[BostonCard]

[quote author=pkpk link=topic=9617.msg126562#msg126562 date=1441382484]
I would think our ranking will eventually drop as we fill out the class with less-heralded players,

Not necessarily.
The ratings services rank classes by total points, not by points (or stars) per recruit. Thus any additions would only add to our "score". Most of the teams ranked above us have more signed recruits, presumably (but not necessarily) therefore having less room to add recruits. For example, on Rivals we are currently ranked #12 with 16 commits. Of those above us, S.-C. also has 16 and everyone else has more. In many cases a lot more - Michigan has 23 for example.

Thus there is an avenue for Stanford to work its way up even if the rest of the recruits it signs are somewhat less heralded.

Whether such details mean anything is another matter.

but if the current commits all get in and stick I would place this class in the same stratosphere as the 2012 class (partly because of balance and key positions). 

2012 is an interesting case. It was the highest ranked recruiting class by Stanford since the proliferation of ranking services. Students from that class would be seniors right now. It may be too early to judge, but at the moment I would say that the class has been good for Stanford but not so much better than other classes as its ranking might indicate. Hopefully this year will change that.
[/quote]

It would be interesting to go back and do a retrospective reranking of our classes, based on actual accomplishments while at Stanford (5* = all-American caliber, 4* = all-Conference, 3* = starter, 2* = significant contributor, 1* = non-contributor).

At the top end it might be tough to beat the class of 2008 with David DeCastro, Chris Owusu, Delano Howell, Michael Thomas III, Chase Thomas, Jonathan Martin, and some guy named Andrew Luck (there were also a few busts in that class).

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=pkpk link=topic=9617.msg126562#msg126562 date=1441382484]
I would think our ranking will eventually drop as we fill out the class with less-heralded players,

Not necessarily.
The ratings services rank classes by total points, not by points (or stars) per recruit. Thus any additions would only add to our "score". Most of the teams ranked above us have more signed recruits, presumably (but not necessarily) therefore having less room to add recruits. For example, on Rivals we are currently ranked #12 with 16 commits. Of those above us, S.-C. also has 16 and everyone else has more. In many cases a lot more - Michigan has 23 for example.

Thus there is an avenue for Stanford to work its way up even if the rest of the recruits it signs are somewhat less heralded.

Whether such details mean anything is another matter.

but if the current commits all get in and stick I would place this class in the same stratosphere as the 2012 class (partly because of balance and key positions). 

2012 is an interesting case. It was the highest ranked recruiting class by Stanford since the proliferation of ranking services. Students from that class would be seniors right now. It may be too early to judge, but at the moment I would say that the class has been good for Stanford but not so much better than other classes as its ranking might indicate. Hopefully this year will change that.
[/quote]

It would be interesting to go back and do a retrospective reranking of our classes, based on actual accomplishments while at Stanford (5* = all-American caliber, 4* = all-Conference, 3* = starter, 2* = significant contributor, 1* = non-contributor).

At the top end it might be tough to beat the class of 2008 with David DeCastro, Chris Owusu, Delano Howell, Michael Thomas III, Chase Thomas, Jonathan Martin, and some guy named Andrew Luck (there were also a few busts in that class).

BC