.. as of 11:30 EST
39. USF
57. Temple
61. Cincy
70. UCF
75. ECU
76. Houston
81 (tie). Memphis, Tulane
85. Tulsa
92. SMU
(02-05-2014 11:34 AM)The Knight Time Wrote: [ -> ]That's laughable.
Don't worry about it...just look at your last 4 classes going into last year...12-1 and a Fiesta Bowl Title...
It's laughable because all of these rankings reward total number of recruits and stars. But because we're returning the majority of the 2013 team, we only signed 17, meaning we're penalized for only needing to sign a small class in these absurd rankings.
So they're basically trying to compare a class like UCF's with classes of other schools who desperately need help and to replace a ton of kids, so they sign 28-30 kids.
We plugged what holes we did have with 3 4-star guys, 2 ESPn Top-300 recruits, and the rest were all highly recruited kids by top programs.
So I guess while "70" is laughable, it's also dumb enough to ignore.
(02-05-2014 11:39 AM)The Knight Time Wrote: [ -> ]It's laughable because all of these rankings reward total number of recruits and stars. But because we're returning the majority of the 2013 team, we only signed 17, meaning we're penalized for only needing to sign a small class in these absurd rankings.
So they're basically trying to compare a class like UCF's with classes of other schools who desperately need help and to replace a ton of kids, so they sign 28-30 kids.
We plugged what holes we did have with 3 4-star guys, 2 ESPn Top-300 recruits, and the rest were all highly recruited kids by top programs.
So I guess while "70" is laughable, it's also dumb enough to ignore.
Truth.
(02-05-2014 11:33 AM)quo vadis Wrote: [ -> ].. as of 11:30 EST
39. USF
57. Temple
61. Cincy
70. UCF
75. ECU
76. Houston
81 (tie). Memphis, Tulane
85. Tulsa
92. SMU
I guess UCONN is no longer an AAC member...
They have them as 111, but I can't really trust a site that has a picture of the old UCONN logo next to Connecticut's name...it's almost been a year since the mascot change...
Hell I think we were hanging near the 100's on rivals a few days ago so that's a huge jump. I think our class is much better than that, but just like their rankings it's mostly just a biased opinion. Mine is obviously biased towards wanting to believe ECU signed nothing but great players and theirs is biased by number of subscribers each individual team page has and the name on the front of the jersey. It's no mystery they don't evaulate even close to every recruit and many will just get an arbitrary star rating thrown on them just based on who was interested in them and who they signed with. Not saying I believe star rankings mean nothing, but once you get past the top guys that any of us on this board could tell have stud talent it's a crap shoot.
These ratings aren't completely meaningless, but they come close to it… No one should take them too seriously.
The key with any player is to see, first of all, which school they signed with, and second of all, which schools they could have signed with if they had wanted to. That gives a rough estimation of what their perceived talent-level is at this point of their life (18 yrs old) as football players. There really isn't anything else to see.
I thought the rankings were spot on. :)
(02-05-2014 11:41 AM)sammyjknight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2014 11:39 AM)The Knight Time Wrote: [ -> ]It's laughable because all of these rankings reward total number of recruits and stars. But because we're returning the majority of the 2013 team, we only signed 17, meaning we're penalized for only needing to sign a small class in these absurd rankings.
So they're basically trying to compare a class like UCF's with classes of other schools who desperately need help and to replace a ton of kids, so they sign 28-30 kids.
We plugged what holes we did have with 3 4-star guys, 2 ESPn Top-300 recruits, and the rest were all highly recruited kids by top programs.
So I guess while "70" is laughable, it's also dumb enough to ignore.
Truth.
I agree with that. It should go by the average, not the total #.
USF - 2.89
UL - 2.82
Cincinnati - 2.65
UCF - 2.61
Rutgers - 2.6
Temple - 2.52
Tulane - 2.23
Memphis - 2.2
UConn - 2.2
Tulsa - 2.18
ECU - 2.12
SMU - 2.1
UH - 2.08
Navy - 2
(02-05-2014 11:52 AM)CPR Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2014 11:41 AM)sammyjknight Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2014 11:39 AM)The Knight Time Wrote: [ -> ]It's laughable because all of these rankings reward total number of recruits and stars. But because we're returning the majority of the 2013 team, we only signed 17, meaning we're penalized for only needing to sign a small class in these absurd rankings.
