This is interesting........rankings by offers

[lefty08]

www.rankbyoffers.com

[ricepig]

Nice find, I'll bookmark it for future reference.

[lefty08]

Nice find, I'll bookmark it for future reference.

The only hangup I have with it is I think the athletes themselves cite the offers, but overall I think it's somewhat accurate

Either way it's a cool angle to recruiting.  I hate the star system

[ricepig]

The only hangup I have with it is I think the athletes themselves cite the offers, but overall I think it's somewhat accurate

Either way it's a cool angle to recruiting.  I hate the star system

I definitely agree offers generally have a better clue to a player's ability. As far as offers being reported by the players, not much else you can do about that.

[lefty08]

I definitely agree offers generally have a better clue to a player's ability. As far as offers being reported by the players, not much else you can do about that.

Yeah I know, at least it shows what college coaches think about athletes rather than what "recruiting site experts" think

It's pretty eye opening and we are well represented

[Jek Tono Porkins]

This is a good concept. It's always perplexed me how one recruit can have an offer list that includes 5-6 major programs and a recruit ranked higher than him can have a offer list that only includes 1 or 2 major programs.

[WarPig88]

I like this concept as well.

I could care less what Otis Kirk and other guys like him think of recruits abilities. Those are the people "evaluating" them for stars.

Give me a D1 coach's evaluation any day over some guy watching these kids while smoking a cigarette, sipping some Jack with dried ketchup on their shirt and a hunk of whatever meat they just ate stuck in their front teeth.

[Adam Stokes]

Having just graduated from BYU it has always been scary how close BYU and Utah always are each year in recruiting rankings such as 247 etc.  This one is no different, when you pull up the page for which teams are ranked the highest based on likelihood to accept the offer, BYU is 52 and Utah is 53. 

Being an analytical guy I like this website a lot.  Looks like they have past years through the 2013 class.  Interesting that Arkansas hasn't been in the Top 25 yet.

[ShadowTheHedgehog]

A very interesting approach. One issue I see, however, is with accurately ranking those players who commit very solid early, like a McFadden type and get fewer offers than they would otherwise.

[Pig in the Pokey]

A very interesting approach. One issue I see, however, is with accurately ranking those players who commit very solid early, like a McFadden type and get fewer offers than they would otherwise.

ding ding ding. This system is very bad math. very bad. the wide open prospects will always factor higher than strong leans, etc. horrid math but it is an interesting comparison table at least.

[Adam Stokes]

From the website:

Q: Aren't early commits penalized in this system?

A: The short answer is, "yes, but not as much as one would assume." It is true that colleges are less likely to extend offers to recruits that are already committed to another school. The severity of impact depends upon when in the recruiting process the recruit has committed, and to which school. Elite players receive most of their offers more than a year before their signing day. Very few players have committed by that time. 80% of college offers are extended more than six months prior to signing day for all players.

Decommitments are commonplace, and college programs are well aware of this. Most schools will continue to offer committed players ... especially prestigious programs. A commitment to a less prestigious school doesn't act as much of a deterrent to future offers. Unless a commit definitively shuts down his recruitment, other colleges will continue to recruit and offer him. Although a few recruits are penalized severely for committing early, the net effect on the ranking system is negligible.

[lefty08]

ding ding ding. This system is very bad math. very bad. the wide open prospects will always factor higher than strong leans, etc. horrid math but it is an interesting comparison table at least.

This website is best used for guys who are uncommitted for that very reason imo

[Deep Shoat]

This is another interesting metric.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It no more tells the tale than the current star system.  The best way to measure recruits is at the end of their careers, not the beginning.  Too much guesswork, confirmation bias, and faulty data goes into the mix.

[redeye]

And look who's #1!  I guess we're no longer in the Parker Boudreaux sweepstakes?

I see we've offered all the top 5 players, with the exception of the QB from Maryland.

[redeye]

nm

[jry04]

The only hangup I have with it is I think the athletes themselves cite the offers, but overall I think it's somewhat accurate

Either way it's a cool angle to recruiting.  I hate the star system

Agreed. Not a ton of difference between a highly recruited 3 star, and a 4 star. Most have the same offers and ability, just not rated as high for whatever reason. However, the boost that 4 star gives a team in the rankings is much greater, despite them both being equal or maybe the 3 star slightly better on the field.

Obviously recruiting can be hit or miss, but I typically look at who has offered a player, rather than their stars. That OL we got last weekend is a good example. Diesch has offers from every big time program in the country, but is only a 3 star. If that many coaches want you, then you are definitely a top recruit in the country, in my opinion.

[Cinco de Hogo]

What a waste of time to even try to figure that out or try to use it, then in the end realize it's just as subjective as any other ranking service.

Don't ya'll think most of the people involved in ranking players acknowledged who has offered a given player too?  I know that has been the subject of many a accusations.

I know ya'll talk a lot about how many offers a player has but if you want to consider the historical precedence of how many wins a school has been getting from the classes they have recruited that will tell you a lot about the viability of their historical recruiting rankings.

Some schools historically achieve what you would expect while others don't.  You can determine how much you have to fear a team based on what they have done with the classes they have recruited.

Now that would be a factor to weight into a teams ranking.

So Bama would get and added weight of 4.6 while T A&M might only get 2.7

If I knew how to do it I would come up with a formula to plug into a spreadsheet and use the last full season record vs their recruiting ranking from four year earlier.

[PaintballHog]

I guess this system wouldn't be too kind to guys like Capps.

It's a neat idea. Any innovation attempt to help fans has my support.

[lefty08]

Agreed. Not a ton of difference between a highly recruited 3 star, and a 4 star. Most have the same offers and ability, just not rated as high for whatever reason. However, the boost that 4 star gives a team in the rankings is much greater, despite them both being equal or maybe the 3 star slightly better on the field.

Obviously recruiting can be hit or miss, but I typically look at who has offered a player, rather than their stars. That OL we got last weekend is a good example. Diesch has offers from every big time program in the country, but is only a 3 star. If that many coaches want you, then you are definitely a top recruit in the country, in my opinion.

I believe Diesch is ranked pretty high on this list, again I think it's worth a lot for the uncommitted guys. Players who committ early obviously aren't ranked a high

[lefty08]

What a waste of time to even try to figure that out or try to use it, then in the end realize it's just as subjective as any other ranking service.

Don't ya'll think most of the people involved in ranking players acknowledged who has offered a given player too?  I know that has been the subject of many a accusations.

I know ya'll talk a lot about how many offers a player has but if you want to consider the historical precedence of how many wins a school has been getting from the classes they have recruited that will tell you a lot about the viability of their historical recruiting rankings.

Some schools historically achieve what you would expect while others don't.  You can determine how much you have to fear a team based on what they have done with the classes they have recruited.

Now that would be a factor to weight into a teams ranking.

So Bama would get and added weight of 4.6 while T A&M might only get 2.7

If I knew how to do it I would come up with a formula to plug into a spreadsheet and use the last full season record vs their recruiting ranking from four year earlier.

Yep, it's difficult to use. Typing a players last name in the search box is exhausting. And that horrible drop down box is such a pain to use

Imo this is a ton less subjective than the star rating. For one, the rating doesn't change just because a kid went to a certain services camp or committed to a blue blood school. It only changes on offers received. I'll take what coaches think of a kid any day over tom lemming

[redeye]

Yep, it's difficult to use. Typing a players last name in the search box is exhausting. And that horrible drop down box is such a pain to use

Imo this is a ton less subjective than the star rating. For one, the rating doesn't change just because a kid went to a certain services camp or committed to a blue blood school. It only changes on offers received. I'll take what coaches think of a kid any day over tom lemming

I'm just not sure how much you can rely on the offer lists.  Offer lists usually vary from one recruiting service to another, and it's not uncommon for them to show no offer from Arkansas, when we know we have.  Meanwhile, other players will show lots of great offers, but people will say they're not "committable" offers.

[Pig in the Pokey]

This website is best used for guys who are uncommitted for that very reason imo

good point

[lefty08]

I'm just not sure how much you can rely on the offer lists.  Offer lists usually vary from one recruiting service to another, and it's not uncommon for them to show no offer from Arkansas, when we know we have.  Meanwhile, other players will show lots of great offers, but people will say they're not "committable" offers.

Do you think the other sites get their offer info from coaches or the athletes?  In getting they get their info the same way.

[Cinco de Hogo]

I think the recruiting guru calls the athlete and ask "who you got offers from" and the recruit says la de da da de and the recruiting guru says "thanks you are a ___ star! 

Science at its best!

[bennyl08]

The good thing for the site is that can't yet be tested on how reliable it is since it only goes back to 2013 and only a few players from that class have entered the draft. The bad news for the site is that it can't yet be tested on how reliably it predicts vs other sites.

[jesterzzn]

Houston Nutt:  #1 recruit of ALL TIME!

What was it?  300 offers?

[Pig in the Pokey]

Houston Nutt:  #1 recruit of ALL TIME!

What was it?  300 offers?

omg you may be right. everry school offered hooter lol

[redeye]

Do you think the other sites get their offer info from coaches or the athletes?  In getting they get their info the same way.

I have no idea, but it just seems to me that recruiting services don't care much about the accuracy of their offer data, among other things.  How many times have we seen a player list Arkansas among their top schools, but the recruiting services still show us as "cool" with the player, if they even acknowledge that we've offered at all?