forums

10 Years Later: A Rankings Look Back

gambino97

gambino97

Recruit
Joined
Nov 27, 2012
Messages
681
I saw this tweeted out this week and found these very interesting. I am in no way a recruitnik and know those who follow closely will make the usual arguments (social media and video has allowed for better recruiting evals, etc. ) but the miss rate on these is very alarming.... It would be interesting to see what a 5 year snapshot looks like as well honestly....

Just posting for discussion purposes.....





 
Advertisement
I was just looking thru 2014 and noticed the RB class improved significantly. The WRs much less so but still some improvement.....can't say the same about QBs

QBs.png


RBs.png


WRs.png
 
Advertisement
Interesting that Leonard Fournette received 101. Didn't know you could eclipse 100. Guess he was like a god.
 
Advertisement
Rankings are definitely not extremely accurate (these are high school kids that gotta grow and fast) but I think they are pretty good as of late
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
Have any of the people who think rankings don't mean much taken any statistics? Or even just have a basic understanding of statistics?

It's not that rankings are perfect or even close, it's that they're the best we have. Here and there you'll find a coach who can find the underrated gems, but mostly the team with the best class average wins the most game.

The problem is that people think rankings are supposed to be perfect, and the truth is they can't be. Take Cook or Rournette. They're as close to sure things as you can get for RBs. But what if one of them had gotten caught with pot too many times, slapped a girl around in public, or killed somebody in a bar fight. Suddenly they don't make the NFL, bust right? No, they're still stupid talented and have great size and all that, but they make the rankings look bad. Same thing with injury, there's no way to predict it.

Rankings aren't perfect, but that doesn't make them worthless.
 
kryptonite said:
Have any of the people who think rankings don't mean much taken any statistics? Or even just have a basic understanding of statistics?

It's not that rankings are perfect or even close, it's that they're the best we have. Here and there you'll find a coach who can find the underrated gems, but mostly the team with the best class average wins the most game.

The problem is that people think rankings are supposed to be perfect, and the truth is they can't be. Take Cook or Rournette. They're as close to sure things as you can get for RBs. But what if one of them had gotten caught with pot too many times, slapped a girl around in public, or killed somebody in a bar fight. Suddenly they don't make the NFL, bust right? No, they're still stupid talented and have great size and all that, but they make the rankings look bad. Same thing with injury, there's no way to predict it.

Rankings aren't perfect, but that doesn't make them worthless.
Click to expand...

They are another metric to use as projection. Just like any other gauge. Too many variables at play in college football like you say: off the field behavior, coaching changes, injuries, etc. that can disrupt the eventual outcome so to use them as a stand alone measuring stick is not foolproof. They have gotten better like people have said.
 
DMoney said:
White went to the wrong school. He could have produced in a pro-style system.
Click to expand...

This. Kid was a solid pocket passer and might have had success in an offense more tailored to his skill set. Why a skinny kid who couldn't run would try to play in Gus Malzahn's offense is a mystery to me. Not sure why Malzahn was even recruiting him.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top