The latest all encompassing recruiting thread

General Joe

2nd String
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
824
Like
510
The 5 kids in our class without ‘reported’ P5 offers are:

WR Long
LB Roon
TE McDonald
OL Kauhi
OL Hoeh

everyone else has P5 offer(s).
Wow! That would mean not even 1 other P5 team wanted about 25% of our current recruits?
 
Last edited:

kcsu

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
10,418
Like
15,022
I beg your pardon. If your talking about the North Dakota State Bison of the FCS in football they havent played Minnesota in atleast 6 years (without looking) I only know this because I monitor them weekly as they have 2 kids from my program who played there last 5 years. And they have some players that are "highly ranked" comparatively based on division and competition level they play against.

Perhaps you were thinking of Iowa who they defeated a couple years back????
It was 2011. Bison beat the Gophers. I started my first company in Fargo back in the late 80s with an investment from the Economic development corp. Got to be good friends with Doug who is now the Governor. Been a huge fan and supporter of NDSU for years. Second favorite team.
My point is that NDSU has fielded Championship teams for decades. Actually i believe they have won more National Championships than any program and they do it with zero to mostly 2-3 Star kids.
Wish we had their Oline each year. Go Bison!
 

BEAR'S DAD

Walk On
Joined
Apr 9, 2020
Messages
117
Like
1,091
From what I’ve read and heard, we may have hit jackpot in 2019 with Munoz/Rondi and Tuazama.
Guys Listen...Syracuse is quietly building a conference contender!!! Don't you see it?!?!

Look next year We will have the depth across the board that we had with our 10-3 season, but the big difference is that Coach Babers would have built the depth to last the entire season with a STRONG 2 DEEP ROSTER. I just pray the Administration sees the long term dominance Coach Babers is positioning Syracuse to be in for years to come and give him at least 2 years for us to be a perennial conference contender.
 

money3189

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,764
Like
12,563
247 currently has the class ranked #44 after the Gadsden commit - and that’s with the ridiculously low grade on Hough.

one funny thing I noticed - Malik Matthew and Oronde Gadsden had the exact same grade .8477

Matthew is ranked #4 in NY and Gadsden is #146 in FL
Just another example of why it’s important to recruit FL. Gadsden would be a top 3 recruit in NYS. People like to mention the importance of landing local talent which is right but we can’t ignore landing players like this. Get the best you can get no matter the state.
 

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,618
Like
26,480
247 currently has the class ranked #44 after the Gadsden commit - and that’s with the ridiculously low grade on Hough.

one funny thing I noticed - Malik Matthew and Oronde Gadsden had the exact same grade .8477

Matthew is ranked #4 in NY and Gadsden is #146 in FL
and rivals has us at #45 even after downgrading Deuce and woefully under rating - imo - Cruz, Hatcher, Fuentes, Matthew, Hough, Folk, Roon and Geer. If they were more reasonably assessed we'd be solidly in the 30's over there.
 

javadoc

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,730
Like
5,354
Just another example of why it’s important to recruit FL. Gadsden would be a top 3 recruit in NYS. People like to mention the importance of landing local talent which is right but we can’t ignore landing players like this. Get the best you can get no matter the state.
As long as we don't lose that Hawaii pipeline!
 

money3189

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,764
Like
12,563
and rivals has us at #45 even after downgrading Deuce and woefully under rating - imo - Cruz, Hatcher, Fuentes, Matthew, Hough, Folk, Roon and Geer. If they were more reasonably assessed we'd be solidly in the 30's over there.
Yup. Those guys are all under rated. Its funny how rivals rated all these guys lower than the other 2 sites. It dropped their composites a lot. What does rivals know that the other two sites dont? A joke. No explanation for their ratings at all.
 

OrangeMojo

All Conference
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
2,286
Like
2,516
Just another example of why it’s important to recruit FL. Gadsden would be a top 3 recruit in NYS. People like to mention the importance of landing local talent which is right but we can’t ignore landing players like this. Get the best you can get no matter the state.
Actually he’d be tied for 4th ;)
 

RF2044

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
23,531
Like
58,690
and rivals has us at #45 even after downgrading Deuce and woefully under rating - imo - Cruz, Hatcher, Fuentes, Matthew, Hough, Folk, Roon and Geer. If they were more reasonably assessed we'd be solidly in the 30's over there.
Yup.

Which is exactly where we need to be on the recruiting front.

And exactly the opposite of some of the BS assessment of this class posted earlier in this thread.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,789
Like
5,875
Wow! That would mean not even 1 other P5 team wanted about 25% of our current recruits?
Don't know how any of those kids will turn out and I'd much rather kids have a bunch of offers than not, but I think the only one of that list that, as an amateur evaluator, didn't show me too much was Long. He might be all good as well or maybe all five will struggle, but he's the one I'm not sure what they saw.
 

RF2044

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
23,531
Like
58,690
Don't know how any of those kids will turn out and I'd much rather kids have a bunch of offers than not, but I think the only one of that list that, as an amateur evaluator, didn't show me too much was Long. He might be all good as well or maybe all five will struggle, but he's the one I'm not sure what they saw.
Second hand info -- what they saw was an incredible athlete with size, who isn't a finished product as a WR but has impressive tools.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,789
Like
5,875
Yup.

Which is exactly where we need to be on the recruiting front.

And exactly the opposite of some of the BS assessment of this class posted earlier in this thread.
Worrying about class rankings is pointless, IMO. The key is getting projectable kids, keeping them in the program and turning them into football players. I'm all for landing 4-star kids but we haven't consistently landed those kids since I've been following syracuse football (late 80s) and I really wonder if we ever will (if we do, it's probably after we have some more success on the field).

So we all go back and forth but honestly I don't think the composite rankings tell you much of anything. I've said this a million times, but the idea that any of these sites can honestly project the next 4-5 years of a 3-star linebacker from Mass. against a 3-star H-back from Mississippi is farcical at best.
 

Trueblue25

Cali Award Magistrate
Joined
Apr 16, 2013
Messages
29,875
Like
46,219
Guys Listen...Syracuse is quietly building a conference contender!!! Don't you see it?!?!

Look next year We will have the depth across the board that we had with our 10-3 season, but the big difference is that Coach Babers would have built the depth to last the entire season with a STRONG 2 DEEP ROSTER. I just pray the Administration sees the long term dominance Coach Babers is positioning Syracuse to be in for years to come and give him at least 2 years for us to be a perennial conference contender.
You just caused half the board to short circuit
 

RF2044

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
23,531
Like
58,690
Worrying about class rankings is pointless, IMO. The key is getting projectable kids, keeping them in the program and turning them into football players. I'm all for landing 4-star kids but we haven't consistently landed those kids since I've been following syracuse football (late 80s) and I really wonder if we ever will (if we do, it's probably after we have some more success on the field).

So we all go back and forth but honestly I don't think the composite rankings tell you much of anything. I've said this a million times, but the idea that any of these sites can honestly project the next 4-5 years of a 3-star linebacker from Mass. against a 3-star H-back from Mississippi is farcical at best.

It's not "pointless," but it is only ONE DATA POINT that needs to be evaluated / considered. ESPECIALLY for a program at our level, where our bread-and-butter level is around that 3-star tier that the recruiting services typically do a poor job rating.

Looking at offer lists is another good evaluative criteria.

So are measureables [height / weight / speed for position].

We also need to factor in things like whether the kids were offered during a camp, where our coaches are working directly with them first hand.

Competition level is also informative, but doesn't tell the full story.

That's the common theme -- NONE of these data points in and of themselves tell the full story. But by looking at them collectively, you can start to paint a more complete picture of the recruit and what their upside might be. And admittedly, some of it is subjective -- not all recruits pan out.

The main issue I see with some posters is that they only focus on one of those elements, and that's how they formulate their entire opinion on the player, class, and the state of recruiting. Looking ONLY at star ratings or offer lists might work for teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, or LSU -- because they are comparing one five-star vs. another, or a five-star vs. a four-star with good measureables.

Conversely, we're looking at a DL who is 6-5 but "only" weighs 250, and projecting that in our system our coaches are trying to get guys with big frames and can move their feet, and that they will "grow" into their frames without losing the athleticism. I'm not wringing my hand because our prospect is lacking in one or more of the evaluative criteria [weight, offers], because I recognize that the staff is trying to do with our DL, also recognize that it might take those guys 2-3 years in our program to optimize the size quotient, and have also seen this strategy be effective with the likes of Slayton, Coleman, Black, and McKinley.