So they're basically trying to compare a class like UCF's with classes of other schools who desperately need help and to replace a ton of kids, so they sign 28-30 kids.
We plugged what holes we did have with 3 4-star guys, 2 ESPn Top-300 recruits, and the rest were all highly recruited kids by top programs.
So I guess while "70" is laughable, it's also dumb enough to ignore.
Truth.
I agree with that. It should go by the average, not the total #.
USF - 2.89
UL - 2.82
Cincinnati - 2.65
UCF - 2.61
Rutgers - 2.6
Temple - 2.52
Tulane - 2.23
Memphis - 2.2
UConn - 2.2
Tulsa - 2.18
ECU - 2.12
SMU - 2.1
UH - 2.08
Navy - 2
so 1 4star is better than 2 4stars and 6 3stars
scout:
45. South Florida
53. Cincinnati
73. UCF
74. SMU
80. Houston
82. Temple
83. Tulsa
84. Memphis
101. Tulane
106. East Carolina
121. Connecticut
I have no idea why everyone gets so excited by recruiting rankings. The reality is none of these sites has much of a clue how high school talent will translate to the next level. For example, USF's conference recruiting rankings from 2009-2013 (based on 247, current conference membership) for the players that could have played this past year:
2009 - 1
2010 - 1 (behind UL and Rutgers)
2011 - 4
2012 - 2
2013 - 1
I'd be a lot more excited if I could see how this translates to wins.
(02-05-2014 12:02 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote: [ -> ]UConn is in trouble.
Complete staff overhaul...hard to expect anything different.
On another note...
Ask the 2013-2014 Florida team how much their Rivals ranking helped them on the football field or how the highly touted 2012-2103 Kentucky basketball team enjoyed their post-season finish...
Recruiting rankings are a way for people to make predictions and compile a preseason Top 25 list. For me, I'll wait until I see these teams perform on the field before I start evaluating just how good they really are.
(02-05-2014 11:39 AM)The Knight Time Wrote: [ -> ]It's laughable because all of these rankings reward total number of recruits and stars. But because we're returning the majority of the 2013 team, we only signed 17, meaning we're penalized for only needing to sign a small class in these absurd rankings.
So they're basically trying to compare a class like UCF's with classes of other schools who desperately need help and to replace a ton of kids, so they sign 28-30 kids.
We plugged what holes we did have with 3 4-star guys, 2 ESPn Top-300 recruits, and the rest were all highly recruited kids by top programs.
So I guess while "70" is laughable, it's also dumb enough to ignore.
I know you know this...as does almost anyone else that has followed recruiting for more than one year realizes most sites give points for QUANTITY of recruits...and/or others only ranked top 20 recruits.
That's one of the reason why Tennessee's class (signed 33 players so far) is ranked so high.
If you have a small class, you will be dinged in those type or rankings.
Just watch UCF's class rankings next year when UCF signs 25-27 players (hint: It will go UP in rankings, even if ave ratings all stay the same).
(02-05-2014 12:07 PM)RobUCF Wrote: [ -> ]I have no idea why everyone gets so excited by recruiting rankings. The reality is none of these sites has much of a clue how high school talent will translate to the next level. For example, USF's conference recruiting rankings from 2009-2013 (based on 247, current conference membership) for the players that could have played this past year:
2009 - 1
2010 - 1 (behind UL and Rutgers)
2011 - 4
2012 - 2
2013 - 1
I'd be a lot more excited if I could see how this translates to wins.
ill agree usf has been unnaturally bad for there recruiting but this isn't any where neer a legitimate comparison
you can't compare them to current member when they didn't play current members.
they recuited better than aac teams but played against teams who recruited better than them
(02-05-2014 12:10 PM)HuskyU Wrote: [ -> ] (02-05-2014 12:02 PM)SteveUCF19 Wrote: [ -> ]UConn is in trouble.
Complete staff overhaul...hard to expect anything different.
On another note...
Ask the 2013-2014 Florida team how much their Rivals ranking helped them on the football field or how the highly touted 2012-2103 Kentucky basketball team enjoyed their post-season finish...
Recruiting rankings are a way for people to make predictions and compile a preseason Top 25 list. For me, I'll wait until I see these teams perform on the field before I start evaluating just how good they really are.
staff overhaul excuse is weak, probably 10-15 fbs teams go through staff overhauls every year. none dip too low. and uconn doesn't even have to worry about previous coach stealing recruits