In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1833
Online now 1330 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
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 guess your Derrick Henry example best exemplifies my questions/issue: You have a guy at 5-stars who you've admitted is going to shoot up the NFL draft charts, but is not going to have a comparable college impact.
As a CFB fan, I'd expect the 5-stars to have the most COLLEGE impact. If I'm a Bama fan, I think 5-star means huge college success, so Henry should have a big impact in college. You're saying that that's not the case? Why not just call these "Early NFL Draft Evaluations" instead of "College Recruiting Ranking"? That seems to be a more accurate depiction.
I recognize that this is the way you've always done it, but I care much more about the guys who are going to be college AA's than I do the guys who are 1st round NFL draft picks. A guy like Greg Jones is a 2 time All American, 3 time 1st Team All Big 10 LB, and people say he was appropriately rated as a 3-star guy because he was picked in the 6th round. Does a 3 time All Conf. and 2 time AA sounds like a "3-star" career? Is Mike Hart really and truly a 3-star prospect after he set UM's career rushing record just because he was also picked in the 6th round?
I notice in your star evaluation that you do say things like "High All American potential, etc." Why not just leave it at that? It seems that everyone is shocked when a 3-star or even a 2-star becomes an All-American, but I think it has some to do with the industry insisting on rating on NFL rather than college potential.
In that respect, yea, I rank the 6'1 230 pounder who had major college production over the 6'5 265 pounder who didn't produce. Like Elvis Dumervil over Vernon Gholston or something like that.
Again, I love what 247 sports has done and the transparency has been my favorite part. These are just observations and comments more than anything else as I'm trying to understand the rankings. Am I correct to say that a 5-star ranking is not so much a sure-fire college prospect as a guy with NFL measurables? And, off of that, since plenty of guys without NFL measurables are stars in college, that these star rankings really don't mean that much as applied to college FB and are instead a guesstimate at how many guys from each program will be drafted in 4-5 years?
Michigan State does not and will not run the 3-4 defense.
Good question; MSU just jumped from the mid-40s to 31st in the regular 247 rankings and I didn't see a single guy get a boost . . . unless they weren't calculated right from the LAST ranking updates or something . . . weird.
Edit: That's REALLY weird. MSU has 3 4-stars, all with 90 ratings. PSU has 1 5-star (99) and 4 4-stars, a 96, 2 92s and a 91. They have 18 commits to MSU's 15. Also, MSU has 2 2-stars (77 and a 76), while PSU's lowest guy is an 80. I think MSU has more 87's and MSU is less than 1 point ahead, but that just doesn't make a lot of sense for me. Not bashing my own team here, just wondering what's up with the rankings.
This post was edited by MalibuMan 15 months ago
I would also like to know how Iowa's class is ranked ahead of ours (and others as well). Looks like something is messed up.
Per Sean Fitz: "It's a glitch, they're working on it."
I agree with this. I don't care where they project to in the NFL. This is a college football blog and I care about what they do in college. Looking back, people will say that Mike Hart and Greg Jones and Jordan Kovacs are rated appropriately because they weren't high draft picks and didn't do much in the pros. But they were huge difference makers on their college team. That should be all that matters on a college football blog.
Yea, I mean, which guy is going to help my team compete for championships? I'll take the 6'1 230 pound sackmaster over the 6'5 265 guy with low production. The big guy may look great on draft day, but that didn't help my team win the conference title and compete for BCS bowls. When I look at recruiting rankings, I want to see how/which incoming recruits will impact my college team.
When are the rankings going to be updated?
But, But, But, have you seen our guys? Way underrated. Love the philosophy and the idea, just don't screw us like always. We know you have it out for us, and us alone.
"We don't care about anything but winning. No one cares about ethical standards thats for losers..."
BUCKNUTS 21 self trolling.
While I am on your side on this, give me college production first, there are other factors that hurt when making that analysis. Scheme and depth charts come to mind right away.
Better yet, when are they going to be fixed?
