So, is it class rank, or star average that determines how good a class is?
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.
Comments
-
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. -
It all depends on which one UW is ranked higher in. That one is more important.
-
Scout (which for all their flaws) is the most accepted system, and to me it's weighted too strongly toward quantity.
-
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 -
I rank classes by our win-loss record 4-5 years from now. Don't know how else you would do it.
-
If average star rating is equal, the higher the class size, the higher the ranking.
Wins > avg star rating > class rank -
Both. Depth is important. Talent is important.
PayPal me 10.95, thx. -
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. -
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 said:Both. Depth is important. Talent is important.
PayPal me 10.95, thx. -
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.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. -
No shit it would be captured in the average. That's why I'm saying star average >>>>> Scout rankings.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.
-
That wasn't what you were saying.dnc said:
No shit it would be captured in the average. That's why I'm saying star average >>>>> Scout rankings.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.
HTH.
-
Your 25 man class would be ranked much lower in reality.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.
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. -
Chincredible.HuskyClaws said:It all depends on which one UW is ranked higher in. That one is more important.
-
Ranking by average star is more predictive of future success.
We came in at 17th which is the highest we've been since the 2001 post Rose Bowl class. Three of Sark's last 4 classes came in at #20, #22 and #20. @bananasnblondes the 2010 class was actually #20 in terms of star average. Sark actually recruited well on paper but the classes were much worse because of poor development and huge attrition. Pete will get more out of each class and less overall attrition.
Clemson's last 4 classes were around #15-#20. Oregon under Chip was #10 to #12. Stanford had some great classes with Harbaugh and was in the top 15. Their recruiting has gotten slightly worse with Shaw but he's still outperforming the recruiting rankings. Oregon and Stanford recently have been outperforming their rankings as has Michigan St by a fucking mile. The past few years they have won conference titles with recent classes around #25. Its only the past few classes that have gotten better in better (from #20 down to #10 this year). Oregon's recruiting under Helfrich is slipping a bit each year.
Anyway the key is for Pete to put together classes like this one consistently. If we can break through on the field this season and next then maybe we can recruit at a top #15 level. Thats putting together the same class but including a Kongbo, McKinley or Eason. That shit adds up when you look at the full roster. How much better would this roster look going into this year with a single blue chip safety and single blue chip WR (recruited in the past few classes). Top 15 level and you are a legit conference title contender every year. -
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?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 -
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
-
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. -
You're still a dumb ass, I see.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
