- Oct 15, 2018
- 6,086
- 16,204
No. Each player is given a “number” and the class rating is a summation of all the points. So sometimes really big classes will rank high. Even if they have a bunch of mediocre players.
And the best way to measure a team is probably what the dude put above.
The best way to measure a class is probably average star rank. But that doesn’t take certain things into consideration like needs or the players who actually make it onto campus.
So my post above was a simple way to say it. However it is much more complex. Because the way that they assign numbers to certain players is complex.
If you want to geek out, here is actually how they do it:
Yeah...I get all that, well, I don't get all that but I get that each player is assigned a number and then a team's composite score can be formulated several different ways based on the aggregate of those numbers. Right. Understood. I also understand that there are some teams currently ahead of us in the rankings just because they have more committed players. What I am saying is if we add fluff in with the blue chippers we arent going to make it in to the top 10 no matter how you manipulate the numbers. Calculate in Nolen and Stewart and our score goes to 224 for 13 recruits. Then add in Conner and Nonar and we only go to 229 for 15 recruits. Comparing that to other teams with similar number of recruits we aren't really making any sort of realistic push towards top 10 and we will still have to have some big names to get top 15.