About CFB Matrix

The National Composite Team Recruiting Ranking 2013

By  |  1 Comment

 

The National Composite Team Recruiting Ranking 2013

 

Note- All annual rankings ARE NOT EQUAL.  Especially year to year.  The #2 composite class in 2012 would be ranked #6 this year.  So teams slightly below 2012 rankings are adding near equal talent, those that appear to have similar classes are really adding more and those above average are way above average. 

With a key to the simplicity of the CFBMatrix being adjusted recruiting rankings, it is only right to kick off every season as I have done for the last 8 years with the Composite Ranking™ sheets. It took a few years, but after the numbers showed very little overall shifting in rankings after November 1 each year and classes ending up with a final ranking on NSD  in spite of my constant viewing I just dropped it until now.

I have been doing the the CFBMatrix Composite Rankings© for 13 years in order to reduce the bias in some ranking systems and error in evaluations.  Do I believe any one site is statistically better than another for rankings, no (proven), so I put them all together to reduce error and the potential bias in some rankings.  Each ranking site has a formula for their ranks but none has proven to be better than another including their own ‘composite ranks which, when you add up and average the number available make no sense and are misleading.

This is just the start of a bunch of new numbers, angles and predictions from the CFBMatrix.  I will update the numbers the day after National Signing Day along with breakdowns of trends of all the teams and conferences.  Until then, here is your quick reference cheat sheet.

You can use the sheet to look back on 2012 classes and 4 year non-adjusted averages of classes.  No bias to formulas, rankings or sites.  Only the stats at your personal fingertips.

Thanks for being on-board for another football season with the CFBMatrix.
– Dave Bartoo – The College Football Matrix

Another little breakdown

With 124+ teams and 4 ‘major’ ranking services, the sample size to reduce bias and evaluation error is getting better. While each outlet claims to have the best folks evaluating or the best formula for rankings players, teams or what have you, a quick review was done on the Big 4.
These numbers are based on taking the combined averages and then calculating how much each ranking system is ‘off’ from the average. In this manner we can see how far each is away from the average and the frequency that a system is significantly off (+/- 5 spots) from the group average.

With ESPN only choosing to rank #1-#40, I just looked at those 40 teams.  Quick, easy and not scientific.  Lots of points to argue but consistency in the top 40 one stands out.

Closest to Average Rank Per Team

  1. Rivals – 3.025
  2. 247 – 3.275
  3. Scout – 4
  4. ESPN – 4

Number of Occurrences of a System off +/- 5 ranking spots

  1. Rivals – 10
  2. 247 – 12
  3. Scout – 13
  4. ESPN – 16

Teams under biggest disagreements between Ranking Sites

  1. Miami (FL) 27 spots – 247 #17  Rivals #44
  2. Stanford 25 spots – ESPN #38  247 #63
  3. Wisconsin 24 spots – ESPN #32  Rivals #56
  4. Penn State 21 spots – ESPN #24  Scouts #45
  5. North Carolina 21 spots- ESPN #18    Rivals #39
  6. Virginia Tech 19 spots- ESPN #16  Scout #35
  7. Pitt  18 spots –  Rivals #22  ESPN #40

Feb7 Final Team Composite Rankings

 

A little breakdown

With 124+ teams and 4 ‘major’ ranking services, the sample size to reduce bias and evaluation error is getting better. While each outlet claims to have the best folks evaluating or the best formula for rankings players, teams or what have you, a quick review was done on the Big 4.
These numbers are based on taking the combined averages and then calculating how much each ranking system is ‘off’ from the average. In this manner we can see how far each is away from the average and the frequency that a system is significantly off (+/- 5 spots) from the group average.

With ESPN only choosing to rank #1-#40, I just looked at those 40 teams.  Quick, easy and not scientific.  Lots of points to argue but consistency in the top 40 one stands out.

Closest to Average Rank Per Team

  1. Rivals – 3.025
  2. 247 – 3.275
  3. Scout – 4
  4. ESPN – 4

Number of Occurrences of a System off +/- 5 ranking spots

  1. Rivals – 10
  2. 247 – 12
  3. Scout – 13
  4. ESPN – 16

Teams under biggest disagreements between Ranking Sites

  1. Miami (FL) 27 spots – 247 #17  Rivals #44
  2. Stanford 25 spots – ESPN #38  247 #63
  3. Wisconsin 24 spots – ESPN #32  Rivals #56
  4. Penn State 21 spots – ESPN #24  Scouts #45
  5. North Carolina 21 spots- ESPN #18    Rivals #39
  6. Virginia Tech 19 spots- ESPN #16  Scout #35
  7. Pitt  18 spots –  Rivals #22  ESPN #40

CFB Maven. National Radio Show Guest. The 1st word on CFB thru The Wide-Angle Lens of CFB. Attrition Analytics Consultant & owner of #UpsetAlert & #PaceOfPlay

1 Comment

  1. Isaac

    March 19, 2013 at 12:43 pm

    I was wondering why you decided to us the 247 composite score as the 247 ranking, and not the regular 247 rankings. I ask this because Ole Miss was #2 in the regular rankings but #6 in their composite rankings, so what you used for the 247 rankings was already an averaged out version of the rankings. Why not use the pre-averaged rankings and do the averaging yourself? I’m a big fan of your work and look forward to everything you do in the coming season.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>