ESPN Class Rankings

Submitted by Seth9 on
Looking at the ESPN class rankings, I am trying to figure out what asinine methodology they must use to come up with their results. Michigan is currently #19, with 1 five star, 6 four stars, 18 three stars, and 2 two stars. South Carolina, ranked one spot ahead, has 5 four stars, 11 three stars, a couple JC transfers, and a bunch of two stars and unrated players*. Similar comparisons exist in Michigan's favor for #15 Stanford, #16 Texas A&M, and #17 Clemson (Michigan also seems to be about equal in quality to #13 Miami and #14 Ohio State, but the numbers are less clear there). Anyway, I just can't make heads nor tails of it. The only thing that could possibly make sense to me is if ESPN evaluates classes by the average player ranking, in which case signing a greater quantity of 3-stars might have hurt Michigan. *This includes players who didn't qualify in 2009 and are making another go at it. ESPN did not count them on their class rankings page. UPDATE: Well, about 5 seconds after posting this, ESPN updated their rankings. Michigan is now #14, and beat now-#16 OSU.

sips21

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:04 PM ^

All day I have been following NSD, and ESPN has been lagging on nearly all of their coverage, none more so than their rankings. As of 7:45 tonight, they still had only seven Michigan recruits having submitted LOI's while this blog and many other sources had confirmed all but Dorsey signed by about noon. I live right next to ESPN, and an insider told me that ESPN's biggest weakness right now is having a good hold on college football recruiting. That was obvious today.

HHW

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:08 PM ^

By the end of their show at 7:00 pm they had UM at 19. That being said who the hell knows?!? Scout has us at 9 or 10 and Rivals at 73 or something. Edit: that is Rivals sarcasm btw.

Irish

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:17 PM ^

don't waste your time, they give out stars regardless of the actual player ranking they randomly hand out (at least they used to not sure if its updated) and it has a strong bias towards the south.

Seth9

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:31 PM ^

I agree that their methodology is somewhat disingenuous, but I was confused when I noticed that their rankings weren't even corresponding to their supposed methodology, which turned out to be the result of a failure to update their system. This suggests a surprising lack of infrastructure to the recruiting portion of their website, as I would have thought that they could just automate the class ranking system, unless the ratings aren't formulaic, which would be dumb considering their relative lack of recruiting experts.

Irish

February 3rd, 2010 at 10:41 PM ^

I was somewhat of the opinion that their class rankings is purely opinion and not really based on a formula in the same way scout, rivals and even superprep use. Not positive on that but it would explain a lot; on the recruits themselves there is definitely bonus points for being in the south, going to an SEC school, and playing in "their" all-star game. Plus the rankings are all about driving headlines. ESPN has hooked their wagon to the SEC, quite literally, why wouldn't they try to boost those players and classes to increase TV ratings. So don't worry about team rankings, their system is fail from the beginning

mgoblue911

February 3rd, 2010 at 11:07 PM ^

ESPNU was tripping over its own tongue trying to promote the dominance in recruiting by the SEC. They consistently rank SEC commits higher, and consistently rank SEC teams overall rank higher. It is grossly biased. According to them, the Big Ten only got 13 of the "ESPN 150", and the SEC got 51. Even USC gets dogged by them. Unwatchable TV all day long from them.

mgowin

February 3rd, 2010 at 11:23 PM ^

I was making the recruiting rounds just recently, ESPN now has us @ #14. I don't put much stock in recruit rankings, but was a little curious.