Rivals Rating System

Think I might have figured out what Rivals did to NU.

We had four player rated 5.6, now there are only three. So, they down graded one of them from 5.6 to 5.5. Perhaps, that was enough to drop our points rating.

Now the question is, what changed to cause a drop in the players rating? Because we might have moved ahead of Colorado in the team ratings?

:boxosoap

 
Im lost also.. Compare us with MU.. we both have 1 5 star 2 4 stars , we have 19 3 stars they have 16 3 stars we have 25 commits they have 23 commits there star avg. 3.00 ours 3.04 we ranking 28th now and them 24th.. dont make any sense..

 
HUH I just also added up all the rivals rating of the commits of both teams Mu avg. rival rating for their commits is 5.6 and ours came out 5.608 not much higher but still higher and were 4 spots behind them in rankings. ?????????

 
S.C.HUSKER said:
HUH I just also added up all the rivals rating of the commits of both teams Mu avg. rival rating for their commits is 5.6 and ours came out 5.608 not much higher but still higher and were 4 spots behind them in rankings. ?????????
Click to expand...
Quit trying to make sense of something that doesn't. It is based on number of members and visitors to that school's web page and who they can get to spend more money. They are a complete joke that Callahan had you buy into. Let it go people... there is no need to listen to them or pay for their info.

 
Dave M. said:
S.C.HUSKER said:
HUH I just also added up all the rivals rating of the commits of both teams Mu avg. rival rating for their commits is 5.6 and ours came out 5.608 not much higher but still higher and were 4 spots behind them in rankings. ?????????
Click to expand...
Quit trying to make sense of something that doesn't. It is based on number of members and visitors to that school's web page and who they can get to spend more money. They are a complete joke that Callahan had you buy into. Let it go people... there is no need to listen to them or pay for their info.
Click to expand...



Im not losing any sleep over it.. Im just bored out of my mind..lol I agree the recruit ranking system dont mean anything. To me its how your coached. I think our class is turning out just fine. But if there gonna do a ranking system for recruiting I think you should be able to understand it..lol But then again we have the BCS too so go figure..lol

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave M. said:
S.C.HUSKER said:
HUH I just also added up all the rivals rating of the commits of both teams Mu avg. rival rating for their commits is 5.6 and ours came out 5.608 not much higher but still higher and were 4 spots behind them in rankings. ?????????
Click to expand...
Quit trying to make sense of something that doesn't. It is based on number of members and visitors to that school's web page and who they can get to spend more money. They are a complete joke that Callahan had you buy into. Let it go people... there is no need to listen to them or pay for their info.
Click to expand...

clearly there are many that disagree. I personally think there is some validity to them, though I must admit the only reason I am fallowing the team ranking is because of the article in the kansas city star about MU ranking....

 
You will all go crazy trying to figure out how the do their ratings. :ahhhhhhhh .Tom O. didn't seem to get to many 4 and 5 star players and he did just fine. I think Bo is kind of the same mold, when it comes to seeing talent. Let the rRvals and Scouts of the world have there pay days off their rating game, we should be just fine developing the talent we have coming in each year. I know it's fun, but darn we Huskers are so competitive :lol:

GBR!!!

 
MU is rated higher because Rivals gives bonus point for high ranking, like "Josh" Gabbert's #1. I could explain more, but it's too technical for you ! </sarcasm>

Rivals ratings has become some what of a comic relief.

With the addition of P.J. Smith our rivals.com points for WR go up from 67 to 92, but our overall team rivals.com points go from 1,180 to 1,179! (All other positions stayed the same.)

:dunno :rollin

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It has come to the point that I don't give a damn what a recruit is rated. Texas had the number one class for years and couldn't win the big game. It ain't a matter of what kind of talent you have coming in it is how you develop it. I think Rivals and all the recruiting services should also throw in the walk-ons when ranking a school. Last I heard N.U. has more walk ons than they have rated recruits. And no one can argue that Nebraska was built by the walk-on. If Rivals rated this way N.U. would top 5 no doubt.

Sorry bout the long rant.

 
Some want to scrutinize Rivals ratings down to the third decimal place, other want to disregard the rankings as useless. I think the truth is somewhere inbetween. Stars are not completely worthless. They are one measure of a kid's athletic potential. Of course that potential is not always realized due to poor development by coaches or an inability to adapt to the college level.

I'm pleased that we're near the top 25 in terms of the overall talent level we're bringing in, but I'm not losing any sleep about whether we're 24 or 27.

Let's not make more or less of the stars than they actually are.

 
melscott62 said:
Huskerballz said:
We just dropped another point to 1,179 after adding P.J. Smith to our list.
Click to expand...
I wonder if we will drop down to 1177 now with the 2 commits today :laughpound

hopefully it will be 1176 after tompkins commits :hellloooo
Click to expand...
scout.com had nu at 22nd i believe, i like their rating system better. they give ya points for how many stars the player had, and just adds on to your total.... i can figure that out, rivals is something i really don,t give much credit too.... these ratings systems i don,t put much credit it, though they can give a basic look at what at team has. look at notre dame over the past few years, highly rated recruiting classes,,, but getting beat on the field.

 
Back
Top