Rivals #60, Scout #55

[VirginiaBlue]

Not much different from any other year.

Rivals (http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2008&Page=2&PosType=0&Sort=0)
Scout (http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2008)

[RV]

Not much different from any other year.

Rivals (http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?Year=2008&Page=2&PosType=0&Sort=0)
Scout (http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2008)

I'll be the judge of that. ;)

Will be acouple of weeks but I will put out my adjusted rankings and I expect our Cats to end up somewhere in the mid to high thirties.

[Mountain Cat]

We might not look good on paper in the recruiting sites, but one thing I have humbly learned over the last couple of years is that RB can get blood out of a turnip when it comes to coaching up his recruits to be able to play in the SEC.

I say we will still win our fair share of games.

[sardiscat]

Let's revisit the rankings after we see who actually gets enrolled in school in the fall.

[justacatsfan]

Another thing those rankings factor in is total # of recruits. The rankings are a "total points" type system. With us having a smaller class this year we are going to have a lower ranking.

But as far as quality I really like the class. Filled our needs and recruited speed, speed, speed. You can always add weight and muscle but not many can improve speed dramatically. Throw 20-30 lbs of good weight on some of these guys after a redshirt year and you have some SEC looking players.

And as mentioned earlier, character. Not having defections from grades, discipline issues, etc is huge. We have around 70 players returning for Spring practice this year which I can't ever remember having a # that high.

[poodoo]

We might not look good on paper in the recruiting sites, but one thing I have humbly learned over the last couple of years is that RB can get blood out of a turnip when it comes to coaching up his recruits to be able to play in the SEC.

I say we will still win our fair share of games.

Wow, MC! :thumbup::thumbup: to you for this post! Oh, of course, I totally agree. :)

[Los Gatos]

Another thing those rankings factor in is total # of recruits. The rankings are a "total points" type system. With us having a smaller class this year we are going to have a lower ranking.



While this is true, it does make much of a difference in this years ranking. If you base the ranking solely on the average stars number we move up one position. This is the Rivals number. With Scout's number we would actually move down based on average stars only.

Interestingly Scout ranks out class of 20 players with an average of 2.55 above UL 22 and a average of 2.73.

[VirginiaBlue]

Interestingly Scout ranks out class of 20 players with an average of 2.55 above UL 22 and a average of 2.73.

I read their ranking explanation once, and if I'm not mistaken they also consider and give credit if a team "fills its needs". I have no idea how they go about determining that.

BTW, I was the OP on this topic, and I hope no one took it that I was complaining about our recruiting. I was just stating the fact that year after year we are ranked near the middle of the pack. It's just no big whoop to me, because the last 2 years a bunch of those mid-packers have played some pretty good football. Don't forget I am also the guy who pointed out that we have recruited only one person in the last 7 years who was considered a top 100 recruit nationally (Micah Johnson), but this year we could have THREE guys going in the top 100 in the NFL draft. Think about it.

[justacatsfan]

Your right Gatos I just did some basic averages with both rankings. It really didn't hurt having less recruits. Of course if the added -7 recruits would have been 3 stars or higher it would have helped.

But I agree with Mountain Cat, rankings mean very little to this staff. They develop more talent with what they have to work with.

And you look at JUCO's, with someone like UL. JUCO's automatically get 3 stars just by being a JUCO. Some some schools rankings are inflated.

It's a decent measuring stick for discussion but not the final word, in my opinion.

[hoosierhateruklover]

You see how far highly ranked classes have gotten Notre Dame. With that being said, 50-60 is unacceptable.

[wizard]

Hey RV, are you going to take stars away for players who will end up in jail for ul and ut?

[RV]

Hey RV, are you going to take stars away for players who will end up in jail for ul and ut?

LOL

No but that's a good idea. I don't add or subtract anything from their ratings. I use the ratings given to the individual players by the services and just calculate them in a more logical (to me) manner.

[gerntz]

JUCO's automatically get 3 stars just by being a JUCO. Some some schools rankings are inflated.


Not true.

Yes.

[justacatsfan]

Your right gerntz, not every one of them. But in doing a database search on Rivals and Scout for just JUCO players you will see that 90% of them are 3 stars, if they sign with a DI school. I know Jeff has said that any JUCO being considered by a DI school starts out as a 3 star then is evaluated. Unlike HS kids who start from scratch.


I personally think JUCO rankings are very suspect. You only have a few years to make the kid a contributor and thats if he has 3 to play 2. Its just hit or miss because you dont have them 4 or 5 years like a HS kid. Look at UK's JUCO's the last few years. Boone, Mitchell, and Johnson are the only reall contributors off the top of my head. Roughly 20% of our signees and they were all 3 stars.