In partnership with CBSSports.com
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm trying to figure Scouts formula for team rankings. Bama finished with 14 of Scouts top 100(no one else more than 8) and 6 of Scouts 5 star players(USC with 5) and they finish 3rd behind Ohio St and Michigan. Kinda confusing.
Follow me at http://twitter.com/#!/charlesgpower
If you figure it out, that will make 1.
Doesn't make any sense to me either Charles
We did the position thing at Rivals early on but it was stupid idea because position is slightly subjective and changes often. Also, services project kids at different positions than colleges.
Thats why I laughed when Rivals put out the total points note about Alabama. There isn't a person there in the recruiting department that remotely understands that formula. They need to create a new one.
Although, I doubt they can top our new one. The only thing we need to possibly improve is the delta of rankings for the lower schools. For example, one highly rated prospect can easily skew the difference between a team being ranked 30 and 50. We will fix that in time. However, the top 25 is awesome!
This post was edited by Lucky 17 months ago
247Sports and BOL updates: http://twitter.com/sbterry247
1984 300ZX Anniversary Model, 1970 Olds 442 W-30 & Pepper Bird
I've posted this in several threads. The problem is that their "statistical" team ranking method is fundamentally bad. Their system gives you points per player depending on star level, for the team's top 25 players. That's really it. They do give "bonus" depending on the ranking of a recruit, but it's only 1 pt per spot in the position rankings. There is an 80 point difference between star levels, so the position ranking is completely inconsequential (one 3* player is more than enough to make up any difference from the #1 and #40 bonus). Scout's ranking really is just based on how many 4&5 star recruits you sign, and that's about it.
For example, in Scout, Buchannon, (MS Commit, #32 QB, 4*) is worth 189 points. Max Browne, (USC Commit, #1 QB, 5*) is worth 300 points. A team with two Buchannons is worth more than a team with one Browne. Yet, every single team would want to be the one with Browne. It's just a stupid rankings system.
In short, Scout will rank the teams with 25 or more at the top, and then in order of how many 4* and 5* players they have. There is very little else to it, and it basically throws all the work they do in giving players a specific ranking out the window.
Scout just my opinion, is in danger of not being considered legit in with serious football fans...I really think they are trying to cater to the SEC haters...they are in my view, trying to appeal to readers outside of the South. Their rankings regardless of whatever formular they use are not close to being realistic...I really think with them having Ohio State and Michigan in front of us shows something is going on with their evaluations...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by Tdown01 17 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports