This is pretty interesting. I like that they aren't afraid to acknowledge the other sites.
247 creates composite football recruiting rankings (across services)
Gatorcountry (a UF fansite) has something similar that may interest you for comparison, Turd. They created a database with a ranking of each individual 2013 football recruit in each of the four major recruiting services: ESPNU, Scout, 247Sports and Rivals. They then come up with a composite score for each of the football recruits. Also they explain their methodology. Basically, it's an average of the four rankings with a slight scaled multiplier applied for players who are only ranked in one or two of the four services. (So again it uses the number a recruit is listed rather than some score they may attain in each service. Last Updated: June 19, 2012) -
Thats good shit, Turd.
Easily amused, perhaps. But I laughed out loud at this.
I am sure he is flushed with your comment.
I would like to see one that is entirely based on a player's offer list.
For what it's worth, I think offer lists are informative but impossible to use for rankings. The reasons:
- Offers are generally self-reported, so if a recruit doesn't report some offers, misinterprets an interaction with a coach, or makes something up, it messes with the data.
- Kids who commit early often don't have nearly as many offers (or as many good offers) as they would if they committed later. For example, I'm sure that Shane Morris and Dymonte Thomas would have many more elite offers if they were still available now.
- There are regional biases. An elite recruit in Seattle will tend to get West Coast offers, since many Eastern, Southern, or Midwestern schools either won't know much about him or will figure that they won't have much chance of getting him.
- It's kind of hard to know what to do with those lists even if have good data. For example, look at Ohio State this year. An OSU offer to a CB means a lot, because they've done really well with CB recruiting this season and don't have many spots. An OSU offer to an offensive lineman doesn't mean nearly as much, because they've had trouble with o-line recruiting and have had to reach on some offers.
- Other stuff
The details of what 247 did aren't clear, but I think this kind of thing is the best way to rate prospects.
you provide a lot of reasons you can't use final offer sheets, but there's no reason you can't rank kids relative to local offers at the time of commitment--that would allow you to rank guys like morris relative to others in his area--and then use those rankings to construct informative rankings based on final offer sheets, since plenty of guys won't commit till the last minute. you'd also have to weight offers relative to a school's recruiting success at various positions at various points in time. this would be a pain in the ass, but i imagine the mathletes of the recruiting world would have no problem coming up with good rankings doing it. the biggest problem i can see is that you'd need an initial ranking of offers by program/position pair to do it, and all kinds of bias would creep in there. but that's nothing new for rankings in the CFB world.
Have to agree with OP. Number of offers are affected by too many extraneous variables to be of any interest.
To add to it, are all offers created equal? Which offers do you count,… only FCS,… only AQ conferences,… top 50 teams? Do 10 offers from MAC and 4 from SunBelt schools outweigh 2-3 for a recruit that commits to LSU @ age 15?
but not tell a great story. For example, Shane Morris would look like a low 3* with his offer sheet of M, MSU, and the MAC.
He has a Bama and Auburn offer on 247
Another variable to consider - which may skew the offer list data - is how open a player's recruitment may be? A reason why Shane doesn't have as many big-time offers is likely due to the facts that he was committed early and is U-M all-the-way, so teams that may otherwise have offered him decided there was no point to do so.
And he has also stated that he's got an offer from Ohio too
I made some attempt at doing that a little while ago, actually, and it doesn't work very well. Early commits have fewer offers than they should. And now with actual offers not allowed to go out til August 1, the data is too fuzzy. You'd need an unbiased list of offers, they're usually different across sites, and then you get a lot of times where a kid claims an offer and doesn't really have one.
"and MSU doesn't have anyone."
I LoL'd. I don't look forward to the meltdown in the future when our class is only 11th in the country. How spoiled we are.
Really like this. Surprised it took so long for someone to finally make it formal.
There is so much bitterness between the recruiting sites, I'm surprised this got okay'd. There's no way that they would let the formula admit that certain sites are better than others.
When I was putting together my (very similar) composite rankings, I emailed the services to see if they'd send me spreadsheets of their rankings to make my life easier. No one did. I'm really surprised that 247 pulled this off and am interested to see if the other services respond in any visible way.
It doesn't surprise me that much. In my outside opinion, Rivals and Scout seem to be pretty bitter rivals, at least with the top guys. 247 makes special note that they used "public access ratings." Each site's rankings are free to view so 247 doesn't even need to ask to use them. Kudos to them.
A little OT.... but, did anyone else see the 247 Tweet this morning that referred to Derrick Green's Committment to Michigan?
