Rankings freefall continues for UK commits

[GYERater]

Rivals released its updated Rivals 100 today, both UK commitments dropped again. Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th. Samual Anaele is now outside the top 100.

Of course no bias exists, but the 2 instate players who happen to be committed to Clemson and Notre Dame continue to see their stock rise with every new release.

 

[Smashcat]

Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th

14th? How dare we take a kid ranked 14th!

 

[CB3UK]

Well know it exists. I dont even worry about it.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

No wonder with all the high school football being played right now, of course the rankings are changing.

 

[Poetax]

To me it’s the same thing we said about how to get better recruits, just WIN. To get a fair appraisal with our players in the future, WIN 8 or more this year and it will happen just like the better recruits we are getting now. We are moving up guys.

 

[DexterPotts]

Rivals released its updated Rivals 100 today, both UK commitments dropped again. Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th. Samual Anaele is now outside the top 100.

Of course no bias exists, but the 2 instate players who happen to be committed to Clemson and Notre Dame continue to see their stock rise with every new release.

This is ONE of the reasons I WONT spend $ on this site. They have a DEFINITE bias

 

[Rock_Cat78]

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory against Kentucky like some/many do. I mean Rogers has dropped from #10 to #14. That is nothing. Anaele being in the top 100 was too high for him to begin with IMO. He is really raw and probably lucky to just be a 4* at this point. Very glad UK got him, but he is probably going to take some time.

 

[billoliver40]

lol....its all good. I've really bought in the idea of how much some other coaches want him.

If either of these guys decided to re-open recruiting, I'd bet they get another ton of offers to go with their first ton.

 

[rqarnold]

Ok, just reviewed the top 100... Alabama had 5 players with changes in their rankings. -1,-1,-10,-3 and -1

There are 8 teams with commits with changed rankings in the top 25
Clemson.... +2, +2, -8 and -2.
Ohio St. .... +4, -2
UGA....... +1
UK ......... -1
T a&m ... +2
Texas ... +7
ND ........ -2
Bama ... -1
Undecided -1,-1,-1,-2,+3,-4,+18,-3

So, in the top 25 - 20 player rankings changed... 8 rankings improved, 12 declined.
In the top 100... 58 players rankings dropped... 25 players rankings went up...

Trying to make a case that Rivals is somehow biased against UK just doesn't pass the look test. If they are biased against UK...then who are they favoring?

 

[seccats04]

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory against Kentucky like some/many do. I mean Rogers has dropped from #10 to #14. That is nothing. Anaele being in the top 100 was too high for him to begin with IMO. He is really raw and probably lucky to just be a 4* at this point. Very glad UK got him, but he is probably going to take some time.

I agree about Anaele. He is a terrific athlete with very little skill at this point. Think of him like one of Cal's great athletes who can't really do anything except run fast and jump high but has a ton of potential if they develop. The great thing about football is these guys are usually here long enough to develop whereas in basketball they develop in the NBA.

 

[The-Hack]

Alabama had 5 players with changes in their rankings. -1,-1,-10,-3 and -1

Then is there a bias against players who have committed, in favor of those about whom stories can still be written, and speculation/hits can build for NSD?

Notably, among the undecideds, there was a net gain of 9 spots, and those that dropped didn’t drop much.

And what criteria can be cited from the last re-ranking in . . . July was it? Have there been that many camps in July/August to allow a wholesale rearrangement?

Or is there simply a trend toward constantly rearranging for the sake of hits and interest.

 

[rqarnold]

Or is there simply a trend toward constantly rearranging for the sake of hits and interest.

THIS!!!

 

[Cobb4uk]

Rivals released its updated Rivals 100 today, both UK commitments dropped again. Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th. Samual Anaele is now outside the top 100.

Of course no bias exists, but the 2 instate players who happen to be committed to Clemson and Notre Dame continue to see their stock rise with every new release.

Gee, get a life, there is no football being played. Ratings now are nothing but talking points. Ever think there's too much time and nothing to report, well you make something to get hits. When the season begins and play gets evaluated then by end of year the ratings will adjust accordingly, so up some down.

 

[The-Hack]

Think about this thread for a second: we are worried about where our recruits stack up in the National Top 100 and Top 250.

Not such a bad problem, when a few years ago we worried about their ranking in the Top 250 . . . of Northwest Florida.

 

[mrschwump]

Or is there simply a trend toward constantly rearranging for the sake of hits and interest.[/QUOTE]


Click bait rules the roost.

