Scout has the UL class ranked at 108 and they are credited with two 3 star recruits. ULM is 109 and they have the same exact star average as UL, but signed one less player.
Scout has the UL class ranked at 108 and they are credited with two 3 star recruits. ULM is 109 and they have the same exact star average as UL, but signed one less player.
Also, here's an interesting article that argues why you should give credence to the star system. Depending on how you skew your statistics, I'm sure you can make an arguement for either side.
http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/footbal...aining-content
You aren't going to be specific because you have no basis for your point. Our website also didn't have us offering Aaron Spikes, Jarad Martin, Daniel Quave and countless others until they either visited or visited other places. You can't base your opinion or unfounded argument on what a website has published since this process changes daily.
It would take a while for someone to teach you the value system associated with the rankings and how they are derived. Also, these "stars" one gets seem to automatically diminish when someone commits to a UL over a Memphis or even larger BCS school. If you understood how the star system was ranked and supplied to each prospect, you'd understand more fully that this is certainly a flawed system when talking about schools on the lower D-1 level.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)