Rivals Ratings

[panhandle_pony]

I'm sure someone can give me the "Reader's Digest" version of how recruiting ratings are determined by Rivals. For example, Rice has 190 points to our 179 points (both have 21 potential commitments), yet we have more three and four star recruits. What ingredient to the Rivals system gives Rice more points. Thanks in advance for the "adult supervision"

[Stallion]

Its my biggest annual complaint with Rivals-they have mystical, magical points they apply to certain players without any logical rhyme or reason. They get criticized for it every year and I've never been able to make any sense of it. TCU fans have been bitchin' about it for years. If anybody ever figures it out I'd love to hear an explanation.

[mrydel]

Maybe it is like golf scoring. Lower points are better. 5 star=0, 4 star=1, 3 star=2, etc. or something of that nature.

If so we owe many apologies for debasing our past classes that have actually been very highly rated.

[panhandle_pony]

Thanks Stallion: Sounds like someone at Rivals is a huge Beatles fan - The Magical Mystery Tour.

[Stallion]

Now they do award bonus points for a player who is ranked as one of their top players in the nation, position rankings and top players in the various states but that makes some mathematical sense.

[panhandle_pony]

Stallion, I'm sure that the "bonus points" for top rated in state and nation make sense. But in the case of my example of Rice vs. SMU, neither Rice nor SMU would have the top rated (definition please) recruits. So, there must be some other barometer to apply in the Rice/SMU analysis....yeh that's it - barometer. Houston has a better barometric environment than Dallas, Voila !!

[Stallion]

Yeah I know-that's why it wasn't part of my original explanation. I noticed the Rice bump too. I've heard the Rivals' guy explain it-the bonus points are essentially discretionary based on things like filling recruiting needs and signing players whose reutation is rising. I wonder if they are getting bonus points for their transfers McGuffiie(Michigan) and Fanuzzi(Alabama) but traditionally Rivals doesn't include transfers in their points system-if they are going to do that why not just re-rate the transfer and throw them into the mix with the rest of the recruits. In my mind I just throw out the discretionary points and just analyse based on the Stars and Player Rankings. The Team Rankings should definitely be viewed critically because a school signing 30 players will usually beat a team with 16 recruits. When a class is extra big or extra small you should definitely consider Average Per Recruit to get a better picture. I wish Rivals would just score based on the secondary rankings (ie 6.1-4.9) because there often is a big difference between a high 2 or 3 Star and a low 2 or 3 star.

[panhandle_pony]

I would hope that there are some definable factors that must met (would hope Rivals could enlighten their readers with methodology) so that a "discretionary" ingredient in the ratings mix isn't determined by just how you feel when you get out of bed in the morning. By the way, I was in Dallas last week (I live in Florida) and took a stroll through the campus. Wow, what a beautiful collegiate environment! Hard to believe it's the same campus from my late 60's days.

[HFvictory]

I would hope that there are some definable factors that must met (would hope Rivals could enlighten their readers with methodology) so that a "discretionary" ingredient in the ratings mix isn't determined by just how you feel when you get out of bed in the morning. By the way, I was in Dallas last week (I live in Florida) and took a stroll through the campus. Wow, what a beautiful collegiate environment! Hard to believe it's the same campus from my late 60's days.

Rice had an increase in Rivals subscriptions thereby earning them bonus points.

[ponyplayaaa]

Yeah I know-that's why it wasn't part of my original explanation. I noticed the Rice bump too. I've heard the Rivals' guy explain it-the bonus points are essentially discretionary based on things like filling recruiting needs and signing players whose reutation is rising. I wonder if they are getting bonus points for their transfers McGuffiie(Michigan) and Fanuzzi(Alabama) but traditionally Rivals doesn't include transfers in their points system-if they are going to do that why not just re-rate the transfer and throw them into the mix with the rest of the recruits. In my mind I just throw out the discretionary points and just analyse based on the Stars and Player Rankings. The Team Rankings should definitely be viewed critically because a school signing 30 players will usually beat a team with 16 recruits. When a class is extra big or extra small you should definitely consider Average Per Recruit to get a better picture. I wish Rivals would just score based on the secondary rankings (ie 6.1-4.9) because there often is a big difference between a high 2 or 3 Star and a low 2 or 3 star.

no


Juco commits get docked points because they don't have as much eligibility as high school commits

a 4-star JUCO commit earns less points than a 4-star commit out of high school...etc.

[Stallion]

Your talking JUCO-I'm talking Division 1A Transfers. JUCOs count 100% at least for the Average Points Per Recruit. A good example is UAB whose rating is largely based on 8 Three Star JUCOs. Division 1A Transfers traditionally have never been a part of the Rivals ranking system-its one of the short-cuts that I've mentioned for years that the Rivals system never ever accounts for

[ponyplayaaa]

Your talking JUCO-I'm talking Division 1A Transfers. JUCOs count 100% at least for the Average Points Per Recruit. A good example is UAB whose rating is largely based on 8 Three Star JUCOs. Division 1A Transfers traditionally have never been a part of the Rivals ranking system-its one of the short-cuts that I've mentioned for years that the Rivals system never ever accounts for

that's why i answered your question with "no".....transfers do not factor in at all

addressing the 2nd issue....Juco incoming recruits do NOT count 100%....that's why UAB (with an almost identical # of commitments and avg. star ranking as Indiana) has so FEWER points than Indiana

they count less because they have less eligibility

[Stallion]

I just read the Rivals explanation-they count 100% but they aren't part of the Rankings of positions, State and National rankings which can lead to bonus points. So in a sense it is true that a 4 star High School Player could garner more points than a JC 4 Star but they still count as far as Average Per recruit.

[ponyplayaaa]

I just read the Rivals explanation-they count 100% but they aren't part of the Rankings of positions, State and National rankings which can lead to bonus points. So in a sense it is true that a 4 star High School Player could garner more points than a JC 4 Star but they still count as far as Average Per recruit.

link?

[Stallion]

This is not the entire story-they definitely add magically, mystical bonus points which they have stated publically. Anybody who has studied the mathematical inconsistencies knows this to be fact. ex. compare Rice with SMU's points.


The Key portion of the explanation is below. and then I added the entire link.

"Junior college prospects are not ranked with the high school players like they were in the old Rivals.com rankings. However, the junior college players are ranked numerically with the other junior college prospects in order from one to 50 at this point. They are also ranked by stars and do count in the team rankings – so teams that do recruit heavily on the junior college level will get rewarded for landing quality players just like they would with high school prospects."



http://rivals100.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=59026