 

[The-Hack]

THIS!!!

Do you think a Bama commit dropping 10 slots might be worth folding money for interest, discussion, hits and views? How many Auburn fans with pay accounts hit on that issue?

And Bama fans . . . they have likely cussed, discussed, rebuked, condemned, and stroked out . . . I bet some are predicting the apocalypse . . . making note of the birth of a two-headed calf in Galloway County . . . all whilst posting, linking, chatting on internet pay sites about the injustice done their Blue-Chippers!

 

[CB3UK]

I don't buy into the conspiracy theory against Kentucky like some/many do. I mean Rogers has dropped from #10 to #14. That is nothing. Anaele being in the top 100 was too high for him to begin with IMO. He is really raw and probably lucky to just be a 4* at this point. Very glad UK got him, but he is probably going to take some time.

I do, because the basketball team gets the benefit the exact opposite way. As soon as guys commit to Bama or Ohio State you see them get bumped.

It is what it is. I don't get hardcore into the rankings like some folks, its just a good barometer for me as a casual observer. But to act like there isnt some inherent bias with these rankings....I mean its definitely there.

 

[Rock_Cat78]

I do, because the basketball team gets the benefit the exact opposite way. As soon as guys commit to Bama or Ohio State you see them get bumped.

It is what it is. I don't get hardcore into the rankings like some folks, its just a good barometer for me as a casual observer. But to act like there isnt some inherent bias with these rankings....I mean its definitely there.

We are talking about two different things here. I mean, I agree that if a kid commits to Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, etc, they are more likely to get a bump. I do not however believe that when Rivals sees a highly regarded kid commit to UK they then feel the need to lower his rating because he committed to UK. Also, as for Rivals in particular, they have consistently ranked Kentucky's classes higher than any other recruiting service.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

We are talking about two different things here. I mean, I agree that if a kid commits to Alabama, Clemson, Georgia, etc, they are more likely to get a bump. I do not however believe that when Rivals sees a highly regarded kid commit to UK they then feel the need to lower his rating because he committed to UK. Also, as for Rivals in particular, they have consistently ranked Kentucky's classes higher than any other recruiting service.

We had 7 commits in the top 100, 1 sated the same, 5 went up or down 1 or 2 spots. Out of the 7 only 1 had any real change, went up 25 spots.

 

[minjo]

We will find out soon enough about our team.
All the speculation at this point is just a guess by us and the talking heads too.

 

[WildCard]

Rivals released its updated Rivals 100 today, both UK commitments dropped again. Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th. Samual Anaele is now outside the top 100....

Not that it makes any real difference at all, the Rivals 100 list putting him at 14th indicates he went down 2 spots from their last "evaluation". That means he was 12th. And, FWIW, since the list has 100 prospects, if a player plunges only 2 spots, I would say his "rating" went down only 2%.

Peace

 

[ARC Dog]

If you get butthurt over a kid being “dropped”to 14 in the country then please never call anyone a snowflake or consider yourself a rugged individualist again. Just admit you are a baby.

 

[UKRob 73]

If everything was equal you would have 50% of your class go up and 50% go down. In the last 20 years of following recruiting, UK should roughly have 10 classes that went up after reevaluations and 10 that went down. But in 20 years UKs class ranking has NEVER gone UP after reevaluations. If you don't think there isnt a bias, then show me 1 class in the last 20 years where we moved up after reevaluations.

 

[Deeeefense]

No wonder with all the high school football being played right now, of course the rankings are changing.

That was my thought too. What exactly are they basing these changes on?

 

[UKRob 73]

Also, as for Rivals in particular, they have consistently ranked Kentucky's classes higher than any other recruiting service.

I'm not picking on you Rock because I like you, but this statement HAS to stop. Rivals ranks these kids BEFORE they have any association with UK or any other school.
Rivals doesn't rank UKs class, they rank thousands of kids with no association to any college. Once they are part of UK's class, they have been rated for sometime.
If there is a bias, it has to happen AFTER they are associated with a school.

 

[mrschwump]

Not that it makes any real difference at all, the Rivals 100 list putting him at 14th indicates he went down 2 spots from their last "evaluation". That means he was 12th. And, FWIW, since the list has 100 prospects, if a player plunges only 2 spots, I would say his "rating" went down only 2%.

Peace

So what has this player, or any player, done since the previous eval to use him to drop? Or rise for that matter? Maybe the "experts" didn't like the shoes they were wearing, makes about as much sense.

 

[rqarnold]

Not that it makes any real difference at all, the Rivals 100 list putting him at 14th indicates he went down 2 spots from their last "evaluation". That means he was 12th. And, FWIW, since the list has 100 prospects, if a player plunges only 2 spots, I would say his "rating" went down only 2%.

Peace

Working in the data industry my semi-educated guess would be that what happens is that as new data is received for player X, that data is entered which creates a new numerical evaluation (score) for player X. That evaluation along with all other players are sorted and whamo-presto...we have a list ranking players 1 --> whatever...

Meanwhile player Y who has been previously evaluated, doesn't take part in any camps has no new data so their score remains the same.

Player Y's placement in the Top ~ may rise or fall not because his score changed but because the score of others change. Movements of 1 or 2 up or down are likely for this very reason. When you see changes +/- > 5 or more then THAT player has new data and their evaluation/score changed.

 

[Rock_Cat78]

I'm not picking on you Rock because I like you, but this statement HAS to stop. Rivals ranks these kids BEFORE they have any association with UK or any other school.
Rivals doesn't rank UKs class, they rank thousands of kids with no association to any college. Once they are part of UK's class, they have been rated for sometime.
If there is a bias, it has to happen AFTER they are associated with a school.

Sure most of these kids get a ranking before they commit to a school, but a lot of movement still happens with a lot of kids after they make their commitment known. I mean, just in this class, Izayah Cummings was bumped down and Andru Phillips was bumped up after commitments had been made to Kentucky.

All my statement meant was that when the dust settles in February, Rivals has consistently ranked UK's classes higher than the other services. Regardless of what happened with any individual recruit's ranking, that is a fact when looking at the classes as a whole. Again, I just don't think the higher ups at Rivals decided years ago that they were going to single out Kentucky and screw with their commits ranking on a yearly basis and then sit back and laugh while watching their fans get enraged about it.

 

[SECCountry75]

Rivals released its updated Rivals 100 today, both UK commitments dropped again. Justin Rogers has seen his ranking go down 40% since originally pledging with UK and is now 14th. Samual Anaele is now outside the top 100.

Of course no bias exists, but the 2 instate players who happen to be committed to Clemson and Notre Dame continue to see their stock rise with every new release.

Prospect rankings won’t put up a single point on the scoreboard. The difference between being ranked the 10th best high school football player in the country compared to being ranked the 14th best can be described as a “40% drop” or can be described as “insignificant“. Both would be true. As far as I can see, it is inconsequential whether Rogers is listed as the 10th or 14th best high school player in the country by Rivals.

In every prospect discussion I could find, Anaele is described as “raw” but “high upside”. Whether an internet rater ranks Anaele in the top 100 is not important to me now, but I am very excited to see what Anaele can accomplish in Lexington after seeing how well Josh Allen developed.

 

[rqarnold]

So what has this player, or any player, done since the previous eval to use him to drop? Or rise for that matter? Maybe the "experts" didn't like the shoes they were wearing, makes about as much sense.

You're reading too much into it.

Let's say we have 5 players ranked 1,2,3,4,5...with the following evaluations...
1. 99.7
2. 99.5
3. 98.9
4. 98.5
5. 98.4

Now what happens if #4 and #5 get new evaluations to 99.3 and 99.1 respectively?
#3 drops to down to #5 yet he still has the same evaluation he had when he was #3.
So did #3 get demoted? he still has the same evaluation as before.

 

[WildcatofNati]

If you get butthurt over a kid being “dropped”to 14 in the country then please never call anyone a snowflake or consider yourself a rugged individualist again. Just admit you are a baby.

The only thing I get butthurt about is your continual pestering of this board. At least the other Georgia guest here talks football instead of just taking shots at the UK fanbase.

 

[NCPurplecat]

once rated 5.6 or above..
Shades of difference in rankings

.

 

[WildCard]

So what has this player, or any player, done since the previous eval to use him to drop? Or rise for that matter? Maybe the "experts" didn't like the shoes they were wearing, makes about as much sense.

I have no idea. Probably he didn't do a thing to "drop" but other players may have done something (e.g., a camp) to "rise".

