the rivals point system is terrible

[jakez4ut]

I understand that. But, it is kind of like GDP and GDP per capita. Scandanavian countries come in really high in GDP per capita because they do a lot with few people as opposed to America that does more...but with even more people. My point is that rivals uses their avg. stars with a heavy weight when assigning their points - I think. I don't know their formula, but it appears that way.

I don't really get too caught up in it. I like that they do it because it helps folks like me distinguish between classes (top 10, top 25, etc.). But, they can't be more accurate than plus/minus 3-5 spots.

which is probably the margin of difference between the rankings in different recruiting services polls anyway....

tell me top 5 class.........i'm good.

 

[Vol67]

USC lands one more five star than us, and we have one more four star. The difference is we have 13 more 3 stars than them. How is one 5 star worth more than one 4 star and 13 3 stars.

Its better than Scouts. Rivals also rewards bonus points for a Top 100 recruit

 

[MillwoodFootball]

Rivals is by far the best, Scout is ok.. And ESPN SUCKS... Tom Lemming is Decent, he is just to big of a Notre Dame Homer though... Although he was about the only smart one to put Gerald in his top 25...

 

[Vol67]

The problem with both Rivals and Scout is politics. Until they get smart and remove that they will never be close to accurate. Scout has too many bullgators and Dawgs to be any better than they are.

For Rivals Crabtree and Farrell can find the all the talent in their regions but have no clue how to rank it properly especially nationally and play politics with the best congressmen. Those two are the main reasons Rivals even have rivals

 

[VOLinthaNATI]

My thing with these recruiting services is that how can they tell how good these kids are going to be when they all play against high school players. Now I know there are some exceptions because of ties to former players, speed and other things....

Also, these rankings have to put so much pressure on these kids to come in here and be great. If they are ranked a five-star on rivals, scout or whatever they automatically better good or they may be viewed as a failure...I think it puts the kids into a bad position because since they were in high school going up against high players they may look wonderful because of the level of talent they play against or whatever and then come to college where the expectations are going to be great when in fact maybe they were only good enough for 3 stars and we all the know the difference in expectations of our 3 star recruits and our 5 star recruits...

I understand the recruiting services will never change because everyone, myself included puts alot of stock into what they report about these kids...

It just seems to me its a lot to live up too for some of the 17 and 18 year old kids....

Just my :twocents: ....

 

[justingroves]

My thing with these recruiting services is that how can they tell how good these kids are going to be when they all play against high school players. Now I know there are some exceptions because of ties to former players, speed and other things....

Also, these rankings have to put so much pressure on these kids to come in here and be great. If they are ranked a five-star on rivals, scout or whatever they automatically better good or they may be viewed as a failure...I think it puts the kids into a bad position because since they were in high school going up against high players they may look wonderful because of the level of talent they play against or whatever and then come to college where the expectations are going to be great when in fact maybe they were only good enough for 3 stars and we all the know the difference in expectations of our 3 star recruits and our 5 star recruits...

I understand the recruiting services will never change because everyone, myself included puts alot of stock into what they report about these kids...

It just seems to me its a lot to live up too for some of the 17 and 18 year old kids....

Just my :twocents: ....

Might be one of the best things written on here. Patrick Willis was 3 star (2 time All American, Butkus winner and 2 SEC defensive player of the year) and Jamaal Anderson was a 2 star receiver (13 sacks future top 15 draft pick). So sometimes they are wrong

 

[I_Eat_Gators]

Might be one of the best things written on here. Patrick Willis was 3 star (2 time All American, Butkus winner and 2 SEC defensive player of the year) and Jamaal Anderson was a 2 star receiver (13 sacks future top 15 draft pick). So sometimes they are wrong

this is true, but then again sometimes they are right: Vince Young, Reggie Bush, Robert Meachem (eventually), etc. plus i prob waste half my life on rivals so i need some kinda justification...

 

[Vol423]

USC lands one more five star than us, and we have one more four star. The difference is we have 13 more 3 stars than them. How is one 5 star worth more than one 4 star and 13 3 stars.

One thing that you need to keep in mind is that while you may have a group of players ranked as 5-star and 4-star players, they do not receive the same number of points in the Rivals Ranking system. Players that are ranked higher in the detailed Rivals rankings of individual players receive more points than those ranked below them. As a result, while USC only had one more 5-star player than UT signed, USC may have received far more recruiting points for those 5-star players than UT did for its 5-star players if USC's players were ranked higher. In addition, it's possible that USC could have generated more Rivals recruiting points than UT for its 4-star players despite the fact that they signed one fewer 4-star recruit than UT if USC's 4-star players were ranked higher than UT's.

 

[justingroves]

this is true, but then again sometimes they are right: Vince Young, Reggie Bush, Robert Meachem (eventually), etc. plus i prob waste half my life on rivals so i need some kinda justification...

Yeah it gives me a reason to blow off everything to stay on Rivals for 6 months of the year

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

How exactly does Rivals do their points system? How much is a 5* worth...4*...etc...?

See, the thing with Rivals 'point system' is it's all politics. There is really no set value. Basically, you'll most likely never see a set of guidelines for it besides the usual explanation.. The Rivals staff does all this stuff based on needs of the team, how many you already have at the position, star rating, etc. There is no real system, it's just the Rivals staff deciding who gets what... Just the way I see it

 

[Volunteer_Kirby]

My thing with these recruiting services is that how can they tell how good these kids are going to be when they all play against high school players. Now I know there are some exceptions because of ties to former players, speed and other things....

Also, these rankings have to put so much pressure on these kids to come in here and be great. If they are ranked a five-star on rivals, scout or whatever they automatically better good or they may be viewed as a failure...I think it puts the kids into a bad position because since they were in high school going up against high players they may look wonderful because of the level of talent they play against or whatever and then come to college where the expectations are going to be great when in fact maybe they were only good enough for 3 stars and we all the know the difference in expectations of our 3 star recruits and our 5 star recruits...

I understand the recruiting services will never change because everyone, myself included puts alot of stock into what they report about these kids...

It just seems to me its a lot to live up too for some of the 17 and 18 year old kids....

Just my :twocents: ....

I don't think bein' a 5* really gets under their skin, I think all the recruiting services contacting them, and the coaches telling them they will be great and they have high expectations for 'em is what really gets under their skin. :twocents: