PonyFans.com

max the wonder dog wrote:Stallion,

While you are on the subject, can you explain why Rivals has Rice listed higher that SMU (205 - 190 total points) when SMU has more recruits (26-23), more 4 stars (1-0), more 3 stars (7-3) and higher average stars (2.35-1.87)?

The only way to even compare is to look at average stars per recruit. This eliminates their dumb point system and also eliminates the bias in favor of large classes.

I think we may have some real players in this class. This is a good first step for us. TCU is looking really strong. What can you say. . .success breeds success.

Even though this is an SMU board and not a USM board, I have to say that Southern Miss has put together a couple of stout recruiting classes in a row. They are looking good. No wonder Ole Miss and Miss State always duck them.

I updated for additions and substractions in recent days-UH down, Marshall and UAB up. Tulsa lost and gained but ended slightly higher.

expony18 wrote:baylor is going to be good the next 3 years

That freshman QB is FAAAAAST!!!!

max the wonder dog wrote:Stallion,

While you are on the subject, can you explain why Rivals has Rice listed higher that SMU (205 - 190 total points) when SMU has more recruits (26-23), more 4 stars (1-0), more 3 stars (7-3) and higher average stars (2.35-1.87)?

The position rankings are key in the Rival's formula. Rice got the #5 kicker so their "N" in the formula below was 18 (versus 0 for SMU since none of the SMU commits who were position ranked were ranked high enough to generate any "N" points). So basically because Rice got a "top" kicker, their rivals points were multiplied by a bigger factor.

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/sh ... 80&style=2

Here is the team ranking formula for those interested... (please keep in mind a statistician from UC-Berkeley developed this for us).

Please note you only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -
> 3)) to N.

Amon Carter wrote:

max the wonder dog wrote:Stallion,

While you are on the subject, can you explain why Rivals has Rice listed higher that SMU (205 - 190 total points) when SMU has more recruits (26-23), more 4 stars (1-0), more 3 stars (7-3) and higher average stars (2.35-1.87)?

The position rankings are key in the Rival's formula. Rice got the #5 kicker so their "N" in the formula below was 18 (versus 0 for SMU since none of the SMU commits who were position ranked were ranked high enough to generate any "N" points). So basically because Rice got a "top" kicker, their rivals points were multiplied by a bigger factor.

http://footballrecruiting.rivals.com/sh ... 80&style=2

Here is the team ranking formula for those interested... (please keep in mind a statistician from UC-Berkeley developed this for us).

Please note you only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars -
> 3)) to N.

Thanks.