No sh*t. Ridiculous and this is a re-occurring theme.
The rankings have changed wildly again. Are these the new final rankings or did you just revert them back to what they were before they got all screwed up? Gotta say, I'm pretty confused at this point.
This post was edited by MrWoodson 15 months ago
It looks like they have been corrected, but I don't think these are the final rankings.
I thought there's supposed to be 32 five stars? There's only 28 now.
Yeah, that is why these aren't the final rankings. The wild change that you referenced was due to a programming issue or something like that. PSU dropped down to like #40 and now we are back up to 20 after it was fixed.
Yep, I think they fixed the major error they introduced, and they've updated the "composite" ranking since Scout updated all theirs. 247's ratings haven't yet changed, though.
Technical note: Things still aren't calculated correctly, however, as I've ascertained by updating by personal spreadsheet of UGA's recruits ratings. (Composite for UGA is 740.18 instead of 746.92.) For the last few months, the Composite were correctly calculated but the 247 team ratings were not, due to the fact they still sorted on the composite rating of a team's players. Currently, the 247 team ratings are a lot closer to what they should be (UGA 746.38 instead of 748.19.), so I think they've been trying to get BOTH of these ratings to calculate/display correctly.
Born and bred Bulldog, living in Maryland since '88
So, as I understand it, the star system will no longer be as good of a reference point to compare recruits from different classes, since the number of stars a player has will simply reflect the position they are within their class, correct?
That was one of the biggest advantages, IMO, of assigning stars based on merit, instead of based on a defined number of positions. Now, a particularly poor class will contain 5* players that would only be 4* players in a good class. So when comparing a 5* and a 4* from those types of classes, it will no longer be accurate to assume that the 5* player was rated as a better player. Instead, it will only be accurate to assume that the 5* was ranked higher within his class than the 4* player.
I have to say, I am not a fan of the idea. I definitely appreciate 247 as my personal favorite recruiting site, but this wouldn't be a change that I would welcome myself. It would help me significantly if there was some sort of leeway within the system, perhaps a set of guidelines or boundaries instead of a defined number. For example, instead of saying there will be 32 5* players, why not say there will be 25-35 5* players? Or, why not assign a grade to each recruiting class of between AAA, AA, or A. If a class is graded as a 'AAA' class, then they will have 36 5* players. If a class is graded as a 'AA' class, then they will have 32 5* players. If a class is graded as a 'A' class, then they will have 28 5* players. Just some ideas off the top of my head, but I just think that sticking at a specific number regardless of how good a class is does a lot to weaken the value of a 5* rating.
laconophilia is everywhere...
I have another question while I'm at it.
You mentioned that the 5* rankings will be assigned based on how NFL teams have drafted in the 1st round. Therefore, there will be more 5* QB's than ILB's, for instance. If you have a QB and an ILB with equivalent talent level, how will the numerical rating be handled?
Let's say that right now, they both have 98 ratings. Let's say that the ILB does not fall within the top 32 players based on this NFL 1st Round mentality, however. Will the future method keep both of them at 98, but give the QB 5 stars and the ILB 4 stars? Or will the actual numerical rating for the ILB be reduced to fit his 4 stars? Does this then mean that when we look at how recruits are rated, we need to bring a prior knowledge of how teams tend to draft in the NFL in order to apply how much a recruit may help our college team?
Thanks for your transparency!! It is a welcome change from other recruiting services.
I have to agree with this. It should be as consistent as possible from year to year.
It says the rankings were updated today... but they clearly weren't. Anyone have an idea of when they are gonna roll out?
I did not see any of the ratings changes that were expected for 247 ranks. I see that the composites have updated but 247 ratings look to be the same.
Does not look like anyone on staff has responded to this recently...
All Men Die: Few Men ever really Live.
- William Wallace
Where the heck are the new rankings?
Probae esti in segetem sunt deteriorem datae fruges, tamen ipsae suaptae enitent
Bueller? ..... Bueller?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports