Rivals ratings ????

[dawgduice]

OK, so now we have dropped to number 10 on Rivals. What kind of point system do they use, I'm thinking from the planet ZION
According to them we have a rating avg of 3.47 and Mississippi has rating avg of 3.47, yet they are number 4 ?????????

Scout #6 247 #4 ESPN #4

 

[fairgambit]

Something is out of whack. Temple fans have been touting their improved recruiting and they're ranked 95th. WTF is up with that? I expected them to be top 80 for sure. Then you have Pitt at #71. Below Arkansas State, Texas State, Louisiana Tech, and Western Michigan? No way! Finally, you have Rutgers at #30. Of course that won't last. A lot of those kids will jump ship when Rutgers goes 4-8 this season. Well, it's still a long time till they have to make their commitment official. A lot can change.

 

[dawgduice]

Good answer, I'm thinking we will wind up top 10
EXCEPT maybe top 20-25 in Rivals.

 

[Judge Smails]

It's amazing how every year, our verbals in the Rivals Top 100 drop.

 

[dawgduice]

It's amazing how every year, our verbals in the Rivals Top 100 drop.

What are the ODDS on that, I'm thinking 1 too 1 ;-)
But, on a positive note they did upgrade Dwumfour from a 2 star to a 3 star, NOT !!

 

[pennst8fan78]

Screw rivals rankings!

 

[ellobo]

For those that want a real answer: The Rivals point system is based on the RR (which you will find on a recruits page) and not the actual star ranking...though RR is related to stars...All 5 stars have a 6.1 RR...4*s range is 6.0-5.8...3*s 5.7-5.5...they differentiate in points within the star levels...for example a high 4* (6.0) gives a teams rankings 135 points while a lower ranked 4* (5.8) gives a team 105...in addition players in the R100/250 are awarded a bonus from 100 points for the #1 player down to 3 points for players 246-250.

It's kind of a clunky formula and I'm not sure who came up with it but the spirit of it does make sense. If you need convincing on why, consider a hypothetical example of two classes that both would have the same exact star average:

1) Class A consists of 20 4 star players who each are the lowest rated 4*s at their respective positions...literally as in the guy at their position ranked one place below is a 3*

2) Class B consists of the top 10 overall players in the country (all 5*s of course) and 10 players ranked as the highest 3*s at their positions...again literally as in the guy ranked one place above is a 4*

Assuming both classes filled your depth chart needs would anyone not take Class B? And the Rivals formula would reflect this as Class B would be ahead of Class A by almost 1000 points in the rivals ranking (you can do the exact math if you want...just did a quick calculation in my head)...again this is with both classes having the same star average.

If you are not convinced, yet, that you would take Class B...think of it in NFL terms...what would you rather have...the top 10 picks in the draft and the last ten (Class B) or the first 20 picks of the 7th round (Class A)?

Hope that helps.

 

[anon_is9z1n0h3zblb]

If you click on "team rankings", at the top of the page there is a FAQ that describes in detail.

Also, I think they've only released the top 100. through the week they'll update the 250 and then the players that don't make the 250. You should ignore the team rankings until all of the kids have had their ratings updated as they will move quite a but all week.

 

[royboy]

IMO, Rivals gets too taken up with certain football producing states. Yes, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and California produce a lot of prospects but they are over-represented in the top 100 by roughly twice their proportion of the population overall. The Rivals gurus then seem to spend a lot of their time and attention in those states.

So you see more of the kids from the hot states on the rise and guys like Menet, Sanders, and Shane Simmons drop in their rankings.

 

[Judge Smails]

IMO, Rivals gets too taken up with certain football producing states. Yes, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Florida, and California produce a lot of prospects but they are over-represented in the top 100 by roughly twice their proportion of the population overall. The Rivals gurus then seem to spend a lot of their time and attention in those states.

So you see more of the kids from the hot states on the rise and guys like Menet, Sanders, and Shane Simmons drop in their rankings.

Menet has offers from everyone. Sanders, the last camp he was at, the recruiting analysts were debating about whether he was the top back in the class. Just strange. Particularly since I posted that website that bases their ranking on who has offered the recruit, and they have our class ranked #1.

 

[dawgduice]

For those that want a real answer: The Rivals point system is based on the RR (which you will find on a recruits page) and not the actual star ranking...though RR is related to stars...All 5 stars have a 6.1 RR...4*s range is 6.0-5.8...3*s 5.7-5.5...they differentiate in points within the star levels...for example a high 4* (6.0) gives a teams rankings 135 points while a lower ranked 4* (5.8) gives a team 105...in addition players in the R100/250 are awarded a bonus from 100 points for the #1 player down to 3 points for players 246-250.

It's kind of a clunky formula and I'm not sure who came up with it but the spirit of it does make sense. If you need convincing on why, consider a hypothetical example of two classes that both would have the same exact star average:

1) Class A consists of 20 4 star players who each are the lowest rated 4*s at their respective positions...literally as in the guy at their position ranked one place below is a 3*

2) Class B consists of the top 10 overall players in the country (all 5*s of course) and 10 players ranked as the highest 3*s at their positions...again literally as in the guy ranked one place above is a 4*

Assuming both classes filled your depth chart needs would anyone not take Class B? And the Rivals formula would reflect this as Class B would be ahead of Class A by almost 1000 points in the rivals ranking (you can do the exact math if you want...just did a quick calculation in my head)...again this is with both classes having the same star average.

If you are not convinced, yet, that you would take Class B...think of it in NFL terms...what would you rather have...the top 10 picks in the draft and the last ten (Class B) or the first 20 picks of the 7th round (Class A)?

Hope that helps.

Thanks, EXACTLY as I thought their "formula" is from the planet ZION !!! but maybe it only "works" on leap years

 

[psufan9808]

Rivals has a natural bias against Penn State. You see it every year. If it were maybe a little different from year to year I don't think that you could conclude the bias exists. However, Penn State rankings are always systematically measured to be a few spots less than all of the other recruiting services. This is practically the definition of systematic measurement error. When guys like Farrell are calling the shots, that systematic error is referred to as bias. That consistent bias is an outward projection of either his personal prejudices or a lack of professionalism whereby he consciously or unconsciously is rooting for and against as he ranks. Sometimes it is manifested in comments about skinny ankles or not working hard enough in actual spats with recruits. That is where you start to see evidence mount of lack of professionalism. If you truly are doing an honest evaluation, you recognize your natural biases and account for them. Otherwise your product is inferior.

 

[ellobo]

Thanks, EXACTLY as I thought their "formula" is from the planet ZION !!! but maybe it only "works" on leap years

It's clunky but pretty straight forward actually...what don't you get? Would be happy to explain it to you

 

[pkg5002]

That is why I don't pay for this site. There is a reason why, year after year, the PSU commits drop in rankings. Like psufan mentioned, there is a clear bias against anything and everything Penn State. Which I frankly don't care about. What I have noticed is that if you are a recruit, and you do not go for a single Rivals event but go for other events, then you sure as hell will drop in rankings. Which is unfortunate, because the other sites don't do this. That is why I pay for the other sites but not this one. The other site (247) is more objective and try to cover as many prospects equally as possible. lol at our ranking drop on this site...

 

[lockhavenlion3]

That is why I don't pay for this site. There is a reason why, year after year, the PSU commits drop in rankings. Like psufan mentioned, there is a clear bias against anything and everything Penn State. Which I frankly don't care about. What I have noticed is that if you are a recruit, and you do not go for a single Rivals event but go for other events, then you sure as hell will drop in rankings. Which is unfortunate, because the other sites don't do this. That is why I pay for the other sites but not this one. The other site (247) is more objective and try to cover as many prospects equally as possible. lol at our ranking drop on this site...

agree, won't go near the pay site. if it weren't for this & the wrestling site, i wouldn't even be on a rivals. they are a total joke.

 

[Judge Smails]

It's clunky but pretty straight forward actually...what don't you get? Would be happy to explain it to you

Nice patronizing tone.

 

[bmejnes]

ESPN is about the only one that I pay attention to.. NOT saying that it is the most accurate, BUT it is what "most" people see and go by.. They have a 3 hour show devoted to the rankings and signing day, so I would like to see us ranked high in that one rather then the others. I also believe it's the one that most high school players actually watch and go by. It's the flagship and they carry a lot of weight....

 

[hagberg]

It's amazing how every year, our verbals in the Rivals Top 100 drop.

Truly shocking! I don't think Mike Farrell of Rivals recruiting is much of a PSU fan. I recall someone posting a video of him a while back interviewing a kid at one of the camps and basically asking him why he would even consider going to PSU.

Attitudes like that affect individual and team rankings. I just hope the coaches and their recruiting targets continue to ignore the fluff.

 

[Rip_E_2_Joe_PA]

I am amazed that anyone cares what Rivals rankings are at this point in time in any event. Even at the end of the evaluation period their rankings are bs ....recall Anthony Morelli .... Dan Kendra.... need I go on typing till my fingers fall off. The best rating system to me would be to look at a players offer sheet... and even that method has flaws.... oh, and by the way.... these kids actually beginning to play their Senior season games in a few days.... why would anyone care about the dog days evaluation of Rivals .... watch as the their senior season progresses. Guys like Simmons and Sanders.... get ready to hear broadcasters shout out their names during games.

One peculiar aspect of these current Rivals Rankings is they are so far out of skew with scout Yahoo and 247....one has to say wonder why. Think of the old days of recruiting BS...Lemming and Emfinger come to mind. lol

 

[PSU-Knocker]

It's clunky but pretty straight forward actually...what don't you get? Would be happy to explain it to you

Why would anybody give a rat's patutie? It's one more meaningless formula among a myriad of recruiting ratings.

 

[klemman]

General fan response to Star Ratings.

If my team gets a prospect who is ranked highly as a Four or even better Five Star, then it must be accurate, the player is an absolute stud, and all the teams he didn't go to are losers.

If my team gets a prospect who is not highly ranked then either the coach can't recruit or the player is a stud and the Star Rankings mean nothing.

If another team gets a Four or Five Star athlete, then the player is overrated and the rankings don't mean anything.

If my team has a higher ranked class than another program then my team is more talented. If another team has a higher ranked class, then again either my team's coach can't recruit and needs to be fired, or rankings don't mean anything.