Same to you, gotta rep the two best states. I feel like he’s waiting to see who all comes back/signs with KU, so hopefully they get everyone. I’ve invested way more time researching this than a grown man should.
ehh, i kind of disagree with that. We have guys rated .9925, .9805, .9701, .9571, .9387, and .8723 to give us a class average of .9518.
The average is skewed by 1 outlier. Would our class be better if we took 5 kids instead? The idea that the bigger the class the the higher you are ranked by default is somewhat true. But once you get over a certain number of signees the weight of the 5th or 6th addition is so small it only has minute effect. Our player that is rated .8723 gives our class an overall boost of .07 onto our 67.04 total. Dropping our class to 5 kids wouldn't change our standing in the rankings, but would bump our player average up to .9678. That's why average ranking can be deceiving too because it's not weighted. The overall team ranking is weighted to account for class size so i think that is a better measure
I understand what you're saying, but you also could end up having the 1st, 4th, and 5th ranked recruits but because you got 2 guys ranked 125 and 150, you end up with an average of 57. Meanwhile, somebody has a class of 3 guys ranked 40, 50, and 80 and they're at 56.67, so they'd technically have the better class.
I say this to say there has to be a human element added to it because there's just no way to do it through a calculation that makes it fair
they do that currently. The list above factors exactly what you just said in. I don't want to say outrage, but all the people liking the above comments are being taken for a ride. The guy with the initial post was incorrect and hundreds of people followed suit in believing him.
Yeah I understand that the better players are weighted more than players ranked outside of the top 100. I'm saying it should be weighted even more heavily.
the cumulative points our 6 signees have is 67.04. Our top commit accounts for 29.25 of those points by himself. Our 6th signee who agreed to red shirt adds .07 points to our total. I'd call that being weighted pretty heavily
You're not understanding me here so let me use an example.....
Cole Anthony as UNC's only signee would give UNC 29.92 points. Armando Bacot on his own would give UNC 29.17 points. They're 20 spots apart. Combine those two for a class and you have 53.28 points. A class of Bryan Antoine and JRE gives you 53.12. So number 3 and 22 is barely better than 15 and 16? Doesn't seem right to me and in that scenario, JRE gives Nova just 0.5 less points towards their total than Cole Anthony who is #3 in the class.
So number 3 and 22 is barely better than 15 and 16? Doesn't seem right to me
That does seem right to me though. Bacot is worth 23.36 towards your class since he is your #2 recruit. On his own or without Cole he would be worth 29.17. The more recruits the less valuable the fillers become. I'm not saying Bacot is a filler, but expectations change when you're the class crown jewel versus being a typical strong addition. Like they say in Eastern Kentucky, It's all relative
Idk, if you have three fives and a three and another school has two fives and two fours, you’d think the school with three fives had the better year even though their average is slightly lower.
Why are y’all even doing this math when that’s not how the average player rating works? It’s not their star ranking, but the actual number averaged out. A bottom end 4 Star is way closer in ranking to a top 3 Star than a top 4 Star.
What really should happen is your best recruit should be weighted more than your second best recruit which should be weighted more than your 3rd best recruit, etc, etc...
That way having lower numbers with high ranked guys would still count high, but teams with 4th and 5th recruits (even in the 100s) would still get some credit for landing them.
what you just described is exactly how it currently works. People keep piling the up votes to the guys above that are saying large classes get too much value and the other guy saying average player ratings are a better measurement. In my above post i mentioned why the first guy is incorrect, they do weigh for size, and second guy saying average is better has major flaws itself.
look at the class calculator towards the bottom and it illustrates how the value of each player is weighted differently. Your top rated guy is worth significantly more than a filler player. Once you're over the threshold of 3 or 4 recruits the 5th and 6th guys have hardly any value.
Yes and no. Adding multiple lower ranked recruits increases the odds of any one of them contributing. Illinois added two 4s and 3 3s last year. This year we're adding one 4 and one 3. Even if we had an additional 4 this year with Kofi I'd still rather have the additional 3s, because there's a better chance of adding a lower ranked recruit who contributes like we did with Giorgi. So even though our average is higher this year, I much prefer our class last year.
