pre-signing day class rankings....
Posted: Tue Feb 05, 2002 11:18 pmI went through the rivals database and tried to rate the teams who were ahead of us in their database who are in Texas or the WAC.
The first thing I did was to discard JUCO transfers from the list; it is obvious that we need to start bringing some in though, because it really helps your class rating. They are mostly 3 or 4 star players.
Other notes: if a player wasnt ranked, I gave him a ranking of 200. Also, I have a + - - - N ranking at the end for each school. The number of + indicates the number of recruits offered by major schools. N is the number of recruits offered by average schools. - is the number of recruits offered by minor schools or no other schools.
The key is:
School: rivals rank, ave. stars, ave. player rank, non-JUCOs, JUCOs, + - - - N
Texas Tech: 42, 2.33, 76.8, 21, 4, 10-8-3
Houston: 55, 2.13, 127.3, 15, 7, 3-10-2
Fresno: 58, 2.29, 121.8, 17, 2, 6-11-0
Baylor: 60, 2.27, 87.5, 15, 4, 4-9-2
TCU: 63, 2.47, 83.1, 15, 0, 6-8-1
Hawaii: 67, 2.27, 160.3, 11, 3, 3-8-0
SMU: 70, 2.05, 100.3, 17, 0, 5-12-0
Texas: 1, 3.96, 15.1, 26, 1, 24-1-1
Texas A&M: 18, 3.23, 34.0, 21, 1, 13-7-2
The rest of the WAC/Texas schools are below us.
Obviously, Texas and Texas A&M are way ahead of everyone else. After that I would rank:
3) Texas Tech
4) TCU
5) Baylor
6) SMU-Fresno tie
Houston, Hawaii tie
10) SJSU, Nevada, Rice, UTEP, Tulsa, and the rest of the WAC family.
I would say that this is probably a little better than SMU has fared in the past. I would give us a tie for best class in the WAC with Fresno.
The fact is, however, that when you include JUCOs, we are pushed further down the list than that. Quite a bit further. I think that this points out that our high school recruiting isnt that bad, but to step it up to a middle of the pack program in the country/top of the WAC program, we probably will need to start recruiting JUCOs.
The first thing I did was to discard JUCO transfers from the list; it is obvious that we need to start bringing some in though, because it really helps your class rating. They are mostly 3 or 4 star players.
Other notes: if a player wasnt ranked, I gave him a ranking of 200. Also, I have a + - - - N ranking at the end for each school. The number of + indicates the number of recruits offered by major schools. N is the number of recruits offered by average schools. - is the number of recruits offered by minor schools or no other schools.
The key is:
School: rivals rank, ave. stars, ave. player rank, non-JUCOs, JUCOs, + - - - N
Texas Tech: 42, 2.33, 76.8, 21, 4, 10-8-3
Houston: 55, 2.13, 127.3, 15, 7, 3-10-2
Fresno: 58, 2.29, 121.8, 17, 2, 6-11-0
Baylor: 60, 2.27, 87.5, 15, 4, 4-9-2
TCU: 63, 2.47, 83.1, 15, 0, 6-8-1
Hawaii: 67, 2.27, 160.3, 11, 3, 3-8-0
SMU: 70, 2.05, 100.3, 17, 0, 5-12-0
Texas: 1, 3.96, 15.1, 26, 1, 24-1-1
Texas A&M: 18, 3.23, 34.0, 21, 1, 13-7-2
The rest of the WAC/Texas schools are below us.
Obviously, Texas and Texas A&M are way ahead of everyone else. After that I would rank:
3) Texas Tech
4) TCU
5) Baylor
6) SMU-Fresno tie
Houston, Hawaii tie
10) SJSU, Nevada, Rice, UTEP, Tulsa, and the rest of the WAC family.
I would say that this is probably a little better than SMU has fared in the past. I would give us a tie for best class in the WAC with Fresno.
The fact is, however, that when you include JUCOs, we are pushed further down the list than that. Quite a bit further. I think that this points out that our high school recruiting isnt that bad, but to step it up to a middle of the pack program in the country/top of the WAC program, we probably will need to start recruiting JUCOs.