Junction

I laugh when I see ESPN's rating of Texas... I know it really doesn't mean anything but that's just humor at its finest.

Our rankings are based on a mathematical formula, not a bunch of people sitting in a room debating which class is better. While USC has by far the highest average prospect committed, their class only has 11 players in it, well below what most of the country has right now. You can disagree with the formula, but it's not like they just dropped USC for no reason.

I mean, you can't juke the formula, it is what it is.

I think the way we do the team rankings is a good way. USC's class may have tremendous star power, but if they only sign 12 players it isn't a top ten class.

to each their own brother...

A team that took classes of 15 every year where all 15 were 4 or 5 stars would donkey stomp a team that took classes of 25 3-stars every year.

True, but how rare is it that a team takes a really small class (15 or fewer) with that kind of success? It's hard to build an objective rankings system around a rare anomaly. You could lower the number of players that factor into the rankings but at that point you'd basically be ranking the top ten players in each team's class instead of the top 20 or so that most schools sign. I agree that there's little debate that USC's class is much better than it's ranked, but it'd be next to impossible to build that into a formulaic system and still keep that system viable for the rest of the country.

Haha so essentially what Aubrey is saying is that its all about quantity, not quality. Sounds like a shitty formula to me. 247 is thinking a little too hard on this one.

You should go to the team rankings page and read the formula, that's not what I'm saying at all. In fact, quality is heavily rated in the formula. But the formula is based on ranking an entire class. Right now USC has 11 commits, and while those 11 may be better than any else's 11, it's three fewer commits than anybody in front of them has, and five fewer than anybody in the top five has.