2014 Class Rankings

[NDIrishManiac]

The home page describes the methodology Rank By Offers | Player Rankings by the Offers They've Received

It does include weighting as you suggested it should:

"2) Each offer is assigned a value based upon the success of the program which extended the offer. Team weighting for the rankings on this site use the “ELO Chess” computer rankings that are included as a component of the BCS formula."

Thanks for taking a look at the site.

GO IRISH!

 

[phillyirish]

Not worth the resources for some, they know they don't stand a chance.

This rankings by offers is a refreshing take as I tend to look at the offer list more than anything.

How does it work though? Player X could have an offer from ever non-AQ school in the country vs a player similar to Fournette who maybe only has SEC after him.

Are the schools on a weighted avg? Bama offer is worth 50 pts and Ark Little Rock is .5 pts? Not all offers are equal.

Then if Whiskey were running the site the weighted avg would be based on ROI.

I'm not sure if every single offer has its own individual weight, but it does distinguish Top 25 offers that are valued more.

 

[stlnd01]

Andrew Williams #6
Nick Watkins #11
Tyler Luatua #13
Richard Yeargin #28
Corey Holmes #38
Mark Andrews #76
Braden Smith #94
Kyle Allen #110

This is so awesome.

It's an interesting take, though I wonder if it's skewed toward kids who are promiscuous (?) and/or from the South.
I mean, on the 247 Composite rankings, Andrew Williams is 215th while Braden Smith is 40th. This ranking has them flipped. But one's a fairly wide-open kid from Georgia, with all the SEC competition that entails, while the other lives in suburban KC and seems to have some clear favorites from the start, which would seem like it might limit the time other schools will spend pursuing him.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Imagine that. An objective ranking based on the best scouts in the business. I'll be following this closely.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

It's an interesting take but as others have mentioned, it can't be a stand alone measure. Some kids fish for offers, others don't. For example Joe Mixon acts like he is interested in any school that calls so they all offer. This automatically inflates his ranking.

 

[IrishLax]

Dumb concept in practicality. Kids can claim offers they don't have, others don't report offers they received. Just very flawed on every level.

On the flip side, in a world where everyone was recruited evenly and was offered by every school that would take them as a player and kids could only report committable offers this would be a GREAT idea. But we don't live in that world.

 

[blueNDgold44]

Not worth the resources for some, they know they don't stand a chance.

This rankings by offers is a refreshing take as I tend to look at the offer list more than anything.

How does it work though? Player X could have an offer from ever non-AQ school in the country vs a player similar to Fournette who maybe only has SEC after him.

Are the schools on a weighted avg? Bama offer is worth 50 pts and Ark Little Rock is .5 pts? Not all offers are equal.

Then if Whiskey were running the site the weighted avg would be based on ROI.

In the article it says that #1 is worth 155 (or something around there) and the worst team is worth 1 point. Don't remember which ranking system he used though

 

[bibigon]

Imagine that. An objective ranking based on the best scouts in the business. I'll be following this closely.

Assigning numbers to subjective rankings doesn't make them objective.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Adding 4-star QB DeShone Kizer vaults <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23NotreDame&src=hash">#NotreDame</a> over Michigan and Kentucky to fourth in the <a href="https://twitter.com/Rivals">@Rivals</a> team rankings: <a href="http://t.co/KOUxmqrCvv">http://t.co/KOUxmqrCvv</a></p>— Irish Illustrated (@NDatRivals) <a href="https://twitter.com/NDatRivals/statuses/344542452692176896">June 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-partner="tweetdeck"><p>Kizer pledge moves <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Irish&src=hash">#Irish</a> back to No. 5 in <a href="https://twitter.com/247Sports">@247Sports</a> team recruiting rank <a href="http://t.co/9xuTD3lde7">http://t.co/9xuTD3lde7</a></p>— JC Shurburtt (@jcshurburtt) <a href="https://twitter.com/jcshurburtt/statuses/344545533014196226">June 11, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Assigning numbers to subjective rankings doesn't make them objective.

