Online Now 1485

Horns247 Board

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

On this Board 1174
Record: 4156 (12/1/2012)

Online now 1498
Record: 7224 (2/22/2012)

Boards ▾

Horns247 Board

The place to talk about the Texas Longhorns

6th Street

The place for off topic discussion on Hookem

Reply

Bobby why is Bama #1 in team rankings?

  • How can one extra 5 star recruit trump 9 extra 4 stars. We also have 25 commitments to their 22.

    DualThreatQB

  • I have been wondering the same thing. It must be the formula.

    jj1363

  • Good question. Personally, I stopped caring about that stuff because it's too subjective.

    Having said that, I like to see the players we get ranked in the top 250. Sometimes the difference between someone ranked 75th or 242nd is a lot smaller than people think.

    signature image
    signature image
     signature image

    GetHooked

  • SEC SEC SEC

    THScoach

  • Their avg rating is almost identical to ours, don't really know what the formula is though. I know when all the 247 guys were over at rivals, it considered only the top 22 or 23 players in a class.

    signature image signature image signature image

    khorn28 ●

  • I would like to know this also.

    masskoda

  • I think Bobby said a few weeks ago that it had something to do with their actual rating, not just the star rating.

    WarDamnBevo

  • DualThreatQB said...

    How can one extra 5 star recruit trump 9 extra 4 stars. We also have 25 commitments to their 22.

    I think the rating are based on the top 15-18 recruits not the entire class

    The Bigdawg

  • The Bigdawg said...

    I think the rating are based on the top 15-18 recruits not the entire class

    Well that is a good question because I just did a quick side-by-side comparison based on ratings of the two classes. When you average the ratings out they would beat us at the point of looking at only the top 12 prospects. They have us beat in the top half of the class but our depth is where we are much better. There must be some other method they are using to rank the classes.

    Our class is a wonderful class and let's hope that these kids end up being studs at the next level.

    This image will show you the side-by-side of the first 22. Now what I did not do was break it down how they compare by position.

    attachment

    Whataburger ●

  • The Bigdawg said...

    I think the rating are based on the top 15-18 recruits not the entire class

    Top 17.

    Because 17 * 5 = 85

    NLeininger

  • GetHooked said...

    Good question. Personally, I stopped caring about that stuff because it's too subjective.

    Having said that, I like to see the players we get ranked in the top 250. Sometimes the difference between someone ranked 75th or 242nd is a lot smaller than people think.

    That answer works for me, as well...

    I have spent too much time going back and looking at the historical results of these subjective rankings and can tell you without reservation that consistent Top 10-15 recruiting classes DO have significant meaning in teams performance on the field, they also have about a 50% underachieving history of individual recruits--albeit it, many factors enter here (injury, attitude/effort, grades, etc)...

    Actually, many times it boils down to the intangibles having a significant impact on a players
    performance, as well as their being the proper "fit" & have the right timing of getting into the mix...coaching/development/motivation/team chemistry all come into play here...this is where
    undervalued 2 & 3Star guys become 1st & 2nd day draftees in the NFL--eg, guys like Michael Huff winning the Thorpe Award...Colt McCoy being ranked as the 72nd player on a
    Texas only list and becoming the All-time winningnest QB in college football history and on and on...

    Point is: the guys who rank these HS players simply do NOT have the time to adequately
    research all the intangibles, they rely solely on the measurables & HS stats all too often...not slamming any of those guys, as it simply is a very subjective analysis and the best of the best "miss" on players, as do coaches as well...

    uttotop ●

  • It has zero to do with star rankings and everything to do with the actual grade. We give grades (a "247 rating") to every recruit ranging from 60-100.

    Below is the actual explanation of the formula itself. It is top heavy in favor of the best players in a class. You can get to this explanation and the graph accompanying it by clicking on the "i" icon on the team ranking page next to the title.

    ***
    Explanation

    Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

    Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.

    Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.

    This post was edited by BobbyBurton on 12/19/2011 at 10:52 AM

    Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BobbyBurton247

    BobbyBurton ●

  • BobbyBurton said...

    It has zero to do with star rankings and everything to do with the actual grade. We give grades (a "247 rating") to every recruit ranging from 60-100.

    Below is the actual explanation of the formula itself. It is top heavy in favor of the best players in a class. You can get to this explanation and the graph accompanying it by clicking on the "i" icon on the team ranking page next to the title.

    *** Explanation

    Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

    Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.

    Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.

    Bobby -

    You guys should go back and re-rank the top 25 classes from previous recruiting years. who were the biggests hits/misses?

    apologies if you have already done this.

    echeese

  • BobbyBurton said...

    It has zero to do with star rankings and everything to do with the actual grade. We give grades (a "247 rating") to every recruit ranging from 60-100.

    Below is the actual explanation of the formula itself. It is top heavy in favor of the best players in a class. You can get to this explanation and the graph accompanying it by clicking on the "i" icon on the team ranking page next to the title.

    *** Explanation

    Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.

    Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we used the value 6 for σ because this was the standard deviation for total number of commits between schools as they were ranked during the 2011 recruitment year, the year this formula was developed. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.

    Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.

    Thanks Bobby.

    I was searching for that formula and did not see the "i" idon next to the title. That completely explains why Alabama is ranked above Texas.

    Whataburger ●

  • Ranking? We don't need no steenking ranking. I think if we land either of a certain 6-foot-6, sub-4.4 receiver or a certain 280-pound defensive end -- better yet, both -- none of us will care whether any service wants to say we have the No. 1 recruiting team in the land or the No. 2 or 3 or 10 or whatever. We'll all be too busy celebrating how much fun we're going to have over the next three or four years. Where our list of recruits is ranked matters not. Who's on that list matters a great deal.

    ExpatriaTex ●

  • echeese said...

    Bobby -

    You guys should go back and re-rank the top 25 classes from previous recruiting years. who were the biggests hits/misses?

    apologies if you have already done this.

    We've done that in the past and I just finished the 2010 group.

    It's always interesting to me when you have hindsight as your guide.

    Follow on Twitter: http://twitter.com/BobbyBurton247

    BobbyBurton ●

  • Isn't this the same formula they use to calculate the Federal Deficit??!

    Fcbib

  • Thanks. This means we need to clean up with DGB, ME, and CColeman, and Hobbs. We will be fine.

    DualThreatQB

  • I'm always a guy that looks at do you fill your needs in a class. I think by and large Texas has done that in a big was for 2012.

    Jeff Howe

  • Jeff Howe said...

    I'm always a guy that looks at do you fill your needs in a class. I think by and large Texas has done that in a big was for 2012.

    I can see where we filled a lot of needs, but the lack of players at TE and, more importantly, speed rush DE are still pretty glaring right now.

    You can't fill them all, but I'd certainly think those would be big priorities for next year's class. (Assuming we don't end up taking a speed rush DE, as Gerry has alluded to a few times)

    RichUT ●

Texas
247Sports
Features
Resources
Connect

247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports