Team/Conf. Recruiting Rankings

[Scott4USC]

Conference Rankings

1. SEC
2. ACC
3. Pac-10
4. Big Ten
5. Big 12
6. I-A Ind
7. Big East
8. Conf USA
9. MWC
10. Sun Belt
11. WAC
12. MAC

Last year the Pac 10 took the crown and this year the SEC is the conf. recruiting champion! Although the Pac 10 has the highest average star ranking which is interesting.

Scout.com Top 25 Rankings

1. Tennessee
2. Michigan
3. USC
4. Florida State
5. Georgia
6. Oklahoma
7. Ohio State
8. Iowa
9. California
10. Nebraska
11. Florida
12. Miami (Fl)
13. Texas
14. Arizona
15. Virginia
16. Alabama
17. Texas A&M
18. Virginia Tech
19. South Carolina
20. LSU
21. Clemson
22. Auburn
23. North Carolina State
24. UCLA
25. Maryland

Rivals.com Top 25 Rankings

1 Southern Cal
2 Florida State
3 Oklahoma
4 Tennessee
5 Nebraska
6 Michigan
7 Miami-FL
8 California
9 Georgia
10 Texas A&M
11 Iowa
12 Ohio State
13 Auburn
14 Florida
15 Virginia Tech
16 Alabama
17 Maryland
18 Clemson
19 Virginia
20 Texas
21 Arizona
22 South Carolina
23 Arkansas
24 LSU
25 Penn State

 

[taoist]

...thanks for posting these final rankings. What I fail to understand is how they seem to be so different.... I guess since the whole thing is extremely subjective, then everyone has a different opinion, but only time will tell how many of these so-called "Top Recruits" actually pan out and perform at the next level....

 

[Scott4USC]

taoist

What I fail to understand is how they seem to be so different....

Not every school can give the same number of scholarships. Most give between 15-25. 25 being max in one year and 85 being max on a team. Now you can play around with the numbers with greyshirts etc.

Each recruiting service has their own evaluation based on star ranking. 1-5 stars. 5-stars being elite.

Do you rank your classes based on average star ranking? Based on # top 100 players signed which combine 5-star and 4-star recruits? Based on most 5-star recruits? Number of rides? Quality vs Quantity? Then you have some services give more credit to QB's and RB's vs other positions. For example if you do not have a QB in your class, you "might" be downgraded. That is BS in my opinion.

Personally, I think they should be ranked based on average star ranking. That is how you calculate QUALITY! Both Rivals and Sout have their data for you to see and judge for yourself. So you do not necessarily have to go by their rankings.

That all said, the most important factor is a HC evaluating the talent he recruited and his teams needs and developing it. 3-star recruits can and will become more productive than 5-star recruits at the next level. The star rankings are based on what each and every player did in HS and College is completely different. However more 5-star recruits become superstars in college than say 4-star recruits. So the rankings have merit. Generally, the top 10 recruiting classes reflect the final top 10 polls. Get the top players, get the top recruiting rankings, usually you will get top 10 finishes. FSU, Miami, USC, OU, & OSU are prime examples. Watch out for CAL, Nebraska & Iowa to become monster recruiters and finished ranked in the top 10. Those are 3 programs on the rise and 2/3 have HC's I consider to be top 7 in the country.

 

[Master Capper]

Scott,

Your post is skewed again, if you take the combined rankings of a vast majority of recruiting services the final would look like this:

1.SEC
2. ACC
3. Big 10
4. Big 12
5. Pac 10


Taoist
The bust rate for the four and five star players is huge as they usually have no where to go but down. Remember we are dealing with 18 and 19 year old kids that in most cases have not faced adversity yet in their lives, so it's a compelte crapshoot.

 

[wy1984]

Congrats on the great class Scott, looks like y'all are reloading again. My Bama team had another solid class. I think we found something taht Shula can do good. ha ha
but anyway good luck
Wy

 

[Scott4USC]

Scott,

Your post is skewed again, if you take the combined rankings of a vast majority of recruiting services the final would look like this:

1.SEC
2. ACC
3. Big 10
4. Big 12
5. Pac 10

Your post has no merit Master Capper. My post can't be skewed because those are not my rankings. Scout.com and rivals.com are 2 of the major recruiting services "most" people use. Lemming and superprep are 2 others. Show me your data? You can go see my data but I can't see your data? Are we to take your word for it?


Thanks wy1984. The one player USC missed out on was Desean Jackson. I really wanted this kid at WR for USC. Cal got him. :cursin: USC does not have any super speed WR's so he would fit perfectly. Guess he rather catch 50 passes at CAL vs 10 at USC. Other than that is was close to a perfect class. Couldn't be happier.

 

[Master Capper]

Scott,

I have no source for my data, I simply took all the rankings that I could find online and then computed where each team stood by average ranking. I dont beleive that you can state that Rivals or Superprep is the end all when discussing recruiting rankings. All of them have their positive aspects even Lemming,

 

[Scott4USC]

Scott,

I have no source for my data, I simply took all the rankings that I could find online and then computed where each team stood by average ranking. I dont beleive that you can state that Rivals or Superprep is the end all when discussing recruiting rankings. All of them have their positive aspects even Lemming,

So for the fun of it, you calculated every team's ranking from every conference from "multiple" sources to come up with conference recruiting rankings? I find that hard to believe. Scout.com has their conf. rankings calculated and I posted them. You called that data "skewed."

