big east rankings

[smazza]

will assist in identifying future power teams

[cygnus34]

Pitt. was ranked # 14, W.VA. #25, Rutgers # 28 Louisville # 43, So. Fl. # 46.

Big East Conference

Cincinnati

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=693&yr=2007

Connecticut

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=702&yr=2007

South Florida

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=707&yr=2007

Louisville

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=696&yr=2007

Pittsburgh

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=674&yr=2007

Rutgers

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=675&yr=2007

West Virginia

http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=8&toinid=679&yr=2007

[smazza]

5th in big east

not to good no matter what spin you put on it

[outrunner]

Considering that Pitt has had some of the best recruiting classes the last couple of years, they don't have much to show for it. What was their record last year? Oh yeah 6-6 and no bowl.

The game is played on the field, not on the dotted line.

[Velcro]

ESPN Rankings of Big East

[table]

[tr][td]School Rankings [/td][/tr][/table]

[table]

[tr][td][/td][td][/td][td][/td][td]Commits[/td][td][/td][td][/td][td]Position[/td][td][/td][td][/td][td]Scout Grades[/td][td][/td][/tr]

[tr][td]RANK [/td][td]NCAA SCHOOL [/td][td]CONFERENCE [/td][td]COMMITS [/td][td]ESPN 150 [/td][td]JC [/td][td]OFF [/td][td]DEF [/td][td]ST [/td][td]GRADED [/td][td]AVG [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]33 [/td][td]Pittsburgh [/td][td]Big East[/td] [td]25 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]14 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]21 [/td][td]74.9[/td] [/tr]

[tr][td]43 [/td][td]South Florida[/td] [td]Big East [/td][td]28 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]3 [/td][td]14 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]73.9[/td] [/tr]

[tr][td]45 [/td][td]West Virginia[/td] [td]Big East [/td][td]25 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]18 [/td][td]73.8 [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]47 [/td][td]Louisville [/td][td]Big East[/td] [td]18 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]13 [/td][td]5 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]10 [/td][td]73.7 [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]50 [/td][td]Rutgers [/td][td]Big East[/td] [td]22 [/td][td]2 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]9 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]73.4[/td] [/tr]

[tr][td]66 [/td][td]Syracuse [/td][td]Big East [/td][td]27 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]4 [/td][td]10 [/td][td]16 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]72.6[/td][/tr]

[tr][td]83 [/td][td]Connecticut[/td] [td]Big East[/td] [td]29 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]7 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]12 [/td][td]1 [/td][td]15 [/td][td]71.4 [/td][/tr]

[tr][td]104 [/td][td]Cincinnati [/td][td]Big East [/td][td]23 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]16 [/td][td]6 [/td][td]0 [/td][td]11 [/td][td]69.6[/td][/tr]

[/table]

[Joe]

Considering that Pitt has had some of the best recruiting classes the last couple of years, they don't have much to show for it. What was their record last year? Oh yeah 6-6 and no bowl.

The game is played on the field, not on the dotted line.

They had top ranked recruiting classes in 2006 and this year, I wouldn't count them out as a contender for the BE in 2008 when a lot of that talent matures.

Their 2003-2004 classes were aweful and in 2005 did decent with several of the bigger guys they got taking redshirts.

Not saying the coaching is good or that they will be better than us to any extent, I just think it's premature to say the talent hasn't worked out.

As for the ESPN rankings, by far the worst out there. No offense, I know they look great for us, but anyone who uses the average grade of the players in your class to rank is a lil funny. I'd just ignore anything outside the top 10 in most rankings, it's just too hard to honestly rank the teams without some voodoo math.

Finally, Smazza, sorry but you're completely wrong. We've done out fair share of competing the last few years, why couldn't we win the BE?

[cygnus34]

Velcro, that is the most screwed up piece of crap I have seen.  

[Velcro]

Velcro, that is the most screwed up piece of crap I have seen.  

Go complain to ESPN... i didn't write it... just showing Smazz that the rankings mean jack chit.

What matters is how you play and how your coaches develop the players.  If rankings meant anything... FSU/Pitt would be dominating, and Boise would not be a BCS buster.

[Joe]

Velcro, that is where I differ from you. Rankings do have some value, there is a reason why teams that are winning National Championships are so good.

I believe the top 10-15 classes are pretty accurate settings. After that it's a gamble because a lot of your "can't miss" recruits are dispersed more, thus a lot more error in ratings/rankings..

Look at USC, LSU, and Texas. The reason those three schools have been greatly consistent and just "reload" the last 4-5 years is because they have constantly been at the top of the recruiting rankings.

Look at the list of National Champions. None of those teams are winning without consistent top 10 recruiting classes. The closest team in recent memory was the 2000 Oklahoma team, and even that team wasn't put together with sticks and duct tape, 9-10 starters from it were big time recruits suffering under John Blake.

In my book recruiting rankings are great for the top classes and players, because they are reasonable gauges of the best prospects.

Where most get jaded (including the lawyer) is by the fact that these recruiting sites, etc. try ranking the teams in the 30s, 40s, 50s, etc or the players that just don't get the pub becuase they aren't on powerhouses, great teams, or surrounded by otehr great talent.

Just too many guys to accurately rate teams that are pulling in more of the unknowns that could turn out great.

Either way Smazza's a spaz.

[Velcro]

I will agree with that... and I think that is basically how I felt even before you wrote it.  But my point was mainly pointed at the constant barrage(sp?) of posts by Smazz aimed at us getting outrecruited by Rutgers/UL/WVU.

They do have some good recruits... but if you swapped their class with ours, giving them our entire class, and us taking their entire class (either of the 3), i think you see the same results in the rankings.  It is more that we don't have the name than anything else.