So, is it class rank, or star average that determines how good a class is?
Comments
-
Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.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.
-
I'm getting fucked up tonight anyway.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.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.
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. -
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 said:
Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.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.
-
Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.dnc said:
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 said:
Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.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.
-
Win some fucking games.PurpleJ said:I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.
Nothing else matters. -
Melanin deficiency is a serious problem.Doogles said:
McGrew is the best RB on the west and can absolutely fly no matter how Columbian he is.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.
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.
-
As if that sells subscriptions and tissues.ThomasFremont said:
Win some fucking games.PurpleJ said:I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.
Nothing else matters. -
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 said:
Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.dnc said:
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 said:
Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.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.
-
Sure. As well if you had two classes with the same average, which one would you want? The 25 or 17 man one.Baseman said:
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 said:
Disagree. That fact would be captured in the average. Kind of like Sarks 2010 top class that barely was above 3.0 avg.dnc said:
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 said:
Since then, Scout has capped the overall rankings based only on the 25 best recruits in a class.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.
Both rankings are relevant.
