re: 4* CB Duke Shelley tries to commit to VOLS but is rejected

quote:

---

Well, I went to rivals and added the points for each of Uga 21 commits. I then added UTs top 21. Georgia's total came to 121.4, UTs was 123.

So, as you can see, whether you use my number or yours, to say Tennessee class was highly rated due to high class numbers is total bullsh!t

---

Judging from your defensiveness, you seem to be under the impression that your recruiting class is being accused of lacking quality. I'm not entirely certain why you feel this way -- insecurity, perhaps? -- but that's certainly not the case. I never said there wasn't quality. I was merely pointing out that UGA's class has a better average ranking by player rather than by aggregate numbers -- the difference is greater than Bama's lead on LSU, for instance -- on 247 Composite(which, again, is pretty much the best one to go by, since it is the fairest way to mediate between the disparate rankings generally used according to whichever one most favors to poster in question's preferred outcome. If you actually want to use the individual rankings, 247 (non-Composite) is the best, with Rivals being a solid but clear second, and ESPN/Scout being distant, distant, distant 3rd/4th. Or 4th/3rd, it doesn't really matter since they both suck.)

quote:

---

rivals

---

Why did you use Rivals as opposed to the commonly agreed upon 247 composite? Because it was the only site that supported your broken theory? Rivals is the only site that pulls in top 20 data, and we all know that site has been cherry picked by other recruiting outlets? Does it fit your agenda? 247 Composite uses an aggregate calculator. It’s an all-inclusive ranking system from other recruiting sites. It helps eliminate any bias and really illustrates an industry-wide ranking.

I stand by what I said, UT finished higher in the 247 composite rankings because they took more players. That’s not to say UT didn’t get some really good players (Bates, Malone and Hurd). My point is, UT took a larger class, and because of that finished higher in the rankings. It’s the truth, but follow your agenda wherever it may lead you. You just look like a dumbass.

(no message)

It's like ya'll are mad at us for taking 33 recruits. Our atrition has been horrible the past 4 years. Any one of your coaches would have done the exact same thing in the same situation. But continue to be butthurt about our top 5 class.

That being said, I don't think anyone could've pulled it off quite like Butch did

247 composite sucks.

Rivals and 247 rankings are all that matter.

TN finished 6th in average star ranking on Rivals which is the only one that actually includes the only players we signed and will be on scholarship this fall.

quote:

---

It's like ya'll are mad at us for taking 33 recruits. Our atrition has been horrible the past 4 years. Any one of your coaches would have done the exact same thing in the same situation. But continue to be butthurt about our top 5 class.

That being said, I don't think anyone could've pulled it off quite like Butch did

---

I think I need to be clear. In no way am I undermining the recruiting class for Butch and UT. It was a national level very good. But I get tired of the whole ranking system being pimped out while ignoring the facts. UT finished 7th overall because of the class size. It’s no different than UGA in 2013, large volume

And any grown man, if that is what you are, using butthurt is borderline homo. No offense, but that term is so played out and over used. I think it says more about the person using that term than anything else. With that said, the whole “butthurt” thing doesn’t really apply seeing as UGA’s class was better.

quote:

---

Why did you use Rivals as opposed to the commonly agreed upon 247 composite? Because it was the only site that supported your broken theory? Rivals is the only site that pulls in top 20 data, and we all know that site has been cherry picked by other recruiting outlets? Does it fit your agenda? 247 Composite uses an aggregate calculator. It’s an all-inclusive ranking system from other recruiting sites. It helps eliminate any bias and really illustrates an industry-wide ranking.

I stand by what I said, UT finished higher in the 247 composite rankings because they took more players. That’s not to say UT didn’t get some really good players (Bates, Malone and Hurd). My point is, UT took a larger class, and because of that finished higher in the rankings. It’s the truth, but follow your agenda wherever it may lead you. You just look like a dumbass.

---

If I wanted to use the site that ranked us highest I would've used scout. It had us ranked 4th.

I used rivals because it is respected and made it easiest for me to add up the points for each class.

And yes I agree that the quantity did play a factor in our ranking. I mean, just look at the quality of depth and how truly talented the class is as a whole. Are there a few three stars? Yes,but they are quality three star players and when you take 33 you're gonna have a few.

I didn't follow an agenda. I followed the math, and thats what the numbers added up to.........dumbass. See I can that too

quote:

---

I used rivals because it is respected

---

quote:

---

Because I know football and am smarter than you. I would have thought that was obvious.

---

thats a pretty subjective statement there, bud