Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
ACC West
DoogCourics
Member Posts: 5,739
Recruiting Analysis of Clemson West's Trajectory vs Clemson East's Trajectory.
Trigger warning for @Swaye , I used the composite scores because I am comparing against Clemson and I was not going to work that hard to find out their 247 Blue Chips vs Composite Blue Chips.
Washington Recruiting:
2015 Recruiting Class - 26th in Country - 5 Four Stars - 18 Three Stars - 85.77 Average Composite - 5 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 29th in Country - 7 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 87.42 Average Composite - 7 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 22nd in Country - 9 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.45 Average Composite - 9 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 90.21 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 15 Four Stars - 8 Three Stars - 90.10 Average Composite - 15 Blue Chip
For @Swaye , this class is actually rated 11th in the Country by 247 and has 16 Blue Chips when Cam Williams is added as a Four Star.
Clemson Recruiting:
2009 Recruiting Class - 36th in Country - 6 Four Stars - 7 Three Stars - 89.91 Average Composite - 6 Blue Chip
2010 Recruiting Class - 27th in Country - 6 Four Stars - 15 Three Stars - 85.94 Average Composite - 6 Blue Chip
2011 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 6 Four Stars - 20 Three Stars - 87.17 Average Composite - 9 Blue Chip
2012 Recruiting Class - 20th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 89.03 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2013 Recruiting Class - 15th in Country - 1 Five Star - 10 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 88.46 Average Composite - 11 Blue Chip
2014 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.69 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2015 Recruiting Class - 9th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 9 Four Stars - 12 Three Stars - 89.12 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 1 Five Star - 11 Four Stars - 8 Three Stars - 90.30 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 2 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 4 Three Stars - 92.10 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 7th in Country - 5 Five Stars - 7 Four Stars - 5 Three Stars - 93.45 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 1 Five Stars - 12 Four Stars - 15 Three Stars - 89.76 Average Composite - 13 Blue Chip
For @Swaye , this is actually rated 15th in the Country by 247.
Through 5 full classes, Pete is on the exact trajectory (in fact a quite a bit better in year 5) in regards to level of recruiting that Dabo was on through 5 full classes. Stacking double digit Blue Chip classes is the current level. Next level is landing Five Stars (which 2020 and 2021 match up well with for UW).
Trigger warning for @Swaye , I used the composite scores because I am comparing against Clemson and I was not going to work that hard to find out their 247 Blue Chips vs Composite Blue Chips.
Washington Recruiting:
2015 Recruiting Class - 26th in Country - 5 Four Stars - 18 Three Stars - 85.77 Average Composite - 5 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 29th in Country - 7 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 87.42 Average Composite - 7 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 22nd in Country - 9 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.45 Average Composite - 9 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 90.21 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 15 Four Stars - 8 Three Stars - 90.10 Average Composite - 15 Blue Chip
For @Swaye , this class is actually rated 11th in the Country by 247 and has 16 Blue Chips when Cam Williams is added as a Four Star.
Clemson Recruiting:
2009 Recruiting Class - 36th in Country - 6 Four Stars - 7 Three Stars - 89.91 Average Composite - 6 Blue Chip
2010 Recruiting Class - 27th in Country - 6 Four Stars - 15 Three Stars - 85.94 Average Composite - 6 Blue Chip
2011 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 6 Four Stars - 20 Three Stars - 87.17 Average Composite - 9 Blue Chip
2012 Recruiting Class - 20th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 10 Three Stars - 89.03 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2013 Recruiting Class - 15th in Country - 1 Five Star - 10 Four Stars - 11 Three Stars - 88.46 Average Composite - 11 Blue Chip
2014 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 10 Four Stars - 9 Three Stars - 88.69 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2015 Recruiting Class - 9th in Country - 3 Five Stars - 9 Four Stars - 12 Three Stars - 89.12 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2016 Recruiting Class - 11th in Country - 1 Five Star - 11 Four Stars - 8 Three Stars - 90.30 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2017 Recruiting Class - 16th in Country - 2 Five Stars - 8 Four Stars - 4 Three Stars - 92.10 Average Composite - 10 Blue Chip
2018 Recruiting Class - 7th in Country - 5 Five Stars - 7 Four Stars - 5 Three Stars - 93.45 Average Composite - 12 Blue Chip
2019 Recruiting Class - 10th in Country - 1 Five Stars - 12 Four Stars - 15 Three Stars - 89.76 Average Composite - 13 Blue Chip
For @Swaye , this is actually rated 15th in the Country by 247.
Through 5 full classes, Pete is on the exact trajectory (in fact a quite a bit better in year 5) in regards to level of recruiting that Dabo was on through 5 full classes. Stacking double digit Blue Chip classes is the current level. Next level is landing Five Stars (which 2020 and 2021 match up well with for UW).
Comments
-
Recruiting classes are cool to look at but overall team talent each year is also a good indicator. 2019 Total Team Composite rankings aren't available yet (I'll be updating this when it comes out), but here are the preliminary numbers.
Washington:
2015: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 29th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 15 Four Stars - 56 Three Stars - 10 Two Stars (or less) - 85.09 Average Composite Score - 15 Blue Chip
2016: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 24th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 21 Four Stars - 56 Three Stars - 8 Two Stars (or less) - 85.73 Average Composite Score - 21 Blue Chip
2017: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 24th in Country - 0 Five Stars - 23 Four Stars - 55 Three Stars - 7 Two Stars (or less) - 85.98 Average Composite Score - 23 Blue Chip
2018: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 20th in Country - 1 Five Star - 31 Four Stars - 47 Three Stars - 6 Two Stars (or Less) - 87.25 Average Composite Score - 31 Blue Chip
2019: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - Ranking Not Available - 1 Five Star - 42 Four Star - 43 Three Star (Couch Sale needed) - Average Composite Score Not Available - 43 Blue Chip
For @Swaye , the number of Blue Chips jumps up to 46 if you use the 247 rankings.
Pete finally has the Blue Chip Ratio needed to compete for National Championships going into his 6th year at UW. This is faster than Clemson.
Clemson:
Lost National Championship 2015: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 13th in Country - 4 Five Stars - 29 Four Stars - 27 Three Stars - 3 Two Stars (or less) - 88.57 Average Composite Score - 33 Blue Chip
Won National Championship 2016: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 9th in Country - 4 Five Stars - 35 Four Stars - 35 Three Stars - 5 Two Stars (or less) - 88.91 Average Composite Score - 39 Blue Chip
Lost in Semi Finals to Bama 2017: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 9th in Country - 6 Five Stars - 34 Four Stars - 31 Three Stars - 6 Two Stars (or less) - 89.21 Average Composite Score - 40 Blue Chip
Won National Championship 2018: 5 Year Team Talent Composite - 6th in Country - 9 Five Star - 37 Four Stars - 24 Three Stars - 6 Two Stars (or Less) - 90.23 Average Composite Score - 46 Blue Chip
Dabo hit the Blue Chip Ratio needed to compete for National Championships going into his 9th/10th year at Clemson. Not as fast as Pete, however he outkicked his coverage and got to the Championship in his 8th year with only 33 Blue Chips. Dabo had a generational QB and won the big games, which Pete hasn't.
UW will never get the recruiting classes of Bama/Georgia/tOSU due to region and lack of attrition needed to take huge classes that add up points, but Pete has shown the ability to consistently stack quality talent and his biggest strength is player development (see BBK being an All-American). Clemson and Dabo have shown that's all you need to win titles.
The Pac-12 is fucked. And soon the rest of the country will be too. -
I love you.
-
-
-
Hey faggot stop using composite like a bitch!
-
I gave Swaye what he wanted which was current 247 stars and power rankings as an addendum.backthepack said:Hey faggot stop using composite like a bitch!
If you would like to click on Clemson’s classes and find out who was a four star and who wasn’t according to 247, go right ahead you little cunt. I’d be glad to see you do some work.
Until then:
-
Southern recruits are better than west coast recruits, and the southern are predominantly full black, not half. So imo, the comparison doesn’t play out well for us.
Peace -
I’d rather do that the majority of my assignments not gunna lie.DoogCourics said:
I gave Swaye what he wanted which was current 247 stars and power rankings as an addendum.backthepack said:Hey faggot stop using composite like a bitch!
If you would like to click on Clemson’s classes and find out who was a four star and who wasn’t according to 247, go right ahead you little cunt. I’d be glad to see you do some work.
Until then:
-
WTF are you talking about?vadawg said:Southern recruits are better than west coast recruits, and the southern are predominantly full black, not half. So imo, the comparison doesn’t play out well for us.
Peace
If you look at NFL draft results vs. recruiting rankings recruits from the Southeast are consistently OVERRATED compared to recruits from the West.
Which is obvious when you look at the amount of resources these companies put into scouting the Southeast compared to the West and when you consider where most of their customers and $$$ are coming from. -
If we're going to argue demographics, when it comes to football Poly >>> black.vadawg said:Southern recruits are better than west coast recruits, and the southern are predominantly full black, not half. So imo, the comparison doesn’t play out well for us.
Peace
hth -
And it's not close.HillsboroDuck said:
If we're going to argue demographics, when it comes to football Poly >>> black.vadawg said:Southern recruits are better than west coast recruits, and the southern are predominantly full black, not half. So imo, the comparison doesn’t play out well for us.
Peace
hth -
Coker's first sext to me after the Nacua commit (I have the crud and was asleep) was: 'we are going to fuck people up'.
-
This is GOOD SHIT @DoogCourics and I forgive you your composite usage because I can respect lazy, and goign through all that to figure out Clemsons shit would have taken an extra hour. Fuck that shit. Nice work.
-
Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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 curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating -
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating -
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating -
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating -
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! -
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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. -
We are ahead of USC doogy, hth
-
I didn't understand any of this.Domicillo said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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.Domicillo said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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.
Gracias. -
WTF.gifDomicillo said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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. -
Took me a long time to figure it out, and its still confusing AF, but at least it doesn't involve non real numbers.Swaye said:
I didn't understand any of this.Domicillo said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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.
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.
-
This is fucking glorious! Thanks @DomicilloDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
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! -
Just like bowdowntowashington was going to dawgman and real dawgDennis_DeYoung said:Coker's first sext to me after the Nacua commit (I have the crud and was asleep) was: 'we are going to fuck people up'.
-
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). -
It checks out. I promise.Swaye said:
I didn't understand any of this.Domicillo said:
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.HillsboroDuck said:
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.Domicillo said:
Three consistently updating sources of info...you get the pointHillsboroDuck said:
It's more than three inputsDomicillo said:
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.Neighbor2972 said:
Thank you for finding this, I was curiousDomicillo said:Don't remember who/where they asked for this, but here's the link to the 247 only rankings. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/TeamRankings/
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.
What's important:
UW Avg. 90.7
Oregon Avg. 90.04
And by 247 we are 7th!!! in the country in avg. Player rating
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.
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.
