Jump to content
Charles Fischer

No. 6? WRONG....Try No. 3 Recruiting Ranking!

Recommended Posts

There is a lot written out there that Oregon is No. 6 with 247Sports, and again--I follow and ask our writers at FishDuck to use rankings from Rivals.com. 

Why?  Because for years the rankings done by Scout.com (of which is now 247 Sports) were highly biased and just plain incompetent.  Oregon gets a verbal and suddenly he loses a star....Huskies get a verbal and the recruit gains a star, because the owner of Scout.com was a Husky.

So that is why when I am comparing to the past--I want consistency of recruiting rankings, and only Rivals.com does that.

So Oregon's ranking of No. 3 is right here.

With that....the margin Oregon has over the No. 4 through No. 8 is pretty small, and if any sign later with one of them--the Ducks will drop.  On the other hand...if we get JTT later?  Well we secure our position, because I do not see us bumping up further.

It is all good-or-good!

Versus Stanford 2018_Kevin Cline.jpg

Mr. FishDuck

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 is great, and when Oregon gets to the point where it could DROP to 6, 7, 8 in the rankings if things don't go just right, I can live with that. 

  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more than happy with a top 10 ranking no matter where Oregon finishes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that little history lesson about the recruiting services Charles - I had no idea about that. I have tended to use 247 in recent years for my own reading, but since Rivals seems to treat us better, this gives me a reason to just accept that and stick with Rivals.

One thing that I like about Rivals is that the average recruit rating is easy to understand (just the average of the stars) and you can click on that column to sort the results by average stars. 247 has a scoring method that is (I think) proprietary, and in any case I don't understand it. Added to that, they don't let you sort the list by average rating.

I've always felt that they should pay more attention to average rating, because teams with high turnover of players tended to have bigger recruiting classes, and thus get higher rankings due in part to volume.

Stanford is a team which traditionally seems to retain players for their full four years of eligibility (probably being one of the top academic schools in the nation helps!) and so would have smaller classes. Yet, at least a few years ago, their average ranking was up there with the football powers. I think they've fallen on hard times lately though.

Long story short, even flipping the table to see average ranking, Oregon is still number 5. Not bad!

Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN moved Oregon up a spot to 5 after the Dickerson & Cardwell signings this morning. Go Ducks!

Link to post
Share on other sites

And Washington comes in at .......#35. Whuuf!

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I’m just keeping tabs on recruiting for myself, I usually look at the 247 composite which is an average between 247, Rivals and ESPN’s rankings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The composite ratings at 247 are better than average ratings... they weigh the top players in a class more than those at the bottom. 

So if we compare two simple classes, where team A gets players ranked 100, 90, 90, 40, and team B gets 80, 80, 80, 80, team A"s score will be higher even though the averages are the same. And if they each add an 85, then team B's score will go up more than team A's. It's a pretty good system that rewards depth but also acknowledges that top-tier players generally define how well a class does on the field.

Of course it's fair to question any of the inputs that go into that equation: 247, ESPN, or Rivals could be superior or inferior in grading guys out. The Composite at least waters that bias down by diversifying the sources of the ratings.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ed O said:

The composite ratings at 247 are better than average ratings... they weigh the top players in a class more than those at the bottom. 

So if we compare two simple classes, where team A gets players ranked 100, 90, 90, 40, and team B gets 80, 80, 80, 80, team A"s score will be higher even though the averages are the same. And if they each add an 85, then team B's score will go up more than team A's. It's a pretty good system that rewards depth but also acknowledges that top-tier players generally define how well a class does on the field.

Of course it's fair to question any of the inputs that go into that equation: 247, ESPN, or Rivals could be superior or inferior in grading guys out. The Composite at least waters that bias down by diversifying the sources of the ratings.

I like it even better now. 

And I was thinking for individual players it was an average between the the three sites, as opposed to team rankings. 

Edited by Coach Eric Boles
  • Thumbs Up 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, yeah. I was on a slightly different wavelength. Haha.

I'm less sure about individual players but I think they take into account rating AND ranking somehow... since players can keep the same rating but drop in the ranks on a service, I believe the composite individual rating takes that onto consideration (although I'm not 100% sure).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...
Top