72nd in nation

[PhatOrange]

I may be wrong, but aren't the rankings usually based on total stars/rating points/etc.? Such that schools that sign the full 25 player limit will have an innate advantage? If we have a class of 20 with an average of 3 stars, we'd be giving up 15 points to a similiar school that signed 25, probably more vs. schools that oversign (not sure how that's tracked). Then you have January enrollees that may or may not be included in the recruiting class. I'd guess the prior years rankings would be adjusted for players that end up counting against that limit, but no one looks back at that after signing day anyway. Same with changes for players that never make it to campus.

The rankings are a nice discussion point for comparison between schools with the same number of recruits, but otherwise you are comparing apples and oranges.

That's how rvls does it - with a point system. So all things being equal a school with only 15 kids would be rated less than a school with 16 kids.

 

[Texas Otto]

I can't remember exactly what morning it was in the Star-Telgram but they did a re-ranking of the B12 from signing day four years ago and how it turned out. Four years ago UT was ranked number 1 and as it turned out they were # 5 based on production BU was ranked #8 and they ended up #2 and so on. Actually the only rankings close were that Tech's class was ranked suckish four years ago and in this articl still ranked it suckish

 

[Bonz44]

For what it's worth Rival's has us at 65 and 247 at 63 (247 has us in top 10 for ACC)

 

[orangenauburn]

For what it's worth Rival's has us at 65 and 247 at 63 (247 has us in top 10 for ACC)

which are huge jumps from where we were a few weeks ago