- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- 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
re: 5-year Average Stars Recruiting Rankings (all 119 teams)
Posted on 7/28/08 at 7:37 pm to MJRuffalo
Posted on 7/28/08 at 7:37 pm to MJRuffalo
quote:
Also keep in mind that we did not lose a game by more than a TD at all during the past 6 years. I don't quite think that is underachieving.
Loser talk.
Underachievers:
USC (just a little, or maybe just overrated)
ND
Nebraska
Overachievers:
All 3 service academies (wouldn't expect anything less)
ULM (I think we know why, which I guess makes Bama an underachiever)
ECU
Boise St. (no question, these guys are ballers)
Obviously others could be added to either list.
Posted on 7/28/08 at 7:51 pm to JPLSU1981
Off the top O' my head, it seems like FSU and Miami are wasting a lot of talent.
Posted on 7/28/08 at 8:40 pm to kclsufan
quote:
Overachievers:
All 3 service academies (wouldn't expect anything less)
Finally I thought I was the only one who noticed that. (root beer)
Posted on 7/28/08 at 10:10 pm to kclsufan
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.
Posted on 7/28/08 at 11:09 pm to JPLSU1981
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.
Posted on 7/28/08 at 11:56 pm to lsu1agn
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.
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 12:09 am
Posted on 7/29/08 at 1:02 am to JPLSU1981
"And the average is not mathematically meaningless. An average is an average is an average is an average."
Yikes. Instead of going off on how incorrect this is, I'll just thank you again for your effort and leave it at that. Good night.
Yikes. Instead of going off on how incorrect this is, I'll just thank you again for your effort and leave it at that. Good night.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 7:15 am to Trojan Ace
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.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 7:17 am to LSUMONSTER
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.
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 7:22 am
Posted on 7/29/08 at 7:43 am to lsu1agn
quote:
Yikes. Instead of going off on how incorrect this is, I'll just thank you again for your effort and leave it at that. Good night.
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. If I'm taking an average of five numbers, obviously the average is those five numbers added up and divided by five.
What we were taking an "average" of in this poll was our average star ranking for each indivdidual recruiting class as a whole. You are certainly correct in that a more accurate look at our average stars on roster would be to take each star of every recruit during the 5yr period and divide by the total number of recruits during the five year period. But in that case we would be taking an "average" of every recruit on roster's star ranking. That's not what we did here. We looked at classes as a whole, and came up with an average as such. There's nothing wrong with that average, because that's the average we were looking for, if you get what I'm saying.
We took an average of each recruiting CLASS's AS A WHOLE average star ranking. There is nothing inaccurate about what I said before.
And like I said before, it's really pointless to even discuss because either way one was to calculate the poll you're going to end up with basically the same results. It's just one guy will work for 30 minutes to get the rankings and the other one will work for 6 hours to get the rankings, and in the end everything will look the same.
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 7:52 am
Posted on 7/29/08 at 11:46 am to JPLSU1981
Interesting stat: Schools that played for the BCS title:
Top 10 recruiting schools: 80%
Second 10 recruiting schools: 20% (UThug and Nebraska)
Schools 21-30: 10% (VA Tech)
31-119: 0%
Of course this validates the star system. Beyond that, it's intuitive that better recruits=better results, but the separation between the top 10 and anyone else is eye-opening. Also, Fla State fans should be livid; no one does less with more.
Top 10 recruiting schools: 80%
Second 10 recruiting schools: 20% (UThug and Nebraska)
Schools 21-30: 10% (VA Tech)
31-119: 0%
Of course this validates the star system. Beyond that, it's intuitive that better recruits=better results, but the separation between the top 10 and anyone else is eye-opening. Also, Fla State fans should be livid; no one does less with more.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 12:31 pm to Tiger40
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.
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 12:41 pm
Posted on 7/29/08 at 12:33 pm to Tiger40
quote:
Of course this validates the star system. Beyond that, it's intuitive that better recruits=better results, but the separation between the top 10 and anyone else is eye-opening.
No question about it, if a team wants to win the national title, it is an absoulte necessity to get in the Top10 in a list like this. History shows that if you're not, you aint winnin it all.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 3:04 pm to JPLSU1981
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.
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.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 3:26 pm to MJRuffalo
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), won an AP NC and a bcs NC, won the PAC-10 every season etc.
Also keep in mind that we did not lose a game by more than a TD at all during the past 6 years. I don't quite think that is underachieving.
For the Football season of 2005 is when USC lost to Texas in the MNC (Jan. 2006). I bet you that USC had more talent than Texas the previous 5 recruiting classes.
Rivals does not keep the data for 2000 and 2001 available (they took it off within the last 2 years), but I know for a fact that USC's 5 classes from 2000 to 2004 has a better average recruiting ranking than Texas for that time period.
Yet USC lost to Texas, so it is either USC underperforms and their recruits are accurately rated or USC performs to its talent level and the talent is over rated.
You can't have it both ways because the separation between the talent level or rating of classes on average of USC is 8% better than UF, 9% better than LSU or Oklahoma, and 10% better than Texas.
So which is it?
Is USC's talent overrated or do they just underperform?...
How much do ya'll want to bet that the USC guys either; 1) fail to answer this question, or 2) ramble on about some other Bull shite without picking one of the two choices?
Neither makes their program look good, but they won't admit it! But, the truth lies somewhere in what I said...
Overrated, underperform, or combination of both...
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 4:14 pm
Posted on 7/29/08 at 3:50 pm to MJRuffalo
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.
Posted on 7/29/08 at 4:12 pm to H-Town Tiger 98
quote:
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!)
I just went to Sagarin's published strenght of schedule tables from 2007...
Everything that you said was TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!
I did not know this and I am a football fanatic!
Many, many thanks!
Let's see what the Pac-1, USC Kool-aid drinking Hacks say about that?
This post was edited on 7/29/08 at 4:22 pm
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News