Should be higher. They also now have OSU ahead of the sips.

Why should ours be higher? Are you saying it should be 325?

Also sips will likely get passed by Penn St, ND, and UNC.

Because that's what The ESIPIN network does!

Our new 5 star running back shedding that D

Bob Knights Liver said:

---

Why should ours be higher? Are you saying it should be 325?

Also sips will likely get passed by Penn St, ND, and UNC.

---

They've yet to count our latest signee. That's my point. Yes, should be 325.

e=mc2 said:

---

Bob Knights Liver said:

---

Why should ours be higher? Are you saying it should be 325?

Also sips will likely get passed by Penn St, ND, and UNC.

---

They've yet to count our latest signee. That's my point. Yes, should be 325.

---

Not sure if serious all signees (that have announced) are counted.

In my mind, the average rating per player should really determine your recruiting ranking. Let's say you only have seven commitments but six are five star and one is a four-star. Granted this is a hypothetical and no team is only going to have seven commits. Compare that to a team that has 26 commitments with no 5 stars, three 4 stars, and 22 3 stars. The second team will have a better ranking.
Edit: Our average rating per player is very high!

AstonAg said:

---

In my mind, the average rating per player should really determine your recruiting ranking. Let's say you only have seven commitments but six are five star and one is a four-star. Granted this is a hypothetical and no team is only going to have seven commits. Compare that to a team that has 26 commitments with no 5 stars, three 4 stars, and 22 3 stars. The second team will have a better ranking.

---

And they should. You can't build a team with 7 commits so you need a happy medium.

AstonAg said:

---

In my mind, the average rating per player should really determine your recruiting ranking. Let's say you only have seven commitments but six are five star and one is a four-star. Granted this is a hypothetical and no team is only going to have seven commits. Compare that to a team that has 26 commitments with no 5 stars, three 4 stars, and 22 3 stars. The second team will have a better ranking.
Edit: Our average rating per player is very high!

---

The way the scoring was explained to me, your highest rated recruits are overweighted and lowest rated recruits are underweighted.

Compare two classes. The first has 2 five stars, 2 four stars, and 2 three stars with an average of 80. The second has 1 five star, 3 four stars, and 2 three stars and also averages 80. The first class will be ranked higher according to 247's algorithm.

However, in your example of 7 commits vs 26 commits, the sheer number is going to overwhelm that weighting, and it should. You can't field a whole team on 7 players a year and nobody stops at 7, so the algorithm doesn't need to handle that scenario very well.

Imagine two classes where every single player is rated at almost exactly 80, but one class has 24 and the other has 26. The bigger class will only barely be ahead of the smaller one because recruits 25 and 26 are underweighted so heavily even though they are pretty comparable in talent.

They just sounded Harris committed.

I noticed on Wednesday the composite scores lag behind the commits by like 20-30 mins. It's updated now.

We are approaching 30% of the top 20 and getting closer to signing 20% of the top 100 recruits.

This is getting nuts.

Nino Brown said:

---

We are approaching 30% of the top 20 and getting closer to signing 20% of the top 100 recruits.

This is getting nuts.

---

Wait