Ranking the college recruiting classes

[TripletDaddy]

Can someone explain why there is usually such a disparity amongst the three main ranking services....rivals/yahoo, scout, and ESPN?

I know that ranking are subjective, but using AP and Coaches poll as an example, the polls are usually very similar and often have many teams ranked in the exact same spots.

However the top WR on Rivals might be ranked in the 50s on ESPN, or vice versa.

ESPN appears to have its own brand to promote (I was shocked to discover that almost all of the players at the UA game were committed to teams in the SEC...a multi-billion dollar partner for the network and were ranked highly on the ESPN listings).

What about rivals and scout? What is their angle? Why the disparity?

[SeattleUte]

Maybe they use different methodology. The Rankings on Rivals are totally worthess. They give points for ratings of individual players committed and then the rankings are based on gross total points. So of course BYU with 29 players signed is going to have a higher rated class than Utah, with 15. But there may be very good reasons why Utah only has 15 committed--it may have too many underclassmen, maybe Utah is now waiting to see whether kids waiting to see if, say, USC will offer them will need to take a fall back school (whereas in the past Utah just took the next tier), BYU signed a bunch of sign and sends, etc. Utah may have more good prospects in the 15 it has signed than BYU does in the 29 (sorry to use such loaded examples; just read team x and team y if you must to keep your blood temerature down).

If you were going to game the system all you'd do is sign as many players as possible. Maybe that's what Bronco does because it seems BYU fans care most about the recruiting rankings. But like most rankings, recruiting rankings are mostly BS.

[Babs]

Can someone explain why there is usually such a disparity amongst the three main ranking services....rivals/yahoo, scout, and ESPN?

Yeah, I was looking at this the other day, too.

USC is clearly hurting in rivals, for example, simply because they've signed so few this early. OTOH, the recruits they've signed have the highest average ranking - by far. But rivals heavily weighs the total talent accumulation in addition to the average talent.

This is even more the case with Scout - Oklahoma comes in #1, but only because, of the elite schools, they've already committed more players than anybody else.

[JohnnyLingo]

Maybe they use different methodology. The Rankings on Rivals are totally worthess. They give points for ratings of individual players committed and then the rankings are based on gross total points. So of course BYU with 29 players signed is going to have a higher rated class than Utah, with 15. But there may be very good reasons why Utah only hsa 15 committed--it may have too many underclassmen, maybe Utah is now waiting to see whether kids waiting to see if say, USC, will offer them will need to take a fall back (whereas in the past Utah just took the next tier), BYU signed a bunch of sign and sends, etc. Utah may have more good prospects in the 15 it has signed than BYU does in the 29 (sorry to use such loaded examples; just read team x and team y if you must to keep your blood temerature down).

If you were going to game the system all you'd do is sign as many players as possible. Maybe that's what Bronco does because it seems BYU fans care most about the recruiting rankings. But like most rankings, recruiting rankings are mostly BS.

[Babs]

Maybe they use different methodology. The Rankings on Rivals are totally worthess. They give points for ratings of individual players committed and then the rankings are based on gross total points. So of course BYU with 29 players signed is going to have a higher rated class than Utah, with 15. But there may be very good reasons why Utah only has 15 committed--it may have too many underclassmen, maybe Utah is now waiting to see whether kids waiting to see if, say, USC will offer them will need to take a fall back school (whereas in the past Utah just took the next tier), BYU signed a bunch of sign and sends, etc. Utah may have more good prospects in the 15 it has signed than BYU does in the 29 (sorry to use such loaded examples; just read team x and team y if you must to keep your blood temerature down).

If you were going to game the system all you'd do is sign as many players as possible. Maybe that's what Bronco does because it seems BYU fans care most about the recruiting rankings. But like most rankings, recruiting rankings are mostly BS.

your argument would hold water if it weren't for the fact that in the end all the teams recruit roughly the same number of players.

[Coach McGuirk]

Yeah, I was looking at this the other day, too.

USC is clearly hurting in rivals, for example, simply because they've signed so few this early. OTOH, the recruits they've signed have the highest average ranking - by far. But rivals heavily weighs the total talent accumulation in addition to the average talent.

This is even more the case with Scout - Oklahoma comes in #1, but only because, of the elite schools, they've already committed more players than anybody else.

I think that is the whole point though. You can't rate a class based on people who have not verbally committed. How else are they suppose to rank them besides who has potentially committed?

It all washes out in the end, and really is just there to help entertain.

[SeattleUte]

your argument would hold water if it weren't for the fact that in the end all the teams recruit roughly the same number of players.

You just made the same point I did but in a more pedestrian way.

