- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Rivals Cumulative Average Star Ranking (2006-2010 classes)
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:14 pm
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:14 pm
Following is the cumulative average star rankings of each team's classes since 2006 (a pretty accurate depiction of players/talent that will be on roster for each team in the 2010 season, at least according to Rivals stars). Below we just took the average stars of each year's class, added the 5 average stars of each class together and divided by 5, and then ranked all teams based on their cumulative average.
Worth noting is that SEVEN of the Top 9 have either won or played in a national title game in the period (Georgia and Notre Dame being the only teams in the Top9 that haven't played in a national title game). Also interesting is NO team outside the current Top9 has even PLAYED in a national title game in the period.
You can verify the class average star ranking here Rivals Team Rankings and you can click on the drop down menu to go to previous year's class rankings. ETA: Because my spreadsheet was already set up, I did not add any of the newly-added FBS teams to last year's rankings.
Worth noting is that SEVEN of the Top 9 have either won or played in a national title game in the period (Georgia and Notre Dame being the only teams in the Top9 that haven't played in a national title game). Also interesting is NO team outside the current Top9 has even PLAYED in a national title game in the period.
You can verify the class average star ranking here Rivals Team Rankings and you can click on the drop down menu to go to previous year's class rankings. ETA: Because my spreadsheet was already set up, I did not add any of the newly-added FBS teams to last year's rankings.
quote:
RANK SCHOOL 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Total AVG
1 USC 3.96 4.22 3.89 3.89 4.20 20.16 4.032
2 Florida 3.89 3.89 3.82 3.94 3.89 19.43 3.886
3 Texas 3.60 3.79 3.55 3.85 3.92 18.71 3.742
4 LSU 3.64 3.88 3.58 3.79 3.59 18.48 3.696
5 Ohio State 3.60 3.80 3.79 3.76 3.39 18.34 3.668
6 Georgia 3.64 3.48 3.67 3.83 3.42 18.04 3.608
7 Alabama 3.61 3.28 3.72 3.81 3.62 18.04 3.608
8 Notre Dame 3.46 3.72 3.96 3.44 3.39 17.97 3.594
9 Oklahoma 3.54 3.38 3.81 3.43 3.55 17.71 3.542
10 Michigan 3.63 3.40 3.67 3.59 3.19 17.48 3.496
11 Florida State 3.68 3.20 3.33 3.62 3.50 17.33 3.466
12 UCLA 3.23 3.27 3.52 3.33 3.61 16.96 3.392
13 Clemson 3.40 3.22 3.42 3.50 3.35 16.89 3.378
14 Tennessee 3.09 3.63 3.06 3.53 3.44 16.75 3.350
15 Auburn 3.52 3.37 3.03 3.21 3.50 16.63 3.326
16 Miami-FL 3.36 3.21 3.33 3.60 3.07 16.57 3.314
17 Penn State 3.63 3.14 3.00 2.96 3.55 16.28 3.256
18 South Carolina 3.08 3.42 3.18 3.34 3.04 16.06 3.212
