Yeah, yeah....I know. It's the LA Times. I just find it funny that they seem to choose whatever rating system that makes USC look the worst and UCLA the best. Last year the articles were all about how Bama with the "consensus" #1 recruiting class, with brief mentions about USC coming in #2. Since 2 of the 3 recognized services had USC #1, the LA Times had to use something called the "247 Sports Composite" ranking to make Bama #1. This obscure ranking used some proprietary unknown formula, and EVEN 247 SPORTS OWN RANKING HAD USC at #1 LAST YEAR.
This year the LA Times did NOT use 247 Sports Composite, which has USC at #8 and UCLA at #12. No, this year they used Scout, which has UCLA at #7 and USC at #11, and is the ONLY ranking service that has UCLA ahead of USC. They didn't use Rivals, which has USC at #8 and UCLA at #11. They didn't use ESPN, which has USC at #11 and UCLA at #15. So 3 of the 4 ranking systems have USC ranked higher than UCLA.
I know....not surprising. And understandable that UCLA's article would emphasis the positive. And they did list the other rankings in a table next to the main recruiting article stating Bama won the recruiting title again. But since Lindsey Thiry's USC article fails to even mention this, one has to wonder if marching orders were given to exclude the other services in the articles themselves.
This year the LA Times did NOT use 247 Sports Composite, which has USC at #8 and UCLA at #12. No, this year they used Scout, which has UCLA at #7 and USC at #11, and is the ONLY ranking service that has UCLA ahead of USC. They didn't use Rivals, which has USC at #8 and UCLA at #11. They didn't use ESPN, which has USC at #11 and UCLA at #15. So 3 of the 4 ranking systems have USC ranked higher than UCLA.
I know....not surprising. And understandable that UCLA's article would emphasis the positive. And they did list the other rankings in a table next to the main recruiting article stating Bama won the recruiting title again. But since Lindsey Thiry's USC article fails to even mention this, one has to wonder if marching orders were given to exclude the other services in the articles themselves.