For that matter, I'm not sure what he did to ranked in the first place. Coaches know what they want. I don't think they pay as much attention to "rankings" as do the fans. This recruit ranking business is simply something devised by the internet sites to supplement actual football info and talk in the off season. JMO

Peace

 

[Rock_Cat78]

Oh coaches most certainly pay attention to rankings. I'm not saying they let it dictate who they offer, accept a commitment from, etc on all occasions, but I've heard Marrow mention a guy being a "four star" on multiple occasions. Also, when the Urban Meyer/OSU stuff was released a couple of weeks ago, they were talking about recruiting rankings. Coaches may not obsess like some fans do, but everyone of them pays attention.

 

[mrschwump]

I have no idea. Probably he didn't do a thing to "drop" but other players may have done something (e.g., a camp) to "rise".

For that matter, I'm not sure what he did to ranked in the first place. Coaches know what they want. I don't think they pay as much attention to "rankings" as do the fans. This recruit ranking business is simply something devised by the internet sites to supplement actual football info and talk in the off season. JMO

Peace

The "recruit ranking business" is about getting subscribers and making money. Such sites cater to the so called "football schools" such as Bama, Clemson, Ohio St, etc as well as has beens like Nebraska, UT, etc. Keeping those school's fans engaged means more subscribers to their service which equates to more money for them. Those schools are likely to have more subscribers than wanna bes. And click bait rules the day.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

I have no idea. Probably he didn't do a thing to "drop" but other players may have done something (e.g., a camp) to "rise".

For that matter, I'm not sure what he did to ranked in the first place. Coaches know what they want. I don't think they pay as much attention to "rankings" as do the fans. This recruit ranking business is simply something devised by the internet sites to supplement actual football info and talk in the off season. JMO

Peace

This is absolutely the truth, these rankings are for us the fan, not the coaches. The vast majority of these writers have a background in journalism not athletics. Now that isn't a totally bad thing, if coaches were writing the articles a lot of the readings would be painful. I can't imagine trying to read an article written by Jeremy Pruitt. That orange crayon would be tough on the eyes.

I think one of the variables they use is offers, but the issue with that is the info comes from the kids, coaches can't discuss prospects publically until they sign. Thus all the offers marked are per the prospect or his camp. I know we have guys reporting UGA offers that have as much chance to sign as I do.

But the rankings are all subjective done by amateurs, sure many coincide with how coaches rank kids but there are also some glaring differences. But all are just projections, some will be correct, some won't.

 

[ARC Dog]

If everything was equal you would have 50% of your class go up and 50% go down. In the last 20 years of following recruiting, UK should roughly have 10 classes that went up after reevaluations and 10 that went down. But in 20 years UKs class ranking has NEVER gone UP after reevaluations. If you don't think there isnt a bias, then show me 1 class in the last 20 years where we moved up after reevaluations.

If Enzo Jennings wouldve committed to Kentucky over Penn State and then dropped 90 spots he’d have been used for the next 10 years as THE example of all the bias. As it is I guess Rivals is biased against Penn State.

Everyone is out to get you.
Everyone is corrupt and biased.

Its how they sell politics in America and so why not sports too? Why are people so desperate to believe they are under attack?

 

[GYERater]

Jennings drop is preemptive based on the fact he may still end up here. If he sticks with Penn St I expect a big rise by signing day.

 

[UKRob 73]

Arc dogs and others, please explain this to me. We have had many recruits that were 2* recruits, but someone made up a recruit, gave him offers from bama, UGA etc and he instantly was ranked a 3*.
If a totally make believe person gets 3* 's, how in the hell can anyone say their isn't a bias.

 

[Grumpyolddawg]

Arc dogs and others, please explain this to me. We have had many recruits that were 2* recruits, but someone made up a recruit, gave him offers from bama, UGA etc and he instantly was ranked a 3*.
If a totally make believe person gets 3* 's, how in the hell can anyone say their isn't a bias.

Let's be totally fair now, since CMS got over having to deal with Jokers classes 2* recruits have become pretty rare. Granted in the early years he had to take several but who was a big contributor besides Johnson?

During Jokers time I have seen it posted here more than once that UK had a roster that looked more like. MAC roster than an SEC roster, which would have made the rankings fairly accurate based on the results of those classes. Early in Stoops building of UKs roster I said he was using Pinkle's model to build his roster. Which is not signing elite classes but signing solid athletes, RSing as many as possible and hoping to have them on campus 5 years.

It's a proven fact you can win a lot of games using that method. Missouri even won back to back division championships with this method. But the downside is, no one has won a P5 conference championship or made the playoffs. Doesn't mean it won't happen, but hasn't yet.