- Aug 28, 2014
- 16,541
- 26,097
Just to reiterate and 2222 can and will back this up...our top ten class this year would have been 13th last year and 14th the year before. Let that sink in for a sec. The 2291 points would have been another ho hum class but the top three schools pulled in a record haul for them creating a HUGE/WIDE gap between the have's and haven nots. Artificially putting us in the top ten.
It was posted on another site but with much better details and graphs.
I used to pick them up free in by the Sonny's on Waldo Road in the 80s. Loved that stuff.I used to get the hard copy of Gatorbait in the mail years ago. The "preview" for the upcoming game would arrive in my mailbox, usually about 4 days after the game had been played. Back then you could actually call the douchebag who ran it and complain, which I did. He always blamed it on the mail, and actually suggested I call the postal service. I finally gave up and canceled my subscription when I got a copy in the mail that had emblazoned on the cover "Vanderbilt Preview!!" several days after our blow-out victory over the Commodores. The articles were almost always poorly-written nothingness about stuff you already knew or couldn't care less about anyway. It's nice to see that content-wise they're still trying to gin up excitement about that which no one anywhere is interested in.
Brantley wasnt a five star but your point is correct, the numbers are about 50/50 on five stars who go on to be elite. However the are about one in three or four for four stars and 1 out of 50 for 3 stars, and maybe 1 in 10,000 for 2 stars.Try quoting this part, too, if you want the full picture. But, in reality, for every Tebow, there's a Brantley. Hopefully, more Tebows. It's an inexact science.
Your reasoning. You can't take the point totals for one team in one year and put it in another year to come up with a ranking. You'd have to take the point totals for all teams and then you just end up with the ranking of the current year.I'm not sure what you don't understand?
Yeah I need to plagiarize the whole post. It shows in great detail how the class stacks up in a historical context. I'll see if i can find it. The person uses the 247 composite and I think it's worse than what I posted. 2222 and I pm'ed about it. He totally agreed. The top teams sucked up most of the top talent. Normally there's better talent distribution. I'll try and find it and feel free to try to debunk it.Your reasoning. You can't take the point totals for one team in one year and put it in another year to come up with a ranking. You'd have to take the point totals for all teams and then you just end up with the ranking of the current year.
2291 would have been 6th in 2012
Yeah I need to plagiarize the whole post. It shows in great detail how the class stacks up in a historical context. I'll see if i can find it. The person uses the 247 composite and I think it's worse than what I posted. 2222 and I pm'ed about it. He totally agreed. The top teams sucked up most of the top talent. Normally there's better talent distribution. I'll try and find it and feel free to try to debunk it.
This is flat out lie. Yes you need coaches who can coach but 5*s make a coaches job a whole lot easier. Gene Chizik won a NC because of one 5* in Cam. Yes some five stars bust but far more 3*s do in comparison. Ahmad was a 4* on rivals. You got anymore lies?Recruiting rankings and stars don't mean jack squat if the coaches can't develop them. Cowart was a 5 star recruit and Ahmad Black was a ZERO star recruit so anything can happen.
Point 676,341 why 247 is absolute shyt.Opps sorry about that!! Opps LOOKIE here baby dolls...247 had Ahmad Black as a ZERO STAR and NOT RATED!!
Probably should cuz it reads like #fakenews. Regardless of how the points are distributed if you have the 10th best point total you are 10th. There's nothing artificial about that.
If your point is that the discrepancy between have and have-nots has widened then that's what you should have said. And prolly provided the link if you have it. Just taking glance at the discrepancy between #1 and #10
2016 - 438
2015 - 715
2014 - 1043
2013 - 814
2012 - 670
Deeper dive - the delta between us and #1 the last few years
2016 - 661
2015 - 1349
2014 - 874
2013 - 374
2012 - 200
Probably should cuz it reads like #fakenews. Regardless of how the points are distributed if you have the 10th best point total you are 10th. There's nothing artificial about that.
I do disagree with this statement. I will give you an example let's say that the top 9 teams all sign the top 300 recruits(not gonna happen but I want to get my point across) in a given year. AT ten you sign the next best 30 kids. So you're tenth and you have nothing but leftovers. It's a top ten class but it sucks. I don't think you are factoring in star/talent distribution.
I thought it was interesting because sometimes 10th is in name only. Again, feel free to destroy/debunk/argue any way you see fit.
I have no idea how 247 assigns points but I'm pretty familiar with Rivals.
So star average is a better way to look at it. In fact up to signing day I look at star average and posted several times that although our points had us 30th ranked (because of so few commits) our average had us around 10th. At Rivals you can sort by star average. Also Rivals only counts your top 20 recruits in the points ranking. At the end of the day we finished 9th in points and 11th in star average.
There's another way to look at it instead of rankings by thinking of it as grades and let the #1 team set the curve.And I appreciate your analysis. You definitely hit the nail on the head with widening gap between the have's and have not's. Thanks dude.
There's another way to look at it instead of rankings by thinking of it as grades and let the #1 team set the curve.
So in 2016 it took a 90% to get to #10.
However in 2017 it only took a 77% to get to #10.
Pretty big difference.