Average 4.0 stars. Ohio State is #1 at 4.05

Better metrics

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2023/all-teams/Football

Rivals sucks.

HTH

Just a few years off.

Quality over quantity. All day.

If we are #2, why are we listed at #17?

PLUM LOCO said:

---

If we are #2, why are we listed at #17?

---

It's a dumb stat but avg stars. Keep up

The stupid rankings depends heavily on how many commits you have. 30 four star commits is ranked higher than 6 five star and 10 four stars.
I teach graduate statistics and stats can be misused.

Avg stars is definitely not a dumb stat. I would argue that it is more meaningful than overall ranking, especially when you don't need a big class.

hmmm, don't see another school with 3 5 stars and A&M has fewer commits than any other team in the top 25

Lies
Damn lies
And Statistics

Average stars is great. But it doesn't matter if you miss at key positions of need.

See the longhorns every year loading up on WR's.

We definitely have a need for some offensive talent on this class.

Paul Dirac said:

---

The stupid rankings depends heavily on how many commits you have. 30 four star commits is ranked higher than 6 five star and 10 four stars.
I teach graduate statistics and stats can be misused.

---

I'm taking graduate Statistics right now, and I don't know you, but I hate you because of it.

I don't care about '23 recruits, it's likely none will contribute next year anyhow. Jimbo and staff need to develop what is already on the roster heading into year 6.

Give us a QB & some more 4&5 star OL's & LB's and we are set for the foreseeable future.

Batman96 said:

---

Give us a QB & some more 4&5 star OL's & LB's and we are set for the foreseeable future.

---

Running back.

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Avg stars is definitely not a dumb stat. I would argue that it is more meaningful than overall ranking, especially when you don't need a big class.

---

That is what everyone here is saying. Quality over quantity.
I think the rankings must be determined by avg stars provided you have more than x recruits in the year. x may be 10 or some suitable number. You don't want a school with 1 5-star recruit being No 1.

Definitely Not A Cop said:

---

Average stars is great. But it doesn't matter if you miss at key positions of need.

See the longhorns every year loading up on WR's.

---

No way to rank for that. Because each school has different needs and rankings cannot get to that.

Stars don't matter. Heart does.
Rivals isn't great. I am certain we have a better recruiting class than Ohio State University.

VatoLocoAggie said:

---

Stars don't matter. Heart does.
Rivals isn't great. I am certain we have a better recruiting class than Ohio State University.

---

How does one quantify "heart"?

VatoLocoAggie said:

---

Stars don't matter. Heart does.

---

Have always hated this sentiment.

Yes, stars do matter.

You think bama has owned us (and everyone else) so completely for the last 15 years because they had more heart?

Or *maybe* because on average they are faster, stronger, bigger, and more talented?

So we have bigger eggs?

FIGHT'N TEXAS AGGIES

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Avg stars is definitely not a dumb stat. I would argue that it is more meaningful than overall ranking, especially when you don't need a big class.

---

When it's in our favor we use average stars around here. When it's not then it's a dumb metric.

Vato is a long running troll that for some reason hasn't been banned. I would expend too much energy on their posts.

Paul Dirac said:

---

Average 4.0 stars. Ohio State is #1 at 4.05

Better metrics

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2023/all-teams/Football

---

So are you saying we just need to recruit 1 5-star and shut down recruiting so we can be #1?

TX_Aggie37 said:

---

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Avg stars is definitely not a dumb stat. I would argue that it is more meaningful than overall ranking, especially when you don't need a big class.

---

When it's in our favor we use average stars around here. When it's not then it's a dumb metric.

---

It's a dumb metric period because it has too much granularity and due to the disproportionate numbers at each star level.
Let's say there are 30 five stars and 270 four stars. There are few enough five stars to where you can say a five star is a five star is a five star. But, let's say one team gets the top 10 four stars and another team gets the last 10. They both average four stars but one got players 31-40 while the other got 291-300. That's a huge difference.

That is why the 247 composite rating for a player is a better metric for comparing class quality. It has the granularity because each player's rating is a relative comparison to all other players. And last time I checked, A&M was 4th in average player rating.

Emilio Fantastico said:

---

TX_Aggie37 said:

---

SABUILDERAG said:

---

Avg stars is definitely not a dumb stat. I would argue that it is more meaningful than overall ranking, especially when you don't need a big class.

---

When it's in our favor we use average stars around here. When it's not then it's a dumb metric.

---

It's a dumb metric period because it has too much granularity and due to the disproportionate numbers at each star level.
Let's say there are 30 five stars and 270 four stars. There are few enough five stars to where you can say a five star is a five star is a five star. But, let's say one team gets the top 10 four stars and another team gets the last 10. They both average four stars but one got players 31-40 while the other got 291-300. That's a huge difference.

That is why the 247 composite rating for a player is a better metric for comparing class quality. It has the granularity because each player's rating is a relative comparison to all other players. And last time I checked, A&M was 4th in average player rating.

---

I agree rating over just 3,4, or 5 star is clearly a better metric. It's just funny that TexAgs torched a Texas poster a couple years back when he made a thread about average stars or average rating (size of eggs in a basket as I'm sure most will recall) and now here we are.

PeekingDuck said:

---

Vato is a long running troll that for some reason hasn't been banned. I would expend too much energy on their posts.

---

Troll because he says things you don't agree with LOL? Okay breh

_lefraud_ said:

---

I don't care about '23 recruits, it's likely none will contribute next year anyhow. Jimbo and staff need to develop what is already on the roster heading into year 6.

---

How many true freshman have been playing this season?

Drum5343 said:

---

VatoLocoAggie said:

---

Stars don't matter. Heart does.

---

Have always hated this sentiment.

Yes, stars do matter.

You think bama has owned us (and everyone else) so completely for the last 15 years because they had more heart?

Or *maybe* because on average they are faster, stronger, bigger, and more talented?

---

Don't worry. It's what some Ags say when things go wrong. "We have heart". No one cares. Only results matter. Heart is good but skills are more important. And hard work too. Skills are best quantified by stars. It's not fool proof but the best approximation. Bama usually has most stars and is a perpetual winner.

Onionman said:

---

Paul Dirac said:

---

Average 4.0 stars. Ohio State is #1 at 4.05

Better metrics

https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2023/all-teams/Football

---

So are you saying we just need to recruit 1 5-star and shut down recruiting so we can be #1?

---

Paul did not complete his statement.
I said this.

Quote:

---

That is what everyone here is saying. Quality over quantity.
I think the rankings must be determined by avg stars provided you have more than x recruits in the year. x may be 10 or some suitable number. You don't want a school with 1 5-star recruit being No 1.

---

Paul Dirac said:

---

I teach graduate statistics...

---

I hate you based on this statement alone. Actually, every statistics professor I had was really good.

There have been multiple years that we all laughed at sip when we had a higher-ranked class but they bragged about a higher average rating. Can we make up our mind?