Rivals Total Points Rankings Losing Credibility

by **Stallion** » Sat Feb 10, 2007 10:58 pm

there are some really strange results based on Rivals Total Points Ranking MOST ESPECIALLY TCU who has 11 3+ star recruits and yet is surrounded with plenty of teams with 2-3 3+Stars: TCU is ranked AT LEAST 25 places too low in my opinion. Link: The Rankings Formula Guy
Posted on 2/10 2:03 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #891
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure. That's for a recruiting expert to evaluate. Knowing what factors go into the current formula (and they are the same factors that went into past formulas)...no, I'm not convinced TCU got robbed. But on the other hand it's eminently debatable. It's a matter of equivalency: what is the worth of one impact player? What is the worth when you're near the top of the rankings and one team has a dozen and another team 11? What is the worth when you're down in the range TCU is at this year, where one team has one and another has none?

The teams around you are essentially tied with you. I appreciate that's not a satisfactory response when you're the one listed lower on the rankings, but that would be the case no matter what the formula. It's a system that evaluates discrete data that is used to describe indiscrete phenomena. If Joe Smith is the 11th rated cornerback and John Williams is the 12th-rated, is the difference between them exactly the same as the difference between Ken Jones (33rd) and Ron Swoboda (34th)? If Lance LaRue is a 5-star and Brook Bentley is a 4-star, does that really make Lance exactly 25% better than Brook? Is EVERY 4-star recruit 33% better than EVERY 3-star recruit? Intuition tells us no. Yet these are the tools we have at our disposal.

By the historical standards we've worked with, TCU didn't sign anyone of impact, and the teams around you did. BYU signed three "impact players" (I'm not making a recruiting evaluation judgement...just in terms of the math of the formula) and TCU none; I'm quite satisfied that on that count. The teams around you each signed one impact player, and thus pushed themselves up into your region.

That's how our formula worked. Had we used a different formula, like we did in the past, it would have come out differently. No more or less "right"...just differently. The formula we used in the past (and by "past" I mean dating all the way back to the previous incarnation of Rivals.com) would often get teams way out of whack (as determined by the experience and instincts of the recruiting experts). Judging from the feedback I've gotten the last couple of years, the current formula does a much better job of it.

It's worth noting that if TCU had signed one single player that met the requirements of the formula (say if Jeremy Kerley had ranked a little higher on the ATH position rankings), then you would have been at 262: your one impact sign would have gotten you much higher up than, say, Arkansas State's one impact sign did. It would have put you up in the mid-60's, along with the Boise States and the Vanderbilts and nipping at the heels of San Diego State and Washington State and the like, but still well short of BYU.

No matter what formula is used, there will always be debate, particularly lower down in the rankings. I'm not sure I can really help that. I wish I had a more definitive answer for you.

I do get amused sometimes at charges of favoring this conference or that in the formula. That I can definitively say is untrue: every single team is evaluated exactly the same way, there are no factors for conference or market or what have you.

Lee

Posted on 2/10 2:45 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #15
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is supposed to be serious or not but if it is then this is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in my entire life.

F you rivals!!

Posted on 2/10 3:01 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #73
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is it. What more proof do we need? Lee pretty much summed up Rivals arrogance. They are so full of crap. Dumb post by Lee if you ask me. Anybody with brain should feel the rage to cancel their membership by his arrogant post. Yes, at Rivals they do think we are stupid. Maybe Lee should contact Randy Rogers, a paid recruit scouting analysist by D1 coaches for an expert opinion.

Lee's post is the biggest pile of crap I ever seen posted by the Rivals Brass. That is the final straw for me. I am done. My subscritption will be cancelled. Mine is month to month so I can cancel at any time. I will hang around until I can no longer log on here but no more money from me. I was one of the original subscribers of menace but cancelled when I wasn't getting much out the board. I rejoined and have seen how far the board has come but I refuse to give my money to Rivals as long as the same Rival's clowns are in charge. Come on guys, these clowns are not doing TCU any good. If Lee's post wasn't a brick to the head, what will take to wake some of guys up? I am not for seeing a site shut down, but I now feel we all you should walk away in mass while giving Rivals the"Heisman".
This post was edited on 2/10 3:21 PM by Babyface 1

Posted on 2/10 3:17 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #99
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last straw for me too.

Rivals "ranking system" is a joke.

Posted on 2/10 3:34 PM | IP: Logged

Long T... (TCU)

Post #87
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee,

Hmmm, you are trying to say that statistics make all this right, except if you know the formula then players can be weighted to assist particular schools. I do think Rivals panders to the large state schools and ND. There is no way Rivals can make their own determination on all these players. That means you rank players and determine "impact" by certain schools and who they are recruiting. And as our coach said in his press conference, BCS schools deny they offered or rescind the offer once a recruit commits to TCU. Therefore, many of our recruits are not on the large school list any longer. When are these "impact" players designated? After their Jr year? What criteria is used to establish them as "impact". According to our coaches and HS coaches of our recruits, we have several impact players that many wanted. Therefore, we have not only one "impact" player but several. Greg McCoy, Cuban, Kerley, Thompson, Cavness, Griffin, are all impact type players.

You guys set up the game for the "big" schools like UT, USC, OU, Michigan, Fla., etc. The statistics are set up and once you know the formula Rivals can rank players based on the school that is recruiting them to ensure these schools look the best. Again, it's manipulation at best.

I don't expect our class to be ranked in the Top 10. I wouldn't take any other players for our guys because they have the Frog Factor. Yet, for us to be in the 80s or lower than the 40s is ludicrous.

Posted on 2/10 3:59 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #100
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCU's success against Big 12, Pac-10, Big 10 and SEC opponents is proof enough that the Rivals folks really have no clue.

I believe that the 2006 seniors were 7-1 vs. the Big12/Pac10/SEC/Big10 teams they played.

Posted on 2/10 4:08 PM | IP: Logged

ricoh

Post #430
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do yourself a favor. (yes, you) Only look at Aver. Stars. TCU is ranked 56. IMO about where we should be. That is a Rivals site ranking.

After you (yes, you) have done this STOP looking at the rankings.

Read the articles, post intelligent thoughts, (or not so intelligent), have fun.

We have less than 7 months til Bu and Texas. more important crap to be worried about!

Posted on 2/10 4:12 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #892
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize the term "impact player" is loaded...I don't mean it that way. I'm not a recruiting analyst. Just my own short-hand term to mean "player that meets the criteria for accruing such-and-such a benefit in the formula."

You're right, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for bias in the system in that at some point a recruiting editor has to decide that *this* athlete has this many stars and that *this* athlete is the 14th-best offensive guard and that *this* athlete is going to be #14 on our Juco list...and on and on.

I can't really answer that: everyone has their own biases, I suppose. I know Bobby Burton historically has been *called* a Texas homer: he's never asked me to create an advantage for them, I've never heard him say anything that would lead me to believe he is, but hey, people are going to come to their own conclusions. Likewise I've heard Bill Kurelic is an Ohio State homer and Jeremy Crabtree is an Oklahomer and I've learned this year that supposedly our entire staff is weighted towards Alabama...and that other experts not part of Rivals have their own slants and on and on.

I can't really concern myself with that because I can't control it. I can only accept that the rankings and ratings are in and of themselves objective and go from there.

The funny thing is...no one at Rivals really knows the formula but me, lol. I've tried to explain it and, well, it's a lot to explain. But that doesn't change the basic understanding that if a recruit is ranked higher that's clearly got to be a benefit to the school that signs him. So, yes, there is always a chance for homerism and rankings manipulation, no matter what formula is used. As far as I know, there isn't that sort of thing going on here, but if it were I'm not really the guy that would catch it.
Posted on 2/10 4:18 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1503

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Lee:

This is the most ridiculous statement yet:

"By the historical standards we've worked with, TCU didn't sign anyone of impact, and the teams around you did. BYU signed three "impact players" (I'm not making a recruiting evaluation judgement...just in terms of the math of the formula) and TCU none; I'm quite satisfied that on that count. The teams around you each signed one impact player, and thus pushed themselves up into your region."

WTF is that Lee, historical standards have shown Rivals continually underates TCU's classes by a wide margin. Historical standards have shown that you formulas are a crock. Historical standards have shown you are clueless when it comes to rating outside the top few players and teams.

Why don't don't you do a little historical analysis first before quoting anything related to "historical standards". Try this Lee buddy:

Compare the historical rating of TCU's recruiting classes the last 5 years to the actual on field performance of those teams and their final ratings in the polls. Should be an easy task for such a brilliant mathematician such as you.

Don't give me any of that Historical Standards BS, because they do not exist.

Historical Standards, what a frickin' joke!

Posted on 2/10 4:23 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #101
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scariest statement Lee has made - that he is the only one at Rivals that understands the formula...

Yet, the formula supposedly reflects the weighting of team evaluations desired by the Rivals recruiting "experts".

Yet, the Rivals recruiting "experts" themselves do not understand the formula.

So, the only person at Rivals who understands the formula proclaims himself NOT to be a recruiting "expert", and the Rivals "experts" claim not understand the formula (it is a technical matter).

Bobby!!! What kind of show are you running there???? A freak show, if you ask me.

But don't ask me, I am just a paying customer.
This post was edited on 2/10 4:48 PM by sugarlakes

Posted on 2/10 4:46 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #74
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee, D1 coaches in Texas pay Randy Rogers for his couting info on HS players. Rogers ranks TCU's class in the 30's. So since you aren't a scout and Rivals isn't paid by coaches, wouldn't it make sense that Randy Rogers rankings are actaully more relevant than Rivals? I think so and so do many D1 coaches.

Idiots like you and Jerry Palm have no business ranking players or teams since you all lack the professional expertise. Old Jerry Palm played in the band at Purdue thus that is where his expertise comes from. In other industries ya'll would be considered frauds or conmen.

Posted on 2/10 4:47 PM | IP: Logged

Pitiful

Post #104
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This dumb horses rear doesn't have any idea if a player is an impact player? Half of the top tier recruit thugs, like the basketball player
at Louisville that has been suspended three times this year! Can't
believe these people,{Rivals}has an organization that has any credence.
Is it any wonder our coach,{Patterson} pays absolutely no attention
to ratings and stars, calls all of them paper tigers!

Posted on 2/10 5:02 PM | IP: Logged

GuardianFrog

Post #1514
Charlotte, NC
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do historical standards tell you about Ball St. and Arkansas St? Do you really think there is any comparison between those programs and ours? No rating worth a hill of beans would put the class we just signed with those programs it is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Here is a list of our players and who rivals has said has offered them, you tell me how Ball St. stacks up.

Name Offers
Jamiron Cavness Indiana, Iowa St., Central Florida, UTEP, Houston
Chez Thomas
Jeff Olson Purdue, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Oregon St., Mississippi St. Tulsa, UTEP, SMU,
Kris Gardner
Johnny Fobbs Nebraska, SMU
Jeremy Kerley ATM, TT, OU, Nebraska, AZ, COLO, BU, Mizzou,
TeeJay Johnson AZ St., Arkansas, GT, Indiana, Iowa St., KSU, TT, Ok St., Wis, Purdue
Spencer Thompson Houston, UTEP
Kelly Griffin Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Missouri
Jonathan Jones Arkansas, Nebraska, Duke, GT, Kansas, NW, BU, TT, ATM, Mizzou, OK St., Wash St.
Braylon Broughton Iowa, Arizona, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma St.
Luke Shivers Utah, ULALA, ULM
Jason Fitch Missouri
Logan Brock Kansas, Illinois, Iowa St., Utep
Greg McCoy Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Baylor, SMU, UNT
Tank Carder
Joseph Banyard
Sir Demarco Bledsoe Oklahoma St.
Chris Goodson Offers unknown
Jercell Fort Offers Unknown
John Fonua OFFers unknown - Honorable mention JUCO All American

We went up against Big 12 and Big 10 teams for our players and won a lot of those battles and will continue beat those teams in our recruiting battles as well as on the field. I would say our class is much better than a team like Kansas, and the offers bear that out. To rank our class with lower rung MAC teams isn't right and even Crabtree knows that.

And the impact players thing is a joke as well, you think OU of Texas Tech didn't think we have any "impact players" when we beat them? Our non-impact players get drafted by NFL teams every year.

Posted on 2/10 5:07 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #893
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're not mathematicians. Nor am I, really, but I've got a greater comfort level.

The past formulae we used (both here at this current Rivals.com and at the former Rivals.com) did not yield results consistent with what the recruiting experts would intuitively know to be the case. That's because they're not mathematicians, and there's a whole lot more to a recruiting class than adding up the stars and calling it a day.

We gave it our best shot with "additive" formulae like that: so-and-so much for this recruit...such-and-such a bonus for a recruit that was ranked thus-and-such. And every year, it seemed, there were a handful of teams that were out of whack. Not in terms of "this team should be fourth and not fifth" but "this team shouldn't even be in this neighborhood, it's twenty places out of where it should be." That's based on the experience and intuition of the recruiting experts.

So we'd make adjustments to the formula, to try to close whatever loophole teams were using to move that far up (or down). It's a delicate balancing act, trying to avoid unintended consequences of an adjustment. Eventually the adjustments get so subtle that they're useless. And worse: it's managing the bottom line. If you're going to have a recruiting expert's subjective rating of team classes, that's one thing...but we wanted an objective ranking that did as good a job as possible of yielding results that a recruiting expert could reasonably agree with.

So a few years ago, I tried out this new formula, rethought the way we had the factors interact with each other. When we ran the data for that year through the new formula, the results were much better, no one seemed to be really out of whack. That solution I found is something that the recruiting experts probably weren't going to come up with themselves...but the important thing is that the results are defensible, and they have been. That they don't understand the formula has to do with their having something much better to do with their time: to report on recruiting and on recruiting evaluation. I don't do that...I leave it to them. I lean on their wisdom to determine the overall effectiveness of the rankings formula, just like they lean on me to find ways to reliably evaluate their input and yield results that might have come from their direct evaluation.

To me, the most important thing isn't who ends up on top, it's that we get reasonable results with no bottom-line-management.

There are going to be exceptions, of course. Clearly you all feel that TCU is one such, and clearly the editorial staff here agrees. I can't dispute that with you, because I'm NOT a recruiting expert. But I can illuminate, as I've tried to here, how the formula arrives at it. Like most statistical populations, recruiting kind of follows a bell curve: there's good, clear differentiation of the schools at the top, and a large part of the population in the middle that's not truly very distinguisable and is endlessly, endlessly debatable.

Posted on 2/10 5:07 PM | IP: Logged

GuardianFrog

Post #1515
Charlotte, NC
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact remains that our class is rated way too low, we all know it, the naitonal writers at rivals and our site know it, and even the fans of a lot of our rival schools like Texas Tech and Baylor know it (and they normally aren't so gracious).

Posted on 2/10 5:32 PM | IP: Logged

FrazzledFrog

Post #59
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got a great comfort factor with this ratings system as well. I feel very comfortable in stating that it isn't worth the time it took to do the algorithms, that it has no actual statistical basis, and that the data used for input is BIASED. Therefore it is totally without merit. Pat yourself on the back if you must but don't try to give yourself and your "formula" any legitimacy. Anyone can produce meaningless stats, Lee, it doesn't take any talent to do that. What does take talent is getting it right.
This post was edited on 2/10 5:43 PM by FrazzledFrog

Posted on 2/10 5:40 PM | IP: Logged

PurplePutt

Post #362
Granbury, Texas
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee--just trying to understand? Ball State, ranked above TCU, has 2 three star recruits. One of those is the Rivals #14 APB. The other is NR. Of TCU's 12 three and 4 star guys, 2 are in the 30s, 4 are in the 40s, 2 are in the 50s, and 1 is in the 70s (1st team Texas 4A all state 2 years and panhandle MVP as OL which makes his rating suspect) Are you saying that the one (impact) guy from Ball State generates enough points to surpase TCUs 9 position rated players in your formula. Where do you have to be rated to be considered an impact player? If this guy was the #14 APB in the country, why didn't he have any offers other than MAC schools? I know you are not in the raing business but your formula has to be flawed to allow that to happen. Surely you have to be concerned that the results of your formula don't pass the common sense test. It should be an embarrassmet to Rivals to be so outlandishly wrong. Adjustments are in order. I guess our no impact guys will continue to win games and end up in the top 25 with bottom 50 classes. The crazy thing is that either your ratings and rankings are completely wrong or our coaches are the best in the country at developing talent. Unfortunately, Rivals doesn't give them credit either. You should be ashamed of your product and fix it instead of defending it.

Posted on 2/10 6:09 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #102
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lee at Rivals:
you all feel that TCU is one such, and clearly the editorial staff here agrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't know that Crabtree, Williams and Suchomel were all considered "editorial staff here".

They all agree that the TCU ranking is out of line with reality.

Just go ahead and wrap yourself up in your little formula world and be ignorantly content with your mathematical mythology.

Oh, and I am quite aware that you are not a mathematician. Real mathematicians publish their work and invite their colleagues to critically analyze what they have done. Something tells me that you won't open yourself up to that sort of scrutiny.

Posted on 2/10 6:16 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #16
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, don't try to defend your formula. Instead, you need to fix the problem and use some common sense, which apparently is very hard for you to do.

Posted on 2/10 6:17 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #103
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PurplePutt:
Are you saying that the one (impact) guy from Ball State generates enough points to surpase TCUs 9 position rated players in your formula. Where do you have to be rated to be considered an impact player? If this guy was the #14 APB in the country, why didn't he have any offers other than MAC schools?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logic like Lee's was behind such classic "boneheads" like Minnesota's trade for Herschel Walker.

Impact player that only received offers from MAC schools? What a joke! I'll take our little 2-star non-impact players that end up All-Americans and first day NFL draft picks any day!

Lee, please tell the emperor that he needs to put his clothes back on. Meanwhile, we are all disgusted by what we are seeing.

Posted on 2/10 6:25 PM | IP: Logged

trichobezoar

Post #558
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is ridiculous to make the cut of for positional bonus at 30 (or 25 or whatever it is). Above that there gets nice bonus points, below that nothing. That bonus should be gradated from number one to the end of the positional rankings. Any ranked player should get some kind of bonus. By not giving any sort of bonus to the players below that line, you do not separate teams in the mid to lower portion of the rankings very well. If by chance a team has one player above that line but an otherwise sucky class, they get a distorted overall ranking. This effect is clear from looking at the rankings- the teams rated around us are quite obviosuly in a different league of recruiting. None of their recruits have any offers from top teams, and yet they get a 60 point boost because they get the #11 FB, beating out Northern Iowa (referring to Arl St)? That's counterintuitive. I know a lot of effort has been made at trying to separate out the top 25, but the effect of that system on the middle third of the rankings are not being taken into account, IMO. As you guys get more activity from more schools. I think you are going to have to reevaluate the ranking system, in particular the bonus point system and how it effects all teams, not just the top 25.

Posted on 2/10 6:25 PM | IP: Logged

trichobezoar

Post #559
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lee at Rivals:
Like most statistical populations, recruiting kind of follows a bell curve: there's good, clear differentiation of the schools at the top, and a large part of the population in the middle that's not truly very distinguisable and is endlessly, endlessly debatable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is the problem. There is no reason to ignore the effect of the rules on the teams lower down from the top and throw up your arms. It can and should make sense through and through. Just make a gradation of values from the top of a positional ranking to the bottom- if you guys go through the effort of ranking players, you might as well use all of that data instead of just the top 25 or 30 or whatever you use. We had 8 players ranked in their position- that should count for something so that we can separate from a school with a lucky one or two recruits. C'mon, its not that hard.

Posted on 2/10 6:33 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #17
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing, if your not a mathematician what are you doing creating the formula that is held as the gospel for recruiting. From your profile page it appears the only experience you have with sports is a high school baseball stats guy and working with the mens gymnastics team in college. That is some excellent training you have there, very impressive.

I didn't think it would be possible for rivals to lose anymore credibility but with this BS coming from Lee I'm pretty sure they have.

Posted on 2/10 6:33 PM | IP: Logged

longhorns1969

Post #265
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face it guys, Lee knows nothing about football and I would guess a lot of the other Rivals brass don't either if they agree with the way these rankings are compiled. Results on the field are what count and the results make the people at Rivals look like idiots.However I think this site is important for T.C.U. and recruiting. If they want to look like fools let them.

Posted on 2/10 6:43 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #18
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that this site is important and I'm not going anywhere. I really enjoy the stories on the players but it makes my head hurt to read these responses from Lee. If he only understood how ridiculous he sounds it would help everybody that ever comes in contact with him out.

Posted on 2/10 7:27 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #75
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already e-mailed this thread to a couple of local sportwriters and ESPN.

I may not affect Rivals much with this but eventually Rivals, and people like you Lee, will be exposed for lack of cred. That day will eventually come.

I have to say Rivals has seriously set themselves back in the eyes of the subscribers here with your posts Lee. At least your candid with your thoughts, I will give you that.

Jeremy and Jeremiah must be reading this thread in horror on what Rivals brass has to say.

Posted on 2/10 7:45 PM | IP: Logged

JeremiahGlenn

Orangebloods.com
Post #92
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah Glenn
PurpleMenace.Com Staff Writer

Posted on 2/10 8:11 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #76
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to say thanks to Jeremy and Jeremiah fo all the hard work they do here at this site with their articles and what the HS recuits are telling them. I thank for you that.

My problem is with Rivals brass. Their ranking system and the way the justify it is just mind boggling.

Posted on 2/10 8:19 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1504

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee:

Your formulae are not standards. To be a standard they should show some consistency and some approximity to reality and yours do not.

Hey Lee, you are so far off from reality it is a joke. One more time little man, compare your team rankings to actual poll rankings and see how far off you are from reality.

Lee you are a JOKE!!!!!! Face it Lee, you have no idea what the formulae should be to accomplish your goal and you are guessing. Try to justify your guesses all you want but bottom line it is still a guess and it is no where near reality. You want me to do it for you because cannot seem to grasp that one little concept of comparing your projections to reality. How have you ranked TCU in the past and what has been the reality. How did you rank Boise State to OU the past 3 years, how about TAMU to TCU, or any Big XII team to TCU. Guess waht Lee boy, only UT could claim to have better actual rankings while your STANDARDS consitently rank 11 of the Big XII teams better than TCU.

Hey Lee guess what. I could give you the formulae for the top 5 every year and would be more accurate than you, but you are completely lost after that.

Time to change your Standards Lee, because they ain't standards. Not even close oh Lee buddy boooieeee.

Lee your formulae sucks. Lee you are basically a worthless guessing game at team rankings.
This post was edited on 2/10 8:52 PM by FeistyFrog

Posted on 2/10 8:50 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1505

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole Lee reply is so upsetting it is ridiculous. Rivals should have shut him up instead of let him come here and expose the entire ignorance of his actions.

This is a total JOKE and to have Lee in charge of this situation makes it 100 times worse.

Lee needs to be retired!

Posted on 2/10 8:56 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1506

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post on this:

Hey Lee, give us some indication beyond the Top 10 that your formulae is even close to reality.

