Fanblogs.com - Latest Comments in Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Gator_Babe812 — Wed, 11 Feb 2009 16:43:23 -0000

You sure have a big mouth considering what happened to your precious Tide in the Sugar Bowl......... and the SEC championship game. LSU is wayyyyy better than you are giving credit for and T>E is right. You won the "recruiting championship" by manipulation :-)

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

1Tomcat — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 15:55:23 -0000

I really dont see any fuzzy math or manipulation.IMO these are all just projections and predictions, most fans should feel great about their teams possibilities. Texas ranks in the top ten nationally in every category including recruiting, whether its #5 or #6 whatever .The Bama vs LSU battle looks awfully close whether its #1 or #3 really makes no difference whatsoever.
Rivals,Scout,SI,ESPN
Right now Texas #5 or #6
20 recruits 19 from Texas one from Arkansas
Oklahoma # 13
23 recruits 11 from Texas 5 from Oklahoma 3 from Kansas
Other Texas schools
Texas A&M #22
Texas Tech #33
Texas Christian #46
Baylor #55
Houston #61
Rice # 78

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

U.of S.C.1978 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 21:14:36 -0000

LOL, I didn't get a real good look at em. But one of em had a slide rule in his pocket.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Zac — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:14:37 -0000

ARRRRRRRR!!! Who be hudle'n agin me? Why I'll bite em an scratch ARGGGGGGGG!!! (I mean, just cause I'm pare-of-noid, don't mean they ain't out to git me.)

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

VTBobb — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:49:20 -0000

Just to clarify, I in no way meant that there is any lingering tradition of racism. I wouldn't know if there were. I just meant that tradition cuts both ways. If you are going to trumpet one part of Alabama's storied history, let's shine a light on all of the Crimson Tide's history.

Reminising about the past and your school's "tradition" can give you a warm and fuzzy on a cold winters night, waiting for that first kickof in late August. But lets face it, I'm guessing every person on this site, and I know every recruit who signed on Wednesday, would rather their team win a NC next year, rather than have had won 6 of them before they were born.

In fact, I've been able to experience something that fans of most "traditional powers" haven't. I got to watch my team build itself into a national power (almost), after being a traditional 0.500 team.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

U.of S.C.1978 — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:27:46 -0000

Chill down there Zac, 78 gonna try to help you deal with life after others huddle up against you.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Zac — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 00:03:27 -0000

And here was I thinking the math was fuzzy on the other thread. Yo! USC'78, I'm having another panic attack!

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Bama_Babe — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:39:27 -0000

More hate, huh? Well you'll have to really piss me off for that.
Which can be done - if I recall correctly, one of our first encounters this past season involved you insulting my intelligence because I said something about how I picked Florida to beat LSU but didn't state it previously on here. Apparently that didn't sit well with you at all...

Anyways, I'm sharpening the claws, so fire away.. ;)

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Bama_Babe — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:35:41 -0000

SIB,

I had a sense of sarcasm in that statement. I'm not basking in the glory of anything except another great recruiting class. Does it help that Rivals named us #1? Yes. Do I feel any less excited about the class even though other site's have Bama listed at #2 and #3 or lower? Not at all. So the whole first part of your post is stupid. I don't feel better about myself "because Rivals gave that #1 nod" to Alabama. That's not where my self-confidence comes from. If you don't care who is #1, then why are you even commenting about it? Go show your hatred of Rivals elsewhere...maybe a sight that isn't owned by Rivals...

And TE, correct me if I'm wrong (of course you will), but since Janzen Jackson went to Tennessee, this argument about Alabama "mysteriously jumping" LSU is no longer valid. I believe Rivals was counting him in LSU list of 5-stars, since yesterday they had 5 and now they have 4. So it looks like to me, all you Rivals and Bama haters can sit back and enjoy the sound of the Alabama Nation celebrating 2 in a row (something only Southern Cal has done before, I might add) .. even if it is awarded from Rivals.

Anyways, congrats to all the classes. 2009 had a bunch of talent, and I know we all can't wait til they hit the field.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

U.of S.C.1978 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:25:27 -0000

hehehe

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

AUtigerman — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 20:51:42 -0000

Bow
I guess i wasnt thinking recruiting because in my opion you guys have been recruiting great for several years now. Everyone knows this year and last year ,but prior to that 2007 #10, 2006 #11,2005 #18.
So even though many Bama fans think they just didnt have the talent in place to win that really turns out to be somewhat of a lame excuse.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Tommy_Trojan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 18:14:28 -0000

TE:

Well, that clears that up. They really have the most subscribers? Okay, that might be believable. I guess they all spend the whole off-season pouring over depth chart upon depth chart, filling holes with imaginary great recruits, all the while the final depth charts will look nothing like that. I know that ours never looks the way that it is "supposed to". One thing for sure, only about five great recruits, are gonna make any kind of significant contribution to any team at these levels.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Bama_DevilDog — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 17:31:17 -0000

I still haven't seen where Saban is a liar to a recruit. Maybe I'm blinded by my crismon shaded glasses. Or maybe it's just lies about lies.

On the other hand, Alabama's tradtion is as strong and prestige's as anyone. I beleive ESPN just did a report on the most prestigous college football programs recently and Alabama came in sixth. Calling Alabama's tradadtion staind by racisim is a slap in the face to all the progress Alabama football has helped make in this state. Alabama football has trancended race and helped this state do the same thing. And for the Fan base, nobody loves their players like Bama fans do. 92,000 fans at a spring game coming off a 7-6 season is just one example.

But, back to my orginal point. Can anyone show me where Nick Saban is lying to his recruits?

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Scout_Is_Better — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:27:59 -0000

You are correct, AU changed to Semesters in Fall of 2000.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Scout_Is_Better — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 16:27:05 -0000

Allow me to rephrase then?
I didn't have to read the LA Times the day after USC won their bowl game (was it the 2004 Rose?). Yet, I'm sure they proclaimed USC the champs. They don't award it, but I'm sure they used the AP ranking. Apparently it was a very bad comparison.

The rant remains the same - Rivals #1 subscriber site is their Bama site. They catered to those fans.

You're spot on with where I'm coming from RE: "Their Rivals site has the most amount of subscribers than any other school specific site on the network. "

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

OU_Ron — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:57:30 -0000

" many Alabama fans would have sold their daughters into a Turkish prison for an 8-5 record over the last decade "
You Bama fans take your football serious..;-)

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

BamaBorn — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:56:03 -0000

Again, why is there bellyaching and sour grapes over the recruiting class this year? Let's wait until these kids prove themselves for a couple of years on the field.

This is what makes some of these players go off the deep end in college. Hero worship BEFORE they even set foot on the college campuses.

Determine who's the best on the field NOT on paper.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

BowToSaban — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:55:28 -0000

I think AU changed to the semester system back around 2000 or so. But yes, Benton was huge for them.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

-TE- — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:41:30 -0000

Not to change the subject, but you guys are getting an absolutely tremendous football player in DeAngelo Benton...That kid is a legitimate threat to be your #1 receiver this fall.

Provided you keep it simple. It did take him three tries to get qualified and get his info to the Clearinghouse. My sources had told me that he would be ready to enroll in Summer Semester's for LSU come June. Don't you guys still operate on quarters? He could get in earlier than there, if that's still true...

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

-TE- — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:39:22 -0000

Their Rivals site has the most amount of subscribers than any other school specific site on the network.

As far as his rant on the LA Times...Since when does the LA Times award the AP Trophy? I dunno...

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

VTBobb — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:38:19 -0000

I'm sorry, you are right (at least, from what I think you are trying to say). How could anyone accuse ole St. Nick of lying? It's not like he has a history of it. Let’s see about your reasons to play for Alabama..

“A school with tradition” - How far back and to what depth do you want to explore their "tradition"...of racism, of NCAA violations, of cheating, payoffs, etc...

“A national championship contender” - Since 2004, Alabama has averaged the #11 recruiting class, VT has averaged #26, yet VT has won 11 more games over that same span. In fact, only USC, Texas and Oklahoma have won more.
“A opputunity to play at the next level” – This possibly outdated page from ESPN (http://sports.espn.go.com/n... shows Alabama with 25 alum as NFL players, VT has 34

“A school with q great fan base” – great when they are winning, but watch out when you aren’t. VT also consistently ranks as one of the hardest places for a visiting team to play, and one of the most exciting game day atmospheres.

Don’t get me wrong, I think St. Nick is a great recruiter and coach. But at what cost? I hope you and all of your top rated recruiting class remember, if you lay down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Tommy_Trojan — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:34:07 -0000

How in the world does Alabama fans become the largest fan base. That is ridiculous. They may be large - but there are very many extremely large audiences for many schools. Ohio State, Penn State, Michigan, Notre Dame and Southern Cal have extremely large fan bases. Alabama is a very small state population wise. They are not even in the same hemisphere as California or Texas is. I seriously doubt if any of these recruiting services are catering to Alabama fans only. And, even in the SEC, LSU and Florida and Tennessee and Georgia and Auburn all have very large fan bases also. I'd bet my last dollar that the Alabama total fan base doesn't even rate in the Top 10 in the country. If anything, Rivals in only trying to create more controversy in the SEC, with the disputed ratings of the Alabama class. Now, that would keep generating more moolah.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

The_Observer — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:27:19 -0000

Where would you rank Alabama's recruiting class this year?

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

BowToSaban — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:27:04 -0000

AUtigerman, I understand your confusion since upon rereading, that part of my post was not the model of clarity, and yes, Alabama went 7-6 in 2007 and LSU went 8-5 in 2008 (although many Alabama fans would have sold their daughters into a Turkish prison for an 8-5 record over the last decade). So allow me to clarify: the "trend" I was referring to was a RECRUITING trend. Alabama's 2 years of excellent recruiting do not exactly a "trend" make, but I'm hopeful. And LSU certainly has a much longer recruiting "trend" going.

Re: Rivals National Signing Day Rankings: Fuzzy Math Results?

Scout_Is_Better — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 15:18:07 -0000

Let me give Rivals some props then:

Rivals is making their #1 audience (Bama fans) happy by falsely giving them the #1 Recruiting rank. It's an EXCELLENT marketing strategy.

The same way the LA (Los Angeles) Times wouldn't dare give the 2003 national championship to the BCS (and rational) National Champions, LSU. The Los Angeles Times has USC fans to sell newspapers to! Rivals has Bama fans to sell subscriptions to.

Even though it makes mathmatical sense for the LA Times to give the 2003 NC title to LSU and it makes mathmatical sense for Rivals to give the Recruting Champoinship of 2009 to LSU, it would alienate their largest audience so they won't do it.

I bet the order came directly from the top of Rivals to make sure the #s are fudged to make their largest audience happy. They get far less negative feedback keeping the 8 million bammer subscribers happy. :-)