re: SI ranks college football's most talented rosters

I like it. Seems legit.

...and ucf still sucks. LSU fricked their program all up didn't they? Lol. Ucf will never recover. We did it to Miami in the peach bowl, we did it to Tennessee in 2001 in the sec title game, when they were supposed to be the best team in the nation and preparing to go to the Rose bowl and win the national title after besting LSU for the sec title. LSU is notorious for putting program losses on mofos. There's no shame in getting exposed by LSU bud. Take it light and realize that ucf was one of many programs LSU made it's bitch and ended their grand plans of success, only for them to never recover from it. Geaux tigers bitch.

quote:

---

The writer is not saying that...he is saying the Indiana coaches does a great job developing players. Turning shite into chicken salad. Why are the y’all getting triggered...y’all have 4/5 stars...programs like Va Tech, UK, IU have to find hidden gems.

---

That's not what the article says. I mean, the title is literally "The 25 Most Talented Rosters"

Ummm this is for 2020... not 2019...

quote:

---

--Using the 247 Sports Composite recruiting rankings of the three major services (247, Rivals, and ESPN), we give each player on the roster a point total based on the star they were assessed as a recruit. So 5 points for a 5-star, 4 points for a 4-star, etc.

--We only evaluate the last four recruiting classes, so for this year that's 2017-20. That's because 5th-year seniors at the power five conference level are just not as impactful or plentiful as they used to be. But if a 5th-year senior figures prominently on the depth chart, they are still accounted for.

---

Wait.. so they are using the 247 composite ratings to determine how much talent is on each team’s roster? That’s brilliant! I can’t believe nobody else has ever thought of this!

Although, SI’s math seems a little lazy. Somebody who understands statistics should try to work out a better formula.

Also...

quote:

---

--To account for teams that are considered "developmental" programs, thus they don't recruit a lot of 4-and-5-star prospects, as their players overachieve their incoming star rating they are given additional points. For example, Minnesota's Tanner Morgan was just the No. 1185th-rated prospect coming out of high school, but he clearly played above that last season. Therefore, he's now considered a 4-star in this metric.

---

Translated: “We fudge the numbers when we feel like it because what’s the point of a ranking system without obvious bias?”

Is that before or after everyone jumped ship from lsu?

quote:

---

Makes me giggle. That natty looks even better with those rankings.

---

They're taking into account the players that you're losing. Burrow is a whole lot of that demise.

quote:

---

To account for teams that are considered "developmental" programs, thus they don't recruit a lot of 4-and-5-star prospects, as their players overachieve their incoming star rating they are given additional points. For example, Minnesota's Tanner Morgan was just the No. 1185th-rated prospect coming out of high school, but he clearly played above that last season. Therefore, he's now considered a 4-star in this metric.

---

quote:

---

Translated: “We fudge the numbers when we feel like it because what’s the point of a ranking system without obvious bias?”

---

Exactly. And he doesn't tell us what it means to overacheive as others have pointed out, just because a WR puts up big numbers for Purdue doesn't mean he's a 4 star talent. It just means they don't have anyone else to throw to.

The fact that he would publish this is laughable.

What a clown article. Use 247 instead.

quote:

---

They're taking into account the players that you're losing. Burrow is a whole lot of that demise.

---

Burrow is one 4-star that LSU lost. Same as about 12 other guys that we lost, and about 15 that we gained this recruiting cycle.