Started By
Message
locked post

Updated Rankings: Cumulative Average Star Rankings (2005-09)

Posted on 2/10/09 at 8:31 pm
Posted by JPLSU1981
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2005
28422 posts
Posted on 2/10/09 at 8:31 pm
NOTE: Keep in mind this was compiled in Feb 2009. I will be updating after signing day 2010 and deleting the 2005 class from these rankings.

Following is the cumulative average star rankings of each team's classes since 2005 (a pretty accurate depiction of players/talent that were on roster for each team in the 2009 season, at least according to Rivals stars).

It would be more accurate if we took the total stars of all players signed in the period and divided by the total number of players signed in the period, but that's too much work and you'd probably end up with the same results or very close to it. Below we just took the average stars of each 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 6 of the Top7 have either won or played in a national title game in the period (Georgia being the only team in the Top7 that hasn't played in a national title game). Also interesting is only ONE team outside the Top7 has even PLAYED in a national title game in the period (ETA...Alabama was the first).

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. I've underlined the teams outside of the Top10 that I think are interesting.


Ranking School 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Average
1 USC 3.95 3.96 4.22 3.89 3.89 19.91 3.982
2 Florida 3.39 3.89 3.89 3.82 3.94 18.93 3.786
3 LSU 3.69 3.64 3.88 3.58 3.79 18.58 3.716
4 Ohio State 3.50 3.60 3.80 3.79 3.76 18.45 3.690
5 Texas 3.60 3.60 3.79 3.55 3.85 18.39 3.678
6 Georgia 3.58 3.64 3.48 3.67 3.83 18.20 3.640
7 Oklahoma 3.63 3.54 3.38 3.81 3.43 17.79 3.558
8 Michigan 3.48 3.63 3.40 3.67 3.59 17.77 3.554
9 Florida State 3.82 3.68 3.20 3.33 3.62 17.65 3.530
10 Notre Dame 3.00 3.46 3.72 3.96 3.44 17.58 3.516
11 Alabama 3.03 3.61 3.28 3.72 3.81 17.45 3.490
12 Miami-FL 3.82 3.36 3.21 3.33 3.60 17.32 3.464
13 Tennessee 3.63 3.09 3.63 3.06 3.53 16.94 3.388
14 Clemson 3.08 3.40 3.22 3.42 3.50 16.62 3.324
15 UCLA 3.00 3.23 3.27 3.52 3.33 16.35 3.270
16 Auburn 3.19 3.52 3.37 3.03 3.21 16.32 3.264
17 Nebraska 3.33 3.27 3.33 2.96 3.25 16.14 3.228
18 South Carolina 2.96 3.08 3.42 3.18 3.34 15.98 3.196
19 California 3.38 3.30 3.00 3.05 3.11 15.84 3.168
20 Penn State 3.05 3.63 3.14 3.00 2.96 15.78 3.156
21 Texas A&M 3.23 2.96 2.89 3.17 3.14 15.39 3.078
22 Arizona 3.17 3.28 2.72 3.00 2.96 15.13 3.026
23 Maryland 3.08 3.00 2.85 3.11 3.08 15.12 3.024
24 Arkansas 3.00 2.96 2.93 2.88 3.30 15.07 3.014
25 Virginia Tech 3.08 3.00 2.73 3.10 3.09 15.00 3.000
26 Oregon 2.87 2.67 3.24 3.25 2.92 14.95 2.990
27 North Carolina 2.50 2.93 3.00 3.16 3.34 14.93 2.986
28 Oklahoma State 2.76 3.03 3.04 3.04 3.00 14.87 2.974
29 Arizona State 2.82 3.04 2.63 3.15 3.10 14.74 2.948
30 Pittsburgh 2.54 3.08 3.04 3.16 2.90 14.72 2.944
31 Ole Miss 2.56 3.17 3.09 2.71 3.11 14.64 2.928
32 Illinois 2.57 2.89 3.00 3.00 3.10 14.56 2.912
33 Wisconsin 2.74 2.70 3.06 2.83 3.00 14.33 2.866
34 Michigan State 2.75 2.84 2.70 2.71 3.30 14.30 2.860
35 Texas Tech 2.67 2.88 2.73 3.00 3.00 14.28 2.856
36 Virginia 3.14 2.67 3.04 2.50 2.84 14.19 2.838
37 Missouri 2.83 2.63 2.89 3.00 2.80 14.15 2.830
38 Kansas 2.65 2.72 2.57 3.10 3.08 14.12 2.824
39 Colorado 2.68 2.61 2.68 3.24 2.84 14.05 2.810
40 Washington 2.54 2.82 2.81 2.92 2.94 14.03 2.806
41 Georgia Tech 2.37 2.69 3.30 2.64 2.90 13.90 2.780
42 Iowa 3.22 2.70 2.95 2.54 2.47 13.88 2.776
43 Stanford 2.81 2.44 2.63 2.71 3.27 13.86 2.772
44 West Virginia 2.48 2.63 2.96 2.63 3.13 13.83 2.766
45 Boston College 2.81 2.85 2.83 2.83 2.47 13.79 2.758
46 NC State 2.83 2.45 2.64 2.88 2.78 13.58 2.716
47 Minnesota 2.67 2.33 2.46 3.07 3.05 13.58 2.716
48 Miss State 2.56 2.67 2.62 2.56 3.15 13.56 2.712
49 Kansas State 2.90 2.52 2.67 2.94 2.48 13.51 2.702
50 Louisville 2.59 2.92 3.06 2.59 2.31 13.47 2.694
51 Rutgers 2.32 2.52 2.83 2.65 3.00 13.32 2.664
52 Purdue 3.00 2.38 2.68 2.48 2.53 13.07 2.614
53 Oregon State 2.60 2.60 2.51 2.72 2.63 13.06 2.612
54 TCU 2.38 2.56 2.54 2.40 3.00 12.88 2.576
55 South Florida 2.43 2.36 2.48 2.46 3.00 12.73 2.546
56 Southern Miss 2.30 2.29 2.16 2.78 2.95 12.48 2.496
57 Northwestern 2.50 2.24 2.74 2.30 2.67 12.45 2.490
58 Utah 2.29 2.17 2.32 2.73 2.84 12.35 2.470
59 Iowa State 2.52 2.50 2.44 2.33 2.52 12.31 2.462
60 Washington State 2.50 2.57 2.44 2.23 2.55 12.29 2.458
61 BYU 2.31 2.12 2.46 2.52 2.86 12.27 2.454
62 Syracuse 2.40 2.43 2.56 2.54 2.29 12.22 2.444
63 Baylor 2.35 2.34 2.34 2.45 2.71 12.19 2.438
64 Kentucky 2.15 2.53 2.31 2.50 2.69 12.18 2.436
65 Wake Forest 2.26 2.40 2.30 2.47 2.48 11.91 2.382
66 Duke 2.26 2.38 2.19 2.41 2.63 11.87 2.374
67 UCF 2.16 2.29 2.31 2.61 2.42 11.79 2.358
68 Vandy 2.08 2.27 2.50 2.19 2.71 11.75 2.350
69 Boise State 2.44 2.17 2.24 2.26 2.52 11.63 2.326
70 Indiana 2.13 2.25 2.15 2.26 2.72 11.51 2.302
71 Fresno State 2.16 2.35 2.27 2.41 2.29 11.48 2.296
72 Cincinnati 2.04 2.44 2.26 2.25 2.48 11.47 2.294
73 UAB 2.19 2.54 2.04 2.08 2.57 11.42 2.284
74 San Diego St 2.56 2.28 2.27 2.19 2.10 11.40 2.280
75 Hawaii 2.21 2.00 2.42 2.30 2.39 11.32 2.264
76 Tulsa 2.32 2.06 1.87 2.30 2.64 11.19 2.238