Come on Lee, you can do it boy. Just give us your recruiting rankings as compared to actual poll rankings 2 or 3 years later (your option at whichever delay gives you the best results).

You have never given TCU a Top 25 ranking in recruiting, but guess what Lee, only one year in the last 5 has TCU NOT been Top 25 and finished Top 10 once. Hey Lee, how many tweaks to your formulae would it take to get TCU to the Top 10 eh. My guess is the non-mathematician would never get there because Lee boy has to work in justifying his numbers to the readership first rather than to reality.

--------------------

Obla Dee Obla Dah.. Life goes on

Full Edit
Quick Edit
oldscribe Today, 09:42 PM Post #2

Super Killer Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 786
Joined: 29-August 06
Member No.: 4,371
Alma Mater: texas

In short, Lee's bell curve is cracked and rings very, very flat.

Full Edit
Quick Edit
Froggy Style Today, 09:45 PM Post #3

Sammy Baugh Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 5,328
Joined: 8-November 02
Member No.: 85

It's not really the formula that this guy uses that screws TCU. It's the fact that the people who give UT commits their rankings before they even know who all of the players are that is the joke of the system. The formula would be fine (or at least more accurate) if they actually rated all of the players based on something other than who they want to finish high in their rankings, then TCU would be up at the top.

The best example of this is the cornerback that signed with TCU on signing day. Rivals had never heard of the guy (despite him having an offer from USC), so they just give him the worst rating 5.0 and two stars.

Fobbs was offered by Nebraska (not that this determines one's athletic prowess, but it is Rival's supposed method of ranking players). Since ALL of Nebraska's are three and four stars, it is impossible that Fobbs should be anything else, let alone a mid-range two star player. THIS is where the system is a sham. If Fobbs decommits from TCU and commits to Nebraska, he would be bumped to a three if not a four star player. This happens under the radar with most players as they usually don't go through the de-commit process and thus, you don't see the sham take place.

ALL of Okie State's signees are three and four star players as well. It is very easy for them to say "take a look at the per star ranking," but this is where their pre-determining who the top schools are makes it impossible for the per star rankings to have any value to a school like TCU. TCU is one of the top ranked school every year on the field, but isn't treated as one in Rivals money-making scheme of assigning players their stars.

Some say we just have to "play the game" and sign up for a subscription. I think I'd rather just have TCU finish 118, and have everyone know the site is bogus. Trying to boost us from 80th place up to 50th or so when we're obviously a top 25 team is for suckers/aggies.

Full Edit
Quick Edit
Stallion Today, 10:01 PM Post #4

Killer Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 29-December 02
Member No.: 474

I think Rivals is really losing credibility on this issue. People ask me to explain because I often cite Rivals but it simply makes no sense at all. I really use it for player quotes more than anything about offers and visits but that are way off with TCU's ranking especially.

Full Edit
Quick Edit Â« Next Oldest Â· Frog Fan Forum Â· Next Newest Â»

3 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Stallion

Fast Reply

Enable email notification of replies | Enable Smilies | Enable Signature

Forum Home Search Help TCU Forums |-- Frog Fan Forum |-- Frog Fan Forum -- Classics |-- Game Day Forum Frog Talk |-- Frog Talk |-- Internet Tough Guy Forum Texas' Schools' Forums |-- Bear Banter Forum |-- Tech Talk Forum |-- The Whine Cellar Forum Conference Forums |-- Mountain West Conference Forum

Display Mode: Standard Â· Switch to: Linear+ Â· Switch to: Outline

Track this topic Â· Email this topic Â· Print this topic Â· Subscribe to this forum

English Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th February 2007 - 10:01 PM

Invision Power Board v2.1.7 Â© 2007 IPS, Inc.

by **Pony Fan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:26 am

Stallion wrote:there are some really strange results based on Rivals Total Points Ranking MOST ESPECIALLY TCU who has 11 3+ star recruits and yet is surrounded with plenty of teams with 2-3 3+Stars: TCU is ranked AT LEAST 25 places too low in my opinion. Link: The Rankings Formula Guy
Posted on 2/10 2:03 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #891
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not sure. That's for a recruiting expert to evaluate. Knowing what factors go into the current formula (and they are the same factors that went into past formulas)...no, I'm not convinced TCU got robbed. But on the other hand it's eminently debatable. It's a matter of equivalency: what is the worth of one impact player? What is the worth when you're near the top of the rankings and one team has a dozen and another team 11? What is the worth when you're down in the range TCU is at this year, where one team has one and another has none?

The teams around you are essentially tied with you. I appreciate that's not a satisfactory response when you're the one listed lower on the rankings, but that would be the case no matter what the formula. It's a system that evaluates discrete data that is used to describe indiscrete phenomena. If Joe Smith is the 11th rated cornerback and John Williams is the 12th-rated, is the difference between them exactly the same as the difference between Ken Jones (33rd) and Ron Swoboda (34th)? If Lance LaRue is a 5-star and Brook Bentley is a 4-star, does that really make Lance exactly 25% better than Brook? Is EVERY 4-star recruit 33% better than EVERY 3-star recruit? Intuition tells us no. Yet these are the tools we have at our disposal.

By the historical standards we've worked with, TCU didn't sign anyone of impact, and the teams around you did. BYU signed three "impact players" (I'm not making a recruiting evaluation judgement...just in terms of the math of the formula) and TCU none; I'm quite satisfied that on that count. The teams around you each signed one impact player, and thus pushed themselves up into your region.

That's how our formula worked. Had we used a different formula, like we did in the past, it would have come out differently. No more or less "right"...just differently. The formula we used in the past (and by "past" I mean dating all the way back to the previous incarnation of Rivals.com) would often get teams way out of whack (as determined by the experience and instincts of the recruiting experts). Judging from the feedback I've gotten the last couple of years, the current formula does a much better job of it.

It's worth noting that if TCU had signed one single player that met the requirements of the formula (say if Jeremy Kerley had ranked a little higher on the ATH position rankings), then you would have been at 262: your one impact sign would have gotten you much higher up than, say, Arkansas State's one impact sign did. It would have put you up in the mid-60's, along with the Boise States and the Vanderbilts and nipping at the heels of San Diego State and Washington State and the like, but still well short of BYU.

No matter what formula is used, there will always be debate, particularly lower down in the rankings. I'm not sure I can really help that. I wish I had a more definitive answer for you.

I do get amused sometimes at charges of favoring this conference or that in the formula. That I can definitively say is untrue: every single team is evaluated exactly the same way, there are no factors for conference or market or what have you.

Lee

Posted on 2/10 2:45 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #15
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know if this is supposed to be serious or not but if it is then this is the biggest load of crap I have ever read in my entire life.

F you rivals!!

Posted on 2/10 3:01 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #73
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That is it. What more proof do we need? Lee pretty much summed up Rivals arrogance. They are so full of crap. Dumb post by Lee if you ask me. Anybody with brain should feel the rage to cancel their membership by his arrogant post. Yes, at Rivals they do think we are stupid. Maybe Lee should contact Randy Rogers, a paid recruit scouting analysist by D1 coaches for an expert opinion.

Lee's post is the biggest pile of crap I ever seen posted by the Rivals Brass. That is the final straw for me. I am done. My subscritption will be cancelled. Mine is month to month so I can cancel at any time. I will hang around until I can no longer log on here but no more money from me. I was one of the original subscribers of menace but cancelled when I wasn't getting much out the board. I rejoined and have seen how far the board has come but I refuse to give my money to Rivals as long as the same Rival's clowns are in charge. Come on guys, these clowns are not doing TCU any good. If Lee's post wasn't a brick to the head, what will take to wake some of guys up? I am not for seeing a site shut down, but I now feel we all you should walk away in mass while giving Rivals the"Heisman".
This post was edited on 2/10 3:21 PM by Babyface 1

Posted on 2/10 3:17 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #99
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last straw for me too.

Rivals "ranking system" is a joke.

Posted on 2/10 3:34 PM | IP: Logged

Long T... (TCU)

Post #87
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee,

Hmmm, you are trying to say that statistics make all this right, except if you know the formula then players can be weighted to assist particular schools. I do think Rivals panders to the large state schools and ND. There is no way Rivals can make their own determination on all these players. That means you rank players and determine "impact" by certain schools and who they are recruiting. And as our coach said in his press conference, BCS schools deny they offered or rescind the offer once a recruit commits to TCU. Therefore, many of our recruits are not on the large school list any longer. When are these "impact" players designated? After their Jr year? What criteria is used to establish them as "impact". According to our coaches and HS coaches of our recruits, we have several impact players that many wanted. Therefore, we have not only one "impact" player but several. Greg McCoy, Cuban, Kerley, Thompson, Cavness, Griffin, are all impact type players.

You guys set up the game for the "big" schools like UT, USC, OU, Michigan, Fla., etc. The statistics are set up and once you know the formula Rivals can rank players based on the school that is recruiting them to ensure these schools look the best. Again, it's manipulation at best.

I don't expect our class to be ranked in the Top 10. I wouldn't take any other players for our guys because they have the Frog Factor. Yet, for us to be in the 80s or lower than the 40s is ludicrous.

Posted on 2/10 3:59 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #100
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCU's success against Big 12, Pac-10, Big 10 and SEC opponents is proof enough that the Rivals folks really have no clue.

I believe that the 2006 seniors were 7-1 vs. the Big12/Pac10/SEC/Big10 teams they played.

Posted on 2/10 4:08 PM | IP: Logged

ricoh

Post #430
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do yourself a favor. (yes, you) Only look at Aver. Stars. TCU is ranked 56. IMO about where we should be. That is a Rivals site ranking.

After you (yes, you) have done this STOP looking at the rankings.

Read the articles, post intelligent thoughts, (or not so intelligent), have fun.

We have less than 7 months til Bu and Texas. more important crap to be worried about!

Posted on 2/10 4:12 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #892
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I realize the term "impact player" is loaded...I don't mean it that way. I'm not a recruiting analyst. Just my own short-hand term to mean "player that meets the criteria for accruing such-and-such a benefit in the formula."

You're right, there is certainly plenty of opportunity for bias in the system in that at some point a recruiting editor has to decide that *this* athlete has this many stars and that *this* athlete is the 14th-best offensive guard and that *this* athlete is going to be #14 on our Juco list...and on and on.

I can't really answer that: everyone has their own biases, I suppose. I know Bobby Burton historically has been *called* a Texas homer: he's never asked me to create an advantage for them, I've never heard him say anything that would lead me to believe he is, but hey, people are going to come to their own conclusions. Likewise I've heard Bill Kurelic is an Ohio State homer and Jeremy Crabtree is an Oklahomer and I've learned this year that supposedly our entire staff is weighted towards Alabama...and that other experts not part of Rivals have their own slants and on and on.

I can't really concern myself with that because I can't control it. I can only accept that the rankings and ratings are in and of themselves objective and go from there.

The funny thing is...no one at Rivals really knows the formula but me, lol. I've tried to explain it and, well, it's a lot to explain. But that doesn't change the basic understanding that if a recruit is ranked higher that's clearly got to be a benefit to the school that signs him. So, yes, there is always a chance for homerism and rankings manipulation, no matter what formula is used. As far as I know, there isn't that sort of thing going on here, but if it were I'm not really the guy that would catch it.
Posted on 2/10 4:18 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1503

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey Lee:

This is the most ridiculous statement yet:

"By the historical standards we've worked with, TCU didn't sign anyone of impact, and the teams around you did. BYU signed three "impact players" (I'm not making a recruiting evaluation judgement...just in terms of the math of the formula) and TCU none; I'm quite satisfied that on that count. The teams around you each signed one impact player, and thus pushed themselves up into your region."

WTF is that Lee, historical standards have shown Rivals continually underates TCU's classes by a wide margin. Historical standards have shown that you formulas are a crock. Historical standards have shown you are clueless when it comes to rating outside the top few players and teams.

Why don't don't you do a little historical analysis first before quoting anything related to "historical standards". Try this Lee buddy:

Compare the historical rating of TCU's recruiting classes the last 5 years to the actual on field performance of those teams and their final ratings in the polls. Should be an easy task for such a brilliant mathematician such as you.

Don't give me any of that Historical Standards BS, because they do not exist.

Historical Standards, what a frickin' joke!

Posted on 2/10 4:23 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #101
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The scariest statement Lee has made - that he is the only one at Rivals that understands the formula...

Yet, the formula supposedly reflects the weighting of team evaluations desired by the Rivals recruiting "experts".

Yet, the Rivals recruiting "experts" themselves do not understand the formula.

So, the only person at Rivals who understands the formula proclaims himself NOT to be a recruiting "expert", and the Rivals "experts" claim not understand the formula (it is a technical matter).

Bobby!!! What kind of show are you running there???? A freak show, if you ask me.

But don't ask me, I am just a paying customer.
This post was edited on 2/10 4:48 PM by sugarlakes

Posted on 2/10 4:46 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #74
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee, D1 coaches in Texas pay Randy Rogers for his couting info on HS players. Rogers ranks TCU's class in the 30's. So since you aren't a scout and Rivals isn't paid by coaches, wouldn't it make sense that Randy Rogers rankings are actaully more relevant than Rivals? I think so and so do many D1 coaches.

Idiots like you and Jerry Palm have no business ranking players or teams since you all lack the professional expertise. Old Jerry Palm played in the band at Purdue thus that is where his expertise comes from. In other industries ya'll would be considered frauds or conmen.

Posted on 2/10 4:47 PM | IP: Logged

Pitiful

Post #104
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This dumb horses rear doesn't have any idea if a player is an impact player? Half of the top tier recruit thugs, like the basketball player
at Louisville that has been suspended three times this year! Can't
believe these people,{Rivals}has an organization that has any credence.
Is it any wonder our coach,{Patterson} pays absolutely no attention
to ratings and stars, calls all of them paper tigers!

Posted on 2/10 5:02 PM | IP: Logged

GuardianFrog

Post #1514
Charlotte, NC
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What do historical standards tell you about Ball St. and Arkansas St? Do you really think there is any comparison between those programs and ours? No rating worth a hill of beans would put the class we just signed with those programs it is a joke, and a bad one at that.

Here is a list of our players and who rivals has said has offered them, you tell me how Ball St. stacks up.

Name Offers
Jamiron Cavness Indiana, Iowa St., Central Florida, UTEP, Houston
Chez Thomas
Jeff Olson Purdue, Texas Tech, Iowa St., Oregon St., Mississippi St. Tulsa, UTEP, SMU,
Kris Gardner
Johnny Fobbs Nebraska, SMU
Jeremy Kerley ATM, TT, OU, Nebraska, AZ, COLO, BU, Mizzou,
TeeJay Johnson AZ St., Arkansas, GT, Indiana, Iowa St., KSU, TT, Ok St., Wis, Purdue
Spencer Thompson Houston, UTEP
Kelly Griffin Nebraska, Oklahoma St., Missouri
Jonathan Jones Arkansas, Nebraska, Duke, GT, Kansas, NW, BU, TT, ATM, Mizzou, OK St., Wash St.
Braylon Broughton Iowa, Arizona, Iowa St., Kansas, Oklahoma St.
Luke Shivers Utah, ULALA, ULM
Jason Fitch Missouri
Logan Brock Kansas, Illinois, Iowa St., Utep
Greg McCoy Iowa, Arizona, Arkansas, Baylor, SMU, UNT
Tank Carder
Joseph Banyard
Sir Demarco Bledsoe Oklahoma St.
Chris Goodson Offers unknown
Jercell Fort Offers Unknown
John Fonua OFFers unknown - Honorable mention JUCO All American

We went up against Big 12 and Big 10 teams for our players and won a lot of those battles and will continue beat those teams in our recruiting battles as well as on the field. I would say our class is much better than a team like Kansas, and the offers bear that out. To rank our class with lower rung MAC teams isn't right and even Crabtree knows that.