[cougjunkie]

Right now the Rankings are hard to figure out in terms of total classes because they are weighted on number of recruits, but come signing day they will all balance out.

The reason the players are ranked so differently first and foremost for ESPN they pimp guys that are going to be on their network for the next 3-5 years that is all the Under Armour game was, and that is all their rankings do. Tom Luginbill is very biased in his rankings.

Scout and Rivals are usually fairly close, however they are biased as well in the sense that for example BYUs home recruiting page is a scout site (Totalbluesports.com) so Talo and Gman seem to have influence on Brandon Huffman who is the west coast rankings guy for Scout.

Utezone.com is a Rivals based site and Utah players seem to usually rank higher on Rivals than they do on Scout.

I usually look at all 3 and make my assumptions based on the averages as well as their film. You can watch a guy on film and see if he is a player or not. Also these all-star games may not necessarily be great indications but you can tell if a kid stands out at the game or the practices leading up to it.

[Babs]

You just made the same point I did but in a more pedestrian way.

No. You suggested that BYU just goes out to get more kids than anybody else. Those who know anything about college recruiting know that the number of athletes is determined by the NCAA.

[TripletDaddy]

Y'all (yikes!) are discussing recruiting class ranking. I am not overly concerned about that, for reasons cited by both Babes and SeattleUte.

I am talking about individual player rankings, hence the example of disparity at any given position. For example, does ESPN rank Heaps as the #1QB prospect? I realize that there are exceptions, but it seems that at almost every position, a player will be a top ten recruit on one service yet maybe ranked 75th overall on another service.

Individual player rankings have nothing to do with how many open scholarships a school may retain at any point in time. I do agree that class rankings are affected by how many scholarships are still left unassigned.

[Babs]

I think that is the whole point though. You can't rate a class based on people who have not verbally committed. How else are they suppose to rank them besides who has potentially committed?

but we're talking about why the rankings differ so greatly when they're all counting the same kids.

[cougjunkie]

No. You suggested that BYU just goes out to get more kids than anybody else. Those who know anything about college recruiting know that the number of athletes is determined by the NCAA.

Yep can not sign more than 25 kids in any one class. Not to mention every major program in the country over signs kids.

Here is an SI article on it. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...4/oversigning/

The difference between these schools and BYU is that BYU sends the kids on missions and puts them on schollie when they return. Ole Miss, UNC, Alabama etc just kick them to the curb and leave the kids scrambling at the last minute. That is where teams like Utah come in to pick up the leftovers.

[Babs]

I am talking about individual player rankings, hence the example of disparity at any given position. For example, does ESPN rank Heaps as the #1QB prospect? I realize that there are exceptions, but it seems that at almost every position, a player will be a top ten recruit on one service yet maybe ranked 75th overall on another service.

right. this is what I wonder about, too. Unfortunately, the formula (if you will) for calculating talent is proprietary, so we don't really know how they're weighing which variables.

[TripletDaddy]

Right now the Rankings are hard to figure out in terms of total classes because they are weighted on number of recruits, but come signing day they will all balance out.

The reason the players are ranked so differently first and foremost for ESPN they pimp guys that are going to be on their network for the next 3-5 years that is all the Under Armour game was, and that is all their rankings do. Tom Luginbill is very biased in his rankings.

Scout and Rivals are usually fairly close, however they are biased as well in the sense that for example BYUs home recruiting page is a scout site (Totalbluesports.com) so Talo and Gman seem to have influence on Brandon Huffman who is the west coast rankings guy for Scout.

Utezone.com is a Rivals based site and Utah players seem to usually rank higher on Rivals than they do on Scout.

I usually look at all 3 and make my assumptions based on the averages as well as their film. You can watch a guy on film and see if he is a player or not. Also these all-star games may not necessarily be great indications but you can tell if a kid stands out at the game or the practices leading up to it.

ok, this makes some sense to me. I don't follow tbs or utezone, so I didn't know about the connections to each ranking system.

I agree about the UA game. it was an SEC love fest, with some B12 love mixed in for good measure. I suppose if you just partnered up for 25 billion dollars or whatever it was, you would want to promote that conference, too.

[TripletDaddy]

right. this is what I wonder about, too. Unfortunately, the formula (if you will) for calculating talent is proprietary, so we don't really know how they're weighing which variables.

is that so? interesting. sounds like the formula for the bcs.

I know SC feels like it is in good shape to finish with a really good class this year and as we discussed offline, it is largely a function of having so many open slots left to fill, as opposed to fla et al that have already signed over 20 players.

however I am baffled by what is a huge disparity in ranking the alleged best of the best.

The hs kids obviously buy into whichever service ranks them highest. They know that they will be given free TV time to pick their hat and look into the camera for a few minutes.