Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

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

Swaye
Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,739 Founders Club
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.

image
«1

Comments

  • Doogles
    Doogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,726 Founders Club
    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.
  • kh83
    kh83 Member Posts: 596
    Scout (which for all their flaws) is the most accepted system, and to me it's weighted too strongly toward quantity.
  • AEB
    AEB Member Posts: 2,994
    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
  • Baseman
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,369
    If average star rating is equal, the higher the class size, the higher the ranking.

    Wins > avg star rating > class rank
  • BallSacked
    BallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    Both. Depth is important. Talent is important.

    PayPal me 10.95, thx.
  • Dennis_DeYoung
    Dennis_DeYoung Member Posts: 14,754
    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
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,369

    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.
  • BallSacked
    BallSacked Member Posts: 3,279

    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
    Swaye Moderator, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 41,739 Founders Club

    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.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839

    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
    BallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    dnc 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
    ThomasFremont Member Posts: 13,325
    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
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    Doogles 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
    doogsinparadise Member Posts: 9,320

    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
    Baseman Member Posts: 12,369

    dnc 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
    BallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    Baseman said:

    dnc 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.
  • dnc
    dnc Member Posts: 56,839

    dnc 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.
    No shit it would be captured in the average. That's why I'm saying star average >>>>> Scout rankings.
  • BallSacked
    BallSacked Member Posts: 3,279
    dnc said:

    dnc 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.
    No shit it would be captured in the average. That's why I'm saying star average >>>>> Scout rankings.
    That wasn't what you were saying.

    HTH.
  • FremontTroll
    FremontTroll Member Posts: 4,744
    Baseman said:

    dnc 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?
    Your 25 man class would be ranked much lower in reality.

    4*= 120 base points
    3*= 40 base points

    Additional points are awarded based on position rankings so high 4* are worth more than low 4* etc.
  • HuskyHalfBrain
    HuskyHalfBrain Member Posts: 1,311

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

    Chincredible.
  • devildawg
    devildawg Member Posts: 67
    Who the fuck cares? When pete gets 23-25 kids with a 3.5 average we can actually compete

    This idea that we out recruited anybody with a 17 man class is a a joke! DBG is a 2 star,Chin is a 2 star the fat OL is a 2 star the TE from Oregon will never catch a pass.Mcgrew is a nice little recruit he's not the best tailback on the west coast...ask the all star game folks,Pleasant was a fill in that nobody else offered,Fuller is a role guy

    It's a nice class for a 6-6 team that's at the bottom half of the conference...it's hardly a game changer type class
  • Doogles
    Doogles Member, Swaye's Wigwam Posts: 12,726 Founders Club
    devildawg said:

    Who the fuck cares? When pete gets 23-25 kids with a 3.5 average we can actually compete

    This idea that we out recruited anybody with a 17 man class is a a joke! DBG is a 2 star,Chin is a 2 star the fat OL is a 2 star the TE from Oregon will never catch a pass.Mcgrew is a nice little recruit he's not the best tailback on the west coast...ask the all star game folks,Pleasant was a fill in that nobody else offered,Fuller is a role guy

    It's a nice class for a 6-6 team that's at the bottom half of the conference...it's hardly a game changer type class

    You know there is a scholarship limit right?
  • NeGgaPlEaSe
    NeGgaPlEaSe Member Posts: 5,763
    edited February 2016
    It's all fucking retarded if you can't develop the talent. If Pete is who we hope he is, 3 stars will be developed into all Pac 12 caliber starters
  • Fire_Marshall_Bill
    Fire_Marshall_Bill Member Posts: 25,618 Standard Supporter
    Scout had us at a 3.47 average I believe Rivals had us at 3.12...or it could be vice versa. It was pretty respectable. Florida State, Bammer, USC, Ohio State and the like were around 3.7 to 3.85 or so. I'm too lazy to look it up again.

    As always, it's time to prove it on the field...even Gilby and Ty always had classes between about 10 and 40th, and it translated to poor years.
  • AIRWOLF
    AIRWOLF Member Posts: 1,840
    devildawg said:

    Who the fuck cares? When pete gets 23-25 kids with a 3.5 average we can actually compete

    This idea that we out recruited anybody with a 17 man class is a a joke! DBG is a 2 star,Chin is a 2 star the fat OL is a 2 star the TE from Oregon will never catch a pass.Mcgrew is a nice little recruit he's not the best tailback on the west coast...ask the all star game folks,Pleasant was a fill in that nobody else offered,Fuller is a role guy

    It's a nice class for a 6-6 team that's at the bottom half of the conference...it's hardly a game changer type class

    You're still a dumb ass, I see.