Rivals has changed its football ranking system for 2013 and forward . . .

43 posts / 0 new
Login or register to post comments
Last post
June 4th, 2012 at 1:12 PM
#1
ImSoBlue
ImSoBlue's picture
Joined: 07/10/2008
MGoPoints: 875
Rivals has changed its football ranking system for 2013 and forward . . .

Rivials team ranking formula used to be very mysterious. Using the new formula, you can figure out the total points for the team ranking all by yourself.

Current team points: 2,569

The formula is:

Rivals Rating points + Rivals250 Bonus Points = Total Points

For example, if Treadwell (RR 6.0, Rivials250 #39) should commit, using the formula he would add 184 (135 + 49) points to the total (2,569 + 184 = 2,753).

Rivals Rating:

For recruits ranked 5.2 thru 6.1, add 15 points, so a player ranked with a 5.2 gets 15 and a 6.1 gets 150.

6.1 = 150 points; 6.0 = 135 points; 5.9 = 120 points; 5.8 = 105 points; 5.7 = 90 points; 5.6 = 75 points; 5.5 = 60 points; 5.4 = 45 points; 5.3 = 30 points; 5.2 = 15 points

Rivals250 Bonus Points

#1= 100 points
#2= 83 points
#3= 82 points
#4= 81 points
#5= 80 points
#6= 76 points
#7= 75 points
#8= 74 points
#9= 73 points
#10= 72 points
#11= 69 points
#12= 68 points
#13= 67 points
#14= 66 points
#15= 65 points
#16= 64 points
#17= 63 points
#18= 62 points
#19= 61 points
#20= 60 points
#21= 59 points
#22= 58 points
#23= 57 points
#24= 56 points
#25= 55 points
 
#26-30= 53 points
#31-35= 51 points
#36-40= 49 points
#41-45= 47 points
#46-50= 45 points
#51-55= 43 points
#56-60= 41 points
 
#61-65= 40 points
#66-70= 39 points
#71-75= 38 points
#76-80= 37 points
#81-85= 36 points
#86-90= 35 points
#91-95= 34 points
#96-100= 33 points
 
#101-105= 32 points
#106-110= 31 points
#111-115= 30 points
#116-120= 29 points
#121-125= 28 points
#126-130= 27 points
#131-135= 26 points
#136-140= 25 points
#141-145= 24 points
#146-150= 23 points
#151-155= 22 points
#156-160= 21 points
#161-165= 20 points
#166-170= 19 points
#171-175= 18 points
#176-180= 17 points
#181-185= 16 points
#186-190= 15 points
#191-195= 14 points
#196-200= 13 points
#201-205= 12 points
#206-210= 11 points
#211-215= 10 points
#216-220= 9 points
#221-225= 8 points
#226-230= 7 points
#231-235= 6 points
#236-240= 5 points
#241-245= 4 points
#246-250= 3 points

Link:

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=880&CID=1364602

 

Top
Tags:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
June 4th, 2012 at 1:16 PM | Just because you put a number (Score:5 Normal)
david from wyoming
david from wyoming's picture
Joined: 03/15/2009
MGoPoints: 2813

Just because you put a number on something, doesn't mean you quantified it.

Are you a park ranger at Yellowstone? Say hi to Yogi Bear for me. - the_big_house 500th

I may not be a 70 year old man. - Herm

June 4th, 2012 at 1:44 PM | Indeed (Score:5 Normal)
BiSB
BiSB's picture
Joined: 08/15/2009
MGoPoints: 27894

This comment is worth a +5.

They no longer call me Bisbiño

June 5th, 2012 at 11:16 AM | I'd love to +5 it, but (Score:0)
June 4th, 2012 at 3:07 PM | F*ck it ... that's going on a (Score:2)
DonAZ
DonAZ's picture
Joined: 12/05/2011
MGoPoints: 657

F*ck it ... that's going on a T-shirt.  That's brilliant.  Love it. 

Midwestern born and raised ... now living in the heat of the Arizona desert

June 4th, 2012 at 5:34 PM | And just when I was about to (Score:2)
brandanomano
brandanomano's picture
Joined: 09/05/2009
MGoPoints: 4402

And just when I was about to give this recruiting class 10,000,000 points as it stands, I saw this post.

Special Teams means special times!

