point ranking system

Rivals takes everyone Bama, USC, Texas and Oklahoma offers and automatically gives them 3 stars or better. Just kidding, but not too much.

The usually bump up a commit rather than bump down a commit at thost schools. LSU doesn't get a lot of love from any of the sites. The more Kool-Aid drinkers, the more subscriptions, and therefore the more love those schools get. It's business.

If Rivals were right, then Scout and 247 would have the same rankings but they don't. Everyone has a different take. LSU fans are a passionate bunch, but I don't think they obsess about recruiting as a whole as the other SEC schools. LSU is about GAME DAY.

Last I look, Texas has beat LSU in the rankings 4 of 5 years, yet we were 13-1 this year and better than them last year. Don't take it too seriously, altough for the most part, the players they identify are all pretty good, but it's a better idea to think 5 stars as a group rather than #1 vs #23 overall.

Here is the team ranking formula for those interested... (please keep in mind a statistician from UC-Berkeley developed this for us).

Please note you only take the top 20 prospects in this formula, ordered by # Stars descending.

POINTS = ((N / (N + 50)) * H) + ((50 / (N + 50)) * L)

where...

H = 250 for each 5-star commit + 140 for each 4-star + 75 for each 3-star + 20 for each 2-star + 10 for each 1-star

L = 18 for each 5-star + 12 for each 4-star + 8 for each 3-star + 3 for each 2-star + 1 for each 1-star

N = a big honkin' calculation, described below

CALCULATION OF N:
10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
1 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (high school) ranked 91-100

10 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 1-10
9 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 11-20
etc. down to...
6 for each commit on the Rivals 100 (non-high school) ranked 41-50

24 for each commit ranked #1 on his official position ranking
18 for each commit ranked #2-5 on his official position ranking
8 for each commit ranked 6-X on his official position ranking, where X is dependent on detail position, as listed below...

--Dual-threat QB: 25
--Pro-style QB: 25
--Running Back: 35
--All-Purpose Back: 15
--Fullback: 15
--Wide Receiver: 50
--Tight End: 20
--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10
--Defensive Tackle: 50
--Weakside Defensive End: 20
--Strongside Defensive End: 30
--Inside Linebacker: 35
--Outside Linebacker: 35
--Cornerback: 40
--Safety: 30
--Athlete: 25
--Kicker: (no points awarded for rank lower than 5th)

If the team's average stars are greater than 3, add (100 * (Avg stars - 3)) to N.

So in other words..according to Rivals if you have a need for a kicker, whether he is the best kicker out of high school or not, you get no points and all you have to do is sign a class full of Defensive Tackles and Wide Receivers and you will be the "best recruiting class in the nation"

Good lawd...after reading that I've lost a lot of respect for Rivals. Wing, Alleman, and our long snapper were vital to LSU's success on special teams.

quote:

---

--Offensive Tackle: 40
--Offensive Guard: 30
--Offensive Center: 10

---

This totally backwards IMO. You build an offensive line from the center out. Being dominant in the middle is more important than at the edges. You can always get help at the edges with a TE or RB. The guys in the middle are usually left alone. See how Sean Payton built the Saints, see how Parcells built the Giants.

quote:

---

How many left tackles get taken in the top 10 of the draft? Now think about how many centers or guards.

---

I know the conventional wisdom is to build your o-line from the tackles in. Based on what SP has done with the Saints (and what he has learned from Parcells) my opinion has changed. I realize you can have success down both paths, I just think that a dominant interior is preferable to being dominant on the edges. Having a spot in the pocket for your QB to step into is way underrated. Also, gaining 5 yards up the middle is more demoralizing and taxing on a defense than gaining 5 yards off the edge.

quote:

---

the thing is you can always beef up an OT and move him down. You cant make a guard or center be more athletic and have quicker feet to block speed rushing D ends.

---

Well, that's a good point. From a recruiting perspective I can now see that OTs should be weighted higher in the formula due to their apparent versatility. But a 10 is pretty low for a center, IMO.