Latest Belt Committment Numbers From Rivals

PlummMeanGreen · January 30, 2008

Best factual Plummer post of the new millenium.
Rick

:lol:

And FFR, to quote the late Jack Webb from the old Dragnet TV series: "Just the facts, maam!" :rolleyes:

GMG!

Edited January 30, 2008 by PlummMeanGreen

GreenAlums · January 30, 2008

So, when does the Rivals star fairy come out and re-rank players with more stars just because they signed with a bigger or more notable school? Is Riley a Rivals 3 star just because he is a verbal to UNT? Would he be a 4 star if had verbally committed and stayed with UT? It seems like in the past some stars have moved a little when players changed to a "fancier" school??? Just curious! The more I study Rivals.....the less I like it!

It just seems to be a little straw poll'ish to me. You buy stars and rankings but points go a lot further in winning football games.

Edited January 30, 2008 by GreenExes

January 30, 2008

College Football News Recruiting Ranking
undefined
North Texas Ranked 70th
ULM Ranked 93rd
Troy Ranked 94th
FAU Ranked 97th
ULM Ranked 103rd
FIU Ranked 111th
MT Ranked 112th
Ark. State Ranked 15th

I like seeing us higher up, but Scout certainly seems inaccurate. Still has Tomlin with us and does list any of the 3 JUCO transfers that started this semester.

DallasGreen · January 30, 2008

.............BUT, I think the thing that most of us would all agree is how Boise State was recruiting speed with all their low ranked recruiting classes and it did make a difference when they beat the vaunted Sooners of the University of Oklahoma.
Well, that's the theory I've heard for getting the fastest improvement in a college football team...recruit speed!

If you watched our defense at all this year, you could certainly see that speed was definately lacking!!!

January 30, 2008

Which doesn't make any sense. If you look at the RR scores top to bottom our class looks like a more solid class.

The reason that it doesn't make sense is because it's wrong. Even if you agree with their methodology, they've made a mistake.

Rivals awards three points for each two star recruit and eight points for each three star recruit. Those are the basics. I haven't been able to determine the points awarded for four or five star athletes because all of those have some type of state ranking.

Let's take North Texas point total. We had 7 three star athletes at 8 points for a total of 56 points. We also had 17 two star athletes at 3 each for a total of 51 points. When you add 56 for the three star athletes and 51 for the two athletes, you get a total of 107. They are only showing 95 for us so we have been shorted 12 points.

Troy has 26 commitments; 2 more than us. Six of those commits are three star athletes giving them a total of 48 points. The other 20 are two star recruits x 3=60. Their total is 108 or one point higher than NT, not 169, or 74 higher as shown by Rivals.

There are two other factors that should put us ahead. We have one more commitment to come and if it's a two star (as has been the minimum for all of our other commits) then we will finish 2 points ahead.

But, if we follow their point system, we should already be ahead. They award additional points for being state ranked. I don't believe that it's right but that's the way that they do it. Troy had NO recruits with a state ranking according to page 2 of their report so they would have no bonus points, giving them a final total of 108. North Texas has one state ranked recruit, Riley Dodge at #52, which should've added some points to our 107 total.

I don't believe in the state rankings because that puts Texas (and other states) at a disadvantage. For example, Tulsa, with less total and 3-point commits, leaps well ahead of our point total because they picked up at least three recruits who had state ranking in Oklahoma. Yet, their RR (Rivals Rating) was not as high as many of the Texas recruits who were not state ranked.

If I were a member, I'd write and tell them of their discrepancy. They are the best that we have IMO but not infallible. Ours was not the only mistake that I found.