- 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: LSU at #2. Lookin' good and feelin' good too.
Posted on 8/29/24 at 12:44 pm to bayou85
Posted on 8/29/24 at 12:44 pm to bayou85
quote:
how is the score figured vs just averaging?
My understanding is that the “score” essentially weights each kid in descending order of their ranking in that school’s class—such that the best recruit is weighted more heavily than the second best, who is weighted more heavily than the third best, etc., on down the line—whereas “average rating” is just a straight up average, with every commit weighted equally.
At first blush, you might think to yourself that it’s stupid and arbitrary to weight higher-ranked guys more heavily, since obviously at the end of the day everyone is still part of the class, but it actually does make sense. Consider: If two teams have virtually identical classes, then one of them adds a lower-ranked depth piece or specialist, that team’s class shouldn’t be considered *worse*, now.
This is much less of an issue with On3 (which is why their weighting appears less tilted) because they give class scores based on a very number of recruits depending on the point in time during the cycle. Still, though, some adjustment makes sense: The gap in expected impact at the power-4 level between an elite 5* and a high 3* is greater than the gap between the 3* and a player rated lower by the same margin. The 5* likely has a major impact, whereas the high 3* is likely a rotational guy with minimal impact - a bigger gap than the gap between a rotational guy and someone who won’t see the field. (Yes, I know, sometimes 3* pan out, but you have to play the averages).
Or, to think of it differently: if you had to fill two final spots in a class, would you rather have (a) one five star and one guy who won’t ever play but is the 5*s best friend, or (b) two high 3*? Option (a) is the clearly “better” grouping, but option (b) might have a better effect on your average prospect rating
0
Posted on 8/29/24 at 3:59 pm to ExpoTiger
quote:
Thread hijack but holy shite, Colorado!
quote:
Yeah that experiment will be a disaster in the end. However long that is. They will have a smoldering crater of a roster by the time he leaves. They will probably have worse numbers for the next coach to inherit than Prime did.
That new shine has already worn off. It sure is quiet out there in Boulder.
Posted on 8/29/24 at 4:22 pm to LSUPERMAN
I dont mind ND. Would much rather see aggie lose, which directly helps us in recruiting.
Posted on 8/30/24 at 9:48 am to Salviati
I don't believe the ranking between 1 and 3 means anything at this point. LSU has an excellent recruiting class if they are able to sign them.
Posted on 8/31/24 at 6:37 am to Salviati
Could have used French
Posted on 8/31/24 at 8:48 am to Hot Carl
quote:Some people did a list most and said that it was theoretically possible for 8 SEC teams to go 10-2. Let me point you to the 6 who could easily do it.
You got a lot of teams finishing 10-2. I want to see how realignment plays out before predicting that. Of course 4 teams will have an extra win and 4 more will have an extra loss after the CCGs. The extra wins won’t matter as the conference champs will be the top 4 seeds regardless. But it’s going to be really interesting to see how CCG losers are handled. Does a 10-2 LSU who loses to 12-0 Georgia in the SECCG to finish 10-3 before the final poll/seedings get a worse seed than a 10-2 Texas who they didn’t play? They are really gonna have to have the foresight to think through any unintended consequences of the precedences they set this year.
UGA losses to Bama and possibly Texas (both road game). They have 3 games in a row where they play Florida in cocktail, then Ole Miss on the road, then Tennessee at home with what could end up being a heisman level QB in Nico and an elite front 7.
Bama losses to 2 of LSU, UGA, and Tennessee. Could also lose to one of Oklahoma on the road and Auburn at home to end the season.
Texas losses to Oklahoma and either TAMU or Arkansas on the road. They could also lose to UGA or Michigan
Ole Miss with losses to LSU and UGA
LSU with losses to TAMU and Arkansas or TAMU/Arkansas loss and Ole Miss/Bama loss
Mizzou with losses to Bama and TAMU/South Carolina on the road or Oklahoma.
Tennessee with losses to UGA and Oklahoma on the road or UGA on the road and Bama at home.
Posted on 8/31/24 at 7:33 pm to Datbayoubengal
quote:
Some people did a list most and said that it was theoretically possible for 8 SEC teams to go 10-2. Let me point you to the 6 who could easily do it.
So I played that out to get to 5+ teams at 10-2 or better, looking at what it would mean for the rest of the conference. A few observations:
1. Texas’ SEC schedule is almost a non-factor. But their road game against Michigan will be the real test. They need to win two of four against Michigan, OU, UGA, and aTm.
2. Same can be said for Tennessee and Missouri. Tennessee needs to win one out of three against OU/UGA/Bama to get to 10-2 or better. Mizzou needs to win one out of three against aTm/Bama/OU. Neither seems that crazy.
3. It probably requires OU to have a pretty rough year. OU got absolutely fricked with their first SEC schedule, playing Texas, Ole Miss, LSU, Alabama, Tennessee, and Mizzou. They play 6 of the 7 teams you listed who could potentially go 10-2 or better. If OU is actually good, it makes it much harder to get 5 teams to 10-2.
4. It also requires Florida to have a rough year. They play 5 of the 7 teams you listed. Poor Billy. (JK, I’m here for it.)
5. My first reaction when I read your post was “sure it’s possible, but it’s extremely unlikely.” After looking at the schedules, it’s really not hard to imagine. IMO it really comes down to OU, aTm, and Florida. If all three of those teams are good, I think it becomes a longshot. If all three are bad, I think it becomes likely.
It’s going to be really interesting to see how the committee decides to rank the SEC teams if we have 5+ finish 10-2 or better (which would likely mean 3-4 10-2 teams vying for 2-3 spots).
I looked at the OOC schedules for those teams. Four teams (Missouri, Tennessee, Alabama, and Ole Miss) only have one P4 opponent, who is currently unranked. Texas also only has one P4 OOC opponent but it’s at #9 Michigan. UGA and LSU both have two P4 OOC opponents, one of whom is currently ranked (UGA vs. #14 Clemson and LSU vs. #23 USC).
Based on that, combined with the conference schedules, I think Mizzou and Tennessee are going to have a tough time getting in if they are in a pack of 10-2 SEC teams. I think Alabama, Ole Miss, and Texas should be in the next tier based on their schedules, but I think realistically the name recognition and media love will carry Texas and Alabama above Ole Miss. So I think the pecking order, with equal records, looks something like this:
- Tennessee, Missouri
- Ole Miss
- Alabama, Texas, LSU
- UGA
Of course, head to head will ultimately play a big part and the teams will not all have equal records. Idk, could get interesting.
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News