Recruiting Rankings
I almost hate to ask this. Does anyone know how the different sites "rank" recruiting classes?
Obviously some formula based on the number of stars (or perhaps the location of the stars??), but the variation is pretty dramatic.
Rivals.com M#8
Scout.com M#12
ESPN M#14
January 14th, 2009 at 12:58 PM ^
Is it just based on aggregate number of stars? In other words, is a team that takes 25 2* kids rated higher than a team that only gets 9 5* kids at positions of need and no one else? Ridiculous hypo, I know, but it makes the question clearer. Anyone?
January 14th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
It's more than that. They show the average star rating for each school, and if you multiply that by the number of recruits and re-rank them, the order would be different, albeit only slightly. You might be really close, thought I think a high 4 star is worth more than a low 4 star and so on.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:45 PM ^
Right - if you look at Rivals, there are rankings within the stars - in other words, they assign a number that actually distinguishes between a high 4-star (like Turner) and a low 4-star (like Dequinta Jones).
As far as how the total ranking is achieved, I believe that it is affected by both average ranking AND total number of players. For instance, it's hard to have the top class with a 15 player class (USC's issue last year - they had the highest average ranking per recruit but had something like 12 players less than Alabama).
January 14th, 2009 at 1:15 PM ^
I remember reading a Bob Lichtenfels post (scout.com) a year or so ago, where he said depth chart is considered.
As to the OP: 4 spots isn't all that dramatic, actually. Further, considering the number of fringe 3/4 star guys that Rivals/Scout differ on, it makes sense.
As to the formula, I'm not sure. Scout.com is clear they won't reveal it (for obvious reasons). But as I said, depth chart is supposedly considered. It's not a straight-line multiplication, though, to answer your question.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:16 PM ^
IMO, I'm not sure Bob L is honest about the depth chart thing. I don't know. Obviously there will never be a class made up of five 5 star QBs, and then twenty 4/5 star RBs, to test the theory, but I'm not sure how Rivals/Scout could evaluate "team needs" when comparing say, UNC and UM.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
is that Campbell and Turner aren't listed in their Top 100, because they declined to play in the Under Armour game and ESPN doesn't want it to seem like their game is only getting leftovers.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:50 PM ^
Not really true. Campbell has never been listed in ESPN's Top 100 because they think his best position is as a left tackle, not a defensive tackle. They have been consistent with their opinion of Campblell for months. It has nothing to do with which game he chose to play in.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:54 PM ^
you're probably right; but to his argument, ESPN would have known all along that campbell would be playing in the Army game.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:07 PM ^
but I can't bring myself to believe that a guy that every other service ranks in the top 25-30 nationally, isn't in their top 150 based on athletic potential alone. It also doesn't explain Justin Turner either. He was really that close to getting a fifth star and he isn't in their top 150 either? and thats what, because they think he is a better safety than at corner?
I'm not trying to make you defend ESPN, but it just seems like they have an awful lot of coincidences involving Under Armour participants and the ESPN 150.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:26 PM ^
Craig Roh is ranked 48th overall on ESPN and not ranked in the top 150 anywhere else...
January 14th, 2009 at 2:35 PM ^
but these weird 100+ spot differences are very curious. Same with guys like Isiah Bell and with guys we aren't recruiting like Frankie Telfort. It works for and against us, but its pretty consistent.
the other thing is that Rivals at least acknowledged the Under Armour performances and gave those guys a boost in their update Top 100 and 250 lists. I don't think ESPN moved anyone up that wasn't in the UA game.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:27 PM ^
So, some folks are totally concerned about their team based on a ranking system that is either unknown or proprietary?
Cool! I choose ESPN cause we are ranked #8. Now I feel better.
January 14th, 2009 at 1:47 PM ^
Well, I mean, it should all be taken as a "general idea" and we shouldn't get too tied up in the difference between a ranking of say, 8 or 12. We're talking about a formula involving numbers that are assigned based on subjective evaluations.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:49 PM ^
Chitownblue, I agree completely. But, there has been a lot of "concern" (i.e. freaking paranoia) about the M recruiting class.
Is #8 or say 12 in the country really that bad?
Based on comments on this site, it sounded like we may never having a winning season again.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:58 PM ^
Said comments are unfounded.
I never thought I'd say - "we agree".
(!!!!)
January 14th, 2009 at 1:57 PM ^
Yeah, I think we decide the National Champion in a similar manner.
January 14th, 2009 at 2:27 PM ^
Valid point.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
Did ESPN move any of the players in the ARMY game up in there NEW rankings? Not that I can tell. I guess they didn't watch the ARMY game. They still have Gallon at (77), the guy was pretty good in practice all week. (at the Army game) What the hell does Campbell being an O.Lineman have 2 do with him not being rated higher.(79) Last time I checked Rivals and Scout have him as 1 of the most dominating D-lineman in the nation. So let me get this straight because ESPN has got him pegged as an O-LINEMAN, he's just average. That doesn't make any since, I don't no what is going on here but I'm not going 2 pretend like I do and say some DUMB SHIT LIKE "cause they got him as an O.LINEMAN" "they've said that from the begging" stop it already, and I don't want to here your reply u said enough.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:10 PM ^
I think they are way off on Campbell, but if they think he's going to be an average o-lineman then yes, ranking him as such would make sense.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:14 PM ^
Do you write for Go Blue Michigan Wolverine?
January 14th, 2009 at 10:49 PM ^
Had the same thought.
January 14th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
You're probably right. It's a conspiracy!! ESPN just fucking HATES Michigan!!!
January 14th, 2009 at 3:50 PM ^
you don't go out dressed like that and make a living in the middle of a weekday
January 14th, 2009 at 3:25 PM ^
Oh, and here's a link from a post by Brian back from August the 11th that has ESPN's reasons for not including Campbell in their top 150 back then. Campbell's decision not to play in the Under Armour game has nothing to do with ESPN's ranking of him. There is no conspiracy against Michigan.
http://www.mgoblog.com/content/monday-recruitin-28
January 14th, 2009 at 4:13 PM ^
From said link is Brian's comment on ESPN's reasons "This is stupid".
So, I think I agree with Brian: ESPN is just stupid!!
To paraphrase Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to conspiracy that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:18 PM ^
I don't disagree with you. I'm railing against the idiotic Scout & Rivals "fanboy" types that have fooled themselves into thinking that ESPN (and everyone else) hates Michigan and wants them to fail.
January 14th, 2009 at 4:57 PM ^
aren't saying that, we're saying that ESPN is ranking players just to be different and promote the game they're televising. You know, kind of like the AA does when it invites every ND recruit.
January 14th, 2009 at 8:14 PM ^
ESPN will fellate Michigan like it's trying to get the antidote once we start winning.