In partnership with CBSSports.com
The home for discussion on USC athletics
FightOn247 message board for off topic posts
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 know a new top 247 will be coming out soon, but currently for our 14 commits, 13 are ranked at 247 below the average for the other sites (like scout, rivals and espn). The only one ranked higher, Browne, is #3 at 247and a consensus #4.
Name 247 rank consensus rank
Cravens 11 5...6 spots lower (ranked #4 at Scout)
Bigelow 16 11...5 spots lower (ranked #11 at ESPN)
Ramsey 34 24...10 spots lower (ranked #15 at Rivals)
McQuay 35 30...5 spots lower (ranked #19 at Rivals)
Isaac 75 35...40 spots lower (ranked #20 at Rivals)
Mitchell 74 64...10 spots lower (ranked #55 at Rivals)
Hawkins 95 62...33 spots lower
Hutchings 147 69...78 spots lower (ranked #53 at ESPN)
Davis 197 107...90 spots lower (ranked #29 at Scout)
Prevot 191 169...22 spots lower (ranked #125 at Scout)
Falah >247 171...at least 77 spots lower
Rogers >247 202...at least 46 spots lower (ranked #66 at Rivals)
Hatcher >247 163...at least 85 spots lower (ranked #101 at Scout)
Never in ten years of following recruiting have I seen one site in one year give so many consistently lower rankings to Trojan recruits than the other sites. Not once. Scott's the best and I love my membership here, but his employer f-ing sucks. More biased than ESPN.
This post has been edited 5 times, most recently by OxyTrojan 18 months ago
Seems very strange- absurdly so. Hey, what if they are right and and we have had the worst talent in CFB and our staff has been doing an outstanding job by coaching them up to the level of mediocrity?
I mean, they have Dorian Johnson rated higher than Carl Lawson, that speaks volumes right there.
Oddly enough though, 247 has USC with the No. 2 overall class, Rivals has it at No. 7, and Scout has USC as the No. 9 class...
247 has USC with the lowest star rating of the three, but that's not an accurate gauge since the three boards have different criteria for determining star counts....
Also, don't some of the sites base the overall ranking on the sum total of the commit rankings, such that a team with 35 commits will rank more than a team with 18, just based on sheer volume?
That's my understanding... I believe they give points for each commit up to the 25th highest rated recruit so it would make sense that Michigan, with 24 recruits, would have more points and a higher class ranking that USC with only 14... at least that's how it's done on one of TOS....
Nothing is worse than ESPN's rankings... They have Bama ranked 3rd but their top recruit is in the mid twenties. SC has 3 or 4 kids in the top 30 ... Comical
Scout assigns a point total to each player based on ranking. They take the point total from the 25 best players in each team's class to determine their team rankings.
Rivals assigns a point total to each prospect from their 5.2-6.1 scoring system. They apply that to the 22 best players in each class to determine their team rankings.
247's team ranking point system is a bell curve. Each team's best recruit is worth the most points and their last recruit is worth the least. It ensures that teams aren't rewarded too much for taking large classes, like they are at scout, while acknowledging that those extra players are actually worth something, which rivals fails at.
I have never bothered to follow ESPN's recruiting coverage, so I have no idea how they do things.
This post was edited by Chris Swanson 18 months ago
Not sure on others. 25 makes sense, but 20 is kinda random.
I have my disagreements as well. We all do, but nothing's perfect and most of these kids are very close in terms of talent. I could probably separate the prospects by star ranking, shake them up, and throw rankings out there that wouldn't seem too out of whack.
Also, every kid has also been given a fair rating, no one got screwed. The kids that 247 has a four or three star that other sites have higher are right on the cusp of the higher ranking.
And no offense to some of the TOS's, but they hand out high rankings out like candy. One of them has 42 five star players. That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen. In my very honest and humble opinion, there should be 15 fie stars at the most. I know 247 has 20 something, but I think it should be even less. There are, maybe, 5 players a year that make a significant impact in their first year.
So, forget all the rankings, just know that USC recruits good players
It's not giving too many stars at other sites. You are right that may be a problem, but is not relevant to my main concern.
My problem that non-USC recruits are ranked HIGHER than USC recruits at 247, while non-USC recruits are ranked LOWER than USC recruits at other sites. This is an apples to apples comparison and weirdly skewed anti-USC. Why?
I could care less about the ranking as long as they are 3 stars and a greater. I think we all prefer results.
What were their star rankings coming out of HS?
I am joking about Petros, by the way.
Yes, we want good player regardless of stars.
But Alabama has been dominating the 5 star recruiting the last several years.
How has that worked out for them?
And those three stars we had were complemented by 5 stars like Palmer, Bush, Baker, Maualuga.
And I am not talking about you, because I don't know any of your posts, but a lot SC fans were critical of the Pete Carroll regime in his last couple years and they say that the regime recruited to have the highest team ranking rather than style of play or players that complement one another. I don't have an opinion one way or another if that was their goal, but their "miss rate", at a minimum, seemed to increase.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports