re: 5-year Average Stars Recruiting Rankings (all 119 teams)

Off the top O' my head, it seems like FSU and Miami are wasting a lot of talent.

Great job JBLSU

quote:

---

Overachievers: All 3 service academies (wouldn't expect anything less)

---

Well, I don't know so much about Army, but Navy and Air Force have overachieved spectacularly.

In the SEC, obviously Vandy has done the most with the least. They have been far more competitive than these numbers would suggest they should have been.

quote:

---

Sincere thanks for taking the time and effort for doing this list, but I must say that the overall average is mathematically meaningless. As BhamTigah pointed out, to get the accurate number representing the average number of stars, you'll have to total up the stars and divide by the number of players. Calculating the average the way you did, while serving as a good approximation, does not result in the correct value for the overall average.

---

Feel free to do it that way, as you are correct ... to be exactly accurate, that would be the way to do it, it would just be very time consuming to do it that way.

What you will find, however, is the rankings will not change much, if at all, as the average stars will also not change much, if at all. There may be a +1/-1 flip flop in rankings here or there, but there will be no major changes. Try it for LSU and you'll see what I mean.

The way we did it is the easist way to do it with available information/numbers and it gets the same result (not to mention it is a lot easier for the average person to understand how the rankings were calculated).

And the average is not mathematically meaningless. An average is an average is an average is an average.

quote:

---

If underachieving is being the most dominant program in the decade, then everyone should strive to underachieve as well!

---

For the USC obsessed LSU fans, the only way USC would not be considered an underachiever would be to go 75-4, instead of 70+ and 8 and have 4 NC's instead of 2.

quote:

---

If you think the BCS title is worthless, and USC has won 2 natinal titles in the BCS era, then don't brag about 6 straight BCS bowls either.

---

You clearly make the same point that many LSU fans irrationally believe. That is, for whatever reason, USC's 2003 title somehow discredits or tarnishes LSU's BCS title for the same year.

USC is well aware that LSU won the BCS championship game and accordingly, coaches poll NC from the same year. No one has ever disputed or discredited it. Keep believing otherwise abnd let it fester.

+1

quote:

---

Also, Fla State fans should be livid; no one does less with more.

---

But Jimbo will be the savior according to FSU fans.

When he first left I wasn't sure if it was going to be a good thing or a bad thing for LSU, but now that he's gone, I look back on some of his schemes and wonder how in the hell we had the success we had with him at the helm. He certainly wasn't a very "imaginitive" OC ... and the way offenses and defensive schemes are changing around the country, you have to be able to have lots more diversity in your offense to have sustained success in my opinion.

Corey did some further analysis trends on this and I've copied and pasted some of the following. Sorry about the no tabs, but this is how it copied and pasted into here and I don't have the time to go through it and change it.

If you're able to figure out what is going on, though, it is very interesting stuff. The most interesting thing that I see is that the dropoff from the #1 team in each conference to the #2 team in each conference. In the SEC and the Big12 and the Big10, the difference is basically nothing. In the pac10 (USC and Cal), the difference is nearly an entire star! ... was also surprised that the ACC is in second place behind the SEC in terms of conference average stars. Big10 only leads the BigEast.



Conference 2 Year Trend Biggest Up Biggest Down
Big East 93 rankings up Cincinnati (+41) Rutgers (-1)
Pac 10 22 rankings up Oregon (+13) NONE
Big 10 8 rankings up Wisconsin (+7) Indiana (-11)
SEC 7 rankings up Florida (+7) Miss State (-12)
Big 12 3 rankings up Oklahoma St (+9) Colorado (-8)
ACC 27 rankings down North Carolina (+8) Virginia (-13)
All Conferences Cincinnati (+41) San Jose St (-26)

Conference Avg. 08 Ranking Top Half Team Rankings Diff from #1 to #2 (in conf) Conf avg of #2, 3, and 4
SEC 25.8 (Top 6) 3.46 0.036 (FLA-LSU) 3.529 (LSU, UGA, TEN)
ACC 27.7 (Top 6) 3.14 0.108 (FSU-MIA) 3.175 (MIA, CLEM, MARY)
Pac 10 30 (Top 5) 3.24 0.868 (USC-CAL) 3.093 (CAL, UCLA, ORE)
Big 12 32.6 (Top 6) 3.18 0.008 (OU-TEX) 3.263 (TEX, NEB, A&M)
Big 10 37.4 (Top 6) 3.09 0.042 (OSU-MICH) 3.173 (MICH, PSU, IOWA)
Big East 56.3 (Top 4) 2.66 0.156 (PIT-LVILLE) 2.603 (LVILLE, WV, RUT)

The SEC's 6th ranked team has a higher average of stars than the Pac 10's 2nd ranked team.
The SEC's 9th ranked team has a higher average of stars than the Big East 1st place team.
The Pac 10 has the highest ranked last place team (Washington State at #54) of the BCS conferences.
The Big East has the lowest ranked team (Conneticut #83) of the BCS conferences.

quote:

---

Let's see over this time frame we have the best record over any team in the nation playing the strongest schedule of any team on that list over the time fram listed (Sagarin)

---

I think USC and LSU are really close and I'd actually give USC the upper hand for the decade as of right now because they have two titles just like LSU, have more wins and have more Heismans. That being said, if you are going to hang your hat about playing a tough schedule because a discredited computer algorithm says so, you are insane. USC deserves props for typically scheduling a quality non-conference opponent every year. But they in no way, shape or form, play a schedule at all demanding as LSU.

Pac-10 teams' schedules get routinely ranked high in Sagarin's polls because they play a 9th conference game, whereas all other conferences play 8. Thus, for example, in 2006, 8 of the top 10 schedules under Sagarin's formula were Pac-10 schools. No Pac-10 school fared worse than 15th. That same year, LSU played 4 Top 10 teams on the road. So what did Sagarin rank their schedule? 20th. Worse than every Pac-10 team. 2007 is nearly the same: 7 of the top 10 schedules according to Sagarin belonged to Pac-10 teams. 9 of the top 20. Only USC (at 29th) was the outlier. (That'll teach you schedule patsies like Notre Dame!)

It's not like the Pac-10 doesn't schedule patsies. They love to beat up on the likes of Northern Arizona, Idaho, Idaho State, San Jose State, etc. It's just that having the extra in conference game skews the formula Sagarin uses. This has been known for years and is the biggest issue with his poll.

People that know football know that the weekly grind of the SEC is the most difficult schedule and it is not even close.