CockyTalk

Welcome to Cockytalk!

Thank you for visiting our forum. As a guest, you have limited access to view some discussion and articles. By joining our free community, you will be able to view all discussions and articles, post your own topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload photos, participate in Pick'Em contests and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today!!

If you have any problems registering or logging in, please contact our Admins. Thanks!

Go Back   CockyTalk > Gamecocks Sports > The Proving Ground

Today's Top 10
Posters (by posts)Threads (by views)Newest Posts Gamecock Headlines 
JerseyBird
rosstheboss
Coulwoodwarlord
Regalcock
qcgamecock
The Yancey
kingofnerf
tcmac08
GregoryHouse
GamecockUltimate
**USC vs. Charleston (3782)
What Steve Spurrier (1528)
2015 Women's SEC Tou (470)
SEC East offseason c (398)
Shaq Davidson, Googe (270)
WBB coaches' awards (178)
I hope to die this d (153)
Scientific Explanati (105)
What I think we are (51)
Can we equal last year's
Super excited about our y
Ward breaks down DE posit
Dudes Vs. Chicks?
What Steve Spurrier being
Future OOC scheduling
What I think we are likel
**USC vs. Charleston Sout
2015 Women's SEC Tourname
Scientific Explanation fo


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-10-2015, 03:46 PM   #1
Lonnie
Band
 
Lonnie's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 6,630
CockyCash: 500
Lonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot material
Default How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Simple Answer: We're bringing in the most guys.

So after asking the question "How ESPN ranked Mizzou and Florida ahead of us when we had WAY more 4*'s and 3*'s than either of them I started thinking. My thinking led me to start looking at the number of the rivals page. So I did my own plugging and chugging. What I found out is most of the services align their class ranking to the "star average" of a class. In other words, a team could bring in 4 5*'s and nobody else and get a good ranking. But that really doesn't describe the talent in a class from top to bottom. Everyone here knows that we missed on all the 5*'s we tired for this year and lots of folks were upset about that. But they miss that we brought in a TON a 4* guys this year. So.....

I took the rivals Top 30 and summed the rivals rating for each player in the class. When you do that, USC brought in a total of 164.2. Basically that's the total "star power" in our class. Nobody had a higher number. The way I read, it, We're #1.

FYI My top 5 is

1 USC 164.2
2 Texas 160.6
3 Georgia 160.5
4 Miss St. 159.1
5 Tennessee 156.1
5 Auburn 156.1

Now as with any model there are lots of assumptions. My main assumption was that the overall value of a class means as much as the "star power" of one guy.

So feel free to pick this apart. Here's a link to the google docs where you folks can see the data.

Have at it...

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

The bottom line here is I think our class was undervalued by many of the main stream recruiting services.
__________________
"You guys thought we had a good game just cause we got 5 td's, hell we had a chance to score 8 td's..." - Steve Spurrier


Last edited by Lonnie; 02-10-2015 at 03:58 PM.
Lonnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 03:51 PM   #2
donbgamecock
1st Team All-American
 
donbgamecock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Charleston
Posts: 11,635
CockyCash: 200
donbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot materialdonbgamecock is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

You could throw in the fact that we got a proven center who achieved Freshman all American while at Wake last year.
__________________
Go Cocks!
donbgamecock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:01 PM   #3
GarnetInChicago
シカゴのカキ
 
GarnetInChicago's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,470
CockyCash: 45500347
GarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Problem #1 with this analysis is the artificial selection of the #30 as the number of prospects you assign points to for a given class. There's very, very few schools who will sign that many kids. The limit on scholarships is 85. If you signed 30 every year, you'd be looking at 120 kids signed in a 4 year period and the need to whittle down 35 kids you gave scholarships to. Clearly nobody wants to deal with that.

I hear what you're saying, but you know Rivals already assigns a number to how many prospects in a class that they rank (top 20)? Personally, I think that's a more reasonable number to work from. Maybe they ought to consider 25 since that's the signing cap for most conferences.

It's also very easy to attack your system (not that I'm specifically trying to), but the system is just flawed. Look at the number of raw commitments in the classes this year. Your list goes pretty much in order by how many total commits a class had and doesn't seem to account at all for the talent of each specific player: South Carolina (29), Texas (28), Georgia (28), Miss St. (28), Tennessee (27), Auburn (27). I'm guessing Ohio State (27) would have been next in your system. No other school ranked in the top 40 of the Rivals recruiting class rankings (other than lowly GT) had that many commitments. None of the others had more than 25. And of course it works out this way. If one school has 25 five star 6.1 rated players, that works out to 152.5. If you have a class of 30 two-star 5.4 rated players, it works out to 162 and blows that class full of 5-stars away. That's simply because it doesn't matter how much better a player is when you compare 1:1. If I get to count 5 more guys than you do in your class with all of them being worth 5+ points, of course I'm going to get a higher total.

I like our class, and I hear what you're saying about accounting for depth in our class, but let's not get too carried away here.

Last edited by GarnetInChicago; 02-10-2015 at 04:13 PM.
GarnetInChicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:13 PM   #4
BiscoCocky
4-Star
 
BiscoCocky's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Denver,Co
Posts: 265
CockyCash: 500
BiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudlyBiscoCocky is crowing loudly
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Yah I like our class, Mizzou got a 5 star and espn are bigger star F%ckers than a hollywood call girl. Florida's class is dependent on a 5star who has yet to sign his LOI (altho I really like scarlet and wish we could've snagged him). Espn gave Pharaoh 2 stars coming out of hs, and really their recruiting service seems to be the weakest, so I would take anything they say w/ massive can of salt.
BiscoCocky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:18 PM   #5
Lonnie
Band
 
Lonnie's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Third Stone from the Sun
Posts: 6,630
CockyCash: 500
Lonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot materialLonnie is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GarnetInChicago View Post
Problem #1 with this analysis is the artificial selection of the #30 as the number of prospects you assign points to for a given class. There's very, very few schools who will sign that many kids. The limit on scholarships is 85. If you signed 30 every year, you'd be looking at 120 kids signed in a 4 year period and the need to whittle down 35 kids you gave scholarships to. Clearly nobody wants to deal with that.

I hear what you're saying, but you know Rivals already assigns a number to how many prospects in a class that they rank (top 20)? Personally, I think that's a more reasonable number to work from. Maybe they ought to consider 25 since that's the signing cap for most conferences.

I like our class, and I hear what you're saying about accounting for depth in our class, but let's not get too carried away here.
I think you miss the analytics completely.

I didn't assign #30 as the number of prospects to be signed by a school. I analysed the top 30 classes as ranked by rivals this year. That's where the #30 comes from.

The model itself simply totals the rivals ranking for the entire class and ranks the class by that score. We signed 1 more player than Texas, Georgia and Miss St and that put us over the top. It really no more complicated than that.

Second, as for the average score, I divided the sum of the rivals recuriting rankings for all players signed by the total number of players. We signed 29, so I divided our total (164.2) by 29. For UNC who only signed 19, players I divided their total (107.7) by 19. I did that so if one wanted to look at the "average" player each school signed, they could. And if you use that metric, UNC had a better class than we did with an average of 5.67 vs 5.66 for us.

It just so happens that, generally, which ever school signs the most, and most highly ranked players will come out on top in this model. We had 29 spots open this year and that helped us. Again there are some assumptions built in to my logic and that's one of them. For example, why limit rating a schools class to the top 20 players? That doesn't fully explain how a school did on the recruiting trail and in my mind is a error with the way rivals does it. MY assumption is you should grade the class based on EVERYONE the school signs.

Another assumption I cannot control is rivals ranking scale. (This year) It runs from 6.1 (5*) to roughly 5.1 (2*). Now that's not really scalar and there's a wide swing in talent over that 1 point difference. Again I could do some mathematics to adjust for that, and I might when I get time. (You could subtract 5 from the total score for ever player that would normalize the score). It would be intersting to see those results. My guess is there wouldn't be alot of spread between the scores if you adjusted them that way.
__________________
"You guys thought we had a good game just cause we got 5 td's, hell we had a chance to score 8 td's..." - Steve Spurrier


Last edited by Lonnie; 02-10-2015 at 04:33 PM.
Lonnie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:34 PM   #6
GarnetInChicago
シカゴのカキ
 
GarnetInChicago's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,470
CockyCash: 45500347
GarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
I think you miss the analytics completely.