19 Nebraska 3.27 3.33 2.96 3.25 3.24 16.05 3.210
20 California 3.30 3.00 3.05 3.11 3.58 16.04 3.208
21 North Carolina 2.93 3.00 3.16 3.34 3.14 15.57 3.114
22 Texas A&M 2.96 2.89 3.17 3.14 3.35 15.51 3.102
23 Oregon 2.67 3.24 3.25 2.92 3.39 15.47 3.094
24 Ole Miss 3.17 3.09 2.71 3.11 3.28 15.36 3.072
25 Pittsburgh 3.08 3.04 3.16 2.90 3.13 15.31 3.062
26 Oklahoma State 3.03 3.04 3.04 3.00 3.19 15.30 3.060
27 Virginia Tech 3.00 2.73 3.10 3.09 3.29 15.21 3.042
28 Maryland 3.00 2.85 3.11 3.08 3.10 15.14 3.028
29 Arizona 3.28 2.72 3.00 2.96 3.09 15.05 3.010
30 Arkansas 2.96 2.93 2.88 3.30 2.96 15.03 3.006
31 Arizona State 3.04 2.63 3.15 3.10 3.04 14.96 2.992
32 Georgia Tech 2.69 3.30 2.64 2.90 3.17 14.70 2.940
33 Michigan State 2.84 2.70 2.71 3.30 3.10 14.65 2.930
34 Illinois 2.89 3.00 3.00 3.10 2.65 14.64 2.928
35 Missouri 2.63 2.89 3.00 2.80 3.30 14.62 2.924
36 Texas Tech 2.88 2.73 3.00 3.00 3.00 14.61 2.922
37 Washington 2.82 2.81 2.92 2.94 3.10 14.59 2.918
38 West Virginia 2.63 2.96 2.63 3.13 3.24 14.59 2.918
39 Wisconsin 2.70 3.06 2.83 3.00 2.88 14.47 2.894
40 Kansas 2.72 2.57 3.10 3.08 2.89 14.36 2.872
41 Stanford 2.44 2.63 2.71 3.27 3.13 14.18 2.836
42 Colorado 2.61 2.68 3.24 2.84 2.71 14.08 2.816
43 Miss State 2.67 2.62 2.56 3.15 2.92 13.92 2.784
44 Boston College 2.85 2.83 2.83 2.47 2.86 13.84 2.768
45 Virginia 2.67 3.04 2.50 2.84 2.78 13.83 2.766
46 Minnesota 2.33 2.46 3.07 3.05 2.92 13.83 2.766
47 NC State 2.45 2.64 2.88 2.78 3.05 13.80 2.760
48 Rutgers 2.52 2.83 2.65 3.00 2.75 13.75 2.750
49 Louisville 2.92 3.06 2.59 2.31 2.81 13.69 2.738
50 Iowa 2.70 2.95 2.54 2.47 3.00 13.66 2.732
51 TCU 2.56 2.54 2.40 3.00 3.11 13.61 2.722
52 Oregon State 2.60 2.51 2.72 2.63 3.12 13.58 2.716
53 Kansas State 2.52 2.67 2.94 2.48 2.94 13.55 2.710
54 South Florida 2.36 2.48 2.46 3.00 2.89 13.19 2.638
55 Utah 2.17 2.32 2.73 2.84 3.09 13.15 2.630
56 Southern Miss 2.29 2.16 2.78 2.95 2.88 13.06 2.612
57 Baylor 2.34 2.34 2.45 2.71 3.09 12.93 2.586
58 Northwestern 2.24 2.74 2.30 2.67 2.94 12.89 2.578
59 Kentucky 2.53 2.31 2.50 2.69 2.77 12.80 2.560
60 BYU 2.12 2.46 2.52 2.86 2.78 12.74 2.548
61 Purdue 2.38 2.68 2.48 2.53 2.63 12.70 2.540
62 Iowa State 2.50 2.44 2.33 2.52 2.71 12.50 2.500
63 Vandy 2.27 2.50 2.19 2.71 2.79 12.46 2.492
64 Wake Forest 2.40 2.30 2.47 2.48 2.74 12.39 2.478
65 UCF 2.29 2.31 2.61 2.42 2.74 12.37 2.474
66 Washington State 2.57 2.44 2.23 2.55 2.56 12.35 2.470
67 Syracuse 2.43 2.56 2.54 2.29 2.38 12.20 2.440
68 Fresno State 2.35 2.27 2.41 2.29 2.81 12.13 2.426
69 Duke 2.38 2.19 2.41 2.63 2.50 12.11 2.422
70 Cincinnati 2.44 2.26 2.25 2.48 2.57 12.00 2.400
71 Boise State 2.17 2.24 2.26 2.52 2.80 11.99 2.398
72 Indiana 2.25 2.15 2.26 2.72 2.44 11.82 2.364
73 UAB 2.54 2.04 2.08 2.57 2.48 11.71 2.342
