- 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
Why is so much stock being put in rankings?
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:29 pm
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:29 pm
Teams that are consistently ranked top 5 in recruiting: Notre Dame, Miami, and Florida State. List of all their accomplishments recently combined:....... The stars aren't always the best indicator and it seems like most forget Honey Badger was only a 3 star as was Eric Reid. Even if this class wasn't the best we have had, we still have a ton of talent still on the team along with a solid class we will be signing next season.
12
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:30 pm to lsutigertalk
Because most people have no idea how to judge a prospect, so they depend on people who some what do. Hence the dependence on rankings.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:31 pm to lsutigertalk
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:32 pm to lsutigertalk
Notre Dame and Miami have not consisntely been anywhere near the top five in recruiting lately.
Teams that consistently have: Alabama, LSU, USCw, Texas, Florida, Ohio State...noticing a trend?
Teams that consistently have: Alabama, LSU, USCw, Texas, Florida, Ohio State...noticing a trend?
This post was edited on 2/1/12 at 2:35 pm
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:32 pm to lsutigertalk
quote:
Teams that are consistently ranked top 5 in recruiting: Notre Dame, Miami, and Florida State
So is Alabama, Florida and US.
What dominant college power is there that is not consistently ranked high? Are you saying we shouldnt care if we are ranked highly? The rankings are that unimportant? Again, which college power should we emulate (ie dominate team with low rankings recruiting wise... who are we missing to role model after)
Yes we can all pull anecdotal players that were 3 stars and became studs... but the more top quality horses you have the better chance they will produce the gems you want.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:33 pm to lsutigertalk
quote:
Honey Badger was only a 3 star as was Eric Reid.
Eric Reid was Top 100. 4*, very nearly a 5*.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:33 pm to lsutigertalk
quote:
Notre Dame, Miami, and Florida State
Florida State has 5 Top 5 recruiting classes since 2002
Notre Dame has 1 Top 5 recruiting class since 2002
Miami has has 4 Top 4 recruiting class since 2002
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:36 pm to lsutigertalk
LSU not ranked high = rankings suck! who cares about star!
LSU ranked high = WE STACKED!!! Look at our star average! OMG!
LSU ranked high = WE STACKED!!! Look at our star average! OMG!
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:36 pm to graychef
quote:
quote:
Honey Badger was only a 3 star as was Eric Reid.
Eric Reid was Top 100. 4*, very nearly a 5*.
And Tyrann was a four star.
The recruiting rankings have been statistically validated. Anyone who believes they are arbitrary and irrelevant is simply being stubborn.
This post was edited on 2/1/12 at 2:39 pm
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:37 pm to The312
Because they have nothing else important in their lives (srs)
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:37 pm to lsutigertalk
Because propaganda works my friend. For example, we all know that TCU and Boise have horrible talent, and that they are just "coached up" to excellence. Yeah, right. Who is publishing the magazines and where are most of them sold? We all know that the publishers and writers for these magazines and services have all done in depth evaluation of the prospects that they so expertly rank.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:40 pm to lsutigertalk
You know, Curley Hallman used to say the same thing. He didn't believe it either.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:41 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:
Because most people have no idea how to judge a prospect, so they depend on people who some what do. Hence the dependence on rankings.
Rantards gonna ranter.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:55 pm to bamfchris
I said top 5 and mis spoke. But here are the facts: Miami since 2002 averages being ranked 14, 5 top ten recruiting classes. Florida State averages being ranked 9 since 2002, has been ranked 8 times in the top ten. Notre Dame averages being ranked 19 since 2002 and has been in the top ten 4 times.
This post was edited on 2/1/12 at 2:56 pm
Posted on 2/1/12 at 2:58 pm to lsutigertalk
Because its on the internet!! Or the news!! Most people believe what they are fed by the media. Those dam stars are no indicator of what the player has inside... when he starts competing against others as good or better than himself.. thats when we see who will excell and who wont
Posted on 2/1/12 at 3:24 pm to SOL
Yet Curly had the #1 class one year. The class with Robert Davis and the RB Johnson from Waco. But then again recruiting rankings were a lot less accurate back then. There were instances of people making up prospects back then that did not even exist. They would end up as the best at their position in some instances. There were only three back then Wallace, lemming and Emfinger.
Posted on 2/1/12 at 3:26 pm to graychef
quote:
Honey Badger was only a 3 star as was Eric Reid.
Eric Reid was Top 100. 4*, very nearly a 5*.
Yes TM7 was a 4* and Eric Reid was an Army All American haha
Posted on 2/1/12 at 3:27 pm to lsuhunt555
quote:Or wash the sand out of their vaginas.
Because most people have no idea how to judge a prospect,
This is a damn good class.
We finally got LB's
Posted on 2/1/12 at 4:08 pm to lsutigertalk
LINK
Sorry if germans as the search function is down, but this article in today's Wall Street Journal looks at Rivals data from the 2004-2008 recruiting classes and shows a correlation between where a recruit is ranked and how likely they are to drafted ( and thus the best athletes at their positions in college). A 5 star has a 46% chance of being drafted, a 4 star a 19% chance, and a 3 star only a 9% shot. Plenty of room for making mistakes if you don' t pick the right person, but it does show your odds are greatly improved for landing the best athletes if you can land those higher rated. But I trust coaches like Chavis are good at fitting guys into our scheme. I wish I felt that same level of trust regarding our offensive scheme.
Sorry if germans as the search function is down, but this article in today's Wall Street Journal looks at Rivals data from the 2004-2008 recruiting classes and shows a correlation between where a recruit is ranked and how likely they are to drafted ( and thus the best athletes at their positions in college). A 5 star has a 46% chance of being drafted, a 4 star a 19% chance, and a 3 star only a 9% shot. Plenty of room for making mistakes if you don' t pick the right person, but it does show your odds are greatly improved for landing the best athletes if you can land those higher rated. But I trust coaches like Chavis are good at fitting guys into our scheme. I wish I felt that same level of trust regarding our offensive scheme.
This post was edited on 2/1/12 at 4:11 pm
Posted on 2/1/12 at 4:09 pm to lsutigertalk
Because it matter in the aggregate, even though there are exceptions. Exceptions are not how you draw conclusions. Look at the norm. MOST of the time, the ratings bear out.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News