Using an objective system to compare subjective data points is the best we can do when it comes to recruiting class rankings. There's no feasible way to remove the subjectivity inherent in scouting. And since we'll be stuck with some level of subjectivity anyway, I'd much rather rely on the assessments of real experts (coaching staffs) than recruitniks.

 

[bibigon]

Using an objective system to compare subjective data points is the best we can do when it comes to recruiting class rankings. There's no feasible way to remove the subjectivity inherent in scouting. And since we'll be stuck with some level of subjectivity anyway, I'd much rather rely on the assessments of real experts (coaching staffs) than recruitniks.

Ok, that's all well and good, but lets not pretend it's somehow "objective".

As far as the merits go - it's a fine idea, but too obviously flawed to be of much use. Offers are self reported for one thing - there is no reliable source as to what offers someone really has. Additionally, players who commit early will be underrated by this system. Justin Brent committed before anyone else bothered to offer him. Does anyone really think he wasn't going to get an offer from a bunch of other schools if he wanted to play the recruiting game?

If I could actually get reliable info as to what various coaching staffs thought about a guy, that'd be great. We don't have that, or anything close to it however.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I believe that one could get a pretty good idea about what the real experts [i.e. the working football staffs] think about a player if that offer list actually lists a coach/recruiter for the player. It would take a huge amount of brass for a highschooler to make that up and publish it.

Plus, when one surveys all the ratings sites and the specific comments about what a player is doing, I begin to get a pretty good feeling about the level of interest in a player. Notre Dame doesn't need to get a bunch of guys who someone in Scout, Rivals, or ESPN thinks is a four-star; we need to get someone who our staff has followed for a long time --- most of the time we have pretty good feedback on that too. "Stars" just reinforce what we know from other sources.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

As far as the merits go - it's a fine idea, but too obviously flawed to be of much use. Offers are self reported for one thing - there is no reliable source as to what offers someone really has. Additionally, players who commit early will be underrated by this system. Justin Brent committed before anyone else bothered to offer him. Does anyone really think he wasn't going to get an offer from a bunch of other schools if he wanted to play the recruiting game?

That failing isn't unique to this methodology. Kids who commit very early tend to have lower ratings from the four major recruiting services, too.

I didn't argue that Rank By Offers is a silver bullet for accurate recruit scouting. But it's definitely worth taking into account.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

As far as the merits go - it's a fine idea, but too obviously flawed to be of much use. Offers are self reported for one thing - there is no reliable source as to what offers someone really has. Additionally, players who commit early will be underrated by this system. Justin Brent committed before anyone else bothered to offer him. Does anyone really think he wasn't going to get an offer from a bunch of other schools if he wanted to play the recruiting game?

I believe that the group of bold portion is already the case.

Edit on the other part. I mixed up which service we where talking about

 

[Rhode Irish]

Dumb concept in practicality. Kids can claim offers they don't have, others don't report offers they received. Just very flawed on every level.

On the flip side, in a world where everyone was recruited evenly and was offered by every school that would take them as a player and kids could only report committable offers this would be a GREAT idea. But we don't live in that world.

Not to mention kids that commit early will pick up less offers, so you will never get true value for the most committed kids when you do team rankings. (Sorry if that specific point was already made - I didn't read all the way back to the beginning of the conversation.)

 

[Luckylucci]

Was looking at both sites rankings for teams as well as individuals. You aren't going to see more disparity than when it comes Andrew Trumbetti. Our best recruit according to 247 and Rivals has him as our 9th best.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Highest rating per commit (minimum 10 commits) 1. Bama 2. ND 3. TAMU 4. LSU 5. UGA 6. Michigan 7. UF 8. Miami 9. Ohio State 10. Vols</p>— Keith Niebuhr (@Niebuhr247) <a href="https://twitter.com/Niebuhr247/statuses/346730828186910722">June 17, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>Highest rating per commit (minimum 10 commits) 1. Bama 2. ND 3. TAMU 4. LSU 5. UGA 6. Michigan 7. UF 8. Miami 9. Ohio State 10. Vols</p>— Keith Niebuhr (@Niebuhr247) <a href="https://twitter.com/Niebuhr247/statuses/346730828186910722">June 17, 2013</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[irishog77]

Whiskey's checking the papers.

