Recruit Ranking Methodology

[SANJAY]

I cannot figure out how they rank players the way they do.  (This is not a criticism of any particular player's ranking, but a question of how the points are tabulated for a service like rivals).

For example, the WR position and using only some Big East schools.

Rutgers has Two 3* and gets 34 points

Louisville has Three 3* and gets 24 points

USF has Three 3* and gets 24 points

The Rutgers WRs are both 3 stars and have Rivals Ranks of 5.5 and 5.7.

The UL WRs are 3 stars and have RRs of 5.5, 5.5 and 5.6

USF WRs are 3 stars and have RRs of 5.5, 5.7 and 5.7

This could be a mistake but I am sure there are similar numbers throughout on every school and every position.  Point being, somewhere there are very subjective points being given and it is not a pure mathematical equation.

[Joe]

Rivals points ranks on where they see the classes in the future using their RR and a whole much of other factors from their scouts.

Its not easy to explain but if you look on the site they do add intangible factors to a recruit if they have shown them, etc.

[SANJAY]

Joe, I saw that.  My point is that not only are the individual player scores subjective, but when you add up players there is another subjective weight added.  If I, already subjectively, rate player A and B both 3 stars and RRs of 5.5 (they are equal players), then why have another subjective weight depending on where the kid goes to school, who recruited him, how hard they recruited him etc.  

[Joe]

I dunno to tell you the truth. I am not a huge fan of rival's rankings. They're top 10 is usually money and after that its a cluster. Scout does a better job in the end, but they don't update all the teams as much (see UCF). ESPN is trying again to make a dent.

For current TOTAL ranking as of now its all Rivals. Feb 2nd, scout is the way to go.

[Guest Josh Newberg]

http://www.al.com/sports/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/sports/1138530317230680.xml&coll=2&thispage=1

Analysis says Scout.com is the best

Sunday, January 29, 2006

JON SOLOMON

News staff writer

In the past four years, Texas, Southern Cal, Tennessee, Louisiana State and Nebraska each received a No. 1 ranking for a football recruiting class by at least one of the top four recruiting services.

Southern Cal, Texas and LSU own all of college football's national championships in the past three seasons.

Nebraska, fresh off a No. 1 recruiting ranking last year, rebounded from a 5-6 record to go 8-4. Tennessee, also with a No. 1 rating in 2005, stumbled from 10-3 to 5-6.

College football fans be warned: The rankings are "fool's gold," said Allen Wallace, national analyst for SuperPrep and Scout.com. He places coaching above recruiting for team success.

"Sure, you could say we're pandering to the public's desire for information," Wallace said. "But even if the fans didn't like them, I'd do rankings ... There has to be some truth that exists, fundamental insights, that we can take out of all this homework we've done. You're copping out if you're not sticking your neck out."

In an analysis by The Birmingham News that covered four years, Scout.com stuck its neck out the best. The class rankings for Scout.com, Wallace, Tom Lemming and Rivals.com from 2002 to 2005 were averaged and compared with team records and the final Associated Press poll from 2005. The premise was that four years of good recruiting would translate into on-field success by 2005.

Scout.com finished first or tied atop all five categories of measurable comparisons used by The News:

Number of teams among each service's Top 25 classes that finished in the Top 25 in the final AP poll in 2005.

Number of teams among each service's Top 10 classes that finished in the Top 10 in the final AP poll in 2005.

Fewest teams among each service's Top 25 classes that finished 2005 with losing records.

Highest winning percentage in 2005 among each service's Top 25 classes.

Highest winning percentage in 2005 among each service's Top 10 classes.

The News' analysis is hardly flawless, but then neither is recruiting services' information.

"I think we're good. I think we can get a lot better," said Jamie Newberg, national analyst for Scout.com. "Like anything else, it's an ever-evolving process. We hit on a lot of kids and miss on kids, just like the NFL and the college coaches."

The recruiting rankings of elite teams are quite similar - just flip around the order every now and then. Either each service evaluates the teams very evenly, or they're keeping an eye on their competitors.

The average four-year rankings for Scout.com, Rivals.com, Wallace and Lemming showed only 12 teams among their Top 10s. USC, Miami, Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida State, Tennessee and Michigan were consensus Top 10s. Of those, only USC and Georgia finished among the Top 10 in the final 2005 AP poll.

Coaching stability is a theme among the highest-ranked recruiting classes. Nine of the 12 Top 10 teams in the average rankings have employed the same head coach since 2001.

By contrast, Washington stands 3-19 during the past two seasons despite cracking the average Top 25 of Rivals.com, Lemming and Wallace. Washington has employed three head coaches since June 2003.

Are they credible?:

Analysts say they rank players based on video, statistics, college offers, the caliber of high school competition, and the opinions of prep and college coaches. Wallace is satisfied if half of his All-Americans start at least two years and make all-conference.

Most analysts have no playing experience beyond high school. Rivals.com editor Bobby Burton worked as an undergraduate video assistant at Texas and a graduate recruiting assistant at Houston.

Wallace was a lawyer for eight years. Newberg, who aspires to become an NFL scout, entered the field after majoring in psychology and sociology in college.

"You don't have to have played," ABC Sports broadcaster and former Auburn head coach Terry Bowden said. "If you're a legitimate recruiting guy, you can learn how to see talent."

Bowden believes the rankings are credible to a degree because many analysts rely heavily on college recruiting coordinators.

"I'm not sure colleges recruit the guys that analysts rank. I think they rank the guys colleges are recruiting," Bowden said. "They (recruiting services) have a difficult relationship with recruiting coordinators. If you get too close to a coordinator, he's not going to give you information unless you rank his player high."

Bowden said he was leery of analysts when coaching but learned quickly at Auburn to "play the game and take it seriously. You may be happy with the people you recruit, but you don't want to get a reputation of never being ranked by analysts."

Auburn coach Tommy Tuberville credits recruiting analysts for "usually doing their homework."

"I think sometimes the opinions are off base," Tuberville said. "For instance, I coached nine years at Miami and I don't think we were ever a top recruiting class, yet we won three national championships."

Rivals and Scout have publishers who operate Web sites devoted to particular schools. Lemming believes they are "all homers toward their school."

That could involve rating a player or a school's class higher than it should be.

Bowden noted intrigue at how high recruiting services rate Southern schools. As of last Thursday, six of the top 13 teams rated by Rivals.com play in the SEC, and no other conference had more than two teams that high.

"Where is college football most rabid?" Bowden said. "If I'm a businessman, if I'm going to make a mistake, I'll rank a Southern team high since they're buying the material."

Rivals.com would not reveal the formula it uses to rate teams.

"It's kind of a company secret," Southeastern analyst JC Shurburtt said. "People say we skew rankings. It is designed where that does not happen."

AuburnSports.com senior editor Bryan Matthews said he makes his player evaluations independent of outside influences. "I come to my own opinion of how good a player someone is."

Connecticut coach Randy Edsall, a vocal critic of the industry, said Web sites mislead immature recruits by promising four- or five-star reviews - the highest possible - in exchange for their playing in particular all-star games or exclusive access to their recruiting news. Edsall said one site that hosts an all-star game offered to rank a recruit No. 1 if he played in the game.

"They're using the kids for their benefit. I don't think the rankings are very objective at all," Edsall said.

Regardless, the rankings continue. Florida appears to be the runaway winner for 2006, the top recruiting services agree.

"Somebody has to win in American life," Wallace said. "... And between all the college staffs out there, they know there's a winner and they know there's a loser."

E-mail: jsolomon@bhamnews.com "Like anything else, it's an ever-evolving process. We hit on a lot of kids and miss on kids, just like the NFL and the college coaches."Jamie Newberg, national analyst for Scout.com

[bulls96go]

subjective at best

[smazza]

it is all relative

usf should be recruiting better talent no matter what service you use

wewil never compete for any championship recruiting in the 50s

our coaching staff cant improve that type of talent to the level required to beat west virginia,pitt and louisville consistently

[Bil]

Well, we've already beaten both Pitt & Louisville, albeit with talent better suited for C-USA (or USDA). And we're definitely getting better. But the name of the game, according to all those guys in the article above, is coaching, not recruiting. And Leavitt is a Phenom. Who else could have brought us so far, so fast? I don't think there's another coach in the US who could have done it. That's why 'Bama wanted him. And KS; besides his ties, they know he's a hell of a coach who gets results now. What has he had here, starting a program - 1 losing season? Two? Out of 9? Not too many coaches have done that well. Not Bobby at FSU, or any of his offspring (all of whom went to established programs.) The Greatest Recruiter of Our Time, Ron Zook, couldn't coach his way out of a phone booth with a flashlight, a map, and a GPS. Let the recruiting take care of itself. Doesn't mean too much, if they're not well-coached. And I think the recruits know that, too.  Bil

[smazza]

yeah and we lost to lowly uconn when it mattered most

we haven't beaten pitt in years

Leavitt is a Phenom.(LEAVITT IS AN UNDERACHIEVING COACH  AND HIS TEAMS HAVE HAD SAME PROBLEMS FOR YEARS

HE COULDNT RECRUIT A QB FOR 4 YEARS

[dabull80]

Hard to imagine smazza and Bil are talking about the same coach. LOL  ;D