74 Houston 2.04 2.14 2.16 2.52 2.81 11.67 2.334
75 Memphis 2.12 2.22 2.29 2.48 2.46 11.57 2.314
76 Tulsa 2.06 1.87 2.30 2.64 2.68 11.55 2.310
77 Hawaii 2.00 2.42 2.30 2.39 2.39 11.50 2.300
78 San Diego St 2.28 2.27 2.19 2.10 2.63 11.47 2.294
79 LA Tech 2.11 2.27 2.19 2.35 2.50 11.42 2.284
80 SMU 2.13 2.17 2.14 2.35 2.62 11.41 2.282
81 Marshall 2.13 2.15 2.38 2.29 2.37 11.32 2.264
82 East Carolina 2.15 2.15 2.14 2.32 2.50 11.26 2.252
83 Troy 2.12 2.22 2.24 2.35 2.30 11.23 2.246
84 Toledo 1.95 2.32 2.13 2.15 2.56 11.11 2.222
85 UNLV 2.15 2.32 2.00 2.36 2.26 11.09 2.218
86 Colorado State 2.13 1.96 2.16 2.25 2.56 11.06 2.212
87 Akron 2.17 2.19 2.18 2.33 2.17 11.04 2.208
88 Conneticut 1.96 2.24 2.14 2.24 2.45 11.03 2.206
89 North Texas 2.12 2.06 2.30 2.15 2.33 10.96 2.192
90 UTEP 2.10 2.26 2.12 2.14 2.31 10.93 2.186
91 Wyoming 2.05 2.29 2.14 2.17 2.26 10.91 2.182
92 Rice 2.06 2.13 2.06 2.13 2.50 10.88 2.176
93 New Mexico 2.04 2.00 2.18 2.21 2.41 10.84 2.168
94 Mid Tenn State 2.00 2.00 2.29 2.13 2.42 10.84 2.168
95 Kent State 2.00 2.08 2.18 2.32 2.25 10.83 2.166
96 Miami-OH 2.05 2.17 2.06 2.12 2.22 10.62 2.124
97 Idaho 2.05 2.05 2.10 2.10 2.32 10.62 2.124
98 Nevada 1.96 2.00 2.14 2.19 2.32 10.61 2.122
99 Ball State 2.13 2.00 2.10 2.13 2.19 10.55 2.110
100 San Jose St 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.11 2.24 10.50 2.100
101 Western Michigan 2.00 2.04 2.12 2.08 2.25 10.49 2.098
102 LA Monroe 2.13 2.00 2.14 2.04 2.13 10.44 2.088
103 Northern Illinois 2.06 2.00 2.00 2.04 2.32 10.42 2.084
104 Temple 1.89 2.13 2.08 2.04 2.28 10.42 2.084
105 Arkansas St 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.05 2.23 10.41 2.082
106 New Mexico State 1.76 2.10 2.00 2.14 2.39 10.39 2.078
107 Tulane 2.00 1.92 2.00 2.32 2.13 10.37 2.074
108 Central Michigan 2.00 1.94 2.05 2.23 2.15 10.37 2.074
109 Bowling Green 1.96 2.10 2.00 2.09 2.20 10.35 2.070
110 Utah State 2.04 2.00 2.10 2.05 2.14 10.33 2.066
111 Ohio 1.95 1.91 2.20 2.19 2.06 10.31 2.062
112 Eastern Michigan 2.00 2.04 2.04 2.14 2.08 10.30 2.060
113 Buffalo 2.13 1.90 2.00 2.09 2.16 10.28 2.056
114 LA Lafayette 2.05 2.06 2.00 2.06 2.04 10.21 2.042
115 Air Force 1.65 1.73 1.93 1.90 2.06 9.27 1.854
116 Army 1.05 1.65 2.00 1.85 1.58 8.13 1.626
117 Navy 1.18 1.33 1.75 1.14 2.25 7.65 1.530
118 Illinois State 1.33 1.00 0.94 0.75 0.80 4.82 0.964
119 Chattanooga 0.67 0.44 0.00 0.83 0.86 2.80 0.560
This post was edited on 2/4/10 at 8:43 pm
11
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:17 pm to JPLSU1981
Always wondered why USL doesn't win
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:18 pm to JPLSU1981
Posted on 2/4/10 at 12:21 pm to JPLSU1981
8 Notre Dame 3.46 3.72 3.96 3.44 3.39 17.97 3.594
vs.
117 Navy 1.18 1.33 1.75 1.14 2.25 7.65 1.530
=
vs.
117 Navy 1.18 1.33 1.75 1.14 2.25 7.65 1.530
=
Posted on 2/4/10 at 1:22 pm to JPLSU1981
The very first class shown is the USC Class of 2006. That class should have been a major contributor last year. Instead, USC basically sucked. This is what happened: First look at USC's 2006 recruits that were rated in the Top 100
Vidal Hazelton transferred
Antwine Perez transferred
Jamere Holland transferred
Shareece Wright Academically Ineligible
Joshua Tatum transferred
Emmanuel Moody transferred
Also
Anthony McCoy – now academically ineligible
Stafon Johnson – injured neck, gone
Also among the less-than-top-100 recruits in the class of 2006:
Kenny Ashley – gone
Walker Ashley – gone
Alfred Rowe – gone
Vincent Joseph – gone
Gerald Washington – gone
Not much in left in the class of 2006!
Vidal Hazelton transferred
Antwine Perez transferred
Jamere Holland transferred
Shareece Wright Academically Ineligible
Joshua Tatum transferred
Emmanuel Moody transferred
Also
Anthony McCoy – now academically ineligible
Stafon Johnson – injured neck, gone
Also among the less-than-top-100 recruits in the class of 2006:
Kenny Ashley – gone
Walker Ashley – gone
Alfred Rowe – gone
Vincent Joseph – gone
Gerald Washington – gone
Not much in left in the class of 2006!
Posted on 2/4/10 at 2:24 pm to JPLSU1981
Thanks for doing that. That was a lot of work and I really appreciate it. It is interesting to note that Boise St. Was ranked 71 and Miss. St. was ranked 43, yet Boise St. would likely beat Miss. St. by quite a bit. They probably would have beaten LSU last year, to be honest. Talent is only part of the equation.
Thanks again.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 2:27 pm to AlaTiger
This is very impressive since only the schools that have the most talent in state beat us out.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 2:31 pm to Carson Sanchez
This is pretty much the same issue with LSU's 2006 class and even some of the linemen in the 2007 class. That is what hurt LSU last year. The kicking off the team and transfer of the best recruited lineman in those years.
It should be on the upswing next year since it seems Miles is getting better at getting character kids.
It should be on the upswing next year since it seems Miles is getting better at getting character kids.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 2:32 pm to StreetDiction
Actually, the No. 1 team on the list, USC, did NOT play in a title game during this period. Their last title game appearance was against Texas in the 2006 Rose Bowl following the 2005 season. This starts with the February 2006 recruiting class. Goes to show how well Pete Carroll "coached em up" huh?
Posted on 2/4/10 at 2:38 pm to Tigerpaul1969
Another interesting observation: Petrino took a lot of flak for this year's allegedly poor class at Arky, but check out their ratings for 06-08, Nutt's last three years. Petrino's class this year is as good as any one of those.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 3:04 pm to JPLSU1981
Notice how Latech was improving under Dooley.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 3:19 pm to Tigerpaul1969
quote:
Actually, the No. 1 team on the list, USC, did NOT play in a title game during this period. Their last title game appearance was against Texas in the 2006 Rose Bowl following the 2005 season. This starts with the February 2006 recruiting class. Goes to show how well Pete Carroll "coached em up" huh?
Couple of counter-points.
1. This matrix should show the relative talent level of the college rosters for the 2010 football season. So it had limited impact on 2006, 2007, 2008 and even 2009 (although each year it should have mattered more).
2. Looks like Florida and Texas are producing on the field where they should be and LSU is underachieving.
3. USC had the same record as LSU in 2007 and many experts would arhie they were the better team. I don't agree with that sentiment but it's not out of the question. The 2008 squad went 12-1--the same record as Florida and OU. Again, they were shut out, largely due to views that the Pac-10 wasn't as good as the Big XII or SEC. But it doesn't necessarily mean they weren't as good as OU. So critiquing Carroll for not coaching them up is a little unfair. Caroll was dropping one or two losses a year. We've lost 5 and 4, respectively over the past two seasons.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 3:36 pm to Mike Linebacker
Au contraire.
The point being made in the original article was that 7 of the top 9 teams had made the title game during this era. It is a fact that USC did NOT make the title game during the period analyzed.
I don't remember saying anything about the performance of LSU's coaches during this time. Did I say Pete Carroll sucks and Les Miles is great? No. I didn't even say Pete Carroll sucks. Obviously, it was his staff that consistently brought in top flight classes. I'm just saying that the perception that he is head and shoulders above coaches like Bob Stoops or Jim Tressel is a bit overdone.
The point being made in the original article was that 7 of the top 9 teams had made the title game during this era. It is a fact that USC did NOT make the title game during the period analyzed.
