2017 Class Ranking Tracker

#1
Freak

Freak

VolNation's Grand Poobah
Staff member
Joined
Oct 22, 2003
Messages
96,265
Likes
110,404
#1
As of right now:


15th 247Sports
11th Rivals
13th ESPN
12th Scout
8th RankbyOffers
 
  • Like
Reactions: 11 people
#4
#4
The one at the bottom is the only one that matters. The rest are full of conjecture and personal bias. The more teams the want a player in general means the better they are. It isn't rocket science.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#6
#6
landscapingvol said:
The one at the bottom is the only one that matters. The rest are full of conjecture and personal bias. The more teams the want a player in general means the better they are. It isn't rocket science.
Click to expand...

I agree that a great offer list is a better indicator of value than a recruiting service.

Even that ranking has issues, though. Many offers aren't "commitable". A team will offer a kid to get their name on the table but don't have room unless another player moves or drops. Bama hands out dozens of offers they have no intention of honoring.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
landscapingvol said:
247 is their ranking system it is not an average of other ranking systems as some people assume. 247 is as good as any other system, no better no worse
Click to expand...

24/7 has their own ranking system AND a composite that take into account 24/7, Rivals, and ESPN.
Not sure if they include Scout or not.

One of the mods there explained it last year. Maybe the year before?
 
#13
#13
v011s said:
24/7 has their own ranking system AND a composite that take into account 24/7, Rivals, and ESPN.
Not sure if they include Scout or not.

One of the mods there explained it last year. Maybe the year before?
Click to expand...

Understand that but it isn't just an "average" of other services
 
#14
#14
If we are + or - 3 or so at the top ten I'll be satisfied this year. Top 15 will do. I restate. This is a sleeper class. Some of those 3 stars are better than their rankings.
 
#17
#17
Ray committing to Bama pretty much is it for UT. Don't see any more movement so I agree we will finish composite ranked about 17-19
 
#18
#18
Freak said:
As of right now:


15th 247Sports
11th Rivals
13th ESPN
12th Scout
8th RankbyOffers
Click to expand...

I don't understand this here is our ranking by the 4 major sites individual rankings.

11th 247Sports
14th Rivals
14th ESPN
13th Scout

Yet somehow we are 16th on Composite?

How the F does that work?:crazy:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#20
#20
Ericvol2096 said:
I don't understand this here is our ranking by the 4 major sites individual rankings.

11th 247Sports
14th Rivals
14th ESPN
13th Scout

Yet somehow we are 16th on Composite?

How the F does that work?:crazy:
Click to expand...

Because the composite doesn't work.

For some reason it seems that all it did this year was take our kids and downgrade their rating slightly.

I know I'm a broken record on this subject but the composite is a load of crap. It is worthless because it doesn't do what it claims to do. If all 4 sites used the same rankings system and evaluated every player then it would be useful but that isn't the way it is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#21
#21
Ericvol2096 said:
I don't understand this here is our ranking by the 4 major sites individual rankings.

11th 247Sports
14th Rivals
14th ESPN
13th Scout

Yet somehow we are 16th on Composite?

How the F does that work?:crazy:
Click to expand...

Tennessee is being punished in this composite ranking because of the unusually high proportion of 3 star to higher ranked prospects on their large signee list. The composite claims to be the most unbiased, but that is only an opinion due to its use of a rather sophisticated statistical formula to compute the composite score. If you look at Florida, they are rated 3 places higher at present than Tennessee because their 22 (6 fewer than UT) recruits are about a 50/50 split of 4 and 3 stars. UT has 6 more recruits but 23 of the 28 are 3 stars (according to 247). It could be worse I believe if we didn't have the one 5 star in Trey. The formula starts out its calc by using the top rated player in the class as a 100 score then works down in points from there in the class (2nd highest, 3rd highest, etc.) to compute a standard deviation weight. My guess is that if UT had fewer recruits (say 25 total) and the three less were lower rated 3 stars, then we likely are a few places higher in the composite despite no added 4 and 5 star players. In the end its just a math formula. UT's large class with a lot of 3 stars could end up being really good players which the Rivals, ESPN's, Scout, and ironically 247 (standard ratings) rewards. Think of the composite more as adding a "risk factor weight" to a teams avg. player rankings. The more 3 stars in your class the higher the risk of non-development into a top college player I believe is the "theory". :zeitung_lesen:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
One thing is that this is a huge class..so we can miss on some and still be OK..Clemson signed 14 players..so what happens if some of those guys get hurt or flunk out or transfer if they don't start their Freshman year? We aren't as bad off as many are saying.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#23
#23
VolRoger said:
Tennessee is being punished in this composite ranking because of the unusually high proportion of 3 star to higher ranked projects on their large signee list. The composite claims to be the most unbiased, but that is only an opinion due to its use of a rather sophisticated statistical formula to compute the composite score. If you look at Florida, they are rated 3 places higher at present than Tennessee because their 22 (6 fewer than UT) recruits are about a 50/50 split of 4 and 3 stars. UT has 6 more recruits but 23 of the 28 are 3 stars (according to 247). It could be worse I believe if we didn't have the one 5 star in Trey. The formula starts out its calc by using the top rated player in the class as a 100 score then works down in points from there in the class (2nd highest, 3rd highest, etc.) to compute a standard deviation weight. My guess is that if UT had fewer recruits (say 25 total) and the three less were lower rated 3 stars, then we likely are a few places higher in the composite despite no added 4 and 5 star players. In the end its just a math formula. UT's large class with a lot of 3 stars could end up being really good players which the Rivals, ESPN's, Scout, and ironically 247 (standard ratings) rewards. Think of the composite more as adding a "risk factor weight" to a teams avg. player rankings. The more 3 stars in your class the higher the risk of non-development into a top college player I believe is the "theory". :zeitung_lesen:
Click to expand...

Hate to quote my quote but let me give you my opinion now. I think all the rankings are highly biased and rarely indicative of long term success for teams unless they are consistently top 5 ranked over that long term. There are just too many variables that can lead to success or failure outside of recruiting. Fulmer said its not the x's and o's but the Jimmies and Joes that lead to success. I would say he was right only in that when he was consistently top 5 in recruiting, his teams did well for the most part. There were years where attrition of those recruits short circuited the perceived success that should have transpired. It's also about whether a team fills needs. One could conceivably have a top 5 class for 3 or 4 years straight but if all the players signed are QB's, RB's, WR's, and kickers, I bet the classes will not turn into success on the field. That's an extreme example just to make a point. New England is a good example in the pros in how they use the draft. Due to their success, they always are getting lower picks in the draft. They are very good in how they draft as well as deal with other teams. I kinda wish we could replace recruiting with a draft. Oops...forgot where I'm posting didn't I. :blink::unsure:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#24
#24
VolnJC said:
One thing is that this is a huge class..so we can miss on some and still be OK..Clemson signed 14 players..so what happens if some of those guys get hurt or flunk out or transfer if they don't start their Freshman year? We aren't as bad off as many are saying.
Click to expand...

Which is sort of an argument against some of the rankings that don't reward numbers - only perceived quality. I think your point about Clemson is valid if their previous classes in the last two years have been marginal or they have experienced some attrition as to the higher ranked players.
 
#25
#25
tumblr_nn2q91FVD11usj511o5_400.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top