April 20th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^

247's are already out.  However, they're not rankings make by the gurus, but rather just an algorithm based on #of recruits multiplied by the ranking of the recruits, so it's not a great measure of classes this early in the game.  Needless to say we are number 1.




April 20th, 2012 at 12:36 PM ^

Well, considering 247 uses a Gaussian distribution formula [click the info button at the top next to "Football Team Rankings"] to rank classes, it certainly could be the case that small sample size was the big issue. I also think that's why Rivals and Scout don't release rankings early in the game, since not all players are ranked and not enough schools have enough numbers in their class. Here's the Scout/Rivals formula.


April 20th, 2012 at 12:40 PM ^

If you have a larger class you are always going to be ranked higher with these sites.  That is why some Sparty fans were crying las year.  They kept bringing up average stars, which we were still much higher.  

turd ferguson

April 20th, 2012 at 12:38 PM ^

As a2 suggested, these are terribly done. They're basically just a ranking of class size. One example is Central Michigan (one two-star recruit and one three-star recruit) being well ahead of Oregon (one five-star recruit).

It's nice that they have Michigan at #1, but the algorithm is so lame that this just shows that we have a lot of commitments.

In my view, subjective rankings like Ace's are much better right now.


April 20th, 2012 at 12:48 PM ^

The re-rank of Ohio helped us on 247.  Smith and Conley both getting 4 stars and bumped into the top 247 gave us a bigger lead point wise.


April 20th, 2012 at 1:12 PM ^

Yes, 247's rankings are a little hinky until most schools approach the average class size but they're out much sooner than the other sites.  Texas, Bama and Michigan have the best classes right now.