(02-06-2020 09:56 AM)quo vadis Wrote:  

(02-06-2020 08:47 AM)Kit-Cat Wrote:  Keeping themselves at the top of the pile for a XII/ACC invite.

Thing is, though, there are different ways to look at the rankings. Some rank by overall points assigned to recruits, others by average ranking.

I like the latter, because otherwise volume can overwhelm quality. E.g., using a total points method, if school A signs three 3* guys they will rank ahead of a school B that signs two 4* guys, because the total score will be 9 to 8. But to me, school B recruited better, they got better players (assuming the stars are correct), they just didn't need to sign three guys.

I mean, if you compare USF to ECU on the 247 rankings, ECU is way ahead, they are #67 while we are a woeful #101. But that's because ECU signed 8 more guys. Our average quality ranking, 83.13, is actually better than theirs, which is 82.28.

Of course, volume does matter as well. You can't field a football team with just five guys. So the best ranking would combine them.

I've never been one to get excited about recruiting for a number of reasons, but one of the things I find amusing is that they give these average recruit rankings down to the hundredths. That's a high amount of detail for something that's just a guess anyway. It's like when they pull out the chains to measure whether the gain was 10 yards when the original spot and the final spot were both guesses anyway. Always been odd to me. I mean, if you drop the high (Cincy) and the low (Tulsa) - not including Navy because they are a different animal - the entire AAC is between 84-82... it's like a tie. But people will be like ECU finished 3rd or Tulane finished 2nd.