 

[anarin]

I know its early...

Mark Stoops and Kentucky (!!!) reach top of recruiting rankings

 

[STLDomer]

meh, not in the Top 10 in terms of quality (average recruit rank)

Quality > Quantity

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Btw, the picked up two transfers yesterday as well. The Davis twins who were at Pitt and are best friends with Mahone.

 

[Rhode Irish]

meh, not in the Top 10 in terms of quality (average recruit rank)

Quality > Quantity

Generally I agree with Quality > Quantity, but in this case I think it is pretty good for Kentucky to be up near the top regardless of the criteria.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

Dropped to #10 in 247 rankings with Newsome not being ranked. Still have the 4th highest average rating though. #6 on Rivals and Scout has not updated.

 

[Kaneyoufeelit]

Dropped to #10 in 247 rankings with Newsome not being ranked. Still have the 4th highest average rating though. #6 on Rivals and Scout has not updated.

This is a good example of one of the major flaws with the class rankings. The services don't and really can't take into account what needs a team has. How is possible that our class could now be comparatively worse for having added a talented specialist? It isn't; our class got better. Oh well

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is a good example of one of the major flaws with the class rankings. The services don't and really can't take into account what needs a team has. How is possible that our class could now be comparatively worse for having added a talented specialist? It isn't; our class got better. Oh well

Yea, I don't get it either. K's and P's can have a huge impact on the game/season. Simply having 12 total K's and P's ranked makes no sense to me at all. Major flaw.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Yea, I don't get it either. K's and P's can have a huge impact on the game/season. Simply having 12 total K's and P's ranked makes no sense to me at all. Major flaw.

With all the top notch kicking camps out there these days why is it so hard to rank them? If anything, their work on a football field would appear....at least to me.... the least subjective when it comes to evaluating talent level. Of course, game pressure situations can't easily be measured, but either the kids can kick or they can't.

 

[Ndaccountant]

With all the top notch kicking camps out there these days why is it so hard to rank them? If anything, their work on a football field would appear....at least to me.... the least subjective when it comes to evaluating talent level. Of course, game pressure situations can't easily be measured, but either the kids can kick or they can't.

I agree. Plus, there are ranking services just for the specialists. Why not have some sort of affiliation with those groups and incorporate them into a composite ranking for specialists?

It's funny when you think about it. You could make the argument that having a premier K or P is better than having a low 4* or high 3* at most positions.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

With all the top notch kicking camps out there these days why is it so hard to rank them? If anything, their work on a football field would appear....at least to me.... the least subjective when it comes to evaluating talent level. Of course, game pressure situations can't easily be measured, but either the kids can kick or they can't.

I think the going trend now is to evaluate kids on their draft potential instead of their actual ability. In this manner a kid can be the best kicker ever and still never get rated higher than a 3 .This is why guards are also consistently ranked lower than tackles.

 

[connect the dots]

I agree. Plus, there are ranking services just for the specialists. Why not have some sort of affiliation with those groups and incorporate them into a composite ranking for specialists?

It's funny when you think about it. You could make the argument that having a premier K or P is better than having a low 4* or high 3* at most positions.

Whose dat fellow in the red diaper? Could that be Lee Corso's former Florida State roommate? I know Clint Eastwood would recommend to friends to accept parts in the European westerns, but this costume, I'm sorry to say, would be taking the spaghetti western in the wrong direction! Is there a Boogie Nights in this man's future?