You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are using a score that gives equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are the standardizing a a score giving equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are the standardizing a a score giving equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
Good chit. I've seen some really weird Comp rankings that I'm not sure this explains but I'll definitely look for it in the future.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are using a score that gives equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are the standardizing a a score giving equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
I didn't understand any of this.
Took me a long time to figure it out, and its still confusing AF, but at least it doesn't involve non real numbers.
Another way to think about it is like if your watching a diving competition (LUL). Imagine three judges (espn, 247, rivals) are scoring, but instead of all using a 1-10 scale, each judge for some fucked up reason has their own unique systems they use. So before they produce a combined score, someone (the composite peeps at 247) have to first standardized them into a consistent 1-10 scale. Then they are able to average the three scores out of the new 1-10 scale and produce a rating (composite player rating) for that diver. Then they rank all the divers by their composite score and determine an order of placement (composite player rankings). Some years a perfect 10 is needed to be the best, other years a 9.33 may end up being the winner, but in each year the diver with the best score is the number one ranked (composite number 1 recruit).
And in the end we're all just the creepers in the stands obsessing over physical attributes of the divers.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
This confirms what we knew. Pete is ahead of schedule when compared to stacking Blue Chips and average ranking of player when compared with Dabo.
NOW WIN THE FUCKING BIG GAMES!
This is the only real difference in trajectory; that Dabo in year 5 actually won his first NY6 bowl (second appearance). Pete in year 5 has yet to win a NY6 bowl (third appearance).
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are the standardizing a a score giving equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
I didn't understand any of this.
It checks out. I promise.
What it doesn't do though, is use a weighted or normalized average, which would be hard with only 3 data points anyways but still. So ESPN is still definitely screwing things up for an objective rankings system.
This confirms what we knew. Pete is ahead of schedule when compared to stacking Blue Chips and average ranking of player when compared with Dabo.
NOW WIN THE FUCKING BIG GAMES!
This is the only real difference in trajectory; that Dabo in year 5 actually won his first NY6 bowl (second appearance). Pete in year 5 has yet to win a NY6 bowl (third appearance).
Just for emphasis in case you're a retard, invalid, or just pick things up slowly:
Pete won the Pac-12 in 2 of 3 years and made it to 3 straight NY6 Bowels with the following talent:
2016: 24th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 0 Five Stars - 21 Four Stars - 56 Three Stars - 8 Two Stars (or less) - 85.73 Average Composite Score - 21 Blue Chip
Lost to Bama in Peach Bowl - 1st in Country in 5 Year Talent - 17 Five Stars - 44 Four Stars - 20 Three Stars - 1 Two Star (or Less) - 92.72 Average Composite Score - 61 Blue Chip
2017: 24th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 0 Five Stars - 23 Four Stars - 55 Three Stars - 7 Two Stars (or less) - 85.98 Average Composite Score - 23 Blue Chip
Lost to PSU in Fiesta Bowl - 19th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 33 Four Stars - 48 Three Stars - 3 Two Stars (or less) - 87.89 Average - 34 Blue Chip
2018: 20th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 31 Four Stars - 47 Three Stars - 6 Two Stars (or Less) - 87.25 Average Composite Score - 31 Blue Chip
Lost to tOSU in Rose Bowl - 1st in Country in 5 Year Talent - 11 Five Stars - 55 Four Stars - 17 Three Stars - 2 Two Stars (or less) - 92.89 Average Composite Score - 66 Blue Chip
Pete was attempting to punch well above his weight class in the NY6 Bowels, and unfortunately it wasn't happening. Yet the Dawgs never got boat raced.
Next season he is going to have DOUBLE the Blue Chip talent he had in those years, and now there will be Blue Chips filling the full 2 deep.
2019: Ranking Unavailable in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 42 Four Star - 43 Three Star (Couch Sale needed) - Average Composite Score Not Available - 43 Blue Chip
Still 20 Blue Chips behind the Elite top 4 recruiting teams of Bama/tOSU/Georgia/USC LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, but right in line with teams 5-10 who all have mid 40's Blue Chip.
Add in Tim Socha and Coach Pete development and coaching, and as Coker said to DDY, we? are going to fuck people up!
Question. Not sure if the data is available. How did these look when Boise beat Oklahoma and TCU in the fiesta bowls? Or when they beat Georgia in Georgia?
Just for emphasis in case you're a retard, invalid, or just pick things up slowly:
Pete won the Pac-12 in 2 of 3 years and made it to 3 straight NY6 Bowels with the following talent:
2016: 24th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 0 Five Stars - 21 Four Stars - 56 Three Stars - 8 Two Stars (or less) - 85.73 Average Composite Score - 21 Blue Chip
Lost to Bama in Peach Bowl - 1st in Country in 5 Year Talent - 17 Five Stars - 44 Four Stars - 20 Three Stars - 1 Two Star (or Less) - 92.72 Average Composite Score - 61 Blue Chip
2017: 24th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 0 Five Stars - 23 Four Stars - 55 Three Stars - 7 Two Stars (or less) - 85.98 Average Composite Score - 23 Blue Chip
Lost to PSU in Fiesta Bowl - 19th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 33 Four Stars - 48 Three Stars - 3 Two Stars (or less) - 87.89 Average - 34 Blue Chip
2018: 20th in Country in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 31 Four Stars - 47 Three Stars - 6 Two Stars (or Less) - 87.25 Average Composite Score - 31 Blue Chip
Lost to tOSU in Rose Bowl - 1st in Country in 5 Year Talent - 11 Five Stars - 55 Four Stars - 17 Three Stars - 2 Two Stars (or less) - 92.89 Average Composite Score - 66 Blue Chip
Pete was attempting to punch well above his weight class in the NY6 Bowels, and unfortunately it wasn't happening. Yet the Dawgs never got boat raced.
Next season he is going to have DOUBLE the Blue Chip talent he had in those years, and now there will be Blue Chips filling the full 2 deep.
2019: Ranking Unavailable in 5 Year Talent - 1 Five Star - 42 Four Star - 43 Three Star (Couch Sale needed) - Average Composite Score Not Available - 43 Blue Chip
Still 20 Blue Chips behind the Elite top 4 recruiting teams of Bama/tOSU/Georgia/USC LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL, but right in line with teams 5-10 who all have mid 40's Blue Chip.
Add in Tim Socha and Coach Pete development and coaching, and as Coker said to DDY, we? are going to fuck people up!
Question. Not sure if the data is available. How did these look when Boise beat Oklahoma and TCU in the fiesta bowls? Or when they beat Georgia in Georgia?
Boise State had 12 more Blue Chips than Georgia, 15 more than Oklahoma, and 40 more than TCU.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are using a score that gives equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
So if we’re going to extend this to its Gaussian copula deadend, is UW the proverbial mispriced subprime AAA mezzanine tranche or Clemson?
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are using a score that gives equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
I thought the formula was push up the middle + heat from the edge?1!
You can also just remove the word "Composite" from the url when viewing the composite team rankings and end up on the above linked page. Why 247 doesn't have a single feature on their own website that directly links to this active page promoting their own rankings, is one of the many things that are incredibly asinine about this company.
Thank you for finding this, I was curious
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7 Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
I think both are helpful. I like to use the composite for broader looks at recruiting as it goes on, plus it updates more frequently since it's managing three dynamic inputs. But I always like to qualify deeper analysis into our numbers with the 247 rankings/ratings.
It's more than three inputs
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the point
It's still more than three. There's no way you can get the comp rankings out of just their rivals, ESPN and 247 rankings. They are using some other rankings as well.
Per their website this is how they get the comp team rankings. So yes it's technically more than three inputs but it is using data from only the three recruiting sources.
The Formula where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are the standardizing a a score giving equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
I didn't understand any of this.
Took me a long time to figure it out, and its still confusing AF, but at least it doesn't involve non real numbers.
Another way to think about it is like if your watching a diving competition (LUL). Imagine three judges (espn, 247, rivals) are scoring, but instead of all using a 1-10 scale, each judge for some fucked up reason has their own unique systems they use. So before they produce a combined score, someone (the composite peeps at 247) have to first standardized them into a consistent 1-10 scale. Then they are able to average the three scores out of the new 1-10 scale and produce a rating (composite player rating) for that diver. Then they rank all the divers by their composite score and determine an order of placement (composite player rankings). Some years a perfect 10 is needed to be the best, other years a 9.33 may end up being the winner, but in each year the diver with the best score is the number one ranked (composite number 1 recruit).
And in the end we're all just the creepers in the stands obsessing over physical attributes of the divers.
Who is this? I want more pics of her and her nipples.
Comments
The Formula
where c is a specific team's total number of commits and Rn is the 247Sports Composite Rating of the nth-best commit times 100.
Explanation
In order to create the most comprehensive Team Recruiting Ranking without any notion of bias, 247Sports Team Recruiting Ranking is solely based on the 247Sports Composite Rating.
Each recruit is weighted in the rankings according to a Gaussian distribution formula (a bell curve), where a team's best recruit is worth the most points. You can think of a team's point score as being the sum of ratings of all the team's commits where the best recruit is worth 100% of his rating value, the second best recruit is worth nearly 100% of his rating value, down to the last recruit who is worth a small fraction of his rating value. This formula ensures that all commits contribute at least some value to the team's score without heavily rewarding teams that have several more commitments than others.
