"Rankings are for fools"
- Thread starter WHCSC
- Start date
Smart man. He's only scratching the surface of why you shouldn't put too much faith in them.
I get his point and it is somewhat valid. The rankings are not infallible. But he is mostly wrong. These rankings have proven very accurate in terms of top ten teams correlating with high recruiting star averages
Which comes first? Do high rankings make top ten teams or do top ten teams get better recruits?
He didn't think too much of Tommy Armstrong as our QB..Another reason why we should all be excited for the future we now have 3 QB that fit Riley's offense.
The higher rated recruits trend toward top ten teams who will be playing for titles. Winning does translate into better recruiting. That said... it is possible for a blue blood program with all sorts of advantages that has been out of the top ten for a while (e.g. NU) to climb back into the top ten if you have a coach and a staff that can recruit. But it takes time
I actually looked at Clemson's composite recruiting rankings for the past 5 years after they won the title. Their highest composite ranking was 11th I believe. Lowest was 15th. So taking all the rankings into consideration, they actually did not sign a single top ten class and won a 'ship.
I'll take top 15 classes all day long .... in addition I would argue that who is behind center can swing class rankings plus or minus 10 spots
There is a difference in being ranked 15 vs. 25. And in some cases, schools under-perform wrt their rankings (hello Texas). Consistently landing classes that rank in the 20s will not get a program to the promise land. It might get you close (see MSU). But it won't get you there.
Exactly. On an individual player basis it's not perfect and the difference in one or two spots in the class rankings isn't huge. But in totality class rankings have consistently shown to be a great indicator of whether or not the talent level on your roster is high enough to win titles. There will always be exceptions but relying on the formula for the one exception in the last ten years seems dumber than going with the formula that's won the other nine.
For any individual player, I agree.
For class rankings, I really don't.
If you're knocking down top 15 classes consistently you're going to have to be doing something wrong to not get into the national title hunt.
If you're consistently pulling in classes in the 25-35 range, you're going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to get there.
For class rankings, I really don't.
If you're knocking down top 15 classes consistently you're going to have to be doing something wrong to not get into the national title hunt.
If you're consistently pulling in classes in the 25-35 range, you're going to have to pull a rabbit out of a hat to get there.
So what is the difference between a class ranked 15th and a class ranked 25th? One 4-star? One 4-star and one 3-star? And then you're just going back to the people making these rankings in the first place. The difference between classes outside of the top few elite teams (Alabama, OSU, USC, FSU) is so small that the rankings become a toss-up. What if that 4-star that pushed you into the top 15 wasn't at a position of need? What if he washes out? There are way too many factors in play.
Then you have to remember that these are high school kids being judged. The difference between junior/senior year in high school and freshman year in college could be big for many of them.
I just don't trust the people making these rankings enough. You can look at a Lebron or an Adrian Peterson and know what the deal is, but after talents like that things get way harder to judge real quick.
Then you have to remember that these are high school kids being judged. The difference between junior/senior year in high school and freshman year in college could be big for many of them.
I just don't trust the people making these rankings enough. You can look at a Lebron or an Adrian Peterson and know what the deal is, but after talents like that things get way harder to judge real quick.
It's an aggregate thing. The difference between PSU (#9, 20 commits, 3.55 ave star) and the Ducks (#20, 20 commits, 3.33 ave star) may not be much in one year. But say PSU does this for the next three years. Each class contains just 1 or 2 difference making players. All of the sudden you have a team with 6-8 real star players. That means something.
You know who says team rankings don't matter that much? Fans of teams who don't land highly ranked classes.
That depends take Maryland for example they are #17 but with 28 recruits. Give Nebraska 28 recruits and they would be in the top 12 in the country.
Obvious would rather have Stanford rating with far few recruits over someone that gets +25 recruits.
Yes, but I think his opinions on this issue are being driven by the fact that his son was not rated as high as he thought he should be.
...and he was speaking about our class in part I'm sure, which makes him a fan of Nebraska, which hasn't had very highly ranked classes for a really long time.
Probably. He was not speaking about overall class rank specifically, but rather about the ranking of individual players. But I think you can extrapolate from the latter to the former....
I don't even get why we still talk about this, there's so much evidence. Every five star won't be awesome, some three stars will be great but you've got a much higher chance of getting a star player out of a five or four star ranked recruit than a three star. Therefore if you get more highly ranked guys, your chances of having classes that translate into great college players are higher. It's so simple there is no point in debating it. So the higher ranked classes, while not always true, will lead to a higher chance of success. They're still high school kids and there's still factors like addressing roster needs and depth at the right positions, etc. but if you consistently get highly ranked classes you will give yourself the best chance at winning.
Of course it is obvious. But some are stubborn. I guarantee if NU starting raking in top ten classes the naysayers on here would change their tune real fast....
If we had landed a top 5 class I'm pretty sure KJ Sr would have said something along the lines of...."You have to have the players to win championships and Nebraska is doing a great job recruiting and I expect them to win a lot of games".
People's opinion and or statement frequently coincides with the position their currently in, because you always want to act like wherever you're at, is the place to be.
People's opinion and or statement frequently coincides with the position their currently in, because you always want to act like wherever you're at, is the place to be.
It's like if I told you I'd give you 25 lottery tickets, some had a 1 in 3 chance of winning, some had a 1 in 6 and some had a 1 in 10 chance you'd obviously want the most tickets that had a 33% chance to win. Sure a few of those 1 in 10 tickets would hit, but over the long haul you'd be much better off with as many 1 in 3 tickets as you could get.
