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
Just because you put a number on something, doesn't mean you quantified it.
This comment is worth a +5.
I'd love to +5 it, but somehow I can't upvote stuff...
F*ck it ... that's going on a T-shirt. That's brilliant. Love it.
And just when I was about to give this recruiting class 10,000,000 points as it stands, I saw this post.
Thanks for breaking this down. I for one was curious as to what the points total was made up of.
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.
Gotcha. Thanks for the additional information.
I think this is where the average star rating comes in, even though they don't really use that to rank classes.
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).
Not with only 15 recruits.
They can take 18 this year due to backdating. See below.
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.
Interesting argument, but football games aren't played with single recruiting classes, so I think it's hard to ignore the impact that a class has on scholarship availability and program health more generally.
Think about a more extreme (and unrealistic) example. Would you rather have: (A) a class of 18 four-star recruits or (B) a class of 18 four-star recruits and 12 one/two-star recruits? Personally, I'd choose A, because I think it's much better for your football program than B.
Ultimately, it's just a question of what you want to rank.
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.
My guess would be that 3 of them can count as early enrolees. But that's a total guess.
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.
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.
I understand that they want their ratings to be relevant, but shouldn't they just add the rivals ratings and be done with it?
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.
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.
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.
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.
That is why 247sports gives some players ratings over 100.
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.
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.)
Meh, who cares...we've got a beast class and a #1 class no matter who is keeping score.
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.
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
~Herm
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.