And the impact players thing is a joke as well, you think OU of Texas Tech didn't think we have any "impact players" when we beat them? Our non-impact players get drafted by NFL teams every year.

Posted on 2/10 5:07 PM | IP: Logged

Lee at Rivals

BearTerritory.net
Post #893
Seattle via Eugene via San Francisco via New York

MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They're not mathematicians. Nor am I, really, but I've got a greater comfort level.

The past formulae we used (both here at this current Rivals.com and at the former Rivals.com) did not yield results consistent with what the recruiting experts would intuitively know to be the case. That's because they're not mathematicians, and there's a whole lot more to a recruiting class than adding up the stars and calling it a day.

We gave it our best shot with "additive" formulae like that: so-and-so much for this recruit...such-and-such a bonus for a recruit that was ranked thus-and-such. And every year, it seemed, there were a handful of teams that were out of whack. Not in terms of "this team should be fourth and not fifth" but "this team shouldn't even be in this neighborhood, it's twenty places out of where it should be." That's based on the experience and intuition of the recruiting experts.

So we'd make adjustments to the formula, to try to close whatever loophole teams were using to move that far up (or down). It's a delicate balancing act, trying to avoid unintended consequences of an adjustment. Eventually the adjustments get so subtle that they're useless. And worse: it's managing the bottom line. If you're going to have a recruiting expert's subjective rating of team classes, that's one thing...but we wanted an objective ranking that did as good a job as possible of yielding results that a recruiting expert could reasonably agree with.

So a few years ago, I tried out this new formula, rethought the way we had the factors interact with each other. When we ran the data for that year through the new formula, the results were much better, no one seemed to be really out of whack. That solution I found is something that the recruiting experts probably weren't going to come up with themselves...but the important thing is that the results are defensible, and they have been. That they don't understand the formula has to do with their having something much better to do with their time: to report on recruiting and on recruiting evaluation. I don't do that...I leave it to them. I lean on their wisdom to determine the overall effectiveness of the rankings formula, just like they lean on me to find ways to reliably evaluate their input and yield results that might have come from their direct evaluation.

To me, the most important thing isn't who ends up on top, it's that we get reasonable results with no bottom-line-management.

There are going to be exceptions, of course. Clearly you all feel that TCU is one such, and clearly the editorial staff here agrees. I can't dispute that with you, because I'm NOT a recruiting expert. But I can illuminate, as I've tried to here, how the formula arrives at it. Like most statistical populations, recruiting kind of follows a bell curve: there's good, clear differentiation of the schools at the top, and a large part of the population in the middle that's not truly very distinguisable and is endlessly, endlessly debatable.

Posted on 2/10 5:07 PM | IP: Logged

GuardianFrog

Post #1515
Charlotte, NC
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fact remains that our class is rated way too low, we all know it, the naitonal writers at rivals and our site know it, and even the fans of a lot of our rival schools like Texas Tech and Baylor know it (and they normally aren't so gracious).

Posted on 2/10 5:32 PM | IP: Logged

FrazzledFrog

Post #59
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've got a great comfort factor with this ratings system as well. I feel very comfortable in stating that it isn't worth the time it took to do the algorithms, that it has no actual statistical basis, and that the data used for input is BIASED. Therefore it is totally without merit. Pat yourself on the back if you must but don't try to give yourself and your "formula" any legitimacy. Anyone can produce meaningless stats, Lee, it doesn't take any talent to do that. What does take talent is getting it right.
This post was edited on 2/10 5:43 PM by FrazzledFrog

Posted on 2/10 5:40 PM | IP: Logged

PurplePutt

Post #362
Granbury, Texas
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee--just trying to understand? Ball State, ranked above TCU, has 2 three star recruits. One of those is the Rivals #14 APB. The other is NR. Of TCU's 12 three and 4 star guys, 2 are in the 30s, 4 are in the 40s, 2 are in the 50s, and 1 is in the 70s (1st team Texas 4A all state 2 years and panhandle MVP as OL which makes his rating suspect) Are you saying that the one (impact) guy from Ball State generates enough points to surpase TCUs 9 position rated players in your formula. Where do you have to be rated to be considered an impact player? If this guy was the #14 APB in the country, why didn't he have any offers other than MAC schools? I know you are not in the raing business but your formula has to be flawed to allow that to happen. Surely you have to be concerned that the results of your formula don't pass the common sense test. It should be an embarrassmet to Rivals to be so outlandishly wrong. Adjustments are in order. I guess our no impact guys will continue to win games and end up in the top 25 with bottom 50 classes. The crazy thing is that either your ratings and rankings are completely wrong or our coaches are the best in the country at developing talent. Unfortunately, Rivals doesn't give them credit either. You should be ashamed of your product and fix it instead of defending it.

Posted on 2/10 6:09 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #102
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lee at Rivals:
you all feel that TCU is one such, and clearly the editorial staff here agrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Didn't know that Crabtree, Williams and Suchomel were all considered "editorial staff here".

They all agree that the TCU ranking is out of line with reality.

Just go ahead and wrap yourself up in your little formula world and be ignorantly content with your mathematical mythology.

Oh, and I am quite aware that you are not a mathematician. Real mathematicians publish their work and invite their colleagues to critically analyze what they have done. Something tells me that you won't open yourself up to that sort of scrutiny.

Posted on 2/10 6:16 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #16
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree, don't try to defend your formula. Instead, you need to fix the problem and use some common sense, which apparently is very hard for you to do.

Posted on 2/10 6:17 PM | IP: Logged

sugarlakes

Post #103
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by PurplePutt:
Are you saying that the one (impact) guy from Ball State generates enough points to surpase TCUs 9 position rated players in your formula. Where do you have to be rated to be considered an impact player? If this guy was the #14 APB in the country, why didn't he have any offers other than MAC schools?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Logic like Lee's was behind such classic "boneheads" like Minnesota's trade for Herschel Walker.

Impact player that only received offers from MAC schools? What a joke! I'll take our little 2-star non-impact players that end up All-Americans and first day NFL draft picks any day!

Lee, please tell the emperor that he needs to put his clothes back on. Meanwhile, we are all disgusted by what we are seeing.

Posted on 2/10 6:25 PM | IP: Logged

trichobezoar

Post #558
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First, it is ridiculous to make the cut of for positional bonus at 30 (or 25 or whatever it is). Above that there gets nice bonus points, below that nothing. That bonus should be gradated from number one to the end of the positional rankings. Any ranked player should get some kind of bonus. By not giving any sort of bonus to the players below that line, you do not separate teams in the mid to lower portion of the rankings very well. If by chance a team has one player above that line but an otherwise sucky class, they get a distorted overall ranking. This effect is clear from looking at the rankings- the teams rated around us are quite obviosuly in a different league of recruiting. None of their recruits have any offers from top teams, and yet they get a 60 point boost because they get the #11 FB, beating out Northern Iowa (referring to Arl St)? That's counterintuitive. I know a lot of effort has been made at trying to separate out the top 25, but the effect of that system on the middle third of the rankings are not being taken into account, IMO. As you guys get more activity from more schools. I think you are going to have to reevaluate the ranking system, in particular the bonus point system and how it effects all teams, not just the top 25.