Readers familiar with the Gaussian distribution formula will note that we use a varying value for σ based on the standard deviation for the total number of commits between schools for the given sport. This standard deviation creates a bell curve with an inflection point near the average number of players recruited per team.
Below is a graphical representation of how our formula works. You can see that the area under the curve gets smaller both as the rating for a commit decreases and as the number of total commits for a school increases. The y-axis in this graph represents the percentage weight of the score that gets applied to an overall team ranking.
Where I have seen confusion by people on this board, and this may not be applicable to you @HillsboroDuck, has primarily been around the composite player rankings. People look at the rankings of the three sites, see a kid is ranked number 25 on espn, number 50 on rivals and 100 on 247 and then are surprised when the kids is ranked like 28th on the composite.
But they aren't creating the comp player rankings based off where they are ranked on each site. Instead they are using the actual ratings of each player. And because each site has a different rating system (i.e 247 is a 1-105 scale, espn is like a 1-95 scale, rivals is like a 1.0-6.1 scale), they standardize those ratings systems so they are using a score that gives equal value to the three ratings and that's how they get a new composite rating (0-1, with up to four decimals). Basically a kid who gets a 105/95/6.1 would receive a 1.0000 composite rating. But a consensus number 1 in a given year may be rated like 101/94/6.0 and end up with some composite rating like .9995.
Then they finally rank all those player ratings in order of value and that's how you get the composite player ranking. Essentially most people think that kids are ranked against each other, but really they get their own individual ratings and then are ranked in order. The composite does the same; complies a composite rating and then rank them in order.
Gracias.
Another way to think about it is like if your watching a diving competition (LUL). Imagine three judges (espn, 247, rivals) are scoring, but instead of all using a 1-10 scale, each judge for some fucked up reason has their own unique systems they use. So before they produce a combined score, someone (the composite peeps at 247) have to first standardized them into a consistent 1-10 scale. Then they are able to average the three scores out of the new 1-10 scale and produce a rating (composite player rating) for that diver. Then they rank all the divers by their composite score and determine an order of placement (composite player rankings). Some years a perfect 10 is needed to be the best, other years a 9.33 may end up being the winner, but in each year the diver with the best score is the number one ranked (composite number 1 recruit).
And in the end we're all just the creepers in the stands obsessing over physical attributes of the divers.
Updated for @Swaye and I guess you too @backthepack ya little cunt!
Washington Recruiting:
2015 Recruiting Class - 25th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 6 Four Stars - 17 Three Stars - 85.80 Average Composite - 6 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 37th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 5 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.18 Average Composite - 5 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 22nd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.22 Average Composite - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 13th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 90.45 Average Composite - 11 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 16 Four Stars - 7 Three Stars - 90.70 Average Composite - 16 Blue Chip
UW rated much much better by 247 with a higher average rating per player, better ranking classes, and more Blue Chip players.
Clemson Recruiting:
2009 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2010 Recruiting Class - 247 Ratings Unavailable
2011 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 19 Three Stars - 84.80 Average Composite - 11 Blue Chip
2012 Recruiting Class - 23rd in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 12 Three Stars - 87.85 Average Composite - 8 Blue Chip
2013 Recruiting Class - 15th in Country - 0 Five Star - 10 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 88.04 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2014 Recruiting Class - 24th in Country - 0 Five Star - 8 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 88.15 Average Composite - 8 Blue Chip
2015 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 87.38 Average Composite - 11 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 8th in Country - 2 Five Star - 12 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 90.62 Average Composite - 14 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 19th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 6 Three Stars - 91.64 Average Composite - 8 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 6th in Country - 5 Five Stars - 7 Four Stars - 4 Three Stars - 92.71 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 14th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 11 Four Stars - 16 Three Stars - 89.03 Average Composite - 13 Blue Chip
Clemson rated much much worse by 247 with a lower average rating per player, worse ranking classes, and less Blue Chip Players
This confirms what we knew. Pete is ahead of schedule when compared to stacking Blue Chips and average ranking of player when compared with Dabo.
NOW WIN THE FUCKING BIG GAMES!
NOW WIN THE FUCKING BIG GAMES!
This is the only real difference in trajectory; that Dabo in year 5 actually won his first NY6 bowl (second appearance). Pete in year 5 has yet to win a NY6 bowl (third appearance).
What it doesn't do though, is use a weighted or normalized average, which would be hard with only 3 data points anyways but still. So ESPN is still definitely screwing things up for an objective rankings system.