vander54 said:
To me this is more on Rivals than 247. From my understanding 247 just had a composite ranking. So all they did was not validate rivals info. Either way it shows that the recruiting services are a joke and need an overhaul.
Hidden problem here that is a much bigger deal, IMO --- they didn't validate rivals info. INDEED, the rankings of these services (and TexaAgs too, to an extent, I'm sure) are not independent of one another. Its nested data with longitudinal variants, between rating service, and within rating service variability.
I would hypothesize that if one big service bumps a recruit, this draws attention, and other services are likely to take another look and adjust rankings too - thus inflating the effects of the first bump. Thus rankings are not really independent of one another, but we talk about them and think about the this way.
I dont have the data to do this, but this could definitely be modeled, with variables such as rating service, date of ranking, date(s) of ranking changes, # of total offers, # of power 5 offers, and school commitments. From this, we could statistically test whether one service drives the others and whether there is an "effect" for school offers.
Good Lord I wish I had the time! This would make a great semester project for an advanced biostats student. The data is all online, years worth. Journalists can deny all they want, but the data is there to be tested.