Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 - Printable Version
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 (/thread-10017.html)
+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 (/thread-10017.html)
Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 - Hulk01 - 09-28-2015
This chart will change slightly when the 14 remaining top 40 players in this recruiting class declare:Â likely a 5-6 recruit gain for USC and UCLA and tiny gains for each of Arizona. ASU, Cal, Washington, and Oregon, and perhaps a gain (Burton) for Stanford.
Without or without that, there's a strong trend here working against Oregon, Washington, and Cal, and in favor of the Stanford and the LA and Arizona schools.Â
[attachment deleted by admin]
Re: Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 - FarmBoy - 09-28-2015
Interesting chart, but why does it lump C'al with UW and U'SC with UCLA? It would be interesting to see them all broken out.
Re: Rivals California Top 40 Signees, 2014-16 vs 2011-13 - TrumpCard - 09-28-2015
Hulk, the chart itself refers to the first data set as 2010-2013, but your subject line refers to the first data set as 2011-2013. Can you confirm which is correct?
Regardless, there is something odd about this data. I would never expect UW and kal to exceed U$C and UCLA for top California recruits. During the first data set (regardless of whether it starts in 2010 or 2011), U$C and UCLA almost always had superior classes. Plus, I would expect UW to recruit more from the Pacific Northwest and a bit less from CA. Why do you think kal and UW did so well in CA during that first data set?