Every year about this time people start getting excited about the computer services’ rankings of the various football teams’ recruits, especially if, like now, Tulane is rated relatively highly. Of course, this early in the recruiting year, teams with more commitments have a built in advantage, just as teams on signing day who have more signees will also have a “leg up.” Additionally, beyond all the bias involved regarding P5 vs. non-P5 schools, each service, while issuing “stars,” has totally different scoring systems.
In truth, the stars are becoming meaningless. Last year in Louisiana, ESPN rated 93 kids and gave 89 of them 3-stars or more. 247 was running about the same ratio until the last week or so before signing day when they suddenly gave 2-stars to a bunch of players who had not been rated, but had recently committed. In the end, they rated 156 players and gave 94 of them 3-stars or better. I think they were 94 of 109 a couple weeks before signing day. This year so far, 247, which seems to be the “flavor of the day” in many folks’ minds, has rated 67 Louisiana players and 60 received three stars or better. While Tulane looks good overall in the ratings from 247, a closer look shows that of the five players they list as committed to us from Louisiana (they’re missing three), only three received three stars—not quite the 90% “norm.” (small sample, of course)
The other problem with 247 is the much touted “composite” score. If you look closely, that “composite” sometimes includes only one ranking—theirs. Other times I see it includes two, three, or four, but when I check the other services, I can’t make the math work. I’m not sure what’s going on with that.
Of course, I don’t want to pick on 247. None of the services is doing a good job in my mind, though, of course, that’s all just opinion. To the best I can tell, we have ten committed players (depending on the status of Kwanzi Jackson). 247 has us with 7; Rivals has 7, ESPN has 8, and Scout has 5. Between them they have them all, but how do you rate a class if you don’t have all the commits? In Louisiana, ESPN has only rated 33 players, including only one of our commits. All 33 have received 3 stars or better. How does that tell you anything? Scout has rated 60 players and 56 have received 3 stars or better. Sadly, of the four with 2 stars, two are our guys. Rivals, which has the distinction in my mind of at least trying to differentiate (accurately or not is another issue), has rated 113 players from Louisiana and given 75 of them 3-stars or better. To highlight “grade inflation,” last year they awarded 53 players in Louisiana with 3-stars or more. This year, so far, they’re up over 40%. Every fan likes to see “their team” with a lot of “stars” in their recruiting list, and the services are “giving ‘em what they want.”
Anyway, the ratings are interesting to look at and, I think, in the aggregate give some sense of where people rate the various recruits. Once you try to rate classes, however, the built in errors and biases tend to multiply, maybe even exponentially. Whatever the services say, we need to bring in a good class, at least by AAC standards.
Roll Wave!!!
In truth, the stars are becoming meaningless. Last year in Louisiana, ESPN rated 93 kids and gave 89 of them 3-stars or more. 247 was running about the same ratio until the last week or so before signing day when they suddenly gave 2-stars to a bunch of players who had not been rated, but had recently committed. In the end, they rated 156 players and gave 94 of them 3-stars or better. I think they were 94 of 109 a couple weeks before signing day. This year so far, 247, which seems to be the “flavor of the day” in many folks’ minds, has rated 67 Louisiana players and 60 received three stars or better. While Tulane looks good overall in the ratings from 247, a closer look shows that of the five players they list as committed to us from Louisiana (they’re missing three), only three received three stars—not quite the 90% “norm.” (small sample, of course)
The other problem with 247 is the much touted “composite” score. If you look closely, that “composite” sometimes includes only one ranking—theirs. Other times I see it includes two, three, or four, but when I check the other services, I can’t make the math work. I’m not sure what’s going on with that.
Of course, I don’t want to pick on 247. None of the services is doing a good job in my mind, though, of course, that’s all just opinion. To the best I can tell, we have ten committed players (depending on the status of Kwanzi Jackson). 247 has us with 7; Rivals has 7, ESPN has 8, and Scout has 5. Between them they have them all, but how do you rate a class if you don’t have all the commits? In Louisiana, ESPN has only rated 33 players, including only one of our commits. All 33 have received 3 stars or better. How does that tell you anything? Scout has rated 60 players and 56 have received 3 stars or better. Sadly, of the four with 2 stars, two are our guys. Rivals, which has the distinction in my mind of at least trying to differentiate (accurately or not is another issue), has rated 113 players from Louisiana and given 75 of them 3-stars or better. To highlight “grade inflation,” last year they awarded 53 players in Louisiana with 3-stars or more. This year, so far, they’re up over 40%. Every fan likes to see “their team” with a lot of “stars” in their recruiting list, and the services are “giving ‘em what they want.”
Anyway, the ratings are interesting to look at and, I think, in the aggregate give some sense of where people rate the various recruits. Once you try to rate classes, however, the built in errors and biases tend to multiply, maybe even exponentially. Whatever the services say, we need to bring in a good class, at least by AAC standards.
Roll Wave!!!