CU's company

[BuffClass90]

Here's where Rivals ranks us and those around us using average stars, not total points, which is kind of a BS way of ranking IMO.

Not bad company - all things considered.

Rank Avg * School
57 2.72 Kansas State
59 2.71 Georgia Tech
60 2.70 Wake Forest
61 2.68 Houston
61 2.68 Colorado
63 2.61 Texas Tech
63 2.61 UCF
65 2.60 Cincinnati
66 2.58 Syracuse

120 2.00 San Jose State

 

[Buffnik]

Total points has some flaws. You can really inflate the ranking of your class by signing a center and a fullback. It's common that if a kid is rated for one of those positions and ends up at a BCS school that he'll be a top 10 for the position. Embree's 2012 class was inflated quite a bit by that. Specifically, Clay Norgard (as a 3*, 5.6 player) was rated the #4 FB in the nation. We got the same bonus points for that which we would have received for signing the nation's #4 QB.

I much prefer the average or the Rivals Rating, which they don't publish and you have to dig deeper for. It's important whether your 3* guys were closer to 5.5 or 5.7, because that tells me whether they were on the edge of 4* or on the edge of 2*. A 4* can be anywhere from a 5.8 to a 6.0 and a 2* could be anywhere from a 4.9 to a 5.4 rating. That matters a lot.

 

[Quattro]

Total points has some flaws. You can really inflate the ranking of your class by signing a center and a fullback. It's common that if a kid is rated for one of those positions and ends up at a BCS school that he'll be a top 10 for the position. Embree's 2012 class was inflated quite a bit by that. Specifically, Clay Norgard (as a 3*, 5.6 player) was rated the #4 FB in the nation. We got the same bonus points for that which we would have received for signing the nation's #4 QB.

I much prefer the average or the Rivals Rating, which they don't publish and you have to dig deeper for. It's important whether your 3* guys were closer to 5.5 or 5.7, because that tells me whether they were on the edge of 4* or on the edge of 2*. A 4* can be anywhere from a 5.8 to a 6.0 and a 2* could be anywhere from a 4.9 to a 5.4 rating. That matters a lot.

The 247 composite rankings do a pretty good job of that IMO.

110 - 101 = A player ranked in this range is a "franchise player." He is one of the best to come along in years - if not decades (LeBron James, Adrian Peterson). Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has “can’t miss” talent.
100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 25 or so prospects in the nation. Player has excellent pro potential, and should emerge as one of the best players in the country before his college career ends
97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. Prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. All-America candidate who displays pro potential. Typically one of the top 300 players in the nation.
89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. These are the players who will develop into reliable starters for the college teams. They are among the best players in their region of the country, and are generally among the top 750 players in the nation.
79 - below = Two-star prospect. These players make up the bulk of Division I rosters. They may have little pro potential, are likely to become role players for their respective schools or not enough is known about the prospect to rank them accurately.

247's Composite rankings have us at a 81.78/player so we were mainly going after lower 3*'s according to them.