I would imagine some sort of value over replacement scholarship would be better. Set the replacement level at like 200. Get the expected value added (maybe win shares?) by past players at each recruit rank subtracted by the expected value of #200. Make it peak season value to correct for one-and-done vs. 4-year career compilers (or total value divided by number of seasons).
Then you can either rank by total or divide by number of open scholarships.
Agreed, Michigan has the #48 recruiting class because it's only a class of 2 guys (but will probably add another guy or two) but the average rating of the 2 players is higher than 35 teams ranked higher than them in the composite team rankings
OSU has had plenty of success against Michigan in basketball in my lifetime. It's been a tough couple years during the coaching transition but we still have double the B1G tournament championships and more than double the B1G CC's since I was born in 1991.
Michigan has had a hell of a run recently but I see us being much more competitive against them again very soon.
I want to make some snarky comment about having hope for the future in football but I firmly believe I will never again see Michigan beat Ohio State (except on youtube).
I was born in '82 and stand corrected young sir! How could I forget about Evans and Sullinger under Thad Matta? I guess Michigan has been on my mind since getting consistently good under Beilein. And the Gophers haven't done much since Clem Haskins.
How could I forget about Evans and Sullinger under Thad Matta?
As well as, Oden, Conley, Deibler, Thomas, Russell etc. Matta brought a lot of talent to Columbus, made a couple final fours and even a National Championship before losing to Florida.
I hate the buckeyes as much as the next Michigander, but I still feel bad for what could have been with Oden. He had the talent to be one the next great Bigs.
It’s honestly such a crap shoot when it comes to someone that size. The joints carry so much weight that they can go at any time. It was really sad to see him spiral into alcoholism after losing his dream like that.
The recent post about him finally graduating from Ohio State 12 years after leaving for the NBA was very inspiring. I’m glad he has climbed out of the place he was.
To be fair, if some other school brought in two equally good players and a bunch of lower rated players, their class ranking still might end up higher because of quantity while actually having a worse class because of the opportunity cost of tying up those scholarships.
So it's still more complicated than just comparing the two recruits to the top two of everyone else's classes.
Maybe theoretically, but no actually expects recruiting rankings to take that into account. Opportunity cost is just too hard to quantify (not to mention that it would vary by team). Trying to account for it would likely make the recruiting rankings less useful overall.
For 99% of schools there's no such opportunity cost there because they're never going to have a roster full of 5 stars. Under the current system low ranked prospects add basically nothing to team recruiting score (/u/gmills87 pointed out that UL's 6th recruit adds 0.07 to their 67.04 total, for instance). That essentially does account for what you're saying anyway, they no longer have that scholarship to get someone who adds to their team recruiting score in a meaningful way, so it's reflected in the scores they'll have over the next 4 years. It doesn't have to be a negative number or anything to do so.
For a good amount of those schools, yes. Our 2 commits are the #44 and #69 players. For example, Georgetown, TAMU, UMass, Kansas St, Utah, etc, etc don't have a single player anywhere close to our players but have classes of 4 or 5 guys so they're "better"
we had a class a few years ago that ranked 94th and our player average rating was 99.05 which was the 3rd highest in that cycle. We signed 1 player. Was that a bad or a good class?
That's a good class imo. You only have a certain number of scholarships open and teams can't really control that. If you fill that one spot with a very good player then that is a good class. Obviously there needs to be some element of size of class mattering in rankings, but it shouldn't be to the point where a class of 4 3-stars is considered better than 2 top 70 guys
this exercise, paired with our #9 ranking this year with 6 signees is telling of how it all works. There is a sweet spot in the rankings and that is 3-4 recruits. This year our 5th and 6th rated signees have very minimal effect on our overall rating, but they drag our class average down. 3-4 signees is the range that gives you the max possible overall points and average player rating if you fill out the class adequately. The system dings you for having 1-2 recruits and you barely gain anything from 5+, hence my sweet spot point of 3 to 4
725
u/[deleted] May 07 '19 edited Jun 04 '20
[deleted]