Posted on 2/10 6:25 PM | IP: Logged

trichobezoar

Post #559
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Lee at Rivals:
Like most statistical populations, recruiting kind of follows a bell curve: there's good, clear differentiation of the schools at the top, and a large part of the population in the middle that's not truly very distinguisable and is endlessly, endlessly debatable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And this is the problem. There is no reason to ignore the effect of the rules on the teams lower down from the top and throw up your arms. It can and should make sense through and through. Just make a gradation of values from the top of a positional ranking to the bottom- if you guys go through the effort of ranking players, you might as well use all of that data instead of just the top 25 or 30 or whatever you use. We had 8 players ranked in their position- that should count for something so that we can separate from a school with a lucky one or two recruits. C'mon, its not that hard.

Posted on 2/10 6:33 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #17
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One more thing, if your not a mathematician what are you doing creating the formula that is held as the gospel for recruiting. From your profile page it appears the only experience you have with sports is a high school baseball stats guy and working with the mens gymnastics team in college. That is some excellent training you have there, very impressive.

I didn't think it would be possible for rivals to lose anymore credibility but with this BS coming from Lee I'm pretty sure they have.

Posted on 2/10 6:33 PM | IP: Logged

longhorns1969

Post #265
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Face it guys, Lee knows nothing about football and I would guess a lot of the other Rivals brass don't either if they agree with the way these rankings are compiled. Results on the field are what count and the results make the people at Rivals look like idiots.However I think this site is important for T.C.U. and recruiting. If they want to look like fools let them.

Posted on 2/10 6:43 PM | IP: Logged

accounting frog

Post #18
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree that this site is important and I'm not going anywhere. I really enjoy the stories on the players but it makes my head hurt to read these responses from Lee. If he only understood how ridiculous he sounds it would help everybody that ever comes in contact with him out.

Posted on 2/10 7:27 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #75
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have already e-mailed this thread to a couple of local sportwriters and ESPN.

I may not affect Rivals much with this but eventually Rivals, and people like you Lee, will be exposed for lack of cred. That day will eventually come.

I have to say Rivals has seriously set themselves back in the eyes of the subscribers here with your posts Lee. At least your candid with your thoughts, I will give you that.

Jeremy and Jeremiah must be reading this thread in horror on what Rivals brass has to say.

Posted on 2/10 7:45 PM | IP: Logged

JeremiahGlenn

Orangebloods.com
Post #92
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremiah Glenn
PurpleMenace.Com Staff Writer

Posted on 2/10 8:11 PM | IP: Logged

Babyface 1

Post #76
MyFanPage
Add Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I just want to say thanks to Jeremy and Jeremiah fo all the hard work they do here at this site with their articles and what the HS recuits are telling them. I thank for you that.

My problem is with Rivals brass. Their ranking system and the way the justify it is just mind boggling.

Posted on 2/10 8:19 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1504

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lee:

Your formulae are not standards. To be a standard they should show some consistency and some approximity to reality and yours do not.

Hey Lee, you are so far off from reality it is a joke. One more time little man, compare your team rankings to actual poll rankings and see how far off you are from reality.

Lee you are a JOKE!!!!!! Face it Lee, you have no idea what the formulae should be to accomplish your goal and you are guessing. Try to justify your guesses all you want but bottom line it is still a guess and it is no where near reality. You want me to do it for you because cannot seem to grasp that one little concept of comparing your projections to reality. How have you ranked TCU in the past and what has been the reality. How did you rank Boise State to OU the past 3 years, how about TAMU to TCU, or any Big XII team to TCU. Guess waht Lee boy, only UT could claim to have better actual rankings while your STANDARDS consitently rank 11 of the Big XII teams better than TCU.

Hey Lee guess what. I could give you the formulae for the top 5 every year and would be more accurate than you, but you are completely lost after that.

Time to change your Standards Lee, because they ain't standards. Not even close oh Lee buddy boooieeee.

Lee your formulae sucks. Lee you are basically a worthless guessing game at team rankings.
This post was edited on 2/10 8:52 PM by FeistyFrog

Posted on 2/10 8:50 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1505

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole Lee reply is so upsetting it is ridiculous. Rivals should have shut him up instead of let him come here and expose the entire ignorance of his actions.

This is a total JOKE and to have Lee in charge of this situation makes it 100 times worse.

Lee needs to be retired!

Posted on 2/10 8:56 PM | IP: Logged

FeistyFrog

Post #1506

MyFanPage
Find Buddy Re: An Interesting visitor Edit | Reply

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last post on this:

Hey Lee, give us some indication beyond the Top 10 that your formulae is even close to reality.

Come on Lee, you can do it boy. Just give us your recruiting rankings as compared to actual poll rankings 2 or 3 years later (your option at whichever delay gives you the best results).

You have never given TCU a Top 25 ranking in recruiting, but guess what Lee, only one year in the last 5 has TCU NOT been Top 25 and finished Top 10 once. Hey Lee, how many tweaks to your formulae would it take to get TCU to the Top 10 eh. My guess is the non-mathematician would never get there because Lee boy has to work in justifying his numbers to the readership first rather than to reality.

--------------------

Obla Dee Obla Dah.. Life goes on

Full Edit
Quick Edit
oldscribe Today, 09:42 PM Post #2

Super Killer Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 786
Joined: 29-August 06
Member No.: 4,371
Alma Mater: texas

In short, Lee's bell curve is cracked and rings very, very flat.

Full Edit
Quick Edit
Froggy Style Today, 09:45 PM Post #3

Sammy Baugh Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 5,328
Joined: 8-November 02
Member No.: 85

It's not really the formula that this guy uses that screws TCU. It's the fact that the people who give UT commits their rankings before they even know who all of the players are that is the joke of the system. The formula would be fine (or at least more accurate) if they actually rated all of the players based on something other than who they want to finish high in their rankings, then TCU would be up at the top.

The best example of this is the cornerback that signed with TCU on signing day. Rivals had never heard of the guy (despite him having an offer from USC), so they just give him the worst rating 5.0 and two stars.

Fobbs was offered by Nebraska (not that this determines one's athletic prowess, but it is Rival's supposed method of ranking players). Since ALL of Nebraska's are three and four stars, it is impossible that Fobbs should be anything else, let alone a mid-range two star player. THIS is where the system is a sham. If Fobbs decommits from TCU and commits to Nebraska, he would be bumped to a three if not a four star player. This happens under the radar with most players as they usually don't go through the de-commit process and thus, you don't see the sham take place.

ALL of Okie State's signees are three and four star players as well. It is very easy for them to say "take a look at the per star ranking," but this is where their pre-determining who the top schools are makes it impossible for the per star rankings to have any value to a school like TCU. TCU is one of the top ranked school every year on the field, but isn't treated as one in Rivals money-making scheme of assigning players their stars.

Some say we just have to "play the game" and sign up for a subscription. I think I'd rather just have TCU finish 118, and have everyone know the site is bogus. Trying to boost us from 80th place up to 50th or so when we're obviously a top 25 team is for suckers/aggies.

Full Edit
Quick Edit
Stallion Today, 10:01 PM Post #4

Killer Frog

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 29-December 02
Member No.: 474

I think Rivals is really losing credibility on this issue. People ask me to explain because I often cite Rivals but it simply makes no sense at all. I really use it for player quotes more than anything about offers and visits but that are way off with TCU's ranking especially.

Full Edit
Quick Edit Â« Next Oldest Â· Frog Fan Forum Â· Next Newest Â»

3 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
1 Members: Stallion

Fast Reply

Enable email notification of replies | Enable Smilies | Enable Signature

Forum Home Search Help TCU Forums |-- Frog Fan Forum |-- Frog Fan Forum -- Classics |-- Game Day Forum Frog Talk |-- Frog Talk |-- Internet Tough Guy Forum Texas' Schools' Forums |-- Bear Banter Forum |-- Tech Talk Forum |-- The Whine Cellar Forum Conference Forums |-- Mountain West Conference Forum

Display Mode: Standard Â· Switch to: Linear+ Â· Switch to: Outline

Track this topic Â· Email this topic Â· Print this topic Â· Subscribe to this forum

English Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 10th February 2007 - 10:01 PM

Invision Power Board v2.1.7 Â© 2007 IPS, Inc.

