I'll update my class rankings over on the Summitt, but if you guys want to check out my blog I will try to keep it updated!
http://dubhoops.blogspot.com/
tnvolfan65, I appreciate the tremenous amount of work put into this. My only issue is the formula, which I explain below.
This was my understanding of your formula:
I assigned the following values to players.
1: 100
2,3: 95
4,5: 90
6-10: 85
11-15: 80
16-25: 75
26-35: 70
36-50: 65
51-65: 60
66-80: 55
81-100: 50
101-130: 40
131-160: 30
161-200: 20
200+: 10
To calculate the number of points for the class I used this formula:
Recruit No. 1 x 3 + Recruit No. 2 x 2 + Recruit No. 3 x 1.5 + Recruit 4 + Recruit 5...
I felt like these values emphasized the elite of the elite recruits and the formula emphasized the top of each class. I feel like that both of these things are what makes major differences for teams.
My issue is that the formula rewards the quanitity of the class over the quality. For example,
UConn has three players, all ranked between #10 and #16 on your list.
Louisville has five players, none ranked in the Top 25 (the highest rated is #27). Yet Louisville has a higher rated class, in part because it has more recruits to accumulate more points.
I think there needs to be less differential among the top ten and among most of the top categories. As it stands, the formula rewards the larger classes more than the classes with fewer commitments but commitments from all truly elite players.
, but I've posted my own version of consensus/class rankings on my blog. They are obviously similar, but there are a few differences.