Of course after you finished "your" calculations, you had the Pac 10 behind the Big 10 and Big 12. If any data is skewed it is yours, especially when nobody can validate it. Your sources and data continue to be mysterious.

 

[Master Capper]

Scott,

Scout.com now thats funny, I forgot they are the ONLY source for true information! Don't you think the way I did the calculation is fair to all parties? For I know for a fact that you nor anyone else can see into the future and have a reasonable certainty how each one of these kids will fare. By taking ALL of the available online rankings (and I am sure there are more that I could not find) the sample created is more than fair and the CONF ratings are how they would look if measured by ALL online services not just the ones that you deem to be the best. Of course your numbers would be skewed, by using such a small sample the numbers you present are very skewed. Scott, without going into detail I have volumes of information that I have accumulated for this recruiting season as well as past seasons and this information is not for handicapping purposes but for reasons that I would not care to share due to the fact that it could create problems for me. So thus I will not get into a pissing match with you, if you believe that your numbers are right then so be it!

 

[Bob Stoops]

I knew Scott would be interested to see this. Rivals.com has finally seen the light and has redone their rankings after taking into account who actually showed up.

The new rankings are:

1. Oklahoma
2. Tennessee
3. Nebraska
4. USC
5. Florida St.

The loss of Gabe Long, Kevin Myers and Walker Ashley were the reasons that USC dropped. Every one of OU's signees is enrolled and practicing.

Just a little FYI.

 

[AU2001]

Scott, your signature is incorrect. The Pac-10 has not won more BCS games than any other conference. That would be the SEC.

If facts are usually not enough for the delusional, they should at least be facts!

 

[The Judge]

Scott, your signature is incorrect. The Pac-10 has not won more BCS games than any other conference. That would be the SEC.

If facts are usually not enough for the delusional, they should at least be facts!

Wow. After all the hype, I guess we all assumed Scott knew what he was talking about. He didn't.

Here are the BCS wins by conference since the inception of the BCS in 1998:

1998
SEC ? 2 (Tennessee & Florida)
Big 10 ? 2 (Ohio State & Wisconsin)

1999
Big 10 ? 2 (Michigan & Wisconsin)
ACC ? 1 (Florida State)
Big 12 ? 1 (Nebraska)

2000
Pac 10 -2 (Washington & Oregon State)
Big 12 ? 1 (Oklahoma)
Big East ? 1 (Miami)

2001
SEC ? 2 (LSU & Florida)
Pac 10 ? 1 (Oregon)
ACC ? 1 (LSU)

2002
Big 10 ? 1 (Ohio State)
SEC - 1 (Georgia)
Pac 10 ? 1 (USC)
Big 12 ? 1 (Oklahoma)

2003
SEC ? 1 (LSU)
Pac 10 ? 1 (USC)
Big East ? 1 (Miami)
Big 10 ? 1 (Ohio State)

2004
Pac 10 ? 1 (USC)
Big 12 ? 1 (Texas)
SEC ? 1 (Auburn)
Mountain West ? 1 (Utah)

Totals BCS Wins:
SEC - 7
Big 10 - 6
Pac 10 - 6
Big 12 - 4
ACC - 2
Big East - 2
Mountain West -1

The Pac 10 teams do not even own second place by themselves.

I will have to agree; THAT'S delusional.

 

[Scott4USC]

Scott, your signature is incorrect. The Pac-10 has not won more BCS games than any other conference. That would be the SEC.

Yes my sig was incorrect. I appreciate you correcting me.

The mighty SEC has 7 BCS victories since 1998 whie the wimpy Pac 10 has 6 BCS victories.

I recently changed my sig and my old sig had the Pac 10 winning the most BCS victories since 2000. When I re-typed my sig, I accidentally forgot to post the vital words "since 2000." Honest mistake and it def. should be corrected.

If facts are usually not enough for the delusional, they should at least be facts!

Most definitely!

I knew Scott would be interested to see this. Rivals.com has finally seen the light and has redone their rankings after taking into account who actually showed up.

The new rankings are:

1. Oklahoma
2. Tennessee
3. Nebraska
4. USC
5. Florida St.

The loss of Gabe Long, Kevin Myers and Walker Ashley were the reasons that USC dropped. Every one of OU's signees is enrolled and practicing.

Just a little FYI.

GOOD FYI UPDATE!

First I want to say congrats to OU for getting all their recruits in. Huge plus!

I think rivals made an error. 5-star DT Gabe Long will be enrolling into USC in the Spring. The other 2 4-star recruits will not be Trojans. Ashley was 1-2pts shy of qualifying, appealed to NCAA, and now said he will be going to Minny (which is his home state). Myers I have no clue on. LSU first, USC 2nd, and I think Oregon was last I heard.

I do question the final recruiting rankings. Maybe rivals prefers QUANTITY but I certainly prefer QUALITY.

OU signed 27 players with a 3.5 average star ranking. TOP NOTCH! OU also signed 2 five-star recruits. EXCELLENT!

USC signed 20 (now 18 with 2 losses) with an average ranking of 3.9 stars (factoring in the 2 recruits lost). USC also signed 4 5-star recruits which is insane. I think there were only 27 in the country last year.

QUALITY (USC) vs QUANTITY (OU)

I prefer quality and I am not sure what recruits didn't qualify for FSU, but I might put FSU 2nd ahead of OU.

I am sure Stoops wouldn't trade his class with USC and same with Carroll. Both coaches are the best in the business!