Rawls if he can hang onto it, I'd guesss
The Mathlete
History
- Member for
- 3 years 33 weeks
- Blog
- View recent blog entries
Karma
- Current value
- 2
Recent Comments
| Date | Title | Body |
|---|---|---|
| 3 days 8 hours ago | You got it. Top teams move |
You got it. Top teams move up, bottom teams move down. In today's world, the levels would be D1-1AA-D2-D3-NAIA, here there are up to 12 levels per conference. |
| 2 weeks 6 days ago | 247 only began with a partial |
247 only began with a partial 2010 class and then a full 2011, not a lot to evaluate them on yet. |
| 5 weeks 1 day ago | Something I derived. ESPN |
Something I derived. ESPN ranked the top 150, which included the top 14 DT's. That left 9 unranked four star DT's of which Pipkins was the second highest ranked. Those 9 players were evenly allocated among the rankings between #151 and #249 (there were 249 4 or 5 stars). The remaining ranked 3 stars were spread between #250 and #1196 based on their position ranking. |
| 5 weeks 1 day ago | In terms of incentives to |
In terms of incentives to give more stars to stack the deck, that probably wasn't clear enough in my explanation. Everything is based on each site's national player ranking. After the Top X for a site are listed, I take the remaining four stars and rank them based on position ranks and then take the three stars and do the same. Each service has each of its players (sometimes as many as 1500) with a position rank, given a national rating. For example last year Willie Henry was ranked #484 on Scout (#38 DT), 1008 on 247 (#75 DT) and 1153 on ESPN (#97 DT). With no position rank from Rivals he was considered unranked. Even though Ondre Pipkins didn't make the ESPN Top150, he was ranked 166 because he was the second highest rated DT that didn't make the Top 150. Hope this helps clear it up. |
| 5 weeks 1 day ago | The crux of this method is |
The crux of this method is "How highly did you rate the successes?" The higher you rated the successes, the better your service. I am looking at 1000+ players per service per class so the pool is substantially large. |
| 5 weeks 1 day ago | Since this was based mostly |
Since this was based mostly on all-conference ND is laregely absent. I did check the average ranking for each class and Scout is right in line with Rivals for ND recruits over the last 11 classes. Nothing stands out for either one. It's possible they are both overestimating, but they are generally in line with each other. |
| 6 weeks 2 days ago | Beyond the obvious reasons |
Beyond the obvious reasons for avoiding, I don't track games against FCS teams. |
| 7 weeks 2 days ago | I agree on the importance of |
I agree on the importance of the offensive line but I haven't been able to find a quantifiable metric that correlates offensive line to offensive success. Not saying that it doesn't exist, just that if there is no way to quantify it and measure its affect on the variance then there is no effective way to include it. |
| 8 weeks 3 days ago | For 2003 its a bit rough and |
For 2003 its a bit rough and you might be right. I only have recruiting rankings back to 2002 so most of the upperclassmen weren't counted in that total. |
| 9 weeks 1 day ago | D'oh. Thought there were 12. |
D'oh. Thought there were 12. |