I don't look at a camp offer like Bergeron and bemoan the lack of offers -- I look at the unbelievable physical tools he had and the fact that our OL coach remarked that he was a future NFL OL. I don't worry that Benson didn't have a quality set of P5 offers -- I focused on the blazing track speed that was rare for a TE his size. I didn't worry that Cantin-Aku didn't have great offers, because his physical measureables were off the charts.

Look at some of the OL we're bringing in -- Cruz has four star athleticism, offers, and height -- but is light. He needs time to grow into the position, and if he doesn't lose the athleticism, then we're cooking with gas. Ditto Kuhai, Hoeh, and Magnuson. Would I rather that each of those guys come in at 290 as the starting point? Sure. But I'd rather have OL prospects who in 2-3 years are the same size and caliber of athletes as top 25 programs even if it takes them a couple of years to actualize that potential, than a "big" OL who is a stiff and can't move their feet.

Would I rather have those guys also have strong P5 offers? Sure -- but we're getting there. And at the end of the day, you can't measure some things in advance -- a player's work ethic, how dedicated they are to their craft, their level of football IQ, their feel for the game, etc. That's why some -- not all -- highly rated prospects don't pan out, while some lower rated prospects greatly outshoot their ranking.

High level examples, but hopefully they express the point I'm trying to make.
 
Last edited:

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,618
Like
26,480
This is how rivals rates these guys and how I would rate them based on all the film, where they play and comparable players that I've followed. Not trying to be a homer but fair ratings based on a lot of comparisons.

Cruz - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Arizona, Arizona St, Indiana, Kansas, LVille, MissSt, Oklahoma St, Utah, Wake, WVU

My rating 5.7 3-star. His potential is undeniable when watching his tape. Quick feet, good balance and technique. He's every bit a high 3star and the offers bear it out including the teams sniffing around.

Hatcher - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Maryland, Michigan St, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

My rating 5.7 3-star. Case could be made for 5.8 4-star when comparing his film to similar 4-stars Barlon Brown (Ole Miss), Markus Allen (ucommitted), James Blackstrain (Georgia Tech) and Troy Franklin (Oregon). There's no discernible difference. Yet one is a 4 and one is a low 3.

Fuentes - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Boston College, Duke, Rutgers, Wake Forest

My rating 5.6 3-star. Same rating as Moss. He's very quick off the snap and strong at the point of attack. High potential player. Based on rivals own definition Fuentes fits the bill of a 3-star prospect when viewing his film. 5.7-5.5 All Region Selection: considered among the region’s top prospects and generally among the nation’s top 800-850 prospects overall, a potential All-Conference candidate and a player deemed to have mid to low-end pro potential and ability to impact at the college level.

Matthew - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Boston College, Rutgers

My rating 5.5 3-star. I'd actually leave Matthew's rating as is. He can run and tackle but he's lean. He fits their def as a 5.5 kid.

Hough - current 5.2 2-star
(O) Kentucky, Pitt

Their rating is laughable just based on how he runs for his size. He's a shoe in for 1st Team All-State. He's not going to outrun those kids in the ACC but he is going to beat them up. Reminds me of our big back from Delaware Jerome Smith.

My rating 5.5 3-star

Folk - current 5.3 2-star
(O) Northwestern

My rating 5.5 3-star. His tape is impressive. Can really run and tackle. Pay attention to his wide receiver clips.

Roon - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Arizona State

My rating 5.5 3-star. Reminds me of a classic Michigan State linebacker. Big hitter in the middle and can run sideline to sideline and can cover. Might be my favorite recruit in the class. Could see him one notch higher at 5.6 but if you're just doing a reasonable rating he's nowhere near a 2star kid, you have to give him the minimum 3 star rating.

Geer - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Georgia Tech, Kansas State

My rating 5.6 3-star. Geer's tape is impressive. He's big and hits, nasty attitude with an explosive first step. Geer is every bit the equal of ruckers DEnd who's a 5.6. If you compare film the RU kid can run but looks skinnier. Our kid runs the same and appears much bigger. In a direct comparison though our kid should not be rated lower.
 
Last edited:

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,618
Like
26,480
Worrying about class rankings is pointless, IMO. The key is getting projectable kids, keeping them in the program and turning them into football players. I'm all for landing 4-star kids but we haven't consistently landed those kids since I've been following syracuse football (late 80s) and I really wonder if we ever will (if we do, it's probably after we have some more success on the field).

So we all go back and forth but honestly I don't think the composite rankings tell you much of anything. I've said this a million times, but the idea that any of these sites can honestly project the next 4-5 years of a 3-star linebacker from Mass. against a 3-star H-back from Mississippi is farcical at best.
it really only matterd when it comes to perception. then it's not pointless.
 
Last edited:

721Comstock

2019-20 Iggy Co-Winner Leading Rebounder
Joined
Sep 1, 2015
Messages
7,214
Like
22,844
This is how rivals rates these guys and how I would rate them based on all the film, where they play and comparable players that I've followed. Not trying to be a homer but fair ratings based on a lot of comparisons.

Cruz - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Arizona, Arizona St, Indiana, Kansas, LVille, MissSt, Oklahoma St, Utah, Wake, WVU

My rating 5.7 3-star. His potential is undeniable when watching his tape. Quick feet, good balance and technique. He's every bit a high 3star and the offers bear it out including the teams sniffing around.

Hatcher - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Maryland, Michigan St, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

My rating 5.7 3-star. Case could be made for 5.8 4-star when comparing his film to similar 4-stars Barlon Brown (Ole Miss), Markus Allen (ucommitted), James Blackstrain (Georgia Tech) and Troy Franklin (Oregon). There's no discernible difference. Yet one is a 4 and one is a low 3.

Fuentes - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Boston College, Duke, Rutgers, Wake Forest

My rating 5.6 3-star. Same rating as Moss. He's very quick off the snap and strong at the point of attack. High potential player. Based on rivals own definition Fuentes fits the bill of a 3-star prospect when viewing his film. 5.7-5.5 All Region Selection: considered among the region’s top prospects and generally among the nation’s top 800-850 prospects overall, a potential All-Conference candidate and a player deemed to have mid to low-end pro potential and ability to impact at the college level.

Matthew - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Boston College, Rutgers

My rating 5.5 3-star. I'd actually leave Matthew's rating as is. He can run and tackle but he's lean. He fits their def as a 5.5 kid.

Hough - current 5.2 2-star
(O) Kentucky, Pitt

Their rating is laughable just based on how he runs for his size. He's a shoe in for 1st Team All-State. He's not going to outrun those kids in the ACC but he is going to beat them up. Reminds me of our big back from Delaware Jerome Smith.

My rating 5.5 3-star

Folk - current 5.3 2-star
(O) Northwestern

My rating 5.5 3-star. His tape is impressive. Can really run and tackle. Pay attention to his wide receiver clips.

Roon - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Arizona State

My rating 5.5 3-star. Reminds me of a classic Michigan State linebacker. Big hitter in the middle and can run sideline to sideline and can cover. Might be my favorite recruit in the class. Could see him one notch higher at 5.6 but if you're just doing a reasonable rating he's nowhere near a 2star kid, you have to give him the minimum 3 star rating.

Geer - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Georgia Tech, Kansas State

My rating 5.6 3-star. Geer's tape is impressive. He's big and hits, nasty attitude with an explosive first step. Geer is every bit the equal of ruckers DEnd who's a 5.6. If you compare film the RU kid can run but looks skinnier. Our kid runs the same and appears much bigger. In a direct comparison though our kid should not be rated lower.
Thx for doing this.

You left out Duce Chestnut, who has been "inexplicably dropping" (O HAI RUTGERS SHILLS :mad:)
since he looked to no longer be a SUNJ lock, and then a BC lean, and then after he committed to Cuse, he dropped AGAIN. :rolleyes:

Even by the totally cooked current #'s, we're at #44 nationally right now.
In reality, we should be 30-something with the quality and quantity of the kids in this class.
Either way, it's looking like our best class in AGES.
 

billsin01

All American
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,789
Like
5,875
It's not "pointless," but it is only ONE DATA POINT that needs to be evaluated / considered. ESPECIALLY for a program at our level, where our bread-and-butter level is around that 3-star tier that the recruiting services typically do a poor job rating.

Looking at offer lists is another good evaluative criteria.

So are measureables [height / weight / speed for position].

We also need to factor in things like whether the kids were offered during a camp, where our coaches are working directly with them first hand.

Competition level is also informative, but doesn't tell the full story.

That's the common theme -- NONE of these data points in and of themselves tell the full story. But by looking at them collectively, you can start to paint a more complete picture of the recruit and what their upside might be. And admittedly, some of it is subjective -- not all recruits pan out.

The main issue I see with some posters is that they only focus on one of those elements, and that's how they formulate their entire opinion on the player, class, and the state of recruiting. Looking ONLY at star ratings or offer lists might work for teams like Ohio State, Alabama, Georgia, or LSU -- because they are comparing one five-star vs. another, or a five-star vs. a four-star with good measureables.

Conversely, we're looking at a DL who is 6-5 but "only" weighs 250, and projecting that in our system our coaches are trying to get guys with big frames and can move their feet, and that they will "grow" into their frames without losing the athleticism. I'm not wringing my hand because our prospect is lacking in one or more of the evaluative criteria [weight, offers], because I recognize that the staff is trying to do with our DL, also recognize that it might take those guys 2-3 years in our program to optimize the size quotient, and have also seen this strategy be effective with the likes of Slayton, Coleman, Black, and McKinley.

I don't look at a camp offer like Bergeron and bemoan the lack of offers -- I look at the unbelievable physical tools he had and the fact that our OL coach remarked that he was a future NFL OL. I don't worry that Benson didn't have a quality set of P5 offers -- I focused on the blazing track speed that was rare for a TE his size. I didn't worry that Cantin-Aku didn't have great offers, because his physical measureables were off the charts.

Look at some of the OL we're bringing in -- Cruz has four star athleticism, offers, and height -- but is light. He needs time to grow into the position, and if he doesn't lose the athleticism, then we're cooking with gas. Ditto Kuhai, Hoeh, and Magnuson. Would I rather that each of those guys come in at 290 as the starting point? Sure. But I'd rather have OL prospects who in 2-3 years are the same size and caliber of athletes as top 25 programs even if it takes them a couple of years to actualize that potential, than a "big" OL who is a stiff and can't move their feet.

Would I rather have those guys also have strong P5 offers? Sure -- but we're getting there. And at the end of the day, you can't measure some things in advance -- a player's work ethic, how dedicated they are to their craft, their level of football IQ, their feel for the game, etc. That's why some -- not all -- highly rated prospects don't pan out, while some lower rated prospects greatly outshoot their ranking.

High level examples, but hopefully they express the point I'm trying to make.
Agreed. My only thing is that if you're primarily recruiting kids outside the top 250-300 kids and they often come from states other than the southeast or california/texas, etc. then the actual information you get from these sites is dubious (good or bad). And for our program in particular a lot of our 4-star kids have been somewhat successful but not necessarily our best players (chandler or arthur jones, shamarko, dungey, etc. I think even Freeney was a 3-star kid). So putting a lot of stock into this recruiting ranking stuff is fun and we all love 4-/5-stars with a ton of offers -- if we get a bunch of those kids we should rightly get excited because why not? But, to your point, even then, the strength and conditioning, systems we run, coaches we employ, off-field behavior, etc., are more important.

My personal favorite recruits are camp offers and early commits. Tend to feel like you are generally leaning on the staff evaluation at that point and typically those guys tend to know what they're looking for. You're never going to bat 1.000 on those guys but I try to not criticize them -- even in the instance of a kid like Long, who committed early but doesn't look real impressive to me personally. I'll defer to coaches on kids like this and figure maybe they can either work with him on technique and explosiveness off the line and in and out of breaks, then crush the kid himself.

But at the end of the day, I just think people who drive themselves nuts on recruiting rankings, particular class rankings, are going to do nothing but drive themselves crazy until such time that we somehow see a dramatic rise in the relevance of our program.
 

money3189

All American
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
4,764
Like
12,563
This is how rivals rates these guys and how I would rate them based on all the film, where they play and comparable players that I've followed. Not trying to be a homer but fair ratings based on a lot of comparisons.

Cruz - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Arizona, Arizona St, Indiana, Kansas, LVille, MissSt, Oklahoma St, Utah, Wake, WVU

My rating 5.7 3-star. His potential is undeniable when watching his tape. Quick feet, good balance and technique. He's every bit a high 3star and the offers bear it out including the teams sniffing around.

Hatcher - current rating 5.5 3-star
(O) Maryland, Michigan St, North Carolina, Penn State, Virginia, Virginia Tech

My rating 5.7 3-star. Case could be made for 5.8 4-star when comparing his film to similar 4-stars Barlon Brown (Ole Miss), Markus Allen (ucommitted), James Blackstrain (Georgia Tech) and Troy Franklin (Oregon). There's no discernible difference. Yet one is a 4 and one is a low 3.

Fuentes - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Boston College, Duke, Rutgers, Wake Forest

My rating 5.6 3-star. Same rating as Moss. He's very quick off the snap and strong at the point of attack. High potential player. Based on rivals own definition Fuentes fits the bill of a 3-star prospect when viewing his film. 5.7-5.5 All Region Selection: considered among the region’s top prospects and generally among the nation’s top 800-850 prospects overall, a potential All-Conference candidate and a player deemed to have mid to low-end pro potential and ability to impact at the college level.

Matthew - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Boston College, Rutgers

My rating 5.5 3-star. I'd actually leave Matthew's rating as is. He can run and tackle but he's lean. He fits their def as a 5.5 kid.

Hough - current 5.2 2-star
(O) Kentucky, Pitt

Their rating is laughable just based on how he runs for his size. He's a shoe in for 1st Team All-State. He's not going to outrun those kids in the ACC but he is going to beat them up. Reminds me of our big back from Delaware Jerome Smith.

My rating 5.5 3-star

Folk - current 5.3 2-star
(O) Northwestern

My rating 5.5 3-star. His tape is impressive. Can really run and tackle. Pay attention to his wide receiver clips.

Roon - current 5.4 2-star
(O) Arizona State

My rating 5.5 3-star. Reminds me of a classic Michigan State linebacker. Big hitter in the middle and can run sideline to sideline and can cover. Might be my favorite recruit in the class. Could see him one notch higher at 5.6 but if you're just doing a reasonable rating he's nowhere near a 2star kid, you have to give him the minimum 3 star rating

Geer - current 5.5 3-star
(O) Georgia Tech, Kansas State

My rating 5.6 3-star. Geer's tape is impressive. He's big and hits, nasty attitude with an explosive first step. Geer is every bit the equal of ruckers DEnd who's a 5.6. If you compare film the RU kid can run but looks skinnier. Our kid runs the same and appears much bigger. In a direct comparison though our kid should not be rated lower.
I think you are right on. I wouldn't change anything with your assessment.
 

PhatOrange

Living Legend
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
21,618
Like
26,480
Thx for doing this.

You left out Duce Chestnut, who has been "inexplicably dropping" (O HAI RUTGERS SHILLS :mad:)
since he looked to no longer be a SUNJ lock, and then a BC lean, and then after he committed to Cuse, he dropped AGAIN. :rolleyes:

Even by the totally cooked current #'s, we're at #44 nationally right now.
In reality, we should be 30-something with the quality and quantity of the kids in this class.
Either way, it's looking like our best class in AGES.
Deuce is still a 4Star 5.8 over there, but by dropping him out of the 250 he losses extra bonus 'points.' I forget what # they originally had him at, but that is extra points that would have boosted our team rating. If he were say ranked #231 he would get an additional 6 points.

Here is their point system - you can really see how they manipulate between a high 3 (5.7) and a low 3 (5.5) which most of our guys are. That's a 30 point swing in the numeric ratings which is how their team rankings are calculated.

Rivals Rating = Points
6.1 = 150 points
6.0 = 135 points
5.9 = 120 points
5.8 = 105 points
5.7 = 90 points
5.6 = 75 points
5.5 = 60 points
5.4 = 45 points
5.3 = 30 points
5.2 = 15 points

*based on my analysis, our rankings would get a 155 point bump and put us right about #33 which I think is more in line with our numbers (21) and what I think their value is.

*GT is ranked #26 with a star average of 2.84 while our #45 ranking has a star average of 2.77. They have 1 four and 14 threes. We have 1 four and 13 threes. It's splitting hairs but the huge ranking difference falls in their points.
 
Last edited:

Online statistics

Members online
227
Guests online
499
Total visitors
726

Top Bottom