How did your team do this year
I don't like how many sites out there rank recruiting classes, setting up their system to reward volume - meaning bigger classes get higher marks. Many SEC schools over-sign 30+ kids every year even though the max per year is 25. Obviously, totaling the assigned point values of each recruit is not the best way to rank a class. Some teams, like Texas A&M this year, will sign 30 average kids and get a higher ranking than another school who has 17 stand-out players . . . at least most of those SEC schools sign good players.
Some recruiting evaluators use the average ranking of the recruits to rank each class. This is better, but there are some schools (OK, not many) like USC that sign great players, but have like 4 RBs in every class - does that make their class better than a school with fewer great players, but spreads the talent around at several positions?
Some experts evaluate classes based on less quantifiable criteria, such as "how well did this school fill their needs?" This sounds like a good way to go, but it is difficult to really compare classes without measureable data.
I've found that - at least this year - ESPiN has done a decent job of factoring in all of these variables and actually produced a somewhat fair ranking of the top classes for 2008. I'd argue that my Buckeyes probably deserve a higher spot (especially when a certain QB's father agrees to sign his letter of intent), but overall not too bad. I'd probably rank them:
#1 Miami
#2 Alabama
#3 Ohio State
#4 Clemson
#5 Florida
I don't like how many sites out there rank recruiting classes, setting up their system to reward volume - meaning bigger classes get higher marks. Many SEC schools over-sign 30+ kids every year even though the max per year is 25. Obviously, totaling the assigned point values of each recruit is not the best way to rank a class. Some teams, like Texas A&M this year, will sign 30 average kids and get a higher ranking than another school who has 17 stand-out players . . . at least most of those SEC schools sign good players.
Some recruiting evaluators use the average ranking of the recruits to rank each class. This is better, but there are some schools (OK, not many) like USC that sign great players, but have like 4 RBs in every class - does that make their class better than a school with fewer great players, but spreads the talent around at several positions?
Some experts evaluate classes based on less quantifiable criteria, such as "how well did this school fill their needs?" This sounds like a good way to go, but it is difficult to really compare classes without measureable data.
I've found that - at least this year - ESPiN has done a decent job of factoring in all of these variables and actually produced a somewhat fair ranking of the top classes for 2008. I'd argue that my Buckeyes probably deserve a higher spot (especially when a certain QB's father agrees to sign his letter of intent), but overall not too bad. I'd probably rank them:
#1 Miami
#2 Alabama
#3 Ohio State
#4 Clemson
#5 Florida
Comment