I don't remember saying anything about the performance of LSU's coaches during this time. Did I say Pete Carroll sucks and Les Miles is great? No. I didn't even say Pete Carroll sucks. Obviously, it was his staff that consistently brought in top flight classes. I'm just saying that the perception that he is head and shoulders above coaches like Bob Stoops or Jim Tressel is a bit overdone.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 3:56 pm to JPLSU1981
Don't get obsesses over stars.
Hester = 2 stars.
Tolliver and Xavier Carter = 5 stars.
Enough said.
Hester = 2 stars.
Tolliver and Xavier Carter = 5 stars.
Enough said.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 4:21 pm to JPLSU1981
actually this was done without the 2010 class and bama was 11. so you are wrong about the outside the top 9 thing.
This post was edited on 2/4/10 at 4:22 pm
Posted on 2/4/10 at 4:25 pm to Carson Sanchez
quote:
The very first class shown is the USC Class of 2006. That class should have been a major contributor last year. Instead, USC basically sucked. This is what happened: First look at USC's 2006 recruits that were rated in the Top 100 Vidal Hazelton transferred Antwine Perez transferred Jamere Holland transferred Shareece Wright Academically Ineligible Joshua Tatum transferred Emmanuel Moody transferred Also Anthony McCoy – now academically ineligible Stafon Johnson – injured neck, gone Also among the less-than-top-100 recruits in the class of 2006: Kenny Ashley – gone Walker Ashley – gone Alfred Rowe – gone Vincent Joseph – gone Gerald Washington – gone Not much in left in the class of 2006!
damn and all those people complaining about LSU....seems like other schools run into problems. Notice how both our teams didnt do to well this season, and it is not a coincident.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 4:30 pm to dgnx6
LSU @ 4, I'll take it. 
Already looking forward to 2011's class.
Already looking forward to 2011's class.Posted on 2/4/10 at 4:41 pm to tiger perry
UCONN is pretty surprising, they has done pretty well with Pop Warner water boys. I just moved from CT about a yr ago. Soon, they will start getting their share of recruits, they have put a lot of money into the facilities. I predict they will be a consistent top 15 team w/i 10 yrs.
Posted on 2/4/10 at 5:43 pm to salford227
Salford and TigerPaul - It isn't just coaching either. Certain types of 5-star recruits go to SC. Usually they like the "Hollywood" thing, and have never worked at anything in their lives. Suddenly, they realize they didn't make the 2-deep and their giant egos are bruised. Some transfer. Others just don't develop a work ethic to improve and contribute less than the 3-star guy who listened and worked hard
Posted on 2/5/10 at 10:16 am to Carson Sanchez
Carson,
I agree with you about the type of players that Carroll was attracting there, especially after his initial incredible success. I think you got a lot of "primadonnas" who thought they would just show up and beat people. I also find it interesting that USC started a slight decline (not much, but enough that they stopped competing for national titles) not long after Norm Chow and Ed Orgeron left.
I find a lot of similarities between USC under Carroll and Texas under Mack. Every year, Texas gets a Top 3 to 5 class with basically the Texas Top 20 committing by the end of March. I think there is a bit of "softness" there given the level of ranked talent they get. I also believe that Muschamp brought some much needed toughness to the defense this year and that's why they were able to step it up to the title game.
Look for LSU's defense to be much better and more dominating next year with a year of Chavis under their belt and better talent next year. I can't wait to see Craig Loston on the field. I think he will be every bit as good as Chad Jones (but, of course, we shall see).
I agree with you about the type of players that Carroll was attracting there, especially after his initial incredible success. I think you got a lot of "primadonnas" who thought they would just show up and beat people. I also find it interesting that USC started a slight decline (not much, but enough that they stopped competing for national titles) not long after Norm Chow and Ed Orgeron left.
I find a lot of similarities between USC under Carroll and Texas under Mack. Every year, Texas gets a Top 3 to 5 class with basically the Texas Top 20 committing by the end of March. I think there is a bit of "softness" there given the level of ranked talent they get. I also believe that Muschamp brought some much needed toughness to the defense this year and that's why they were able to step it up to the title game.
Look for LSU's defense to be much better and more dominating next year with a year of Chavis under their belt and better talent next year. I can't wait to see Craig Loston on the field. I think he will be every bit as good as Chad Jones (but, of course, we shall see).
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News