thanks, was curious why.Originally Posted by TerryP
STAFF
HALL OF FAME MEMBER
thanks, was curious why.
Didn't read the article, but I'm quite sure that Alabama will not be ranked number one.
This year, they touted the defensive rebuilding as the reason we weren't #1.
Next year, even with AJ returning (as possible a qb with 2 rings), they'll tout the offensive line losses as the reason we're not #1 again. Or any other reason they can come up with.
Do you guys not remember the early '12 talk all centered around USC, Oregon, FSU, West Virginia, anybody but Alabama.
We might be 2, but no higher, and honestly, it doesn't matter until the BSC comes out who is ranked where.
I'd guess if we lose to ND or win by less than 2 TD's in the NC game, ND will be ranked higher than us preseason '13.
Nationally, we're loathed, and it feels sooo good!!
Since I have cover of the August 2012 SI on my wall (had AJ on it!), the top 10 as ranked by SI was:
1. Alabama
2. USC
3. LSU
4. Oregon
5. Oklahoma
6. Wisconsin
7. South Carolina
8. Michigan State
9. Georgia
10. West Virginia
A Very Early College Football Top 25 for 2013
TerryP, the figures I posted came from scout.com. According to what I'm seeing, TAM is currently number one and Bama is nine. Am I getting outdated data?
http://recruiting.scout.com/a.z?s=73&p=9&c=14&yr=2013
Last updated: today.
Fun facts: For 2013 class, Alabama is ranked 4th in QBs, 1st in RBs, 3rd in WR/TEs, 10th in OLs, and 9th in DLs, but not in top 15 for LBs or DBs.
I don't know.
Normally, they are about a month to a month and a half behind updating players. I believe I saw Rivals and 247 update their rankings in the last couple of weeks so chances are they are a little behind.
One thing about Scout that I've noticed over the years is you can always find players whose rankings are just, well, odd. They do tend to give regions higher rankings versus actual player evaluations. It's not necessarily a knock on Scout. All evaluators see players differently. That said, I did hear a report on them within the last year that right at 50 of their top 100 out of the state of Texas were busts—a lot never seeing the playing field.
It's important to note all four services rank players quite differently. ESPN puts a high premium on how much a certain player fits the team he's committed to when judging how to rank a certain class. Rivals doesn't use as many players in their rankings as Scout does, so the placement of one team over another doesn't mean the same thing.
I've felt—purely personal opinion—that it's a case of splitting hairs if you find one person bragging about a team ranked #1 versus a team being ranked #5. However, there is a difference in a team ranked in the high teens versus the top 10. It's almost like it mirrors the polls in a sense. It's easy to point to the top, and it's easy to say that is a second tier class.
Who knows how to judge the class at A&M right now. On paper, and by player rankings, they have a good class coming in. We'll see how they do in player development. It's the one question left to be answered with Sumlin. (And I'm not saying I'm doubting him.)
It's updated daily with commits. It's not with rankings of each player. They only do that a few times per year.
All the recruiting services are technically updated daily.
But, you'll always see "new top 150 to be released..." teasers coming every few months.
Just as an example on different rankings.
Falkins is ranked the 66th best WR in the nation by Scout. 247 has him as their 34th best receiver.
What's one guy see that another guy isn't?
Is one based purely on film and the other on personal observations?
It's so subjective...which is the point I'm trying to make.
Ah, my apologies! Some of that stuff goes a little over my head, partially due to the very subjective nature of it all. Bleh.
I have yet to see any rankings that truly match up.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
