(12-26-2018 11:43 AM)klake87 Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 11:37 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:59 AM)Rabid Squirrel Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:47 AM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(12-26-2018 10:36 AM)Teamduh Wrote:  Since it is all just a crap shoot anyways, size and quality are used to gauge a team's rank. It is just 1 measure. Another measure can be team's win lose record 4 years later.

The system is tryng to qualify something difficult to measure.

For instance, there was a debate how recruiters missed on Patrick Mahomes. Part of it was they fell into the lack of crowd mentality. Since multiple P5s weren't recruiting him his stars were lower. Some recruiters interviewed said they had to convince themselves to keep their rankings high even though others didnt see what they saw (a talented kid). While, obviously, others were lazy and just computed stars by the number of offers they received.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

I just don't see any reason for size of class to be important in any way. Don't coaches mostly just sign guys they have scholarships for? To the extent that ratings mean anything, wouldn't average rating be much more accurate?

I agree that avg rating shows how well that school did for that particular class. But if you look at it as an overall quality measure relative to other schools, the more kids you have the better chance you have of avoiding wash outs or finding a star. Like buying 10 lottery tickets instead of 1.

So what stops them from signing 50 recruits? Why do some have so few recruits? Certainly they could have signed more....

you have 85 total scholarships and can only sign 25 in any one class. As people graduate and/or leave, this determines the number you have available.

So your recruiting ranking is in part just based on chance - however many schollies you happen to have available that year. That still doesn't indicate how well you are recruiting.