Do you think this class of 2018 will end up top 40?

[PhatOrange]

These 3 kids puts us at 53 at rvls. The Michigan kid would put us at 49.

 

[Whitey23]

If I want to get depressed I look at Rivals which has us at #71. However they spend little time following SU.

Not enough SU fanpage subscribers over there.

 

[sdhall01]

We're at 38 by the rankings of that site that we're not allowed to post about on here.

 

[bnoro]

Not enough SU fanpage subscribers over there.

I can't believe people used to argue that those sites didn't base rankings on subscriptions...

 

[RandomGuy]

The ranking system is a nice guess, but so much is not taken into account, imo. System, enrollment/competition, etc..

That being said. I think the non composite crystal ball, is at 29.

Iirc, we have 4 commits that have earned 4 stars on at least one site. It's a good class, by anyone's guess.

 

[Orangtiz]

The ranking system is a nice guess, but so much is not taken into account, imo. System, enrollment/competition, etc..

That being said. I think the non composite crystal ball, is at 29.

Iirc, we have 4 commits that have earned 4 stars on at least one site. It's a good class, by anyone's guess.

Who are the four? Sampson, White, Hendrix, Trill Will?? Does anyone know if Lakiem Williams was a four star out of high school?

 

[RandomGuy]

Who are the four? Sampson, White, Hendrix, Trill Will?? Does anyone know if Lakiem Williams was a four star out of high school?

Yepp. Tsamp, Q, Hendrix, Trill, have earned 4, on at least one site... Woot.

Q and Trill, are playing for medium programs, 900/700, but I believe they are all boys, so 1800/1400. Killing it at that level. Hendrix in a small program(600+) Tsamp in a 1200. I'm very interested in Jawhar Jordan, Playing in a 3600 program(he's my steal of the class), Queeley, in a 2400 (to 2800)program, etc... (my next steal) Froumy 2000(to 3400) program. Cisco at IMG(duhh). Staff worked most of them out, so they have the real skinny.

I'll check Williams competition level, and post... What I've found. Is the kids playing against the largest programs, are pulling 3 stars, and the kids playing against medium programs are pulling 4 stars... Frankly, I think they're all a wash, and playing at a high level, for all...(why I don't trust the star system)

This staff does their own ratings. HCDB has already stated he expects the unknown kids he offers to get many offers after... I think they're good at it, and I don't think they give 1 hoot, about what the star system says...

 

[texascpa]

The ranking system is a nice guess, but so much is not taken into account, imo. System, enrollment/competition, etc..

That being said. I think the non composite crystal ball, is at 29.

Iirc, we have 4 commits that have earned 4 stars on at least one site. It's a good class, by anyone's guess.

Is that they gray number on the rankings list at 2 4 7? Wasn't sure what that was when I looked at it yesterday.

 

[bnoro]

Who are the four? Sampson, White, Hendrix, Trill Will?? Does anyone know if Lakiem Williams was a four star out of high school?

Lakiem had Pac12 offers coming out of HS, not sure about his stars.

Wouldn't take his ranking into account though, as he was graded as an RB.

 

[Alsacs]

This has to be best recruiting class since 2000.

 

[UnknownOrange]

This has to be best recruiting class since 2000.

MM was on 97.7 when I was driving in back from lunch and said if the class all signed today and no one else joined or flipped it would be the best in the history of the program (per them at least) (dating back to 2000 I believe)

 

[tep624]

I think when all is said and done we'll be in the low 40's with this class. If we manage to flip the USC rb commit and land one of the higher level QB prospects we're after then could crack the 30's.

 

[RandomGuy]

The gray # is the crystal balls ranking. The other is the composite.(for the class rank. For recruit rank, the gray # is the composite) Some of the others have kids graded at the wrong position.

Crystal ball has Cuse ranked #5 in the ACC. #29 nationally. Obviously, I like their ranking best.

 

[PhatOrange]

Rivals now has Syracuse at #49 and since their rankings are weighted towards the number of commits we're in good shape having only 18 kids.

A few more kids and we can make their top 40. A 4 star like the RB would almost make us a top 40 lock. We should be solidly in the top 50.

Our ACC rank is up to #8.

Miami (21)
VT (23)
LVille (21)
NC State (21)
Clemson (12)
UNC (15)
Wake (21)
Syracuse (18)
BC (20)
UVA (20)
FSU (10)
GT (17)
Pitt (14)
Duke (14)

Keep in mind their system is based on points. bigger class size means more points, means better ranking. They value quantity over quality. Also keep in mind, a 3 star is NOT created equal. They have high 3 star and low 3 star ratings.

high 3 star 5.7 = 90 points
mid 3 star 5.6 = 75 points
low 3 star 5.5 = 60 points

their system is extremely flawed and easy to manipulate. Lowering Gabe Horan last week from 5.5 to 5.4 for no reason cost us 15 points. That difference would've made us tied with Iowa and Wake at #47.

 

[Whitey23]

Rivals now has Syracuse at #49 an
d since their rankings are weighted towards the number of commits we're in good shape only having 18 kids.

