"B-" WTF??

Miami and FSU get B's based on history. Interesting that the national rankings are not listed.
 
This is a grade for recruiting classes based on NSD and UNC, Miami, and FSU all signed more than twice as many 4*'s as we did, thus they get a higher grade. The Syracuse grade looks a little high. Kudos to CGC and staff getting the class we got; they get an A for effort; but not for the actual class.
 
Most of the ratings are a joke anyhow, if they were correct they would not need to go back in later years and fix them. Wait until they play.
 
Don’t see anything wrong with that grade. Can’t give As to the entire Top 30.

Edit. I take that back. VT got a C+ for one of (if not) the worst P5 classes in the country.
 
Well they are comparing us to everyone, rather than to our own historical averages.

How did VPI not get an F with only one 4 star and Five(!) 2 stars.
 
gtrower said:
Don’t see anything wrong with that grade. Can’t give As to the entire Top 30.

Edit. I take that back. VT got a C+ for one of (if not) the worst P5 classes in the country.
Click to expand...

If they're just going to go down the line and give grades based on where teams finished nationally, without providing any other context, it seems rather redundant...since they already have teams ranked nationally.

It would be like trying to rank coaching hires and providing the same criteria to a hire at Ohio State as at Arkansas State. No shit Ohio State is going to get the coach with a better resume.
 
gtrower said:
Don’t see anything wrong with that grade. Can’t give As to the entire Top 30.

Edit. I take that back. VT got a C+ for one of (if not) the worst P5 classes in the country.
Click to expand...

What is hilarious is the same fonts who are celebrating our Rivals recruiting rankings are bemoaning our Rivals recruiting grade. You live by Rivals you die by Rivals.
 
aeromech said:
What is hilarious is the same fonts who are celebrating our Rivals recruiting rankings are bemoaning our Rivals recruiting grade. You live by Rivals you die by Rivals.
Click to expand...

Rivals and 247 are pretty much interchangeable to me. I don't love or hate either one. I just think it's a bit silly to go down the line and give teams alphabetical grades that simply align with where they sit in the rankings. There's a better measure of that already out there, and it's the rankings themselves.

I gave the example of outlets that grade coaching hires because they generally try to take into account where the teams are in relation to their competition, their personnel, etc. These "grades," on the other hand, are about as superficial as it gets.
 
National and even regional Rivals guys don't know crap. Too many recruits to see, especially in the southeast.

Recruiting rankings are pretty good in a very large sample size and to show a long term trend. They suck worse and worse as you narrow the sample.
 
If you see something stupid written about your team, the only rational assumption to make is that the anger or incredulity you feel is exactly what the writer hoped to elicit. Ideally, it will be enough for you to share a link to their article, providing them with clicks and ad revenue. Being right or fair are not in the best interest of their employer's bottom line. This doesn't only apply to outlets like Bleacher Report anymore.
 
Described Duke's class this way:
"The Blue Devils addressed some important needs in this class but there aren’t any four-stars in the class of 16 recruits and they averaged less than three-stars per commitment."

Rated us the same. Does not compute.
 
23rd out of what 130 schools puts us at top 17%, which is a low B if you grade on a curve. B- makes sense. I don’t think it’s an insult. Considering we usually get an F.
 
covingtonjacket said:
Described Duke's class this way:
"The Blue Devils addressed some important needs in this class but there aren’t any four-stars in the class of 16 recruits and they averaged less than three-stars per commitment."

Rated us the same. Does not compute.
Click to expand...
It isn't supposed to compute. It's supposed to do this.
 
Akinji07 said:
23rd out of what 130 schools puts us at top 17%, which is a low B if you grade on a curve. B- makes sense. I don’t think it’s an insult. Considering we usually get an F.
Click to expand...

They should do a "Grading the Sun Belt programs." Every school gets an F.

Dividing these up by conference but grading each team from a national perspective is beyond retarded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top