So, is it class rank, or star average that determines how good a class is?

Swaye

I always forget what the hardcore TBS'ers say is the best measure of a class. Total rank, or star average?

So @HeretoBeatmyChest has me thinking about this average star ranking thing he is always harping on, so I went over to fagland and looked.

In terms of class rank it went:

UCLA
USC
Stanford
Oregon
UW

In terms of average star ranking it went:

USC
UCLA tied UW
Oregon
Stanford

So if average star ranking is the best measure we had the second best class in the conference this year, tied with UCLA.

In short, I am getting drunk tonight to start an early celebration of the offseason natty.

Doogles

Think of it this way. If you recruit 25 babies you can field a team, but your team will suck because you have a team comprised entirely of babies.

If you recruit 1 freak of nature he will scare the other teams but you will lose the game by forfeit because you need more than 1 player to field a team.

As long as you are filling needs, quality >>>>>quantity.

This was a good class by the staff.

HuskyClaws

It all depends on which one UW is ranked higher in. That one is more important.

kh83

Scout (which for all their flaws) is the most accepted system, and to me it's weighted too strongly toward quantity.

AEB

Average stars. There's a finite # of spots each year and it fluctuates. Get as many good players each year and all problems solved.




10 wins (7 in Pac) in '16

PurpleJ

I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.

Baseman

If average star rating is equal, the higher the class size, the higher the ranking.

Wins > avg star rating > class rank

BallSacked

Both. Depth is important. Talent is important.

PayPal me 10.95, thx.

Dennis_DeYoung

Pretty sure we won the offseason natty by that metric since the LA schools don't count because they've won the offseason natty so much they aren't eligible and have unfair advantages.

However, it's both as @BallSacked says. But more importantly, I think we lost the offseason natty when we got 1 offensive linemen. And a "Colombian" running back.

Other than that, we won the offseason natty.

You can have 1 OL (well, actually you can't), and you can have a "Colombian" RB. But you can't have both.

We got both, so we are disqualified.

Baseman

BallSacked said:

Both. Depth is important. Talent is important.

PayPal me 10.95, thx.

Agreed. Peterman and crew have dramatically upgraded the defensive depth and talent. With the cream puff schedule he has to win at least ten next year. Going forward he's got to sign at least one, preferably two, elite 6'2 or taller WR that can go across the middle.

bananasnblondes

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

BallSacked

bananasnblondes said:

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.

Swaye

Dennis_DeYoung said:

Pretty sure we won the offseason natty by that metric since the LA schools don't count because they've won the offseason natty so much they aren't eligible and have unfair advantages.

However, it's both as @BallSacked says. But more importantly, I think we lost the offseason natty when we got 1 offensive linemen. And a "Colombian" running back.

Other than that, we won the offseason natty.

You can have 1 OL (well, actually you can't), and you can have a "Colombian" RB. But you can't have both.

We got both, so we are disqualified.

I'm getting fucked up tonight anyway.

Doogles

Dennis_DeYoung said:

Pretty sure we won the offseason natty by that metric since the LA schools don't count because they've won the offseason natty so much they aren't eligible and have unfair advantages.

However, it's both as @BallSacked says. But more importantly, I think we lost the offseason natty when we got 1 offensive linemen. And a "Colombian" running back.

Other than that, we won the offseason natty.

You can have 1 OL (well, actually you can't), and you can have a "Colombian" RB. But you can't have both.

We got both, so we are disqualified.

McGrew is the best RB on the west and can absolutely fly no matter how Columbian he is.

Anyone who gets 2nd in the California state 100 meet and has football instincts is going to ball out.

If he was pimped out by snoop, had dreads, and was black he would be a 5 star.

Dennis, for being good at this, you're not very good at this.

dnc

BallSacked said:

bananasnblondes said:

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.

Which is kind of worse in a way, it means the fact you got 7 no name 2 star shitheads soaking up scholarships doesn't hurt you at all in the rankings.

BallSacked

dnc said:

BallSacked said:

bananasnblondes said:

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.

Which is kind of worse in a way, it means the fact you got 7 no name 2 star shitheads soaking up scholarships doesn't hurt you at all in the rankings.

Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.

ThomasFremont

PurpleJ said:

I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.

Win some fucking games.

Nothing else matters.

AIRWOLF

Doogles said:

Dennis_DeYoung said:

Pretty sure we won the offseason natty by that metric since the LA schools don't count because they've won the offseason natty so much they aren't eligible and have unfair advantages.

However, it's both as @BallSacked says. But more importantly, I think we lost the offseason natty when we got 1 offensive linemen. And a "Colombian" running back.

Other than that, we won the offseason natty.

You can have 1 OL (well, actually you can't), and you can have a "Colombian" RB. But you can't have both.

We got both, so we are disqualified.

McGrew is the best RB on the west and can absolutely fly no matter how Columbian he is.

Anyone who gets 2nd in the California state 100 meet and has football instincts is going to ball out.

If he was pimped out by snoop, had dreads, and was black he would be a 5 star.

Dennis, for being good at this, you're not very good at this.

Melanin deficiency is a serious problem.

doogsinparadise

ThomasFremont said:

PurpleJ said:

I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.

Win some fucking games.

Nothing else matters.

As if that sells subscriptions and tissues.

Baseman

BallSacked said:

dnc said:

BallSacked said:

bananasnblondes said:

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.

Which is kind of worse in a way, it means the fact you got 7 no name 2 star shitheads soaking up scholarships doesn't hurt you at all in the rankings.

Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.

Look @ this way. 25 3 stars = 75 pts. 17 4 stars =68 pts. The 25 man class is ranked higher. On paper which one would you rather have?

BallSacked

Baseman said:

BallSacked said:

dnc said:

BallSacked said:

bananasnblondes said:

Sark's "Top 10 class" (2010) was in the top 10 purely because it had 32 commits. Using star average, it was...well...average. Performance wise, it was pure shit. Average star ranking is a better way to judge a class because by the other measure, you get points for bringing in shit recruits as long as you bring in a lot of them.

Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.

Which is kind of worse in a way, it means the fact you got 7 no name 2 star shitheads soaking up scholarships doesn't hurt you at all in the rankings.

Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.

Look @ this way. 25 3 stars = 75 pts. 17 4 stars =68 pts. The 25 man class is ranked higher. On paper which one would you rather have?

Sure. As well if you had two classes with the same average, which one would you want? The 25 or 17 man one.

Both rankings are relevant.