Heck, average them all out. Between Rivals, Scout, ESPN, and CBS (247) the average 2013 class rankings are (as of 2:30pm):
1.) Ohio State 1.75 avg.(2,2,2,1)
2.) Alabama 3.25 avg.(1,8,1,3)
3.) Florida 3.50 avg.(1,3,7,3)
4.) Notre Dame 4.00 avg.(4,5,3,4)
5.) Michigan 4.50 avg.(6,4,2,6)
6.) LSU 6.25 avg.(5,6,7,7)
7.) Ole Miss 7.00 avg.(7,10,6,5)
8.) Tex A&M 7.75 avg.(8,5,10,8)
These could flux a bit, but it's pretty hard to deny these classes appear to be the cream right now.
In an effort to communicate a more accurate evaluation of prospects and recruiting classes for fans, 247Sports is pleased to launch the 247Composite rating/ranking system for college football and basketball recruiting.The 247Composite Rating is a proprietary algorithm that compiles prospect "rankings" and "ratings" listed in the public domain by the major media recruiting services. It converts average industry ranks and ratings into a linear composite index capping at 1.0000, which indicates a consensus No. 1 prospect across all services.
The 247Composite Rating is the industry's most comprehensive and unbiased prospect ranking and is also used to generate 247Sports Team Recruiting Rankings.
More details
-All major media services share an equal percentage in the 247Composite Rating.
-The composite index equally weights this percentage among the services that participate in a ranking for that specific prospect.
-A composite strength meter, indicated by red bars, illustrates the total number of industry services that have ranked the prospect. A full strength meter indicates the prospect has been ranked by all industry services participating in the composite.
-All industry networks have a different philosophy on number of "stars" distributed with each class. The 247Composite Rating assigns stars based on an approximate average distribution of stars from the industry.
-The 247Composite will update as major media outlets update their prospect rankings throughout the recruiting cycle.
vals, Scout, and the other services for that matter, are basically playing follow the leader. Think about it.
They exist to sell subscriptions and advertising. They aren't in the business of examining 17 year olds, like every football coach in America is. And they know that. It's about income, they usually tend to rank the programs with lots of subscription buying fans more generously than they rank the smaller market teams from the lesser conferences. Often these assumptions are correct, but not always.
They pretty much base the ratings on who is chasing whom. They assume, usually correctly, that if Alabama, ND, Ohio St., USC, and other top programs are pursuing a prospect, that this kid must be good. Usually, they are correct. But the misses are probably as famous as the hits, it's just that those misses are never mentioned, duh!
The area where they fall down is when they look at lower regarded programs. Boise State, for example, has never had a recruiting class ranked over #60 or so, depending on the service. But they are in the top 25 every year. Last year, only 3 schools had more players drafted. They even had two #1 draft choices, both of them ranked as 2 star recruits when they were signed (Martin perhaps got 3 stars from one service if I recall correctly). Kellen Moore was ignored by virtually everyone. He was the Washington State Gatorade Player of the Year in 2007, but dropped from 4 stars to 2 stars when only Boise St. offered a scholly. Why? Follow the leader, since no major program offered him, he obviously wasn't that good. 5 years later, he holds virtually every NCAA passing record.
If I were you, I wouldn't bet the farm on their predictions. Notre Dame, for example, is in the top ten every year, but only have one year in the last decade where they even came close to living up to expectations. How come we never read these services admit that they messed up? Just doesn't happen, does it?
They exist to sell subscriptions and advertising. They aren't in the business of examining 17 year olds, like every football coach in America is. And they know that. It's about income, they usually tend to rank the programs with lots of subscription buying fans more generously than they rank the smaller market teams from the lesser conferences. Often these assumptions are correct, but not always.
I'd quit being angry if I were you. But that is just me.I'm not, but obviously, I have an opinion, which I think is based on solid thinking.
I'm not, but obviously, I have an opinion, which I think is based on solid thinking.
Don't take my word for it, this is from Rival's own website in which they explain how they come up with their raniings.
http://rivals100.rivals.com/content
.asp?CID=59026
They admit that most of their rankings are based on who is chasing whom, or "market fluctuations" as it were. What I said is confirmed even by their own words, more smoothly stated, of course. They don't have the staff or time to watch thousands of kids play in thousands of games, they rely on the guys who do it for a living at the major schools. They base a lot of the ratings based on the conference affiliation or the program reputation of the teams or their coaches. One almost never sees a team from a non-major conference ranked very high, I can only think of one or two rated over 50 in the years I've followed it. Some of that is legit., some of it isn't.
As a BSU fan, I am a bit irritated how that every year, they "experts" rank their recruiting efforts as mediocre, but somehow, every year, those "mediocre" recruits overachieve on the field. I agree, Kellen Moore won't be an NFL star most likely, but no one can deny what he did at BSU. He made a career out of proving his many doubters wrong. But that's kind of how Boise operates. They make a lot of mileage using that desrespect as motivation. So far, it seems to be working, quite well, thank you very much.
To be honest, I kind of enjoy the fact that my team is always ranked way down the list in recruiting. It makes it so much more fun when our team full of nobodies kicks your team full of prima donnas in their 4 or 5 star butts.
Peace.
"To help give a gauge of where a player stands on an update-to-update basis, a
player will have a stock value of rising, steady or falling. Using the Player
Stock, you can track the type of interest the recruit is getting from college
programs and where his status stands in the eyes of the coaches recruiting them.
The stock ranking is only one piece of the puzzle, though."
Damn. Such hard core thoughts that enlivened such remarks from you. Where are the 'more smoothly' stated comments that you proclaim? Why did you give any of your following comments:
"They don't have the staff or time to watch thousands of kids play in thousands of games, they rely on the guys who do it for a living at the major schools. They base a lot of the ratings based on the conference affiliation or the program reputation of the teams or their coaches. One almost never sees a team from a non-major conference ranked very high, I can only think of one or two rated over 50 in the years I've followed it. Some of that is legit., some of it isn't."
Are these purely your words, or do have any credibility to back them up as being from Rivals or any other recruting service? I certainly can't find them anywhere on Rivals, much less any other recruiting site. This sounds like your opinion.
And once again, it sounds like a lot of butt hurt.
To be honest, I kind of enjoy the fact that my team is always ranked way down the list in recruiting. It makes it so much more fun when our team full of nobodies kicks your team full of prima donnas in their 4 or 5 star butts.
And what is ALWAYS missed by Boise State fans is that you almost always have the best recruiting class in your conference. Not only that, the difference between the Boise State class and the next guy is ridiculously large.
You complain when things aren't in your favor, but have no problem relishing over the 'littlins' below you. How fitting.
Thanks for the love, dummy, your avatar suits you. Except Jerry was a lot smarter. You write more like one of his kids.
Here is an article by Sports Illustrated's Andy Staples, who wholeheartedly agrees with my analysis. Indeed, he argues that if you actually looked at on the field performance, the #68 ranked 2007 Boise State is really the #2 ranked class. Read it yourself, if you can, of course.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20
10/writers/andy_staples/02/15/2007-
classes/index.html
This paragraph stands repeating:
"So how did the evaluators at Rivals -- and Scout and SI and everywhere else -- so badly underestimate this class? Simple. Boise State doesn't have a huge fan base. There aren't as many potential subscribers, so, from a business perspective, it doesn't make sense to spend as much time evaluating Boise State recruits as Alabama or Texas recruits. That's probably the biggest flaw in recruiting rankings; the teams outside the traditional power structure can be vastly underestimated. Because if you look only at the teams that traditionally finish in the top 15, the rankings are usually pretty accurate.
Read More: [http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20
10/writers/andy_staples/02/15/2007-
classes/index.html#ixzz2KBijLk3u]"