As usual, in YOUR opinion on subjective ratings that have little basis. You are admitting that Rivals is worthless when it comes to rating players.

by **GoRedGoBlue** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:04 pm

This qualifies as the longest post in Ponyfans history

by **Pony Fan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:52 pm

No question about that, but I just added to stallion's rambling.

by **Stallion** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:58 pm

Hell no its not worthless-recruiting services have correctly predicted the ineptitude of SMU Football for 16 years, Its the method they use to award bonus points which is at issue. The average points rankings are not affected. Once again recruiting services have done much better than 80% of SMU fans in predicting the future-and that means Cheerleaders like YOU Pony Fan.

by **mathman** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:18 pm

Stallion wrote:Hell no its not worthless-recruiting services have correctly predicted the ineptitude of SMU Football for 16 years, Its the method they use to award bonus points which is at issue. The average points rankings are not affected. Once again recruiting services have done much better than 80% of SMU fans in predicting the future-and that means Cheerleaders like YOU Pony Fan.

Stallion, am I understanding that this guy is saying that no TCU recruits were impact players including the 4 star they signed and some of the other teams' 3 star players were? I may not understand the star system if that is the case. I thought a 4 star recruit would naturally be better than any 3 star recruit.

by **Stallion** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:22 pm

that's what you'd think. It would be mathmatically impossible for a team with 11 3 stars and 1 4 star to finish lower than -was it Ball St. or some team -with 2 3 stars. Mathematically impossible.

by **mathman** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 1:28 pm

Stallion wrote:that's what you'd think. It would be mathmatically impossible for a team with 11 3 stars and 1 4 star to finish lower than -was it Ball St. or some team -with 2 3 stars. Mathematically impossible.

Thanks, that is what I thought. TCU is getting the shaft on this. I know a lot of people on here hate them but they are getting the job done with their recruiting and hopefully we can start doing some of the same.

by **gostangs** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:04 pm

I thought this was an SMU fan board. If TCU is getting the shaft - thats a good thing, no? Who cares about Rivals recruiting class rankings anyway? Only people who need a hobby or a life, or both.

by **mathman** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:23 pm

gostangs wrote:I thought this was an SMU fan board. If TCU is getting the shaft - thats a good thing, no? Who cares about Rivals recruiting class rankings anyway? Only people who need a hobby or a life, or both.

If you don't like the thread, go to a different one.

by **Stallion** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:38 pm

arguably this same issue has deflated SMU to No. 98 in Total Points. Look at all those MAC schools, Arkansas St. etc with 2 3 stars who are 20 places ahead of SMU. UTEP with 7 stars also seems negatively affected. They have set up a system that is really mathematically indefensible due to some kind of bonus calculation. But if you look at the Ball St. and Arkansas St. kids who must of been the basis of those bonus points it makes even less sense. I really generally agree with their ratings of Texas high school players which generally is supported by offers and/or interest. I think its easier to rate a recruiting service in a Big state like Texas where so many of the same schools are going after the same players. Not sure if that system breaks down in Mississippi, New Mexico, or Utah which generally are not recruited as hard by as many teams. I've always been leary of their ratings of JUCO players but that's a special expertise that I don't follow closely enough to have a definite opinion on. I'm sure there is flucuation around the country too. There is no reason that these recruiting rules can't be made more transparent and logical and I think Rivals has done a lot of damage to its own reputation with these inconsistencies. I personally believe SMU's ranking should be about 8-10 places higher in the No. 90 range and I believe it would be if you took out some of these bonus calculations that somehow gave Florida International, Ball St., Arkansas St., Ohio, New Mexico St., Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan et al unjustified points.

by **Pony Fan** » Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:28 pm

Stallion wrote:Hell no its not worthless-recruiting services have correctly predicted the ineptitude of SMU Football for 16 years, Its the method they use to award bonus points which is at issue. The average points rankings are not affected. Once again recruiting services have done much better than 80% of SMU fans in predicting the future-and that means Cheerleaders like YOU Pony Fan.

Let's be very clear about one thing. I am NO cheerleader, all I am doing is saying that Rivals is inaccurate and you think Rivals is the end all. Sorry, no dice.

by **OC Mustang** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:18 am

In a previous life, part of my job was to analyze credit scoring for consumers, particularly, how to read the scores vs. items on credit reports such that the company I worked for could build a better credit scoring model (i.e. weight the appropriate attributes) and thereby improve its lending model. I think the experience is helpful here.

I can't speak for the formula itself because it appears to be a black box, and an arcane one at that. It appears that this Lee fellow is calling TCU a statistical outlier, and by virtue of it being such, doesn't merit a higher ranking. I actually think it isn't so much an outlier as a blunder. Specifically, I think the blunder is either in the "starring" of their metadata about the recruit (i.e. the stars are inconsistent with the ranking of the kid in their own position vis-a-vis other kids). Either somebody fat-fingered information about the kid, or the layered models conflict with one another in how they assess the same/similar attribute/s.

It could come from poor data quality. It could come from bias. It could come from the seemingly irregular nature of coaches to be consistent with their own assessments of players, much less with Rivals scoring attributes.
That would indeed create outliers, but the blunders would occur when the models are layered, thus accentuating the original inconsistency.

My money is not that his model is flawed. Models are easy enough to check. My money is that the star system is measuring something that is prone to bias, fat-fingering, and subjectivity, and any statistical aberration is exposed in the model that ranks classes among the universities.

Lee pretty much admits this when he says that they are modeling discrete data on indiscrete attributes. He just says it in a way that rationalizes the results, rather than digs deeper into their star system and attempts to tweak it.

I understand why he would be loathe to un-wrap and re-wrap that box. He has no statistical stake in the ground to evaluate it since they have not been using the model "historically" and have no baseline. Credit scoring had similar drawbacks at its outset. As time has progressed, Fair Isaacs and others have paid attention and made the hard calls to improve their black box. I would say that Rivals might do the same, but there is only consumer impetus behind it, and that isn't enough. Wall Street firms aren't trying to use Rivals rankings to buttress its valuation of securities being sold. They are using credit scoring to do that. Rivals subscribers aren't financially motivated to care enough. If Lee & Co. don't keep refining their system, they will lose relevance to their market.

But then again, they never had relevance in my book. At least not enough to discriminate past the obvious. When a person has never heard of a recruit, it is useful to star them vis-a-vis their contemporaries and competition. Past that, I don't see the point.

Man, this was a waste of 20 minutes.

by **BrianTinBigD** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:36 am

So what is needed is an independent service that takes a look at the rankings of Rivals and Scout and then evaluates offers from other programs to come up with a much more accurate ranking. I would discount Scouts rankings since they really only do a good job on the obvious choices. The fact of the matter is that players from the Big 3 states(Texas, Florida, California) sometimes get the shaft since the talent pool is so deep. Bailey was the 6th best player in Oklahoma but only a 3 star. Yet look at the guys that were recruited below him. All but 3 guys in the Top 30 signed scholarships and only 7 guys went to non BCS schools including Bailey.

I would think that offers are the best evaluation criteria. So take the Rivals RR score and then total up competing D-1 offers. BCS school offers are worth 1.5 and non BCS schools are only worth 1. Nothing is perfect but it gives you a better idea of where a class ranks.

by **GuardianFrog** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:39 am

If you ask me ( I know no one did ) TCU, SMU, and Baylor's class are all very underrated by rivals this year. I don't think they give enough credit or "points" to quality Texas kids like Derrius Bell or Jonathan Jones. All three schools definitely recruited better than programs like Arkansas St, Ball St. and some of those other jokers that were put ahead of both of our schools.

Rivals Total Points Rankings Losing Credibility

Rivals Total Points Rankings Losing Credibility

Re: Rivals Total Points Rankings Losing Credibility

Who is online