In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 397
Online now 95 Record: 5583 (1/22/2012)
Loudest board in the nation, per capita
Buy and sell your Duck tickets here.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I don't think this is been mentioned UCLA 11... Oregon 16... Washington 17... USC 25..... Arizona State 36....
As long as Oregon is ahead of washington I'm a happy man. And remember, this was a supposed down year for Oregon while washington is on the rise with tosh and their great recruiting staff.
We're 19th here, 21st on Rivals, 17th on Scout and 26th on ESPN . How the heck did we get 16th in the cumulative ratings?
Obviously there was some programs that had greater fluctuation than we did. This is just one more example of the subjectivity of the recruiting rankings. This inconsistency in the evaluations of various classes allowed our cumulative ranking to be higher than any of our individual site rankings.
all due respect...the way 247 simply adds points makes usc's class 25. they are definitely in the 10-15 range.
scroll over football recruiting...then hit football team rankings. you can do it. i promise.
Rivals 13, scout 18. Espn 14, Here 14
Yet cumulative USC is 25th. Which makes even less sense.
then where does 25th come into play? Im really not a fan of the way 247 ranks classes...makes little to no sense a lot of the time.
oops messed it up here they are 25th, composite they are 14th which makes a lot more sense.
It shows UO at 19 and UW 18...I promise. Is there a specific link to the esoteric list ranking UO 16, UW 17 and USC 25? The one that makes no sense at all?
when you click on 247 team rankings it opens up with the composite rankings, there is another button you can click to show rankings solely based on 247's opinion similar to scout/espns in that one USC is 25th.
We are 16 here, cumaltive 19.
Rough morning? SC may not have had the numbers but they still got some elite players, and their average star ranking speaks for itself. Considering they are a Pac-12 rival and are generally considered the most likely to meet Oregon in the Pac-12 Championship each year, I think it's fair to discuss USC's recruiting class. Honestly it would make more sense to say: "Who cares about UW's recruiting class?" I know a lot of people hate UW, myself include, but they have been completely irrelevant to UO's success for several years now. Calm down.
The whole "team ranking" enterprise seems ludicrous to me. There is substantial variation in the evaluation of individual players between the various scouting services. Aggregating these various ratings helps a little in terms of evaluating individual players.
Things get really screwy when each scouting service starts adding up all these individual player ratings. Each service seems to add a little "secret (proprietary) sauce" in an attempt to adjust for the substantial variation in the number of recruits being brought in by each team. Essentially, because of the variation in class size, you are stuck comparing apples to oranges.
Furthermore, there is no statistical method of evaluating how well a recruiting class matches the actual on field needs of a particular team. If you are going to need linebackers in 2014, did you get a guy who will be ready by then?
Ranking teams by total points is statistically dubious to begin with, doing so when the number of recruits varies so much from team to team is simply ridiculous. To quote the old axiom, "garbage in, garbage out."
From a statistics point of view, an average of the composite player rating for all the players recruited by each team is probably the most valid way to compare teams. If you want to see teams compared this way, go to the 247 Composite ranking and then click on the "Avg" at the top of the column. Comparing in this way, USC is #1 at 96.37. UCLA is # 8 at 89.89. Oregon is #18 at 87.73. Stanford is #19 at 87.66. UW is #23 at 87.10.
The question is whether or not there is any real statistical significance to these averages. Being #9 sounds a lot better than being #23, but the difference between UCLA's average of 89.89 and UW's average of 87.10 is about 3%. Does 3% matter? How much does it matter?
The Bottom Line on the whole enterprise is that it comes down to accurate evaluation of a player's potential and the coaching staff's ability to get individual players to that potential. Our coaches have excelled at doing this over the last 20 years. That is the reason our season ending ranking in the polls has consistently outpaced the ranking of our recruiting classes.
Would give you all my upvotes if I could.
Look up the 2008 class sometime (Bellotti's last class) they where ranked 23 and yet had guys like LGB, LMJ, Barner, Jordan, Kiko and many others who where the foundation of our last 4 years. In fact I think we had 10 guys in that class that have or will play in the NFL. Recruiting is a very inexact science to say the least, but it's fun to follow.
+1 for life. Exactly. Look at the HS star recruit ranking of the most recent All PAC-12 team. No 5 Stars. An anomly maybe this year but still proves your larger point.
Certainly, all things equal, one would rather have 5 star recrutis than 3 star recruits-but things are not equal and the evidence is overwhleming that it comes down to the factors that you cited. That's why I look only at who our coaches go after and whether they get them.
From the Ol' Ball Coach,
"But, yeah, that recruiting can be a little deceiving at times. You never know what you've got until you really, really play it out and so forth.
The only thing I know, back in 2008, I think Florida had the No. 1 class, and two years later that No. 1 class drove Urban Meyer to retirement.
Of course, he came back a year later and he's an excellent coach, but I know later there were comments that that No. 1 class just didn't pan out.
Of course, it usually pans out at Alabama every year. But, again, recruiting is extremely important, but after they get there is really what's most important."
This post was edited by sheldonduck66 14 months ago
This post was edited by Back in Quack 14 months ago
Lol you are so extreme maitai it's hilarious
I'm seeing an improvement in punctuation and capitalizing.
Disagree on one point - we will be meeting UCLA in the Championship, not USC. USC will be irrelevant for the next several years.
Enjoy Life, it has an expiration date.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports