Looking at some updated FBall recruiting rankings

Skkorpion · January 22nd, 2008, 07:09 PM

http://recruiting.scout.com/

Fun but suspect. I like ASU being at #13 but USC not being in the top 15 makes the whole list suspect.

http://rivals100.rivals.com/

Rivals has USC at #13 with ASU at #20. But Alabama at #2?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recru...tom&id=3207424

ESPN has Miami at #1 and USC at #5. ASU is not in the top 15.

ajcardfan · January 22nd, 2008, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skkorpion

http://recruiting.scout.com/

Fun but suspect. I like ASU being at #13 but USC not being in the top 15 makes the whole list suspect.

If you look at this list, you'll see why:

http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2008

USC has only 14 recruits this year, and the point total is cumulative for all recruits. However, USC has 7 of their top 100, and 4 of their five star recruits, both of which are tied for second. It looks like Ohio St., USC and Oklahoma have the best quality.

But, these rankings are more dicey than the NFL draft rankings.

ajcardfan · January 22nd, 2008, 07:30 PM

Look at Rivals for comparison:

http://rivals100.rivals.com/teamrank.asp?SID=880

Skkorpion · January 23rd, 2008, 01:59 PM

aj, not being condescending, I'm aware of all those arguments and find them valid. That's why Romanelli, an Irish graduate, put together his Romanelli rankings. (publishing source is blueandgold.com)

He ranks nobody himself, just assembles and weights the various rankings. I'll show his latest, then post his original explanation, which he has not bothered to update.

Notre Dame recruitnics expect the Irish to fall, because of late decommits and USC to rise further, because of late pickups.

I know Notre Dame has 7 more offers out there, USC has 4 or 5, ASU has a bunch, so things may change fast. My guess is that USC will end up #1 in Romanelli.

Consider the source and debunk it, if you wish. I find them all interesting.

Updated Romanelli rankings:

Quote:

Rank Team Points Ranked / Points/Player
................................................To tal Verbals

1 Notre Dame 201 20/22 10.05
2 Oklahoma 151 13/17 11.62
3 Ohio State 150 14/18 10.71
4 USC 145 12/14 12.08
5 Miami 138 14/27 9.86
6 Florida 122 14/20 8.71
7 Georgia 112 16/25 7
8 Texas 111 14/20 7.93
9 Florida State 93 11/20 8.45
10 MIchigan 86 13/18 6.62

Romanelli's methodology:

Quote:

the star system seems rather arbitrary - who determines how many stars a player is assigned on Rivals or Scout? Who determines, “there should be 29 5-star players (or whatever the number may be in a given year)?” Does that mean that there is a clear drop-off between no.’s 29 and 30?

So, he came up with what could be a more logical way to do this by dividing players into quartiles: the top 25 get five points, the next 25 (26-50) get four points, the next 25 (51-75) get three points, and the last quartile gets two points assigned to them. For rankings that go above 100 (Rivals 250, ESPN 150, Tom Lemming's 225 to watch, etc), those players will receive one point above 100.

In order to effectively eliminate bias, Dr. Romanelli used as many sources as he could find with published rankings: ESPN Top 150, Scout Top 100, Rivals Top 100/250, Lemming's list to watch. This list will also get updated as new rankings come out. Tom Lemming will have a top 100 in July.

In addition, the USA Today will come out with a first-team (approx 25 guys = five points) and a second-team (four points each) All-American groups. The Army All-American team and ESPN All-American team names about 75 players each, and he will assign two points each for that honor. These will be added when they come out during the year. Parade adds an All-American list in January with 58 names - they get two points for this.

At any rate, looking at the "average points per player" tells you how highly each team's recruits are ranked. USC may not have that many commitments (seven ranked players), but look how high the players are ranked; same with Clemson, although they are not expected to sustain that level of recruiting.

For a player to land in the database, they have to be listed on one of the above lists. Only the number of players who are ranked are listed for each team in the rankings.

Please check the homepage regularly for updated rankings.

Skkorpion · January 23rd, 2008, 02:01 PM

Sorry. I can't get the columns to line up. Anyway, USC's points per player is over 12, dwarfing everybody else's.

Okay, captured, enlarged and uploaded the image. Should be clear now. Don't know how to just slap it right here.

Arizona's Finest · January 23rd, 2008, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skkorpion

http://recruiting.scout.com/

Fun but suspect. I like ASU being at #13 but USC not being in the top 15 makes the whole list suspect.

http://rivals100.rivals.com/

Rivals has USC at #13 with ASU at #20. But Alabama at #2?

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recru...tom&id=3207424

ESPN has Miami at #1 and USC at #5. ASU is not in the top 15.

Skkorp I am sorry but I have to point out the irony that you bash the NFL draft prognistications to no end but are giving credence to an even more suspect/subjective ranking with these HS recruits.

Just sayin....

Skkorpion · January 23rd, 2008, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arizona's Finest

Skkorp I am sorry but I have to point out the irony that you bash the NFL draft prognistications to no end but are giving credence to an even more suspect/subjective ranking with these HS recruits.

Just sayin....

Ah, you are incorrect. These college ranking mean nothing by themselves, but string together three high recruiting rankings in a row and you often, not always, see a good team on the field.

String together three consecutive high draft rankings by the pro "experts" and you likely have nothing. Evidence the Cards, who often have fared well that way.

String together a bunch of mediocre "experts" rankings as happened to Indy and Pitt a few years ago and Buff recently and you still often get a good team.

Irony, you say? Balderdash, good fellow. Just highly tuned and highly intelligent observation, if I may so modestly admit.

Gaddabout · January 23rd, 2008, 03:39 PM

USC's classes are so good because they also land the quality linemen.

Skkorpion · January 23rd, 2008, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaddabout

USC's classes are so good because they also land the quality linemen.

Truth.

devilfan02 · January 23rd, 2008, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gaddabout

USC's classes are so good because they also land the quality linemen.

Exactly. Don't discount USC's class. They are already LOADED and have some of the best players in the country coming in. They have 4 OL commitments from the top-10 OL in the country (Matt Kalil's brother being one of them)! Absolutely crazy

'Bama's class is legit although their recruits get bumped up because of the Saban factor. He'll get that program turned around quickly if he keeps signing classes like this years.

ASU's class is overall very good. We need to hold our breath to make sure some of our key signee's (Guy and Bass) will qualify academically.

It appears as though Bass' grade situation has taken a turn in the right direction. He is following what ASU has told him to do and his situation is looking up. Ufortunately, Lawerence Guy (#6 DL in the country) has some work to do now. His grades are fine but he needs to get his test scores up. We need him to qualify in the worst of ways. IMO, he's up there as the best DL in the west and our best verbal so far.

ajcardfan · January 24th, 2008, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skkorpion

aj, not being condescending, I'm aware of all those arguments and find them valid. That's why Romanelli, an Irish graduate, put together his Romanelli rankings. (publishing source is blueandgold.com)

Obviously, the guy is brilliant. He agrees with me.

BTW, didn't take it as condescending at all.

coyoteshockeyfan · January 25th, 2008, 07:36 PM

Renfree says he has made his decision, and will probably announce it by Monday.

http://www.azcentral.com/sports/prep...25renfree.html

DevilPrideBAS · January 26th, 2008, 10:31 AM

If he sticks to his word on wanting to play right away, he will soon be a member of the worst football team in division one, the Duke Bluedevils. Apparantly playing early is more important than winning, good luck getting to the next level at Duke. I know the education is tops there, but he never said anything about academics being #1. This kid is a stud and would love to have him don the maroon and gold, but i think we are set for a few years down the road, with the QB's we have now. Good luck to him wherever he ends up. Go devils

devilfan02 · January 26th, 2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DevilPrideBAS

If he sticks to his word on wanting to play right away, he will soon be a member of the worst football team in division one, the Duke Bluedevils. Apparantly playing early is more important than winning, good luck getting to the next level at Duke. I know the education is tops there, but he never said anything about academics being #1. This kid is a stud and would love to have him don the maroon and gold, but i think we are set for a few years down the road, with the QB's we have now. Good luck to him wherever he ends up. Go devils

Supposedly he wants to leave Arizona for college and he has a good relationship with new Duke coach David Cutcliffe (who was recruiting Renfree to play at Tennessee where he was the OC).

I can't really blame the kid. We already have 5 QB's and Cutcliffe has groomed some very good quarterbacks (the Manning brothers, Eric Ainge, etc.). He could do at Duke what Cutler did at Vandy

Our class is pretty much wrapped up. We need to hold our breath and hope for no signing day bloopers.

ajcardfan · January 27th, 2008, 07:46 PM

I can hardly blame anyone for going to Duke or Stanford. I've got two degrees from ASU and am starting a 3rd. And, I still would tell my kid to go to Duke over ASU if they were leaning that way.