77 Memphis 2.06 2.12 2.22 2.29 2.48 11.17 2.234
78 Akron 2.17 2.17 2.19 2.18 2.33 11.04 2.208
79 SMU 2.23 2.13 2.17 2.14 2.35 11.02 2.204
80 Troy 2.09 2.12 2.22 2.24 2.35 11.02 2.204
81 Marshall 2.05 2.13 2.15 2.38 2.29 11.00 2.200
82 UNLV 2.17 2.15 2.32 2.00 2.36 11.00 2.200
83 LA Tech 2.04 2.11 2.27 2.19 2.35 10.96 2.192
84 Houston 2.08 2.04 2.14 2.16 2.52 10.94 2.188
85 Conneticut 2.27 1.96 2.24 2.14 2.24 10.85 2.170
86 Wyoming 2.11 2.05 2.29 2.14 2.17 10.76 2.152
87 East Carolina 2.00 2.15 2.15 2.14 2.32 10.76 2.152
88 UTEP 2.10 2.10 2.26 2.12 2.14 10.72 2.144
89 North Texas 2.04 2.12 2.06 2.30 2.15 10.67 2.134
90 Kent State 2.08 2.00 2.08 2.18 2.32 10.66 2.132
91 Toledo 2.09 1.95 2.32 2.13 2.15 10.64 2.128
92 Colorado State 2.11 2.13 1.96 2.16 2.25 10.61 2.122
93 New Mexico 2.12 2.04 2.00 2.18 2.21 10.55 2.110
94 Mid Tenn State 2.08 2.00 2.00 2.29 2.13 10.50 2.100
95 Rice 2.05 2.06 2.13 2.06 2.13 10.43 2.086
96 Miami-OH 2.00 2.05 2.17 2.06 2.12 10.40 2.080
97 Ball State 2.00 2.13 2.00 2.10 2.13 10.36 2.072
98 San Jose St 2.08 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.11 10.34 2.068
99 Nevada 2.05 1.96 2.00 2.14 2.19 10.34 2.068
100 Western Michigan 2.08 2.00 2.04 2.12 2.08 10.32 2.064
101 LA Monroe 2.00 2.13 2.00 2.14 2.04 10.31 2.062
102 LA Lafayette 2.13 2.05 2.06 2.00 2.06 10.30 2.060
103 Idaho 2.00 2.05 2.05 2.10 2.10 10.30 2.060
104 Tulane 2.05 2.00 1.92 2.00 2.32 10.29 2.058
105 Northern Illinois 2.17 2.06 2.00 2.00 2.04 10.27 2.054
106 Arkansas St 2.09 2.05 2.04 2.04 2.05 10.27 2.054
107 Central Michigan 2.04 2.00 1.94 2.05 2.23 10.26 2.052
108 Ohio 2.00 1.95 1.91 2.20 2.19 10.25 2.050
109 Eastern Michigan 2.00 2.00 2.04 2.04 2.14 10.22 2.044
110 Utah State 2.00 2.04 2.00 2.10 2.05 10.19 2.038
111 Temple 2.03 1.89 2.13 2.08 2.04 10.17 2.034
112 Bowling Green 2.00 1.96 2.10 2.00 2.09 10.15 2.030
113 Buffalo 2.00 2.13 1.90 2.00 2.09 10.12 2.024
114 New Mexico State 2.00 1.76 2.10 2.00 2.14 10.00 2.000
115 Air Force 1.50 1.65 1.73 1.93 1.90 8.71 1.742
116 Army 2.00 1.05 1.65 2.00 1.85 8.55 1.710
117 Navy 2.00 1.18 1.33 1.75 1.14 7.40 1.480
118 Illinois State 1.33 1.33 1.00 0.94 0.75 5.35 1.070
119 Chattanooga 0.67 0.67 0.44 0.00 0.83 2.61 0.522
This post was edited on 2/2/10 at 12:36 pm
Posted by TigerFanNKaty
texas
Member since Sep 2008
10313 posts
Posted on 2/10/09 at 8:37 pm to
One that stands out for me the most is UTAH in at 58. Just goes to show what the rankings really mean I guess.
Posted by TheHiddenFlask
The Welsh red light district
Member since Jul 2008
18384 posts
Posted on 2/10/09 at 8:38 pm to
quote:


One that stands out for me the most is UTAH in at 58. Just goes to show what the rankings really mean I guess.


Do you ever get the feeling that you should just not talk?

You should listen to that little voice more often.
Posted by JinFL
Duuuval
Member since Oct 2004
4450 posts
Posted on 2/10/09 at 9:41 pm to
Funny when people say stars don't matter. On average, it does.
Posted by The Yetty
Member since Feb 2005
12542 posts
Posted on 2/10/09 at 10:03 pm to
Surprised to see UConn that low. They always make some Big East noise.
Posted by bfniii
Member since Nov 2005
17840 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 7:58 am to
i have trouble understanding why excellent football players consider osu or mich given the current state of college football.

1. it's cold. too many good football teams in warm climates to care about living up there.
2. the big 10's rep has never been worse. national tv has not been kind to them lately
3. there are too many other programs that have better facilities/competition/fan bases to consider a big 10 school.

i know, i know. win the big 10 and you are either in the ncg or the rose bowl. to get embarassed again? why go through that when you can play at usc/miami/fla st, in the big12 or in the sec? just doesn't make sense.
Posted by Prominentwon
LSU, McNeese St. Fan
Member since Jan 2005
95017 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 8:06 am to
quote:

Just goes to show what the rankings really mean I guess.


Yeah? The top 5 teams have won or have been in the National Championship game in each of the last 7 years.
Posted by Prominentwon
LSU, McNeese St. Fan
Member since Jan 2005
95017 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 8:06 am to
quote:

Surprised to see UConn that low. They always make some Big East noise.


wasn't that long ago that UConn was I-AA
Posted by Rockerbraves
Greatest Nation on Earth
Member since Feb 2007
8015 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 8:07 am to
Good stuff
Posted by RedlandsTiger
Greenwell Springs, LA
Member since Jan 2008
3188 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 8:14 am to
JPLSU1981

Thanks, a lot of work!

Posted by LSU2NO
Baton Rouge
Member since Oct 2007
1949 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 9:12 am to
But look at how they have pulled up their ranking from 2.29 to 2.84. That also can tell you that they are getting some name recognition.

And yes, great work JPLSU1981. A statistical masterpiece.
This post was edited on 2/11/09 at 9:15 am
Posted by papt99
south louisiana
Member since Jun 2007
919 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 9:15 am to
isn't it amazing that we can compete with Florida and USC? When you talk about places to spend the best 4 years of your life, why not in California or Florida. I mean they have the weather, the beaches, the girls. Not to mention USC is on TV every weekend and a shoe in for the rose bowl every year. thank god for local talent and good ole momma's boys.
Posted by BamasBack
Birmingham
Member since Jul 2007
306 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 9:29 am to
quote:

TigerFanNKaty
Updated Rankings: Cumulative Average Star Rankings (2005-09)
One that stands out for me the most is UTAH in at 58. Just goes to show what the rankings really mean I guess.
I think it shows what good coaching can do with average recruits. If you look at the top 7 classes they were all top 10 teams last year. Rankings do matter along with good coaching.
Posted by PinevilleTiger
Pineville, LA
Member since Sep 2005
6382 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 10:22 am to
For those of you who say "stars don't matter" take a look at the top 5 in that list, then think about which teams have contended for a National Championship lately. By the way, Utah is irrevlevant since they beat an over-rated SEC team on New Years day. If we had a QB, we would have beaten Bama by 30 this year.
Posted by Good Times
Hill top in Tn
Member since Nov 2007
24848 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 10:34 am to
quote:

NO team outside the Top7 has even PLAYED in a national title game in the period


I suggest that we stay in the top 7, anyone with me on this.

Send this to the Ga board. Tell MR to get off his arse.
Posted by Rockerbraves
Greatest Nation on Earth
Member since Feb 2007
8015 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 10:58 am to
The only problem I see with the star system is properly evaluating a player's dedication & love of the game and character aka Hester.
Posted by baytiger
Boston
Member since Dec 2007
46978 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 11:04 am to
holy crap, Turner Gill can coach
Posted by Buckeye06
Member since Dec 2007
25264 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 11:10 am to
Obviously you have no idea about the way things work in the world if you don't think top notch athletes would ever want to go to the Big X.

Do history and tradition mean anything to you? What about getting guys into the NFL? How about playing for the team that you grew up rooting for and loved ever since you were a little boy.

And what about getting tired of seeing all the stuff on ESPN about how kids from Ohio can't keep up with the Florida kids.

And football in cold weather is so much better than in hot weather IMO. I'd take a game at 30 over a game at 95 any day of the week
Posted by Beached Tiger
Member since Aug 2007
777 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 11:14 am to
BamasBack
Quote:
"I think it shows what good coaching can do with average recruits. If you look at the top 7 classes they were all top 10 teams last year. Rankings do matter along with good coaching".
An admission from a Bamar. Saban was out coached.
Posted by TortiousTiger
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2007
12668 posts
Posted on 2/11/09 at 11:24 am to
you need a weighted avg, for example:

USC: 15 recruits at 3.89 stars for 2009
___ recrutis at ___ stars for 2008



and so on...
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 3Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram