According to Rivals.com
1. San Diego St.
2. TCU
3. Tulsa
4. Brigham Young
5. Boise St.
6. Marshall
7. Utah
8. UCF
9. Troy
10. Louisiana-Lafayette
11. UAB
12. Southern Miss
13. Wyoming
14. SMU
15. Houston
16. UNLV
17. Fresno St.
18. New Mexico
19. Northern Illinois
20. Middle Tenn. St.
21. Arkansas St.
22. Colorado St.
23. UTEP
24. Tulane
25. Akron
26. Memphis
27. North Texas
28. Hawaii
29. Louisiana-Monroe
30. Rice
31. Bowling Green
32. Air Force
33. Kent St.
34. Ball St.
They also list us at #69 in the Rivals 100 but Troy at #71.
<a href='http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2005&Page=3&Type=0&Sort=0' target='_blank'>Rivals 100</a>
STLouis Blazer Wrote:According to Rivals.com
1. San Diego St.
2. TCU
3. Tulsa
4. Brigham Young
5. Boise St.
6. Marshall
7. Utah
8. UCF
9. Troy
10. Louisiana-Lafayette
11. UAB
12. Southern Miss
13. Wyoming
14. SMU
15. Houston
16. UNLV
17. Fresno St.
18. New Mexico
19. Northern Illinois
20. Middle Tenn. St.
21. Arkansas St.
22. Colorado St.
23. UTEP
24. Tulane
25. Akron
26. Memphis
27. North Texas
28. Hawaii
29. Louisiana-Monroe
30. Rice
31. Bowling Green
32. Air Force
33. Kent St.
34. Ball St.
Troy is in front of us
They sign 62 players :rofl:
Either one of those are pretty good indicators. Top 15 of mid-majors and Top 100 of all schools... pretty good considering we're just 10 years old and considering the facilities we have for our athletes. Good sign of things to come I hope
However, Scout.com has us listed at #107 and Troy at #70....?????!!!
STLouis Blazer Wrote:They also list us at #69 in the Rivals 100 but Troy at #71.
<a href='http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2005&Page=3&Type=0&Sort=0' target='_blank'>Rivals 100</a>
The most important statistic is the average
Maybe TN and OU are second but the average of Southern Cal and Miami (rank 7 ?) are the two best
The most important statistic is the average because when people sign over 25 the average doesn't change very much but the number of point go up when you over sign and your ranking improve
They need to rank the team by average :withstupid:
STLouis Blazer Wrote:However, Scout.com has us listed at #107 and Troy at #70....?????!!!
Our 4 stars on the rivals site BECAME a two stars of scout .COM
On the scout .COM Dismuke was a top 100 players and rank very high but the moment he was leaning to UAB , he was nowhere to be seeN
Forest .com and Scout ,com are not very good when they talk about UAB
<a href='http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=364&p=9&c=4' target='_blank'>http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=364&p=9&c=4</a>
Hey I don't put much into the ranking of recruiting classes. Its all about what you do with it. I mean have we ever had a "great" recruiting class according to the "experts". The so called experts are do nothing more than try to sell magazines, subscriptions, etc to the largest amount of people. Larger school = more fans = "better" ranking = more sales. Its that simple. I also think that a kids ranking comes more from "who" is recruiting him, than based on his true talent. Do you think that all of those recruiting experts go see each recruit or spend time watching tape. And in high school a player could have a great game, but be playing against an 0-9 team. The recruiter probably knows about the recruits team, not much about the other team. I just don't put any stock in these rankings, for these and other reasons.
Hey look how far we have come with what we have gotten in the past.
I think the head to head battles for particular players tell you more about how we are improving. In the past many players in this state went to Southern Miss. I think we are getting more and more of those and keeping them home, if this years recruiting class is an indication, and if those players were truely being recruited by USM, it looks like we beat them on quite a few. When we started in conference I don't think we were beating them for recruits. That was just 5 short years ago.
By the recruiting experts Memphis' basketball team should be destroying ECU but they struggle at home against them.
Have you ever wondered why they call us mid majors? I guess it was better than foster kids, have-nots, and peons.
Of course, we need to remember that all this recruiting ranking doesn't mean jack crap. It's how these guys perform on the field over the next four-five years that matters.
I think recruiting classes should be re-ranked at the end of each season, then we'll have a better idea of who the great recruiters really are.
The classes are reranked at the end of each season, it's called the AP, USA Today and BCS polls :)
Those polls rank the entire team, not a specific recruiting class. I want to know if specific athletes have lived up to their hype, or even exceeded it.
The thing about all these recruiting services is that sites like Scout.com have "recruiting gurus" in different regions that do the rankings.
Well, if you've seen NBC13 or Fox6 do their Sunday night sports shows, you've probably seen a guy named Andrew Bone talking about recruiting... the guy looks like an 8th-year undergrad Bama frat boy with a funky comb-over that runs the length of his forehead. He did an entire Southeastern recruiting report from Coleman Colesium after he spent the evening cheering on his Crimson Tide in basketball.
And you wonder why Bama had such a "highly ranked" recruiting class? Jokers like this guy Bone have the inability to be unbiased when it comes to ranking the skill of high school kids.
If they didnt' have a player listed they put a 1* on the signee....then you look at another site like rivals and a player was a 4 star 3 months ago...now he all of a sudden because that site didnt' have him listed he becomes a 1*. those stars however don't mean jack. If they did then Florida should have won the national championship because the had the best classes per se 3-4 seasons ago. And there is not a limit on how many can be signed padding the numbers. personally I think if you sign more than 30 players the program should not receive a ranking.