A few more kids and we can make their top 40. A 4 star like the RB would almost make us a top 40 lock. We should be solidly in the top 50.

Our ACC rank is up to #8.

Miami (21)
VT (23)
LVille (21)
NC State (21)
Clemson (12)
UNC (15)
Wake (21)
Syracuse (18)
BC (20)
UVA (20)
FSU (10)
GT (17)
Pitt (14)
Duke (14)

Keep in mind their system is based on points. bigger class size means more points, means better ranking. They value quantity over quality. Also keep in mind, a 3 star is NOT created equal. They have high 3 star and low 3 star ratings.

high 3 star 5.7 = 90 points
mid 3 star 5.6 = 75 points
low 3 star 5.5 = 60 points

their system is extremely flawed and easy to manipulate. Lowering Gabe Horan last week from 5.5 to 5.4 for no reason cost us 15 points. That difference would've made us tied with Iowa and Wake at #47.

Army had 85 recruits last year. It's interesting that they still ended up 99th.

 

[RMH44]

Rivals now has Syracuse at #49 an
d since their rankings are weighted towards the number of commits we're in good shape only having 18 kids.

A few more kids and we can make their top 40. A 4 star like the RB would almost make us a top 40 lock. We should be solidly in the top 50.

Our ACC rank is up to #8.

Miami (21)
VT (23)
LVille (21)
NC State (21)
Clemson (12)
UNC (15)
Wake (21)
Syracuse (18)
BC (20)
UVA (20)
FSU (10)
GT (17)
Pitt (14)
Duke (14)

Keep in mind their system is based on points. bigger class size means more points, means better ranking. They value quantity over quality. Also keep in mind, a 3 star is NOT created equal. They have high 3 star and low 3 star ratings.

high 3 star 5.7 = 90 points
mid 3 star 5.6 = 75 points
low 3 star 5.5 = 60 points

their system is extremely flawed and easy to manipulate. Lowering Gabe Horan last week from 5.5 to 5.4 for no reason cost us 15 points. That difference would've made us tied with Iowa and Wake at #47.

Does Fat Mikey still run the show over at Rovals? If so, that explains The Horan slight. I wouldn't expect anything different from that BC shill.

 

[PhatOrange]

Army had 85 recruits last year. It's interesting that they still ended up 99th.

which is stupid in it's own right. you obviously can't have 85. I think NAVY right now has 61. Most of them have a ZERO rating which is why they're ranked low. IF they were all 2-Star 5.3 rated kids they'd be ranked like #10 in the nation.

 

[Whitey23]

which is stupid in it's own right. you obviously can't have 85. I think NAVY right now has 61. Most of them have a ZERO rating which is why they're ranked low. IF they were all 2-Star 5.3 rated kids they'd be ranked like #10 in the nation.

I bet 50-60 of those 85 go to the prep school. They fill out a roster every year with just post grads.

 

[DownTheField]

which is stupid in it's own right. you obviously can't have 85. I think NAVY right now has 61. Most of them have a ZERO rating which is why they're ranked low. IF they were all 2-Star 5.3 rated kids they'd be ranked like #10 in the nation.

I think Rivals only uses the 20 highest kids when they come up with the team ranking. So if we only have 18 commits, we should make a bigger jump with the next two than when we go from 20 to 21.

 

[PhatOrange]

I think Rivals only uses the 20 highest kids when they come up with the team ranking. So if we only have 18 commits, we should make a bigger jump with the next two than when we go from 20 to 21.

So then the next 5 if theyre all at least 3 star we’d gain at least 45 extra points with the 2’s dropping off? A top 300, 150 etc I think gains xtra pints as well. So the RB would be a substantial boost in their ratings.

 

[RandomGuy]

Rivals now has Syracuse at #49 and since their rankings are weighted towards the number of commits we're in good shape having only 18 kids.

A few more kids and we can make their top 40. A 4 star like the RB would almost make us a top 40 lock. We should be solidly in the top 50.

Our ACC rank is up to #8.

Miami (21)
VT (23)
LVille (21)
NC State (21)
Clemson (12)
UNC (15)
Wake (21)
Syracuse (18)
BC (20)
UVA (20)
FSU (10)
GT (17)
Pitt (14)
Duke (14)

Keep in mind their system is based on points. bigger class size means more points, means better ranking. They value quantity over quality. Also keep in mind, a 3 star is NOT created equal. They have high 3 star and low 3 star ratings.

high 3 star 5.7 = 90 points
mid 3 star 5.6 = 75 points
low 3 star 5.5 = 60 points

their system is extremely flawed and easy to manipulate. Lowering Gabe Horan last week from 5.5 to 5.4 for no reason cost us 15 points. That difference would've made us tied with Iowa and Wake at #47.

Rivals smivals. I'mma just going to look at the 2 the 4 and the 7, for class rank.
#5 ACC
#29 nationally

Of course, if the other sites publicly show something that looks good through orange glasses?, then I'll unabashedly use that info...;-)

 

[CuseLegacy]

 

[Trueblue25]

If Sulahaddin commits we may crack the top 40 on the site which is numbered but shall not be named, correct?