Wow. I know it's early but wow.
Printable View
Wow. I know it's early but wow.
Just your usual MSU, Alabama, aTm, LSU, Tennessee battle for 'crootin championships**
Mississippi is loaded with talent this year. State and Ole Miss get nearly all of the Mississippi talent. So it just stood to reason we were going to be ranked higher this year because of the in-state talent.
Bottom line is we have to get some of the top guys and keep finding the undervalued guys as well
Stars don't matter**. These rankings are all based on who Alabama offers**. If the website guys could evaluate talent, wouldn't they all have real jobs?**
Seriously, though, getting this kind of talent on campus is the key to making the jump from consistent middling SEC team* to a real contender. (*This is not a jab. Middle of the pack consistency is lightyears ahead of where we were before Mullen took over."
Haha other conferences are exhaling and celebrating their 2014 signing classes while the SEC has already moved on and has the top 5 classes for the next season. We are doing something right in football. Is this even the same University Croom coached at? That seems like 12 years ago not 6. Excellent work Dan Mullen.
I'm not normally the wet blanket around here, but our average rating is only a couple pts ahead of where we finished 2014. That net is a Top 25 and bottom half SEC rated class if things shake up similar to last year. Unless I'm misunderstanding, looks like we have an early lead more for quantity than quality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lloyd Christmas
Don't get me wrong, I think Top 25 classes are damn solid for our program, but I wouldn't expect a final top 5. Hope I look like a dubmass and am wrong.
You are misunderstanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
True regarding the current average, but ratings tend to be lower at the beginning of the year. The sites are still getting around to some of our guys as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
Scout/Rivals evaluate a lot slower than 247 does. And if they do, they just throw a 3* on them.
http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/
If anything, go off that. That shows 88.67 average. If you remove Darrien McNair, the average is 89.6.
http://247sports.com/Season/2014-Football/
Which would rank about 10. I know we are going to get some 3 stars. But you have to think some of our 4*s are going to get bumped up from 91-90.
Yep. And McNair is laughably underrated right now... This look like a low 3* to anyone?Quote:
Originally Posted by Big4Dawg
http://www.hudl.com/athlete/o/287997...ghts/106491384
Educate por favor. What am I missing out on averages? Also, if you can find a link to the 247 scoring methodology, that would be helpful. All I could find was a class calculator and our projected score went down when I took out our lowest ranked player. Seems like total commits boosts you despite a low individual score.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
Of course, the class boosts overall points as you add players.Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
The Formula
Team Ranking Explanation
http://media.247sports.com/content/i...xplanation.gif
where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
http://media.247sports.com/content/i...m_rankings.gif
What you are missing is the "quantity over quality" statement -- when we are considered outright or co-leaders for 3 players that could easily end up as 5* players. As such, those players boost the class alot more than taking a few lower rated guys hold it back given the bell curve of the formula.
Bravo.
Good reading. No, I'm not trying to imply that our current commitments or anyone we have an in on aren't quality players. I'm saying that, at this point in the recruiting season, the rankings are misleading due to the few commits and the wide variance amongst leaders today. For example, take our lowest rated (at the moment, this is no jab at his real talent or potential, he's a number as far as I'm concerned) commitment, Darrien McNair. He's a 0.8217 in the 247 ratings. Nothing to brag about by any stretch, our 2014 punter commit is ranked higher.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
Per the class calculator, we'd have a total score of 96.02 if we had 9 commitments from him - good for 14th in the country at the moment. Solid. If you plug him in 25 times, we end up with a 142.44 - slipping to 76 in the final 2014 ranks. Not solid. That's my only point. I'm not a big stats nerd, but I think the formula needs larger populations of commitments with less deviation for it to work as intended.
At any rate, the commits we have are solid and it's a great foundation for the rest of the class. I just don't want there to be any misconceptions that Mullen can't close, chokes, or whatever when our current 3rd ranked class ends up 22nd...
247 is much faster to update rankings this early in the cycle, so their 2015 rankings are more reliable than the composite rankings. (I think they are more reliable at the end of the cycle too, but that's just me). When looking at 247 only rankings we are 3rd, and out avg player ranking is much better.
Gotta love a linebacker that can play any position on the field. Covers teams best WR when needed, DE when needed, LB when needed, QB when needed and that was just a 2 minute clip of a season.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
My point is -- for that to happen -- by playing with the class calculator -- we'd have to whiff pretty badly down the stretch. The average star ratings are skewed against us right now as well -- with Scout starting everyone out as a 3* basically regardless(which basically seems to default to an 83.33 rating on 24/7). We're about 6 players away -- none of which are a stretch to think they come to MSU -- from being up to 217 total points, which would have had us into the top 25 last year. That is before considering all of the sleepers/non blue chips that will add some value to the class -- and there will probably be 10 or so additional players that fit that bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
If you take our current class and extrapolate it to 25 on the calculator today, we will total 215.89. That's counting our top 7 3x and bottom 2 2x. That was 30th last year. Is that not accurate since they tinker with the standard deviation of the avg commitment per team factor or is it not significant enough to worry about?Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
The 6 players you referenced must be real solid if they get us 217 at 15 commits. If we are about to kill it, awesome, we are about to kill it. Otherwise, we have to keep up the current pace to crack the Top 30.
We will surpass our current "pace". A few elite guys skew the the number in a positive fashion -- and it's a good chance that we have at least one elite guy coming on board soon. By the rankings, we've got a bunch of solid players currently, but are lacking elite players. Hence what you are getting hung up on your attempts to extrapolate. Add one high 4*(expected) and the end result you are projecting changes incredibly drastically...Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
Yeah, I feel like what we already have assembled is a lot of the meat of our class. We'll add some OL for sure and a QB and probably another RB, but we already have a big chunk of the usual 'solid' part of a class...and it's a lot better than our 'solid' portion usually is. We're still after a bunch of highly-rated guys (Adams, Dear, Peters, Lewis, etc.); pull just a couple of those, and our class is far better than normal.
Looks like the formula Scott Tissue uses to reach 1000 sheets.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
Damn. I should have stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.Quote:
Originally Posted by engie
well the flaw right now is that if you are looking at the composite, rivals, scout, and espn aren't as fast to update so they are weighing down our class avg/ranking right now. according to the composite we have 1 4* and 8 3*. but according to 247 only, we have 6 4* and 3 3*. i'd expect our composite to rise accordingly as the recruiting cycle moves forward. the composite rankings are really kinda useless until all the sites are on the same stage of evaluation, which really won't happen until the end of summer/early fall after summer camps.Quote:
Originally Posted by ckDOG
I dont speak Engie unless he explains it...Quote:
Originally Posted by starkvegasdawg
Engie needs a "release"
essentially it's weighted so that the best player in your class counts for the most and each subsequent player counts for a little less all the way to the worst player in the class (according to the rankings). it lessens certain classes ranking high due to quantity over quality. under old formulas, classes with 30 commits from a couple of 4* and the rest 3* would rank ahead of a class of only 20 recruits but with more 4+* guys. this formula tries striking a balance between quantity and quality. the idea being the guys at the back end of the class are far more likely to simply be program depth or end up transferring to a smaller school to get playing time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Coach34