Current Rivals Rankings

[Stallion]

Total Points: SMU Ranked 98th
Average Points: SMU ranked 89th

TOTAL POINTS

1. Southern Miss 439
2. UCF 298
3. ECU 211
4. Marshall 190
5. UTEP 95
6. UH 90
7. Memphis 85
8.(tie) Tulsa 80
SMU 80
10. Rice 75
11. UAB 65
12. Tulane 60


AVERAGE POINTS

1. UCF 2.31
2. Marshall 2.30
3. Southern Miss 2.29
4. UTEP 2.27
5. Memphis 2.22
6. Houston 2.21
7. SMU 2.17
8. (tie)Tulsa 2.15
ECU 2.15
10. UAB 2.04
11. Rice
12. Tulane 2.00


QUALITY(3 Star + Recruits)

1. (tie) UCF 1 4 star 7 3 stars=8
Southern Miss 1 4 star and 7 3 stars=8
3.(tie)UTEP 7
Marshall 7
5. Houston 6
6. Memphis 5
7. (tie) SMU 4
Tulsa 4
ECU 4
10. Rice 3
11. UAB 1
12. Tulane 0

[ponydawg]

But you have stated many times that you don't put much into points and stars, you believe that other offers are more important when deciding a recruits worth. And per Jason B's analysis and using your offers are more important then stars, it doesn't seem as bad as above:

"Okay, so I did some work that Stallion would be proud of.

Here is how SMU's recruiting class stacks up against the other CUSA West schools as far as offers are concerned:

TEAM | Mult BCS | 1 BCS | Mult Peer | 1 Peer | 0 Peers
----------|--------------|-----------|-------------|-----------|-------------
SMU | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 7
UTEP | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 17
Tulsa | 1 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 11
Houston | 3 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 11
Tulane | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 16
Rice | 1 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 7

The two best classes from an offers perspective are SMU and Houston.

Also, when you compare who lost offers to whome, Tulane recruits in a different area, but here are the others:

SMU: 0 SMU, 2 UTEP, 1 Rice, 1 Tulsa, 3 Houston
UTEP: 4 SMU, 0 UTEP, 1 Rice, 1 Tulsa, 2 Houston
Rice: 3 SMU, 0 UTEP, 0 Rice, 4 Tulsa, 1 Houston
Tulsa: 6 SMU, 0 UTEP, 1 Rice, 0 Tulsa, 1 Houston
Houston: 1 SMU, 2 UTEP, 1 Rice, 2 Tulsa, 0 Tulane

We have really struggled against UTEP and Tulsa in the past couple of years, but definately won the battles this year.

I would say SMU and Houston are pretty even for the best class in the West."

[westexSMU]

Stallion. can you explain Rivals "total points" system. An example of the confusion, Arkansas State # 77 has 26 recruits, only three 3 Star recruits ( SMU HAS 4) and an average star rating of 2.12 (SMU's average is 2.17). Their recruits personal ratings are also generally ALOT lower than SMU's but Ark. St. total points are 143 and SMU's is 80 ?........Ark St. is even ranked higher than TCU at # 80 ? This appears rediculous.

[westexSMU]

Concerning Rivals Personal Ratings of Ark. St. and SMU recruits, out of 26 recruits Ark St. got, 19 of their recruits are rated the lowest 2 star Rivals personal rating at 4.9. SMU does not have one recruit rated that low this year. In fact, SMU only has 2 recruits rated at 5.0, our lowest ratings. So considering the fact that our 23 overall recruits are rated much higher than Ark St. by Rivals, I am interested in knowing how their total points system is so important in their final team ratings ?........Truth is SMU's class is much better than alot of teams ranked higher in the team rankings.

[EastStang]

Let me ask a relatively dumb question. Over the long term if a team gets a 2.31 and another team gets a 2.17 which team will win games is it the 2.31 because they have a few more players each year that are better or are they all pretty even when you are talking decimal point differences? I mean were talking .14 difference between SMU and UCF. Is that margin of error kind of difference or real substantial difference? And given that recruiting is an inexact science, it would seem to me that we are inside the margin of error with that difference.

[mathman]

Let me ask a relatively dumb question. Over the long term if a team gets a 2.31 and another team gets a 2.17 which team will win games is it the 2.31 because they have a few more players each year that are better or are they all pretty even when you are talking decimal point differences? I mean were talking .14 difference between SMU and UCF. Is that margin of error kind of difference or real substantial difference? And given that recruiting is an inexact science, it would seem to me that we are inside the margin of error with that difference.

Look at the ratings for teams #83, #85, #89. Hmmm. Regional bias? One 3 star for each of them and the majority of their 2 stars are rated 5.0 with one at 4.9.

[westexSMU]

[quote="mathman"][quote="EastStang")

Look at the ratings for teams #83, #85, #89. Hmmm. Regional bias? One 3 star for each of them and the majority of their 2 stars are rated 5.0 with one at 4.9.[/quote].............................Look at East Carolina # 69. Only three more recruits than SMU and a weaker star rating and weaker Rivals personal player ratings overall than SMU yet East Carolina has 211 total points and SMU has 80 total points ? Either bias or they have no idea how to grade their own ratings..........In reality who really gives a ---- except to say it would be appreciated to move up to a fair evaluation.

[Pony Fan]

Haven't you people figured out that stallion spins it like he wants to? Why on earth do you some of you keep asking him his opinion on recruiting? HE HAS NOT SEEN ONE OF THESE PLAYERS PLAY! Quit feeding his riduculous ego and grave dancing that he does on every single post.

[Stallion]

Spin what [deleted]? I posted numbers from a recruiting source with absolutely no editorial. Do you burn books in your Church.

[Pony Fan]

Dream on......

[JasonB]

Just to addmore information to my other posts.... A UTEP player is declared as a three star. But, yet, is only offers are UTEP and NM State. Or UTEP alone. And worse, only UTEP with an offer, and that happened in December. That is NOT a well regarded recruit, and in no way should be a three star athlete.

[Pony Fan]

Rivals is a great source to list players, but it is ridiculous to rely on them to evaluate players and provide rankings. That kind of stuff is preserved for people like stallion that think it is the absolute authority on who did the best. Believe or not, I would say the exact same thing if SMU was "rated" number 1 in their rankings. A pure example of this can be illustrated with the class we had in 2003 where we actually had ten 3-Stars such as Justin Boren, Avery Cleveland, Zach Hall, Desmond Jones, Richuel Massey, Ervin McGee, Ricky Joe Meeks and Chris Phillips. The two 3-stars that have amounted to something are Cory Muse and Joe Sturdivant. We also had 2-stars such as Brandon Bonds, Kennard Burley, Cedric Dorsey, Reynoldo Pellerin, Caleb Peveto and Blake Warren who are/were decent D-1 players.

Take Rivals for what it is worth which is a good source to identify players. There is no possible way they can keep up with thousands of recruits across the country with any reasonable degree of accuracy. They appear to do a good job on keeping current with the great players that everyone knows about. Rivals and ANY coach, not just the SMU coaches, will tell you that.

[tmustangp]

SMU fan's please read pony fans words on Rivals and then read it again.. It was said perfectly.. If you want facts, read the DMN recap of recruiting classes that is done every year on the class four years prior.. I believe it is written right around this time of year.. It will do exactly what pony fan just did on the 2003 recruiting of every major college team in Texas.

[westexSMU]

[quote="Stallion"]Spin what [deleted]? I posted numbers from a recruiting source with absolutely no editorial.[/quote]........... Actually Stallion's post is exactly how Rivals rated our class and others. That is why I asked for an explanation on their total points system because Rivals evaluations make no logical sense.