I didn't assign #30 as the number of prospects to be signed by a school. I analysed the top 30 classes as ranked by rivals this year. That's where the #30 comes from.

The model itself simply totals the rivals ranking for the entire class and ranks the class by that score. We signed 1 more player than Texas, Georgia and Miss St and that put us over the top. It really no more complicated than that.

Second, as for the average score, I divided the sum of the rivals recuriting rankings for all players signed by the total number of players. We signed 29, so I divided our total (164.2) by 29. For UNC who only signed 19, players I divided their total (107.7) by 19. I did that so if one wanted to look at the "average" player each school signed, they could. And if you use that metric, UNC had a better class than we did with an average of 5.67 vs 5.66 for us.

It just so happens that, generally, which ever school signs the most, and most highly ranked players will come out on top in this model. We had 29 spots open this year and that helped us. Again there are some assumptions built in to my logic and that's one of them. For example, why limit rating a schools class to the top 20 players? That doesn't fully explain how a school did on the recruiting trail and in my mind is a error with the way rivals does it. MY assumption is you should grade the class based on EVERYONE the school signs.
You're right. I did miss your point about the top 30. I assumed you were ranking the top 30 kids in a class. You were just rating any and all. That, in the end of things, though, changes nothing. Your analysis overvalues the raw number of commitments and deemphasizes the value of any individual recruit. "It just so happens that, generally, which ever school signs the most...." Stop and think about that man. Like I said, OF COURSE that's the way it works out.

If I sign 5.4 kids (two-star) and you sign 6.1 kids (five-star), but I sign 30 while you sign 25, I WIN. The .7 difference between the value of your player versus the value of mine means that for the first 25 kids we both sign, you're coming out ahead by 17.5. But for each and every additional kid I sign more than you, I get 5.4 points to your 0. That means I only have to sign an additional 3.2 two-star players to make my class of nothing-but-2-star recruits look better than a 25-person (LOI limit) class of nothing-but-5-star recruits. That's just ridiculous. I'm sorry but your methodology is just overly simplistic and horribly flawed.

As for the "average" thing, who cares? There's only a .7 degree of differentiation in the Rivals ranking system between a 2-star player and a 5-star player. Dividing your raw score by the total number of players doesn't really reveal to us anything other than the average value of a class member as rated by Rivals. Your original post said nothing of "averages" just that when you TOTALED the scores, we came out #1. It's silly.

The problem with preferring your assumption over what Rivals (and every other recruiting rankings) does in limiting how many players it chooses to consider in the rankings is to try to compare, on a level playing field, the average value of the players in the committed classes. If you just look at the totals, you're left with the huge problem I just pointed out to you. You could have a class of nothing but 2-star players. Are you really going to sit here and tell me that's better than a class of 25 five-stars?
GarnetInChicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 04:54 PM   #7
GarnetInChicago
シカゴのカキ
 
GarnetInChicago's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,470
CockyCash: 45500347
GarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot materialGarnetInChicago is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

2 more thoughts here.

1) You question why Rivals uses a class of 20? Because that's pretty close to the average class size. If you ignore that, you're telling me a class that only has room for 15 but does an excellent job filling its needs didn't have a good recruiting class. That's obviously not true. Ignoring the lowest ranked 3 schools who only signed 1 player each, the average class size this year was 21.569.

2) If you want a real world example of my major point here, look no further than Texas San-Antonio and Northern Illinois. Ranked #81 and #82 by Rivals, respectively, for their recruiting classes, these schools signed 31 and 30 players each. (San Antonio actually has another 5 players not yet signed too, interestingly and apropos of nothing).

By your system of just adding up the Rivals ratings for each player, NIU ends up with a total of 165.4 and Texas San-Antonio ends up with a total of 165.9. That would place them as the #1 and #2 classes in the country by your math.
GarnetInChicago is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2015, 05:34 PM   #8
Emery
Bowl MVP
 
Emery's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Lexington SC
Posts: 2,245
CockyCash: 1000
Emery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot materialEmery is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

I think you actually answered the question as to why Rivals only uses the top 20 recruits, it negates the effect of a huge class.

We have solid class, and you can try to spin it, but we missed out on an elite class with our decommits.

Finally, it doesn't pass the eyeball test. You are going to say that on paper, you would take our class over USC, Florida State, Clemson, Alabama, Tennessee, LSU, Auburn? Come on.
Emery is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 11:31 AM   #9
Ericvol2096
1st Team All-SEC
 
Ericvol2096's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 4,260
CockyCash: 500
Ericvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot materialEricvol2096 is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

ESPNs rankings are arbitrary and meaningless. Honest truth, I would say that if TN was #1.

Rivals only takes the top 20 players and really emphasizes players that are in the top part of their "positional" rankings getting the point boosts. How Clemson's class that Rivals says has 1 less 5 star and 4 less 4 stars than TN's is overall better I don't know.

PERSONALLY I like 247's individual ranking system the best (not a fan of composite because it brings in terrible Scout and ESPN). They take ALL of your commits and give them a point value on their rating. They also weight every classes top commits the most and it scales down as you get to the bottom of the class.

It seems like the best overall method, which obviously none are perfect.
__________________
Master Bedroom:
If UT goes 7-1 in the SEC next year I will get a tattoo of Dabo on my butt!
Ericvol2096 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 12:54 PM   #10
b381l
Banned
 
b381l's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 24,843
CockyCash: 1000032205
b381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericvol2096 View Post
ESPNs rankings are arbitrary and meaningless. Honest truth, I would say that if TN was #1.

Rivals only takes the top 20 players and really emphasizes players that are in the top part of their "positional" rankings getting the point boosts. How Clemson's class that Rivals says has 1 less 5 star and 4 less 4 stars than TN's is overall better I don't know.

PERSONALLY I like 247's individual ranking system the best (not a fan of composite because it brings in terrible Scout and ESPN). They take ALL of your commits and give them a point value on their rating. They also weight every classes top commits the most and it scales down as you get to the bottom of the class.

It seems like the best overall method, which obviously none are perfect.
Agree. I think they should only take the top 15 in each class because those are the ones that will likely be the biggest contributors. That gives a school a rotating top 60 at any point in time. In essence, the larger the population, the more likely for errors. There will always be about 25% of those end up as busts, but the other 10 (from 15 to 25), there will always be a few surprises that replace the busts in the top 60.
b381l is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 01:00 PM   #11
thekob
2nd Team All-American
 
thekob's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Lexington
Posts: 8,100
CockyCash: 100700
thekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot materialthekob is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericvol2096 View Post
ESPNs rankings are arbitrary and meaningless. Honest truth, I would say that if TN was #1.

Rivals only takes the top 20 players and really emphasizes players that are in the top part of their "positional" rankings getting the point boosts. How Clemson's class that Rivals says has 1 less 5 star and 4 less 4 stars than TN's is overall better I don't know.

PERSONALLY I like 247's individual ranking system the best (not a fan of composite because it brings in terrible Scout and ESPN). They take ALL of your commits and give them a point value on their rating. They also weight every classes top commits the most and it scales down as you get to the bottom of the class.

It seems like the best overall method, which obviously none are perfect.
I prefer 247 too since it's also easier to drill down rather than just # of stars.

I figure the cutoff should be 25 or so just based on the number allowed in a regular class, although I do see the value of B's suggestion.

I figure the best way would be to break it down by position (since it's more likely it seems that a five star is an RB than a kicker or OL) but then that doesn't take into account need.

Probably the best way is to see who we offered and persued and come up with if we got most everyone we were trying to. Obviously with that many decommits that's not the case. Fortunately for us though, some of them weren't a must get (Fields) while some were (Palmer) based on needs.
__________________
GOD
USA
SEC
thekob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2015, 01:05 PM   #12
Kickerspl80
Too Deep
 
Kickerspl80's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: SC
Posts: 4,246
CockyCash: 10000692
Kickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot materialKickerspl80 is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Another plus for next year is the smaller class size. Then you can go to these 4* kids and say "your our dude this class" and they immediately think they don't have the competition issue with other recruits in their class and position....but then u get to deal with whatever spurrier is gonna say and how bad it bites us in the ass hah. Recruiting is a complex animal...and we kinda suck at it recently compared to past years
__________________
Kickerspl80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2015, 11:32 PM   #13
boness
Blue Chip
 
boness's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: land O lakes florida
Posts: 508
CockyCash: 500
boness is sharpening his clawsboness is sharpening his clawsboness is sharpening his clawsboness is sharpening his claws
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickerspl80 View Post
Another plus for next year is the smaller class size. Then you can go to these 4* kids and say "your our dude this class" and they immediately think they don't have the competition issue with other recruits in their class and position....but then u get to deal with whatever spurrier is gonna say and how bad it bites us in the ass hah. Recruiting is a complex animal...and we kinda suck at it recently compared to past years
like everyone i hate we blew the 15 cycle and yes i rate taking a potentially elite group and busting them down to solid is blowing it. that said I ws surprized a bit that the 15 class was the one with the potential to be in the top ten to begin with because of it's emmence size.
AS noted only the top 20 count so if you are only seeking to sign around 20 kids whatever efforts and resources and talents you put toward recruiting will be less watered down. each kid will receive a bigger cut from the attention pie. Also, as this poster notes the smaller class is more likely to have positions for which you are only seeking to sign one kid and we indeed could tout "your our dude this class". we have seen that beniffitt many programs many times to include our own. many positions are oft treated that way, center, TE, RB, QB, mike, LT come to mind first.
maybe some of you know how specifically we recruit some of the other positions, for instance do we recruit boundary vs field corner or do we recruit corners, same for will vs sam or just outside backers, SS vs FS, RG VS LG, WSE vs SSE, outside vs slot and so on. I don't know how we recruit those but if our circumstances allow the possibility is there to tell a kid he will be the only RT or WSE or or or that we sign.
Looking at the premier recruiters, Bama and the like, I wonder where their bottom 20 would rank as a class. i imagine pretty good. It seems those smaller classes might be a place where we could concentrate our efforts and come closer to the excellent recruiting programs in man for man quality. finally b381 (i think) mentioned, why can we find good kicker after good kicker but can't find a good punter to save our life?

Last edited by boness; 02-13-2015 at 03:39 PM.
boness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 12:28 AM   #14
Gamecock Lifer
Game MVP
 
Gamecock Lifer's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 1,759
CockyCash: 200
Gamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot materialGamecock Lifer is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie View Post
I think you miss the analytics completely.

I didn't assign #30 as the number of prospects to be signed by a school. I analysed the top 30 classes as ranked by rivals this year. That's where the #30 comes from.

The model itself simply totals the rivals ranking for the entire class and ranks the class by that score. We signed 1 more player than Texas, Georgia and Miss St and that put us over the top. It really no more complicated than that.

Second, as for the average score, I divided the sum of the rivals recuriting rankings for all players signed by the total number of players. We signed 29, so I divided our total (164.2) by 29. For UNC who only signed 19, players I divided their total (107.7) by 19. I did that so if one wanted to look at the "average" player each school signed, they could. And if you use that metric, UNC had a better class than we did with an average of 5.67 vs 5.66 for us.

It just so happens that, generally, which ever school signs the most, and most highly ranked players will come out on top in this model. We had 29 spots open this year and that helped us. Again there are some assumptions built in to my logic and that's one of them. For example, why limit rating a schools class to the top 20 players? That doesn't fully explain how a school did on the recruiting trail and in my mind is a error with the way rivals does it. MY assumption is you should grade the class based on EVERYONE the school signs.

