Hello There, Guest! (LoginRegister)

Post Reply 
TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
Author Message
Bookmark and Share
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #1
TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
I'm sure there will be some interesting discussions from this. Make sure you read the comments after the ranking. In some cases it explains more about why the class is ranked lower yet I think it is a very good class.

The formula for the ranking was created fairly and uses Rivals.com's player ratings, so no school was placed their for personal reasons at all. So here's the article.


http://toledo.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1326659
02-01-2012 11:17 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


wmubroncopilot Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,027
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 132
I Root For: WMU
Location: Anchorage, AK
Post: #2
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
Toledo's been recruiting really well for a number of years now. I honestly think they could be on the verge of a dynasty (by MAC standards).
02-02-2012 12:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Campbell4President Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 2,210
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 27
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #3
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
I know that there's going to be plenty of people to come in here and say recruiting rankings are only rankings and that doesn't mean a thing when it comes to action on the field, which is mostly true but not completely. A lot of things go into a good team and recruiting good players is only a portion of it.

However, Brian if you take the number of points divided by the number of players signed, how does the list look? For example, you talked about BG only signing 20 but having a bunch of quality players. If you've got all of this stuff in your spreadsheet, could you post that too...just cuz I'm curious.
02-02-2012 12:29 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
7 Offline
The Pride of the Midwest
*

Posts: 26,264
Joined: Oct 2006
Reputation: 67
I Root For: NIU
Location: Fatty's
Post: #4
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 12:22 AM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  Toledo's been recruiting really well for a number of years now. I honestly think they could be on the verge of a dynasty (by MAC standards).
They're 14-2 the last two years in MAC play, they've been really good.

Problem is the 2 came against the one team they couldn't lose to.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 12:49 AM by 7.)
02-02-2012 12:48 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CMUprof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,463
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 13
I Root For: CMU
Location:
Post: #5
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-01-2012 11:17 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  I'm sure there will be some interesting discussions from this. Make sure you read the comments after the ranking. In some cases it explains more about why the class is ranked lower yet I think it is a very good class.

The formula for the ranking was created fairly and uses Rivals.com's player ratings, so no school was placed their for personal reasons at all. So here's the article.


http://toledo.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1326659

The problem I have with Rivals is that some teams have a number of unranked recruits, particularly in Michigan. Saylor Lavallii has offers from CMU, Kent, Ohio and Penn State and is a 3 star on Scout, yet unranked by Rivals.

From the 3 major sites (ESPN, Scout, Rivals) Toledo seems to have the best class on paper. Paper doesn't win the MAC though.
02-02-2012 01:20 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #6
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
I like your approach although I differ a little.

I don't go down '25 deep' and I certainly wouldn't go 27, 28 or even 30 03-banghead deep.

I would prefer to go maybe 20 deep.

My observation is that the last (or lowest rated) are 'Plan B' recruits and really don't add much to the discussion, esp. trying to handle a 'NR'.

Also, stopping at 20 doesn't penalize a school with 19 or 20 recruits vs. one with 25.

One thing about the school and their recruiting modus operandi.

Coach English apparently has become choosy when it comes to academics.

I believe EMU passed on some '3 star' recruits who were borderline academically (e.g., Stephon Hall, Shaq Joyner, etc.). I understand Joyner wanted to come. Not completely sure on Hall who visited (he is going JUCO). Kyle Ready (rated 3 stars but went to Sag. Valley St - GLIAC) also visited. EMU may have passed on other '3 star' recruits whom I don't want to mention by name because he had issues with them even though they don't rise, er I mean, descend to the SEC standards for (mis)conduct and issues.

I don't believe English played the "Recruiting Show' game trying to pad his signing list with recruits who look good on signing day (but never make it to the field) to impress recruiting junkies.

Our list is an 'honest' list. 03-snooty
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 05:34 AM by emu steve.)
02-02-2012 05:31 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #7
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
BTW, I too have Toledo #1 by a significant margin.

Years ago the MAC was noted for parity (and mediocrity).

Now we have teams up at the top who are very strong programs who are up there year after year and very strong recruiting is a big part of it.

Toledo recruits very well, schedules very well, draws very well, etc. and wins!

A very solid program.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 05:43 AM by emu steve.)
02-02-2012 05:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Polish Hammer Offline
King of all Dukes
*

Posts: 14,713
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Kent State/James Madison
Location:
Post: #8
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
The problem with those rankings is it seems quantity weighs over quality. They rank players by stars and obviously the more the better. Therefore, the rankings should be according to most average stars. Rivals has Ohio with 19 commits with 8 of them being 3-stars and actually ranks 1st when sorted that way. Toledo has 9 3-star commits but also shows 31 commits and Temple only 5 out of their 29. Also worth noting is that some players have not yet been rated.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/kentstate/footba.../MIDAM/all
02-02-2012 07:25 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
victory engineer Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,728
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 6
I Root For: ']['emple
Location:
Post: #9
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
Temple #1 per scout and rivals.... #2 per Toledo fan site...

http://temple.scout.com/a.z?s=186&p=9&c=...=2&yr=2012

Maybe in four years Temple can win the EAST.....
02-02-2012 08:50 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #10
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 01:20 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  
(02-01-2012 11:17 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  I'm sure there will be some interesting discussions from this. Make sure you read the comments after the ranking. In some cases it explains more about why the class is ranked lower yet I think it is a very good class.

The formula for the ranking was created fairly and uses Rivals.com's player ratings, so no school was placed their for personal reasons at all. So here's the article.


http://toledo.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1326659

The problem I have with Rivals is that some teams have a number of unranked recruits, particularly in Michigan. Saylor Lavallii has offers from CMU, Kent, Ohio and Penn State and is a 3 star on Scout, yet unranked by Rivals.

From the 3 major sites (ESPN, Scout, Rivals) Toledo seems to have the best class on paper. Paper doesn't win the MAC though.

I understand what you are saying about the unrated guys. As for the last statement you are exactly right. And you know what else doesn't win the MAC? A recruiting class alone. The purpose of ranking recruiting classes is not who will win the MAC. That's a totally different discussion because of many other factors, but every year people point that out.

Rivals did have some guys on a lot of teams that were not rated. Rivals had some guys rated 3 stars that Scout either didn't have rated or were just 2 stars also. It works both ways and it is mostly because there are only so many analysts and unless there is a team site that can get film from a kid and pass it on to the analysts they might not rate everyone in your class.
02-02-2012 09:12 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #11
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 08:50 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Temple #1 per scout and rivals.... #2 per Toledo fan site...

http://temple.scout.com/a.z?s=186&p=9&c=...=2&yr=2012

Maybe in four years Temple can win the EAST.....

Maybe it changed later in the day, but Toledo was ahead of Temple on Scout by a large margin earlier in the day. Temple beat out Toledo by a score of 228 to 214 on Rivals, mostly because Temple signed the #9 ranked RB in the country and the #15 safety in the country. Both 5.7 three star prospects, but Temple got over 100 extra points because of these two kid's position ranking. I'm sorry, but two kids don't make a recruiting class over 100 points better when the whole total is 228 points. You can't tell me Smith and Gilmore are that much better than the rest of Temple's recruits.


By the way, Scout's ranking is majorly flawed. They don't stop at a number and give points for each commit. They have Temple with 35 players in the class, but in reality I believe only 28 or 29 actually signed. The other 6 or 7 should not be in the class. One highly ranked kid is going to prep school instead of signing with Temple, but they ranked him in Temple's team ranking and that is the only reason Temple is higher than the mid-60's.
(This post was last modified: 02-02-2012 09:22 AM by BrianNowicki.)
02-02-2012 09:20 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


Polish Hammer Offline
King of all Dukes
*

Posts: 14,713
Joined: Sep 2004
Reputation: 156
I Root For: Kent State/James Madison
Location:
Post: #12
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 08:50 AM)victory engineer Wrote:  Temple #1 per scout and rivals.... #2 per Toledo fan site...

http://temple.scout.com/a.z?s=186&p=9&c=...=2&yr=2012

Maybe in four years Temple can win the EAST.....
Of course they're #1 on Scout who gives more points for every commit and has them with 35 commits. Those totals for all schools are not accurate.
02-02-2012 09:22 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #13
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
One last thought, I did think about it a little and think maybe I should go with 20 or even 15 recruits for the calculation. First (using 20), it did not change the rankings much. A few teams moved up or down by one spot and that was it. Second, the biggest difference seemed to be that a school with 4 or 5 three star recruits and then several 5.2 or 5.3 two star recruits were way too far ahead of a school with mostly all 5.4 two star recruits and just 1 or 2 three star recruits. That is because it was not a large enough sample of the class. In reality, a class with all players that have very strong potential with no average guys and really no superstars should not be way behind a class that emphasizes a handful of superstars and then a bunch of players that are not evaluated to be more than bench players. We know this can all change with development, but it didn't seem right to me so I kept the 25 number that was created before even looking at any teams.

