Pleae help me out with this VG. It seems quantity is over-rated comppared to quality. Example: Texas with a 5 and a 9 is rated well below Kentucky with 17, 25, 51 and 125. Seems like the 51 and 125 are having a very great affect. How good can they be or even how accurately can they be ranked? If I were a coach I'd take the 2 and the 5 and go look for a couple bodies if I needed more.With updates by ASGR and ProspectsNation, lots of new data to feed into the spreadsheet!
Upgraded ratings has nudged Kentucky ahead of Duke for #2. While our ol pal Kim Barnes-Arico has probably the best class in MI history.
View attachment 6677
Pleae help me out with this VG. It seems quantity is over-rated comppared to quality. Example: Texas with a 5 and a 9 is rated well below Kentucky with 17, 25, 51 and 125. Seems like the 51 and 125 are having a very great affect. How good can they be or even how accurately can they be ranked? If I were a coach I'd take the 2 and the 5 and go look for a couple bodies if I needed more.
I'm all for any changes you deem appropriate. You're light years ahead when it comes to thinking about this topic. I just appreciate having this fantastic resource.Ha, yes, I knew I'd get comments about that. Designing a ranking system is not easy, nor can you test out every possible permutation. I did, however, want to reward getting a lot of good players, and not just one great player.
Previously I used to just add the points of each recruit to get the school's total (a pure sum). A year or two ago, I added a diminishing returns feature so that each subsequent player adds less and less. Basically, I combine the average of the ratings (thus high quality is rewarded) and a sum of the ratings (since 1 player can't do it all).
I don't generally make tweaks during the year, and certainly not this late in the season, so that I'm not biasing my results to favor UConn or any other team I like. I will certainly, however, think in the offseason if further methodological changes could improve things.
Do you also consider how much the class adds to and fulfills a teams needs.
We can agree that VG's efforts provide a remarkable resource to Boneyarders and we appreciate it.
Inevitably, reasonable questions or suggestions arise (as they have, often).
All I can say about that is that participants in such discussions (or, perish the thought, arguments) where statistical data is relied upon (by both sides):
Beware! Statistics are like lampposts -- they provide more support than light on the subject.
Totally correct VG. How could you possibly guess who will get them and what they need?No.
Way too subjective for my tastes. Besides, I am not an evaluator of talent; I leave that to others. My contribution is synthesizing the data coming from disparate sources.
Interesting comment. Geno and staff cannot think the number 50'th recruit is mush --but a great teammate, and can be taught the UConn system.I will also point out that ONLY at UConn is a recruit in the second 50 not considered very good. Many schools have done well, indeed very well, with players ranked "so" lowly.
Interesting comment. Geno and staff cannot think the number 50'th recruit is mush --but a great teammate, and can be taught the UConn system.
What this chart does not say, and I usually like charts, is the EFFECT of the coaching team. Butler some think isn't so great--yet Geno and Bruno are high on her (me too). The Coaching team of UConn has with some mediocre recruiting seasons (not the Johnson, Engiln, Walker)
have made gold out of common cotton (oops I forgot the gold of Hartley/Dolson). That is the X factor , UConn coaching, not addressed in this multiple, un labeled columns--an undefined column is useless to everyone except the builder--oops there goes the teacher in me. I remember creating tables with no heading and the information was only understood by those in my club--we were all spy's and that was 4th grade.
genosguy said:Interesting comment. Geno and staff cannot think the number 50'th recruit is mush --but a great teammate, and can be taught the UConn system.
What this chart does not say, and I usually like charts, is the EFFECT of the coaching team. Butler some think isn't so great--yet Geno and Bruno are high on her (me too). The Coaching team of UConn has with some mediocre recruiting seasons (not the Johnson, Engiln, Walker)
have made gold out of common cotton (oops I forgot the gold of Hartley/Dolson). That is the X factor , UConn coaching, not addressed in this multiple, un labeled columns--an undefined column is useless to everyone except the builder--oops there goes the teacher in me. I remember creating tables with no heading and the information was only understood by those in my club--we were all spy's and that was 4th grade.