Rivals/Scout/etc. National & Regional Rankings

[ShowMeBuck]

Updated Scout 300

7. JuJu Smith
32. Solomon Thomas
35. Damon Webb
36. Damian Prince
37. Marshon Lattimore
44. Kyle Berger
46. Raekwon McMillan
53. Jamarco Jones
60. Parris Campbell
66. Trevion Thompson
82. Sam Hubbard
84. Jalyn Holmes
85. Dante Booker
100. Tyler Luatua
102. Dravon Henry
113. Erick Smith
118. Derrell Scott
126. Alex Bookser
127. Demetrius Knox
136. Thomas Holley
144. Matt Elam
148. Curtis Samuel
166. Myles Autry
201. Noah Brown
207. Travis Rudolph
209. Kyle Trout
276. Malik Hooker
277. Johnnie Dixon
289. Terry McLaurin

Now ranked #6 in Scout's 2014 rankings. Ohio State also has the most top 100 players, with 7.

Curtis at 148 and Trevion Thompson at 66.....um, yeah I can see that. It just jumps out at me from film comparison. :(

 

[BuckTwenty]

If we finish with Lattimore, McMillian, & Prince, we end up with 10% of the top 100 recruits in the nation, according to Scout... and that's with Knox and Samuel on the outside of that looking in.

Unreal.

 

[MD Buckeye]

Updated Rivals 100

11. Damian Prince
18. Raekwon McMillan
24. Solomon Thomas
26. JuJu Smith
32. Damon Webb
35. Demetrius Knox
44. Curtis Samuel
50. Jalyn Holmes
54. Marshon Lattimore
67. Thomas Holley
71. Dante Booker
77. Travis Rudolph

 

[ShowMeBuck]

If we finish with Lattimore, McMillian, & Prince, we end up with 10% of the top 100 recruits in the nation, according to Scout... and that's with Knox and Samuel on the outside of that looking in.

Unreal.

Just my opinion but I think Holley is perhaps a bit more likely than Prince and he is a top 100 guy. Or, even better we end up with 11!

 

[HilmerJ]

jamarco jones out of the top 100

 

[Diego-Bucks]

I wouldn't worry about specific rankings of players. That level of specificity depends in large part on the scouts that see the games and watch the film and rate ONE prospect in comparison to the probably different scouts who watch and rate ANOTHER prospect. Just know that guys like Jamarco Jones and Curtis Samuel are considered top-100/200 players in the nation. That's a tremendous honor. As well it depends on their position. But really, whether Samuel is #50 or #150... that's really not THAT large of a difference given the sheer volume of high school prospects to review.

Also, given Rivals.com ACTUAL bias to the Southeast (nearly all of their paid scouts/writers live in the US Southeast and they went without a midwest scout for several years recently) I take their ranking of "northern" and "western" players with a grain of salt.

 

[NastyNatiBuck]

I wouldn't worry about rankings of players.

You could've stopped there.

 

[MD Buckeye]

Updated Rivals 100

11. Damian Prince
18. Raekwon McMillan
24. Solomon Thomas
26. JuJu Smith
32. Damon Webb
35. Demetrius Knox
44. Curtis Samuel
50. Jalyn Holmes
54. Marshon Lattimore
67. Thomas Holley
71. Dante Booker
77. Travis Rudolph

Updated Rivals 250

107. Johnnie Dixon
108. Jamarco Jones
162. Derrell Scott
166. Dravon Henry
169. Tyler Luatua
194. Trevion Thompson
195. Erick Smith
198. Kyle Trout
212. Noah Brown
215. Matt Elam
224. Kyle Berger

 

[Muck]

First time Trout has moved up in any of the rankings in a good while.

 

[Muck]

Worthwhile post on MGO regarding the inherent bias in how Rivals & ESPN go about their rankings...

Recruiting Rankings, Corporate Sponsors, And Potential Bias

.../snip/...Fans of recruiting often throw out unsubstantiated claims about bias in the player rankings; this "fun fact" from Rivals, though, is just begging for some investigation into potential issues with their rankings. Does Rivals favor recruits who show up to their camps?*

I decided to take a look at the players in the Rivals100 who are listed as participants in the Rivals Five-Star Challenge; they represent 51 of the top 100 prospects on Rivals. My rather unscientific method of looking for potential bias was to look at each Five-Star Challenge participant's ranking on Rivals and compare it to their highest ranking on any of the other three services; if there's consistent bias in the rankings, Rivals should be the high outlier for this specific set of prospects. You can pore over the full (chart?) chart here; below is a summary of what I found:
.../snip/...

 

[Muck]

Updated my cumulative 2010-2014 recruiting rankings.

It gives a rough comparison of the talent level on each roster going into next year (when Maryland & Rutgers come on board).

 

[Muck]

(Terry McLaurin) Just missed the top 250 cut but earned his 4th star on Rivals

I also noticed that Collier & Nuemberger were both bumped up to 3*.

 

[ShowMeBuck]

Updated my cumulative 2010-2014 recruiting rankings.

It gives a rough comparison of the talent level on each roster going into next year (when Maryland & Rutgers come on board).

2 things jump out to me. How on earth has Purdue given us so much trouble? And Fitzgerald is a WAY better coach than Ferentz (didn't need the list to tell me that however.)

Thanks for posting Muck. Interesting stuff.

 

[Muck]

2 things jump out to me. How on earth has Purdue given us so much trouble? And Fitzgerald is a WAY better coach than Ferentz (didn't need the list to tell me that however.)

Thanks for posting Muck. Interesting stuff.

Remember those numbers include the 13 & 14 classes. So the kids who were JRs/SRs at Purdue in 2012 aren't going to be on that list.

Also there is some discrepency in numbers between the lists (for Rivals shows Nebraska as signing 93 players over the timeframe while Scout says 96). I believe it's mostly due to how the services handle JuCo or late signees but I didn't take the time to dig deeper to find exactly who they were listing differently.

Also when I first put this together last year I didn't use 247 because their older lists are a mess (for example according to 247, in 2010 Sparty signed 41 players & Nebraska signed 40) and I wasn't willing to sort through them.

 

[pnuts34]

2 things jump out to me. How on earth has Purdue given us so much trouble? And Fitzgerald is a WAY better coach than Ferentz (didn't need the list to tell me that however.)

Thanks for posting Muck. Interesting stuff.

I think the purdue thing is a combination, our players over looking them, and at times looking almost hungover at the beginning of the game, because they expect to beat purdue. And purdue playing us like its their super bowl