But again, it only changed a few teams by moving them up or down one spot in the rankings so it was not significant.
02-02-2012 09:28 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
axeme Offline
Sage
*

Posts: 20,022
Joined: May 2002
Reputation: 125
I Root For: hoops
Location: Location: Location:

Folding@NCAAbbsDonatorsCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappiesCrappies
Post: #14
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
Brian, what does this mean?

Quote:The player rating is best on the player rating given to them from Rivals.com.
02-02-2012 09:44 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
CMUprof Offline
1st String
*

Posts: 1,463
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation: 13
I Root For: CMU
Location:
Post: #15
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 09:12 AM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  
(02-02-2012 01:20 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  
(02-01-2012 11:17 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  I'm sure there will be some interesting discussions from this. Make sure you read the comments after the ranking. In some cases it explains more about why the class is ranked lower yet I think it is a very good class.

The formula for the ranking was created fairly and uses Rivals.com's player ratings, so no school was placed their for personal reasons at all. So here's the article.


http://toledo.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1326659

The problem I have with Rivals is that some teams have a number of unranked recruits, particularly in Michigan. Saylor Lavallii has offers from CMU, Kent, Ohio and Penn State and is a 3 star on Scout, yet unranked by Rivals.

From the 3 major sites (ESPN, Scout, Rivals) Toledo seems to have the best class on paper. Paper doesn't win the MAC though.

I understand what you are saying about the unrated guys. As for the last statement you are exactly right. And you know what else doesn't win the MAC? A recruiting class alone. The purpose of ranking recruiting classes is not who will win the MAC. That's a totally different discussion because of many other factors, but every year people point that out.

Rivals did have some guys on a lot of teams that were not rated. Rivals had some guys rated 3 stars that Scout either didn't have rated or were just 2 stars also. It works both ways and it is mostly because there are only so many analysts and unless there is a team site that can get film from a kid and pass it on to the analysts they might not rate everyone in your class.

Scout tends to have the last minute recruits unrated. My biggest problem with their rankings are that they awards points for numbers. I usually look at their ratings and then sort by avg stars. In which case Toledo comes out on top. NIU gets hosed on Scout though, they have a lot of unranked recruits. UMass does too but I think that is because they are recruiting a lot of FCS guys still.
02-02-2012 09:52 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
emu steve Online
Legend
*

Posts: 39,475
Joined: Jan 2004
Reputation: 83
I Root For: EMU / MAC
Location: DMV - D.C. area
Post: #16
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
If all recruits were given ratings, e.g., 70 - 100 then one could take the median (rank recruits in descending scores 100 --> 70 and take the middle score).
02-02-2012 10:09 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Advertisement


BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #17
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 09:44 AM)axeme Wrote:  Brian, what does this mean?

Quote:The player rating is best on the player rating given to them from Rivals.com.

The word best was supposed to be based. I had been working over 16 hours straight with TheRocketNation for signing day coverage at the time I typed that post.
02-02-2012 10:17 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #18
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
When I get a chance I will plug my formula in for taking just the top 20 as asked here so everyone can see it. I will also go back through each class and start from scratch in case anyone new was added to their list.
02-02-2012 10:18 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #19
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
(02-02-2012 09:52 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  
(02-02-2012 09:12 AM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  
(02-02-2012 01:20 AM)CMUprof Wrote:  
(02-01-2012 11:17 PM)BrianNowicki Wrote:  I'm sure there will be some interesting discussions from this. Make sure you read the comments after the ranking. In some cases it explains more about why the class is ranked lower yet I think it is a very good class.

