicting. 
I agree with Glory here . . don't worry about it cause it is going to change a WHOLE lot before they sign on the dotted lines. . . .CrimsonGlory said:Please, do yourself a favor and don't get caught up in that. The reason TTU has a higher ranking is due to their average stars--because they have fewer 3 stars, their average is higher. It just goes to show that quantifying recruiting is not an exact science. So take it for what it's worth. Trust me, I used to look way too much into that stuff. It's addicting.
I don't really get that caught up in the star rating system it just struck me as odd. I thought maybe they couln't add :biggrin:
Rivals Roots
It is also important to note that Rivals.com is based in Austin, Texas. They have more knowledge and insight about the local talent, and that is likely to create a bias towards the local talent. To me, this means they probably give Texas and Louisiana recruits a little more "star power", just because they can observe them more. I have heard other people here in Texas voice the same opinion on talk shows etc. I would imagine TTU is benefitting from this a little bit, just like Texas and OU probably do.
We are going to be fine. It might take a couple of years to return to a recruiting power, but it will happen. One of the most important things is signing kids who are going to qualify. I hope we get a little better at that.
It is also important to note that Rivals.com is based in Austin, Texas. They have more knowledge and insight about the local talent, and that is likely to create a bias towards the local talent. To me, this means they probably give Texas and Louisiana recruits a little more "star power", just because they can observe them more. I have heard other people here in Texas voice the same opinion on talk shows etc. I would imagine TTU is benefitting from this a little bit, just like Texas and OU probably do.
We are going to be fine. It might take a couple of years to return to a recruiting power, but it will happen. One of the most important things is signing kids who are going to qualify. I hope we get a little better at that.
Also it doesn't take into consideration "needs." Yeah Nebraska may get some great studs but did they finally get an O-Line. They go off players in high school.... not the needs of the team (university).
Good point BamaFanNKy. That's something that gets overlooked quite a lot. I guess you could say people tend to get STARS in their eyes!
Bottom line is that it does matter about the stars. some of you people are in denial. Look at all the schools that have been in the top 25 every year in recruiting, most are competing in the NC or in the four major bowls.
Good point
Didn't Bear Bryant say something about having to have chicken to make chicken salad?
We need as good of athletes as we can get. To look only at the stars is misleading, but there is a strong correlation between stars and winning.
Didn't Bear Bryant say something about having to have chicken to make chicken salad?
We need as good of athletes as we can get. To look only at the stars is misleading, but there is a strong correlation between stars and winning.
IMO... It doesn`t matter how many stars they rate coming out of high school, but how well they`re coached and how well they they pan out in the next level. I`ve seen 5 stars flop and 1 stars and walkons become All-Americans.
I would love to know what the rankings would have looked like in the 60s and 70s. Would Coach Bryant's classes have been highly ranked coming out of high school if they would have had rankings back then? Some of us would be very surprised. Think about recruiting under Gene Stallings. Was Alabama ever rated very high? Remember he won a National Championship and averaged 10 wins per year.
Sure, there is a connection between the top 10 in recruiting and the top 10 on the field. However, its much more important what coaches do with the players they get, as some have said.
Sure, there is a connection between the top 10 in recruiting and the top 10 on the field. However, its much more important what coaches do with the players they get, as some have said.
I believe that they calculate team's getting players they need into the equation.Tidetill I die said:
So a class heavy on DL's and WR's would rate higher going to a team thin in those areas than a team that needed more OL's that year.
The number of players is not that big of a factor either but filling different positions is. One of our probation recruiting classes under stallings(Alexander, Samuels) with less than 15 players was rated higher than Auburn's 30 player class. The players filled in positions the tide especially needed and were highly rated. Not a bunch at one position, spread around.
It's all opinion of course.
Last edited:
Actually, Rivals is based out of Nashville. The President and CEO is an Alabama fan.cowtown tider said:
Rivals: About Us
New Posts
-
-
-
Joke thread - including cartoons, memes, and misc - Part IX- Latest: rolltide_21
-
-
-
Amazon Deals for TideFans!
Purchases may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.
Latest threads
-
-
No. 18 Alabama Takes Series with 7-3 Victory Over Missouri on Friday- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Kentucky Looking to Turn It’s Athletic Department into a LLC- Started by BamaBoySince89
- Replies: 6
-
-
-
No. 18 Alabama Erases Five-Run Deficit, Wins 7-5 over Missouri on Thursday
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 1