Is anyone familiar with the means by which Rivals arrives at the number of points they award a school? It must involve something other than the stars.
The Rivals.com Ranking must factor into it as well. I saw Texas had one less four star and one more three star, same amount of two star recruits as LSU, yet was two spots ahead.
Yeah, each player gets a certain amount of points, dont know the exact figures. Not sure how to figure it out...
LSU doesn't have a QB and Texas does. The point system that is used provides points for each position. Not having a QB deducts from your over all ranking.
You're just guessing, the guy who actually wrote the formula posts on rivals all the time and he consistently says it is a extremely complicated mix of things and that no one knows but a few people in rivals. Beyond that, even less can explain it, and he's one of them - but he's not doing it. It has never been released or explained publicly...anything anyone says definitively is just guessing or BS.
The rival's system is supposed to be considering position rank and team needs. So while LSU has more *'s, those 4 stars don't rank as high as UT's, and UT's fill positions-of-need... Now.. I think this is for the most part B.S.... Texas, Cali, and Florida are your biggest football markets in the country. Keeping them happy and visiting the site makes Rivals lots of money. You do the math...
The guy who wrote the formula specifically stated on the TB forum that team need was not considered at all, because it is impossible for them to gauge which coaching staffs need what from year to year. Like I said, it's all speculation...anyone who says they know, doesn't
btw, on top of all the unknown variables (which there are far more than known)...the formula changes from year to year and even gets 'adjusted' during the yearly process. The formula guy tries to say this is needed so a crap school that signs 35 players that won't qualify doesn't beat out a team who signs 15 good kids....but really, it's to give them a way out when they use their sliding scale to boost high profit margin markets' school rankings, among other things.
I'm convinced it's impossible to figure it out, and perhaps a waste of time to try to get the smallest clue what they are thinking. To say the least, my opinion of rating services...well, isn't a good one. The straw that broke the proverbial camel's back was when Kenneth Darby was in his senior year. As soon as schools started looking at him he went from being unrated to a 3 start. That ranking came without anyone from Rivals seeing him play live or seeing any tape of him. Take Forrest Davis as another example...giving his son a 3 star and just what has Davis accomplished on the field? As much as he did in high school, nadda. Two years ago, a kid playing in the NE started his own publicity *scheme* and had a 4 star rating until some coaches saw him play and found out he'd have a hard time making the team at a Div. III school. Then, you have the player that a sports editor invented in PA...rated 4-5 star but didn't exist. Believe you me...I have other stories I've watched over the last decade, plus. Bottom line is the bottom line. $$$ BUT, I'll find myself, once again next year, following the recruiting trail just like I have this year...it's just to fun, but frustrating, not to get caught up in...