June 4th, 2012 at 1:16 PM | Thanks for breaking this (Score:2)
HttV Wolverine
HttV Wolverine's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
MGoPoints: 7360

Thanks for breaking this down. I for one was curious as to what the points total was made up of. 

“What the mind can conceive, the mind can achieve and those who stay will be champions.” - Bo 

][V][

June 4th, 2012 at 1:30 PM | It should also be mentioned (Score:5 Normal)
rbgoblue
rbgoblue's picture
Joined: 07/20/2009
MGoPoints: 1614

It should also be mentioned that they only score your top 20 rated commits.  Given that our class stands at 20 today, adding Treadwell for instance will replace our lowest rated commitment.  Our points total will still increase, but not as much as it would were we under 20 commits.

New math for Treadwell:

Both Gareon Conley and Khalid Hill are rated at 5.6 (75 pts) and would be in line to be bumped from our team score with our next commitment.

Team points with Quan = 2,569 + 184 - 75 = 2,678 pts

 

I think the 20 player threashold is a good thing as to not overvalue enormous classes filled with 3 star players.

June 4th, 2012 at 1:35 PM | Gotcha. Thanks for the (Score:2)
HttV Wolverine
HttV Wolverine's picture
Joined: 08/02/2010
MGoPoints: 7360

Gotcha. Thanks for the additional information. 

“What the mind can conceive, the mind can achieve and those who stay will be champions.” - Bo 

][V][

June 4th, 2012 at 1:38 PM | I agree that this is a good (Score:0 Overrated)
June 4th, 2012 at 1:49 PM | I think this is where the (Score:3 Normal)
ken725
ken725's picture
Joined: 10/26/2008
MGoPoints: 4558

I think this is where the average star rating comes in, even though they don't really use that to rank classes.

Greetings from Bolivia.

"It's special how the real true people hang together. And if you don't support the program you're not a true Michigan guy. It's that simple."  - Gary Moeller

June 4th, 2012 at 1:54 PM | I wonder if USC could (Score:2)
a2_electricboogaloo
a2_electricboogaloo's picture
Joined: 04/21/2011
MGoPoints: 4027

I wonder if USC could possibly get the number one overall class with this in place (although I'll admit I have no idea what their numbers are looking like for this class).

USING GRATUITOUS AMOUNTS OF CAPS LOCK SINCE APRIL 2011

June 4th, 2012 at 3:51 PM | Not with only 15 recruits. (Score:2)
joeyb
joeyb's picture
Joined: 10/12/2008
MGoPoints: 11301

Not with only 15 recruits.

June 4th, 2012 at 6:16 PM | They can take 18 this year (Score:2)
WolvinLA2
WolvinLA2's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009
MGoPoints: 17661

They can take 18 this year due to backdating.  See below.

June 4th, 2012 at 2:09 PM | I would make the complete (Score:5 Normal)
neyvit
Joined: 11/04/2010
MGoPoints: 61

I would make the complete opposite argument.  The team class ranking is based on that year alone.  Just because those 8 players aren't a 5/4star does not mean they won't be elite.

I would rather have 8 3-star players that each have a 20% chance (pulling that number out of my ass) of being all-conference compared to 0 players with no chance of any good players.

And this is exactly why oversigning is such a big competitive advantage.  Just looking at in terms of odds, having more players (even if they are 3-stars) increases your overall chances of having studs in the class.  Much larger margin for error.

June 4th, 2012 at 3:44 PM | Interesting argument, but (Score:0 Trolling)
June 4th, 2012 at 1:58 PM | With the 20 player rule, USC (Score:1 Flamebait)
WolvinLA2
WolvinLA2's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009
MGoPoints: 17661

With the 20 player rule, USC will probably end up with the top class, considering they can sign 18 this year. I bet their 18 are as good as anyone's top 20.

June 4th, 2012 at 5:22 PM | How can they sign 18? I (Score:2)
Logan88
Joined: 01/05/2009
MGoPoints: 2906

How can they sign 18?

I thought USC, now suffering the scholarship portion of their Bush penalty, was limited to no more than 15 per year.

We ARE Michigan....COME GET SOME!!!

June 4th, 2012 at 5:48 PM | My guess (Score:2)
MGoAlumnus
MGoAlumnus's picture
Joined: 07/27/2009
MGoPoints: 479

My guess would be that 3 of them can count as early enrolees.  But that's a total guess.

June 4th, 2012 at 6:15 PM | Yes, they had early enrollees (Score:2)
WolvinLA2
WolvinLA2's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009
MGoPoints: 17661

Yes, they had early enrollees in their last class count toward the pre-sanctioned class, so now if they have three early enrollees this year, they can sign 18 (this has been mentioned on USC's Rivals site, so I'm not making this up).  It sounds shady, but it's no shadier than normal backdating to take more guys, which we do all the time.

June 4th, 2012 at 3:50 PM | Whoops! and thanks for pointing that out. * (Score:2)
ImSoBlue
ImSoBlue's picture
Joined: 07/10/2008
MGoPoints: 875

nm

June 4th, 2012 at 1:18 PM | So who is going to waste the (Score:4 Normal)
Philbert
Joined: 01/24/2011
MGoPoints: 782

So who is going to waste the rest or their work day to calculate how far we are behind Bama class from last year and who we exactly need to commit to pass them.

 

Touchdown Manningham!  MICHIGAN WINS! 

June 4th, 2012 at 1:22 PM | I posted that they had a new (Score:1)
RickH
RickH's picture
Joined: 11/01/2009
MGoPoints: 948

I posted that they had a new formula in a couple threads about team rankings and such and then I did some of the calculations real quick to see what some teams would've got last year.  I think Alabama had around 2800 or so.

June 4th, 2012 at 1:18 PM | I don't get the bonus point thing. (Score:2)
TTUwolverine
TTUwolverine's picture
Joined: 04/13/2009
MGoPoints: 1873

I understand that they want their ratings to be relevant, but shouldn't they just add the rivals ratings and be done with it? 

June 4th, 2012 at 1:29 PM | Not all 6.1's (5 star) are (Score:3 Normal)
thisisme08
thisisme08's picture
Joined: 12/02/2008
MGoPoints: 1459

Not all 6.1's (5 star) are the same ie the #1 player in the country should be worth more than the #25 5 star as he is bigger, stronger, faster than his entire class hence the bonus points to reward that distinction. 

Blue is Faster

June 4th, 2012 at 2:06 PM | This is the problem, IMO. (Score:3 Normal)
TTUwolverine
TTUwolverine's picture
Joined: 04/13/2009
MGoPoints: 1873

What I'm saying is that if the #1 overall player really is that much better than the #25 player, then his rating should reflect that in the first place.  Admittedly I'm probably nitpicking here, but it just seems like Rival's goal is to inflate the importance of their ranking system rather than actually trying to accurately rate how good these players are relative to one another. 

June 4th, 2012 at 2:20 PM | it probably does make their (Score:1)
colin
colin's picture
Joined: 07/01/2008
MGoPoints: 1332

it probably does make their team rankings better since talent distribution tends to be such that there is more separation between the number 1 and 2 players than 2 and 3 etc.

...the Canadians make up for it with their emotion and classic ice-dancing skill.

June 4th, 2012 at 2:26 PM | But that's where the ranking (Score:1 Flamebait)
WolvinLA2
WolvinLA2's picture
Joined: 11/13/2009
MGoPoints: 17661

But that's where the ranking comes in to play. Sure, the #1 and #20 players are both 6.1 on the RR scale, but you can differentiate between them by looking at their overall ranking, and this should be reflected in the team ranking.

June 5th, 2012 at 10:24 AM | Or... (Score:2)
Seth9
Joined: 04/01/2009
MGoPoints: 2336

Or they could, you know, just change the RR scale to allow for more differentiation between players instead of creating a system where you peg players into preset values that probably doesn't accurately reflect the actual differences between them. Even if the preset distribution is reasonably good at matching up to relative talent differences (I sincerely doubt this is the case, but whatever), there's no reason not to just use their evaluations as the sole criteria since they presumably evaluate the difference between each player in order to make their rankings in the first place.

June 5th, 2012 at 10:29 AM | Bingo. (Score:3 Normal)
TTUwolverine
TTUwolverine's picture
Joined: 04/13/2009
MGoPoints: 1873

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

June 4th, 2012 at 3:03 PM | That is why 247sports gives (Score:3 Normal)
ken725
ken725's picture
Joined: 10/26/2008
MGoPoints: 4558

That is why 247sports gives some players ratings over 100.  