The formula for the ranking was created fairly and uses Rivals.com's player ratings, so no school was placed their for personal reasons at all. So here's the article.


http://toledo.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1326659

The problem I have with Rivals is that some teams have a number of unranked recruits, particularly in Michigan. Saylor Lavallii has offers from CMU, Kent, Ohio and Penn State and is a 3 star on Scout, yet unranked by Rivals.

From the 3 major sites (ESPN, Scout, Rivals) Toledo seems to have the best class on paper. Paper doesn't win the MAC though.

I understand what you are saying about the unrated guys. As for the last statement you are exactly right. And you know what else doesn't win the MAC? A recruiting class alone. The purpose of ranking recruiting classes is not who will win the MAC. That's a totally different discussion because of many other factors, but every year people point that out.

Rivals did have some guys on a lot of teams that were not rated. Rivals had some guys rated 3 stars that Scout either didn't have rated or were just 2 stars also. It works both ways and it is mostly because there are only so many analysts and unless there is a team site that can get film from a kid and pass it on to the analysts they might not rate everyone in your class.

Scout tends to have the last minute recruits unrated. My biggest problem with their rankings are that they awards points for numbers. I usually look at their ratings and then sort by avg stars. In which case Toledo comes out on top. NIU gets hosed on Scout though, they have a lot of unranked recruits. UMass does too but I think that is because they are recruiting a lot of FCS guys still.

Scout also includes all commitments in their ranking, not just signed players. Rivals only counts signed players as of signing day. I know for a fact that Scout has guys adding to some school's totals because they were committed but then they never signed and are going to a prep school or going JUCO.
02-02-2012 10:20 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BrianNowicki Offline
All American
*

Posts: 4,438
Joined: Sep 2008
Reputation: 21
I Root For: Toledo
Location:
Post: #20
RE: TheRocketNation's MAC Team Recruiting Rankings
Okay, here are the rankings using just the Top 20 players from each class. Keep in mind the rankings don't change much (and I think actually no one moves ahead or down a place other than Ohio tying Kent State) simply because the teams that lost points from 5 players are only losing it from the bottom 5 players because you are now counting the top 20 instead of the top 25. It really doesn't change things much at all. Only two schools signed less than 20 players, both signed 19. The one extra player wouldn't change their point total much, maybe enough to move ahead of one team but that's about it.


1 - Toledo (375)
2 - Temple (310)
3 - Western Michigan (305)
4 - Northern Illinois (290)
5 - Ohio University (285 - OU and KSU are tied, but Ohio had just 19 players and probably would have had 290 and a tie with NIU if they had 20)
5 - Kent State (285)
7 - Miami University (231 - Miami had one non-rated player used in the formula and therefore got just 1 point from him)
8 - Eastern Michigan (230)
9 - Bowling Green (228 - 3 non-rated players gave them just 3 points, also picked up 6 points from before because I found 2 guys not in Rivals list)
10 - Central Michigan (215 - 5 non-rated players gave them just 5 points)
11 - Ball State (170)
12 - Akron (165)
13 - UMASS (160)
14 - Buffalo (144 - had just 19 players, plus 4 non-rated players gave them just 4 points)


Thoughts. If you gave the non-rated players at each school a basic 5.3 rating that is a difference of 9 points per player. In CMU's case that is 45 additional points to give them 260 points. That would be the biggest jump, but you are also assuming they would be 5.3 rated instead of 5.2 rated. And who knows, maybe one or two would even be 5.4 rated. Anyway, that is the biggest difference for CMU's class, yet it is still just middle of the conference in ranking. Buffalo would have a bit of a boost too and probably move to 11th instead of 14th.

Going from 25 to 20 doesn't make much of a difference. If you go down to 15 you are going down too much IMO. Only two schools had less than 20 guys sign and they were both 19. Going to 15 starts to penalize a Western Michigan because they had several quality players even though they didn't have a bunch of 5.6 and 5.7 three star guys. The smaller of a sample you use, the more you are appeasing to the schools that signed a bunch of three star players (Toledo, Temple, Northern Illinois, Ohio), because you are taking a smaller sample of quality over a larger sample of quality. You will see Toledo's lead extend by even more as well if I go by 15. I don't like that idea......it's emphasizing the three star player too much.
02-02-2012 11:23 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2024 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2024 MyBB Group.