Guys and Gals,
I've been lurking here literally for years and never really felt the urge to post....until now. Like many of you, I've read numerous posts, articles, and opinions on the subject of team recruiting rankings and how to do them right and I just had to weigh in with my $.02.
Maybe this doesn't tell the whole story all of the time, but my opinion is you should simply look at the top 25 players that a particular team signs (or less if they can't sign 25) and average the "star ratings". It isn't totally foolproof, particularly for teams that sign extremely low numbers, but it will generally get you a better look at the top 10-15 teams. Here's my logic taking Bama's class as an example. Bama signed 32 kids, right? Is there any doubt that if they could only sign 25 that they would take the very best 25? My take is that if limited to 25 signees, those 2 and 3-star kids would in most cases be out of luck. Now, I know this won't work 100% of the time (sometimes you just gotta take a 2-star kicker) and I know the staff might occasionally value a 3-star over a 4-star, but the vast majority of the time I think this would hold true for most teams. This also assumes that all teams will have about the same percentage of overrated/underrated kids. Again, not 100% accurate, but probably pretty close for the best classes.
So, using my (twisted?) logic, I averaged the Scout and Rivals star ratings for the top teams while limiting signings to the 25 top rated kids for each team. Here are the results for the top 10 teams in each service:
Scout
1. Notre Dame (3.96)
2. Alabama (3.92)
3.(tie) USC (3.84)
3.(tie) Ohio State (3.84)
5. Oklahoma (3.76)
6.(tie) Georgia (3.70)
6.(tie) Texas (3.70)
8. Florida (3.68)
9. UCLA (3.65)
10. FSU (3.64)
Rivals
1. Alabama (4.0)
2. Notre Dame (3.96)
3. USC (3.89)
4. Florida (3.82)
5. Oklahoma (3.81)
6. Ohio State (3.79)
7. Miami (3.76)
8. Georgia (3.67)
9. Michigan (3.63)
10.(tie) FSU (3.6)
10.(tie) LSU (3.6)
What does it all mean? Heck, who knows for sure, but I have a few thoughts. First of all, this method sure makes it look like Bama, ND, and USC were solidly the best 3 classes in the nation, although USC's numbers were decidedly smaller. Having said that, I bet their average would have been about the same with a full class (imo). After that, it gets somewhat muddier, but Rivals basically gives Florida, Miami, and Michigan higher marks than Scout. Otherwise, there isn't much difference in the top ten. BTW, Miami and Michigan would finish 11 and 12 on Scout, while Rivals would have Texas and UCLA 11 and 12 - not much difference to me.
OK, fire away, pick it apart and give me your best shot. I can take it.
Roll Tide!
Special K
I've been lurking here literally for years and never really felt the urge to post....until now. Like many of you, I've read numerous posts, articles, and opinions on the subject of team recruiting rankings and how to do them right and I just had to weigh in with my $.02.
Maybe this doesn't tell the whole story all of the time, but my opinion is you should simply look at the top 25 players that a particular team signs (or less if they can't sign 25) and average the "star ratings". It isn't totally foolproof, particularly for teams that sign extremely low numbers, but it will generally get you a better look at the top 10-15 teams. Here's my logic taking Bama's class as an example. Bama signed 32 kids, right? Is there any doubt that if they could only sign 25 that they would take the very best 25? My take is that if limited to 25 signees, those 2 and 3-star kids would in most cases be out of luck. Now, I know this won't work 100% of the time (sometimes you just gotta take a 2-star kicker) and I know the staff might occasionally value a 3-star over a 4-star, but the vast majority of the time I think this would hold true for most teams. This also assumes that all teams will have about the same percentage of overrated/underrated kids. Again, not 100% accurate, but probably pretty close for the best classes.
So, using my (twisted?) logic, I averaged the Scout and Rivals star ratings for the top teams while limiting signings to the 25 top rated kids for each team. Here are the results for the top 10 teams in each service:
Scout
1. Notre Dame (3.96)
2. Alabama (3.92)
3.(tie) USC (3.84)
3.(tie) Ohio State (3.84)
5. Oklahoma (3.76)
6.(tie) Georgia (3.70)
6.(tie) Texas (3.70)
8. Florida (3.68)
9. UCLA (3.65)
10. FSU (3.64)
Rivals
1. Alabama (4.0)
2. Notre Dame (3.96)
3. USC (3.89)
4. Florida (3.82)
5. Oklahoma (3.81)
6. Ohio State (3.79)
7. Miami (3.76)
8. Georgia (3.67)
9. Michigan (3.63)
10.(tie) FSU (3.6)
10.(tie) LSU (3.6)
What does it all mean? Heck, who knows for sure, but I have a few thoughts. First of all, this method sure makes it look like Bama, ND, and USC were solidly the best 3 classes in the nation, although USC's numbers were decidedly smaller. Having said that, I bet their average would have been about the same with a full class (imo). After that, it gets somewhat muddier, but Rivals basically gives Florida, Miami, and Michigan higher marks than Scout. Otherwise, there isn't much difference in the top ten. BTW, Miami and Michigan would finish 11 and 12 on Scout, while Rivals would have Texas and UCLA 11 and 12 - not much difference to me.
OK, fire away, pick it apart and give me your best shot. I can take it.
Roll Tide!
Special K
Last edited:
