Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

(02-04-2015 03:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (one 4 star / 16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

I bolded your mistake. UCF has a 4* recruit.

(02-04-2015 03:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

Ranking by number of stars is a terrible way to do it. If you want to do it right, rank it by either combined ratings or by average ratings. If your list is correct, the combined ratings will look exactly the same.

Stars are a very vague ranking. If you look at 247 sports, a 3* is anything from 80-89. A class of eleven 89s that are almost 4* players is a lot better than a class of twelve 80s that are almost 2* players. However, your list would put the twelve player class ahead even if they were significantly lower rated.

(02-04-2015 03:37 PM)nosurf2day Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (one 4 star / 16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

I bolded your mistake. UCF has a 4* recruit.

Nah, he is going by the 247 ratings only. It's the composite ratings that make Payton a 4 star. He is in the Rivals 150 and top ESPN 150. 247 is the only site to have him lower than a 4 star.

(02-04-2015 03:42 PM)zfred12 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:37 PM)nosurf2day Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (one 4 star / 16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

I bolded your mistake. UCF has a 4* recruit.

Nah, he is going by the 247 ratings only. It's the composite ratings that make Payton a 4 star. He is in the Rivals 150 and top ESPN 150. 247 is the only site to have him lower than a 4 star.

No --- it's the composite rankings. Missed UCF's 4 star. I count 4 G5s with *composite* 4 star recruits. UCF, Memphis, Boise, and San Jose State.

I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

(02-04-2015 03:48 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

I like your rankings the best.

(02-04-2015 03:48 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

Keep in mind, UC has a tendency to recruit a few JUCO players/outside athletes (Holton last year was a flag football player who ended up 4th on our team in receiving yards), and typically if JUCO's aren't in the Top 50 on most services, they aren't even rated.

(02-04-2015 03:48 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

Yeah, I like this ranking the most. =]

(02-04-2015 03:50 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote:  

(02-04-2015 03:48 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

I like your rankings the best.

You guys have a damn good class. The other rankings are just swayed by the volume of recruits, so average players are driving up the rankings of teams.

I'm assuming ECU will have a big class next year...we currently have the 2nd smallest class in the country this year. No idea if that is good or bad.

(02-04-2015 03:57 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  You guys have a damn good class. The other rankings are just swayed by the volume of recruits, so average players are driving up the rankings of teams.

I'm assuming ECU will have a big class next year...we currently have the 2nd smallest class in the country this year. No idea if that is good or bad.

According to this Rivals list of all conferences, several schools at the bottom have smaller classes, including UTEP with just 4 recruits. How accurate this list is and how often it's updated I don't know.

(02-04-2015 03:26 PM)TIGERCITY Wrote:  Lots of ways to look at it ---- I like this way >>

1. Memphis (one 4 star / 17 three stars)
2. USF (18 three stars)
3. Cincinnati (17 three stars)
4. UCF (16 three stars)
5 / 6. Temple (12 three stars)
5 / 6. SMU (12 three stars)
7 / 8. UConn (11 three stars)
7 / 8. ECU (11 three stars)
9. Tulane (8 three stars)
10. Houston (7 three stars)
11. Navy (6 three stars)
12. Tulsa (3 three stars)

One things for sure, AAC is at the top. If we keep recruiting with such a substantial gap between #1 and #2, the results on field will settle themselves.

(02-04-2015 03:48 PM)isidnirb Wrote:  I'm most interested in quality of each recruit, not just the bunch (volume). If you ranked the teams based on avg recruit score, you'd get this:

1. UCF 83.14
2. USF 83.07
3. ECU 81.71
4. Cinn 81.31
5. SMU 80.27
6 & 7 Temple/Houston 80.12
8. Tulane 79.46
9. UConn 79.40
10. Memphis 79.03
11. Tulsa 78.71

Temple's average is actually 80.88 (including 1 grey shirt) once you remove the walk-ons and players not part of the class that 247 still has listed...

Yes, recruits know the pecking order:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

MAC - 2 four-star, 115 three-star, 2.35 average
AAC - 0 four-star, 90 three-star, 2.27 average
MWC - 2 four-star, 72 three-star
CUSA - 0 four-star, 68 three-star
SBC - 0 four-star, 37 three-star

#MACTION

(02-04-2015 04:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Yes, recruits know the pecking order:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

MAC - 2 four-star, 115 three-star, 2.35 average
AAC - 0 four-star, 90 three-star, 2.27 average
MWC - 2 four-star, 72 three-star
CUSA - 0 four-star, 68 three-star
SBC - 0 four-star, 37 three-star

#MACTION

Scout also lists navy as having 50 commits...

(02-04-2015 04:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Yes, recruits know the pecking order:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

MAC - 2 four-star, 115 three-star, 2.35 average
AAC - 0 four-star, 90 three-star, 2.27 average
MWC - 2 four-star, 72 three-star
CUSA - 0 four-star, 68 three-star
SBC - 0 four-star, 37 three-star

#MACTION

Lol where did the MAC come from. If those are scouts rankings then scout is terrible. There is something to be said for other conferences coming here to tell us how good they are. You'll never catch big bro telling little bro how good he is. But little bro spends all day convincing big bro he is worthy. You coming on our board to convince us of your recruiting classes tells me all i need to know on where our conferences stand.

(02-04-2015 04:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Yes, recruits know the pecking order:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

MAC - 2 four-star, 115 three-star, 2.35 average
AAC - 0 four-star, 90 three-star, 2.27 average
MWC - 2 four-star, 72 three-star
CUSA - 0 four-star, 68 three-star
SBC - 0 four-star, 37 three-star

#MACTION

I don't like this list. I like the star list where Memphis is #1.

HAHAHAH someone cited Scout for recruiting HAHAAHAHHAA

(02-04-2015 04:28 PM)Miami (Oh) Yeah ! Wrote:  Yes, recruits know the pecking order:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9...=2&yr=2015

MAC - 2 four-star, 115 three-star, 2.35 average
AAC - 0 four-star, 90 three-star, 2.27 average
MWC - 2 four-star, 72 three-star
CUSA - 0 four-star, 68 three-star
SBC - 0 four-star, 37 three-star

#MACTION

So, you're working for Scout now I see. Trying to pass off some "Click Bait". Scout must be suffering major financial losses if they have to stoop so low.