Menu
What's new
By:
Filters
AllBuffs | Unofficial fan site for the University of Colorado at Boulder Athletics programs

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • Prime Time. Prime Time. Its a new era for Colorado football. Consider signing up for a club membership! For $20/year, you can get access to all the special features at Allbuffs, including club member only forums, dark mode, avatars and best of all no ads ! But seriously, please sign up so that we can pay the bills. No one earns money here, and we can use your $20 to keep this hellhole running. You can sign up for a club membership by navigating to your account in the upper right and clicking on "Account Upgrades". Make it happen!

now mystified by recruiting rankings

Liver

Liver

modded mod
Club Member
Junta Member
before the previous staff killed the joy of following recruiting for me, i used to at least keep up with it.

it seemed to me that the following general rules applied to the rankings...

they weight more heavily in favor of teams that have lots of bodies overall, even if that brings down the average star rating.

they place more weight on classes that have some 5 stars or even 4 stars.

if a guy has offers from an elite program, he's likely to be upgraded in stars.

there used to be a lot more 2 stars and 1 stars.

now, it seems like everyone is a default 3 star and then goes up or down from there. just looking at CU's ranking in the b12 (last) and ucla's ranking in the p10 (last), i am a bit confused by how each team ended up there. i presume it has a lot to do with number of offers rather than quality, because the star averages seem to be on par with much higher ranked teams. are they now looking at offers? i get that if you have way more 4 and 5 stars, you should be ranked higher, but what is the material difference between having eight 3 stars and having 12 3 stars?

i just look at offers. that's all i have ever felt was a reliable comparison between schools. on that front, we aren't doing that well, but this was going to be a rough year.

anyone care to opine?
 
I remember reading that one thing they weight those with is filling positions of need. Not sure how they arrive at those, they must have some "ideal" roster with x QBs, y RBs, etc. spread over graduating years for the overall program.
 
Default is 2* for someone who commits to a BCS program.

More prospects committed helps a lot. It's not just average stars for the guys who are committed. It's the rating of your top 20 guys. Then they factor in some other stuff to build the formula. A class of 25 has huge advantages over a class of 15 in the team rankings. Not only do the have 20 guys in the evaluation, they get to drop their worst 5 out of the computation.

If a guy has a lot of offers from big time programs (stock is high or rising), that will often reflect in the ratings. Same thing if it's going the other way. So a guy can get rated more highly by virtue of Oklahoma offering.

As I have said, though, I don't care much about the ratings once we get past around the top 150 guys. A syphilitic mouth breather can tell you those guys can play football. After that, it's a matter of opinion, whether a guy fits into your system, has the athleticism to make it at a BCS conference, etc. You've got to be able to trust your coaches and your own eyes when you get to those guys. For example, we all knew that Speedy could carry the rock after seeing his videos even though the services saw him as a 2*.
 
Formula is simple.

Weighted average of the school's five year W-L record X the number of its paid subscribers. Any questions?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top