At around 715, 247 Tweeted that 'Michigan received its 24th committment from a Top247 Running Back,' and it linked to a story....
When I got to work about an hour later, the Tweet was deleted....
Think this means Green will commit later today, or that 247 is stupid?
Could be that they wrote up a story ahead of time just to be the first, then accidentenally posted it.
From what I read it was just a mistake by 247. They made up the article in anticiapation of him committing at the BBQ, but somehow they accidently posted it. I wouldn't look too much into it. I have said this before and I will say it again Twitter will be the death of following recruiting closely if it ever happens.
They probably had it ready to go last night and accidentally posted it this morning, like a premature HELLO post. Green didn't sound like he was as close as we thought.
Yeah, it just seemed like he was pretty quiet after the visit was over, so maybe they were the first to really talk to him....
thought I'm not sure it's wise to build a class entirely on top 247 running backs.
Wow. Looking through this list, it makes Michigan's and Ohio's classes stand apart even more from the rest of the B1G. I counted 4 non UM or OSU B1G players in the top 250. One each for the Illini and Wisc, and 2 for Neb. Meanwhile UM alone has 16 in the top 250.
Edit: on a second look, there are 4 PSU and one Northwestern recruits in the top 250 as well.
I think two Northwestern guys... but yes, point taken.
Awesome work dude! Im surprised Dawson isnt at least in the top 100. Im surprised Shane isnt in the top 10. Anyways this is an awesome class!
Good stuff. I noticed this new ranking this morning when browsing 247, but I was to lazy to look into it. Thanks for sharing this turd.
I'm gonna go ahead and assume that you wanted a comma between "this" and "turd" in your last sentence.
Ha, yeah there should have been a comma (,). Can I blame it on today being Monday?
I know middle of the road and lower TEs don't tend to get great rankings, but I'm surprised Hill doesn't even crack the top 600 with the pretty positive 7 and 7 camp reviews I see on him occasionally.
Hill doesn't have the prototypical TE build. If rankings were based on fit and need he would be highly rated because Borges wants to use his particular skill set to play the U position.
Because something seems off by them or they are still working out the bugs. It would be nice to see the detailed rankings of each service they are using.
Ross Douglas is ranked the Composite #355 overall prospect (#28 CB) while Darian Hicks is ranked the Composite #256 overall prospect (#24 CB). Rivals, Scout, ESPN, & 247Sports all have Ross Douglas ranked above Hicks in their indvidual rankings so it is unclear how Douglas is lower in the Composite.
Wow, nice find on that. That's really messed up. In fact, unless it's a one-time typo, it's pretty incriminating evidence that these rankings suck.
Rivals: Douglas #22 CB, Hicks #62 CB
Scout: Douglas #42 CB, Hicks #54 CB
247: Douglas #25 CB, Hicks #26 CB
ESPN: Douglas #30 CB, Hicks #59 CB
247 says that these are the four services used and that they receive equal weight in the composite rankings. It's mathematically impossible that Hicks would come out ahead of Douglas. That's probably worth an email.
They only used inputted the data from each services top prospects lists(Rivals 250, ESPN 300, Scout 300) into their system. Because Hicks is not ranked in any those lists, he maintains only his 247Sports ranking (which turns out to be his highest). Douglas is ranked by a lot of those lists and that actually ends up bringing his ranking down because it is below his 247Sports ranking.
I don't think they used the position ranking lists at all.
Just a theory.
Interesting idea. If they did that, that's really stupid.
I'm not sure how they could rank so many guys with that method, though. I think they ranked 2000+.
Also, I just emailed them to ask about it, and I'll post their response here if/when it comes.
I think that's exactly what they did. That's why Hicks only has 1 red box. They say in their description that the number of red boxes is how many sites were used in the ranking. Since Hicks falls outside the top 250/300, etc of the other lists, they just use the one they have...theirs.
It also explains why Northwestern's center is ranked #138
Good call - I think you're right. That's really, really stupid.
These rankings suck.
Yeah, looked at the Northwestern committ Tyler Lancaster... only ranked on one of the 250, but is shown as 135 overall
In case anyone is interested, 247 modified their super-secret ranking algorithm, which took care of some of the problems that we talked about here. I emailed them about this yesterday but didn't get a response.
It's still possible that these rankings are stupid - again, hard to tell - but this seems like a significant improvement. For example, Tyler Lancaster, who is ranked by 247 (at #159) but completely unranked by the other three services, slipped from #135 in the composite rankings to #715. Oops. Ross Douglas, who is rated higher than MSU's Darian Hicks on every service (as a CB) is now rated higher than him in the composite rankings too (Douglas #350; Hicks #537).
An improvement, no doubt.
Jake Butt Rivals #5 TE (5.9 ranking, #118 overall), 247sports #10 TE (90 ranking, not ranked in top 247), ESPN #5 TE (83 ranking, #174 overall), Scout #6 TE (4 star, #137 overall)
Josh McNeil Rivals #10 TE (5.8 ranking, not ranked in top 250), 247sports #8 TE (92 ranking, #184 overall), ESPN #4 TE (83 ranking, #131 overall), Scout #7 TE (4 star, #151 overall)
247Sports Composite ranking
Josh McNeil #150 overall, #6 TE
Jake Butt #153 overall, #7 TE
Although they are both close as you would expect based on the raw data, I still think you would clearly expect Butt to be ranked higher than McNeil when you compare the 4 ratings. Butt's position average ranking and national average rank is better than McNeil's (unless they are also using some other ranking system besides the main 4).
Interesting and good work.
In the case of college athletes, though, you have to take your hat off to programs like Wisconsin, Iowa and MSU that build very good teams with only a few of the top recruits.
This tells me that some kids with a lot of potential in high school are simply under-coached, in the sense that they don't learn fundamentals as well, and therefore may be less highly ranked.
The coaches in these programs obviously know how to find raw talent, and then, how to teach these kids to perform at a high level. For these programs, recruiting rankings are less critical to success than many of us might like to admit (I know there are stats that point to top teams being built on top recruits, I'm talking about the exceptions).
I guess I'm saying that maybe we make too much of this ranking business, and I'm as guilty of being excited about getting highly rated recruits as anyone.
Of the top 13 players in Ohio in the composite rankings, 7 are going to UM and 4 are going to OSU.
UM has the top 3 players in Michigan and 6 of the top 12.
UM has the #4 and #6 players from Illinois and is the favorite to get the #2 player in the state (LT)
UM has the #4 player in PA
The composite rankings show just how well UM is getting the top midwest talent, especially in MI and OH.
QB: Shane Morris (#2 Pro Style QB)
RB: Deveon Smith (#14 RB) Wyatt Shallman (#1 FB)
-Potential RB: Derrick Green (#7 RB)
WR: Jaron Dukes (#40 WR) C'sonte York (#70 WR)
-Potential WR: Laquon Treadwell (#4 WR)
TE: Jake Butt (#7 TE) Khalid Hill (#28 TE)
T: Chris Fox (#3 OG) Logan Tuley-Tillman (#10 OT)
G: Kyle Bosch (#2 OG) David Dawson (#6 OG)
C: Patrick Kugler (#2 C)
DE: Taco Charlton (#5 WDE)
DT: Henry Poggi (#10 DT) Maurice Hurst Jr. (#24 DT)
WILL: Ben Gedeon (#9 ILB)
MIKE: Mike McCray (#7 ATH)
CB: Jourdan Lewis (#13 CB) Gareon Conley (#20 CB) Ross Douglas (#28 CB)
S: Dymonte Thomas (#7 S) Channing Stribling (#111 ATH)
LS: Scott Sypniewski (#3 LS)
I tried to put guys into the position their projected to play at UM (Gedeon, McCray, Stribling, Fox). It was my guess that Stribling would move to S, possibly as a backup Boundary-CB/FS as an upperclassmen.
USC has 12 Top 100 guys on that composite list and 3 in the top 10....good lord.
USC has 12...in the top 100. They have 18 total commits, every single one in the top 250.
What's that smell?
That's what I plan on telling the IRS when they accuse me of cheating on my taxes.
...and, of course, without knowing their algorithm, it is hard to tell whether or not I am onto anything here, but I took some of the data from our commits and correlated the composite rankings to positional rankings, and the correlation is actually negative (-0.63, to be precise), whereas the correlation between the old 247 rankings and the composite score is 0.93.
Cool idea. Still a little dubious of rnakings beyond general insights - a middling 3* is probably worse than a high 4*, but beyond that I trust coaches who see the kids to know what they are getting. Still, recognizing that there are other services and trying to square the fluctuations between them is helpful.
This is long overdue, but so is their reassesment of Hill, and Stribling, and a few others.
Does Treadwell and Green put this group at #1 overall??
Hmm...this algorithm smacks of the BCS ranking methodology. Not too long before it will rife with controversy. /s