Started By
Message
247 Composite Average Star Rankings - Team Rankings
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:14 pm
1. Alabama (93.64)
2. USC (92.36)
3. Florida State (91.96)
4. LSU (90.33)
5. UCLA (90.31)
6. Georgia (90.10)
7. Ole Miss (90.08)
8. Notre Dame (89.87)
9. Ohio State (89.80)
10. Auburn (89.75)
11. Texas A&M (89.50)
12. Clemson (89.48)
12. Tennessee (89.48)
14. Penn State (89.38)
15. Oklahoma (89.28)
2. USC (92.36)
3. Florida State (91.96)
4. LSU (90.33)
5. UCLA (90.31)
6. Georgia (90.10)
7. Ole Miss (90.08)
8. Notre Dame (89.87)
9. Ohio State (89.80)
10. Auburn (89.75)
11. Texas A&M (89.50)
12. Clemson (89.48)
12. Tennessee (89.48)
14. Penn State (89.38)
15. Oklahoma (89.28)
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 12:15 pm
4
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:28 pm to SummerOfGeorge
7 SEC teams in top 12...insane.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:29 pm to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
4. LSU (90.33) at 20 commits
FIFY
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:34 pm to Ericvol2096
quote:
7 SEC teams in top 12...insane.
Just nuts
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:35 pm to RB10
I just LOL'd
Posted on 1/29/15 at 12:48 pm to SummerOfGeorge
Big 7
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:31 pm to SummerOfGeorge
What this basically tells me that everyone is the same outside of Bama, USC and Florida State. I've seen mods come back with a score and talk about it on 247, Rivals and Scout and the difference in a couple of points is negligible and subjective.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:40 pm to UMRealist
Freeze be star gazing man.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:42 pm to bisonduck
quote:
What this basically tells me that everyone is the same outside of Bama, USC and Florida State
Actually it's Bama and then everyone else.
If you go by average player rating The difference between #1 Bama and #2 FSU is 1.68. The difference between #2 FSU and #8 LSU is 1.63. If you go by total points the difference between Bama and FSU is 22.42, while the difference between FSU and LSU is 21.29.
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 1:43 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:48 pm to bisonduck
quote:
What this basically tells me that everyone is the same outside of Bama, USC and Florida State. I've seen mods come back with a score and talk about it on 247, Rivals and Scout and the difference in a couple of points is negligible and subjective.
Average star rankings is not a good indicator because it all depends on your need. Lane Kiffin was notorious for stacking up on skill players to raise his avg star ranking, and focuses too much on quantity instead of quality. Rivals just adds the top 20 players so teams like UT won't be penalized for taking a long snapper and kicker or having to take more players to provide depth.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:54 pm to UTVols2618
Exactly. Tennessee needs 250 players.
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:55 pm to RB10
quote:
RB10
Posted on 1/29/15 at 1:58 pm to sjmabry
quote:
sjmabry
Pointing out meaningless stats to fit an agenda frowned upon here?
Posted on 1/29/15 at 3:42 pm to UTVols2618
quote:
Average star rankings is not a good indicator because it all depends on your need. Lane Kiffin was notorious for stacking up on skill players to raise his avg star ranking, and focuses too much on quantity instead of quality. Rivals just adds the top 20 players so teams like UT won't be penalized for taking a long snapper and kicker or having to take more players to provide depth.
This. I would say Oregon has their best class of all times but it won' be by ranking. We should land 7 OL and 4 DL. I am happy with an 88 and change average rating. We have guys on the OL that are all over the map between the services. Aiello has a 94 247 rating and an 87 composite.
Kiffin did get great guys in the trenches but he can SC feeder schools like Long Beach Poly and Serra always have elite skill players. I don't know if that is a function of Kiffin as much as having skill guys in your back yard.
Of course, I don't know how he recruited at Tennessee.
This post was edited on 1/29/15 at 3:49 pm
Posted on 1/29/15 at 7:30 pm to UTVols2618
quote:
Average star rankings is not a good indicator because it all depends on your need. Lane Kiffin was notorious for stacking up on skill players to raise his avg star ranking, and focuses too much on quantity instead of quality. Rivals just adds the top 20 players so teams like UT won't be penalized for taking a long snapper and kicker or having to take more players to provide depth.
You really want some dufus ranking your team's needs, though? Rivals used to do that, but do you really believe they had a good feel for all teams?
All rankings should be taken with a grain of salt, but don't mess 'em up with adding unneeded subjectivity. Of course it's important to recruit to your needs, but let the coaches record represent how well he's done that.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News