Another assumption I cannot control is rivals ranking scale. (This year) It runs from 6.1 (5*) to roughly 5.1 (2*). Now that's not really scalar and there's a wide swing in talent over that 1 point difference. Again I could do some mathematics to adjust for that, and I might when I get time. (You could subtract 5 from the total score for ever player that would normalize the score). It would be intersting to see those results. My guess is there wouldn't be alot of spread between the scores if you adjusted them that way.


Or- you could just take the square root of PI, multiply by the hypotenuse of a triangle and divide by the plethora of El' Guapo. That my friends is how you determine who had the best class!
Gamecock Lifer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 11:57 AM   #15
803scdantes
2nd Team All-SEC
 
803scdantes's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Northeast Columbia
Posts: 2,719
CockyCash: 200
803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material803scdantes is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamecock Lifer View Post
Or- you could just take the square root of PI, multiply by the hypotenuse of a triangle and divide by the plethora of El' Guapo. That my friends is how you determine who had the best class!
Just use whatever formula ensures SC is the best and that's the correct formula!



On a more serious note, I've applied the same formula OP has created for football rankings to the SAT rankings. SC goes from 47 to 15. Not sure if this gives more credit to OP's ranking scheme or not.




The only difficulty with this type of ranking is a team could literally sign 15 5 stars and still be behind a team that signed 29 3 stars because one team signed 15 and the other 29. It doesn't make much sense imo.
__________________
34-17; 29-7; 34-13; 27-17; 31-17
803scdantes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 01:08 PM   #16
smoovecock
The Gamecock Pimps Daddy
 
smoovecock's Avatar
 
Male

2009 Awards: Awards for best Posters - Given for: Homecoming King 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Dixie
Posts: 14,199
CockyCash: 0
smoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot materialsmoovecock is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

I just got around to really looking at the list of signings we got last week...I have to say even though we did lose a few guys that we would have loved to have gotten...I think this class will be very good for us as it ages and develops..
Im sure they will be a couple of misses but I also think they will be a few big timers and a lot of very solid players out of this class...
__________________
smoovecock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 05:36 PM   #17
b381l
Banned
 
b381l's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Virginia
Posts: 24,843
CockyCash: 1000032205
b381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot materialb381l is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Quote:
Originally Posted by smoovecock View Post
I just got around to really looking at the list of signings we got last week...I have to say even though we did lose a few guys that we would have loved to have gotten...I think this class will be very good for us as it ages and develops..
Im sure they will be a couple of misses but I also think they will be a few big timers and a lot of very solid players out of this class...
one of the things that makes this class much better than last year, everyone is projected to qualify.......I think 6 didn't qualify last year, 3 of them are either here now or will be here this summer except Thomas, Blue and Ritchie.
b381l is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2015, 09:06 PM   #18
Wisercock
Recruit
 
Wisercock's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 160
CockyCash: 500
Wisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudlyWisercock is crowing loudly
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

I like it.
__________________
Wisercock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2015, 11:07 AM   #19
garnet_black215
Section 509, Row 13
 
garnet_black215's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: In a van down by the river.
Posts: 7,785
CockyCash: 1350
garnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot materialgarnet_black215 is USC mascot material
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

Spin.
garnet_black215 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-14-2015, 01:46 PM   #20
USC843
4-Star
 
USC843's Avatar
 
Male

Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: 843
Posts: 282
CockyCash: 500
USC843 has feathers coming inUSC843 has feathers coming inUSC843 has feathers coming in
Default Re: How South Carolina had the top Recruiting Class in 2015.

I appreciate all the work you did for this but all you essentailly did is list whoever brought in the most guys as having the best class. Im sorry but that is absurdly stupid. Quantity does not equal quality.

Are you seriously telling me that Alabamas class that includes 3 five stars and 20 four stars is worse than our class of 11 (or so) 4 stars and 0 five stars? Are you kidding me? Thats incredibly short sighted. I cant even believe we are even talking about this. This type of stuff makes us look bad when other fans come on our message boards. We always make fun of places like tigernet because of the absurd things they spew. We need to not drag ourselves down to their level by saying things like this.

Again, its nothing personal against you OP, but come on.
USC843 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Provided by SLB Development