Arkansas' class ranked No. 17

by ESPN.

http://m.espn.com/ncf/recruiting/classR … %22%7D&wjb

… which is 6th in the SEC West #toughleague

ESPN crootin ranking seems driven to promote the blue blood programs and the players they recruit in football as well as basketball. Rivals. 247 and ESPN are different and it makes no sense. Explain how a player can be a 4 star for one and not the other!

As I understand it, the 247 Composite takes all three and averages to get their ranking…I’m with you though Army, personally I like the Rivals rankings the best :sunglasses:

We are most certainly closing the gap.

247’s composite numbers are a real head scratcher at times. I tried to pin them down on their formula for “averaging” the ESPN, 247, and Rivals ratings. They just say it is proprietary and cannot give it out. Hudson Henry is a good example of how skewed their “average” can be. You would think that a good average would be at least close to an average of where he ranks in the top 100 for each of the 3 services, but no, and not close. Here’s Hudson’s numbers:

247 - 95 rating - #70 overall.
Rivals - 5.9 rating - #98 overall.
ESPN - 85 rating - #54 overall.

Hudson’s 247 composite score is .9719? - #52 overall?? It’s great for Hudson (and I think he should be even higher), but you would think it would be impossible for his “247 composite average” top 100 overall ranking to be higher than any of the individual 3 services used to get the average??

Like other posters, I usually use Rivals for football and 247 (not their composite) for basketball. Just in my mind, they are closer to what appears to me to be correct.

There should only be 1 recruiting ranking for players. Oh course if Bama offers a players they blow up!
While we are closing the gap it appears we need 2 more great classes to start closing the talent gap on the field and within the depth chart.

Just like colleges, you see and evaluate differently. Nothing wrong with that. You may look at a kid’s tape and love him where I might think otherwise.