Greetings from Bolivia.

"It's special how the real true people hang together. And if you don't support the program you're not a true Michigan guy. It's that simple."  - Gary Moeller

June 4th, 2012 at 1:18 PM | Cool (Score:2)
Hugh Jass
Hugh Jass's picture
Joined: 01/03/2011
MGoPoints: 719

Thank you for the info - you are correct in that it used to be very confusing.  Still if you signed only top 100 players but were limited to a smaller class you could be out of the running for that MNC in recruiting - especially when Alabama signs 45 kids every year.

If someone ever invented a low fat vitamin - filled vegetable that tasted like fudge covered Rice Krispies treats - I'd probably eat better

 

 

June 4th, 2012 at 1:19 PM | I'll be able to sleep tonight (Score:3 Normal)
Brown Bear
Brown Bear's picture
Joined: 01/10/2011
MGoPoints: 2627

I'll be able to sleep tonight now. Thank you.

I poop excellence
June 4th, 2012 at 1:26 PM | Real question at hand here - (Score:1 Normal)
Mr. Rager
Mr. Rager's picture
Joined: 11/16/2011
MGoPoints: 750

Real question at hand here - does this improve our overall standing in the Rivals team ranking?

(TRICK QUESTION - WE IZ FIRST.  JACK KENNEDY DROP THE BEAT.)

"to make a complete evaluation off video w/o seeing guys in-person - I don't believe that at all." - Josh Helmholdt

June 4th, 2012 at 1:31 PM | ZzzzzzZzzzzzz..... (Score:0 Normal)
June 4th, 2012 at 1:45 PM | Thanks for the breakdown. (Score:0 Normal)
June 4th, 2012 at 2:29 PM | Misleading (Score:5 Normal)
whitedawg
Joined: 07/08/2008
MGoPoints: 696

At some point, the granularity of the data is a fabrication.  There is absolutely a difference between a 5* defensive end and a 2* defensive end, both in appearances now and in likely career outcomes.  But anyone who claims they can accurately rank a defensive end from California the #40 player in the country and a wide receiver from Pennsylvania the #50 player in the country, instead of vice versa, is just writing fiction.

June 4th, 2012 at 2:49 PM | Wow (Score:1)
Roachgoblue
Joined: 08/29/2011
MGoPoints: 1477

You should explain the wiring schematic of the B2 bomber next. It would be less data. :)

[Caved troll is caved. Sorry, Mobile app users.]

June 4th, 2012 at 3:12 PM | so the highest score possible is something like 5300? (Score:1)
jdon
jdon's picture
Joined: 09/28/2009
MGoPoints: 584

if you got the top twenty picks ( all 6.1s)  you would have 3000 +  2300someodd points (rankings 1-20)

I'm no math major but we better get going; we are way behind that!

jdon

We are the dead.

June 4th, 2012 at 7:50 PM | I don't understand a goddamn (Score:3 Normal)
mgobluebraelow
mgobluebraelow's picture
Joined: 08/20/2010
MGoPoints: 566

I don't understand a goddamn thing about these ranking sites. Bunch of ass-backward pinheads.



~Herm

June 4th, 2012 at 3:51 PM | This is stupid (Score:5 Normal)
Seth9
Joined: 04/01/2009
MGoPoints: 2336

Under the logic of this system, the #1 player in the country is worth 250 points and the #2 player is worth 233, meaning that the #2 player on the country is judged to be 93.2% as valuable as the #1 player. Then the #3 player is judged to be 99.6% as valuable as the #3 player. But these arbitrarily assigned relative values almost certainly do not resemble reality.

June 4th, 2012 at 4:34 PM | All of this shit makes zero (Score:1 Normal)
Danwillhor
Joined: 12/02/2008
MGoPoints: 556

All of this shit makes zero sense and is why Rivals blows. Just have a flat 1-100 scale or star rankings that suggest their impact with which all sites will be wrong half the time anyway. lol

June 4th, 2012 at 9:43 PM | Another shit example of why (Score:1)
cozy200
cozy200's picture
Joined: 01/02/2011
MGoPoints: 873

Another shit example of why pay sites are worthless in the social media age.

Its called a royale with cheese

Theme provided by Roopletheme; sidebars adapted from Chris Murphy.