We will have to get Bill to interpret this for us!!

Terry O'Keefe · Feb 5, 2008

Since he taught math!

BobbyBurton

Post #4575
Houston
MyFanPage
Add Buddy

The formula for team recruiting rankings

Many people have asked for it, but we've never divulged it before, and there still remain a couple of elements at play here. So here it is...

Below is what I received from the person who initially put the formula together. He is a stats grad from Cal-Berkeley and computer programmer. It has been unaltered for the past 4 years.

****
It's a very basic formula, which I'm going to explain in general, and then show you what goes into each part:

H * ( n / ( n + m ) ) + L * ( m / ( n + m ) )

So, let's look at this in its most general form. The total points is the sum of H times something and L times something. Leave the somethings alone for a moment. What are H and L?

H = potential High score = 250 for every five-star, 140 for every four-star, 75 for every three-star, 20 for every two-star and 10 for every one-star

L = potential Low score = 18 for every five-star, 12 for every four- star, 8 for every three-star, 3 for every two-star and 1 for every one-star

WE ONLY LOOK AT THE TOP 20 SIGNEES for this part. We end up with two numbers, a High and a Low. A team's final score is going to be between these two numbers. I'll use Team Z for an example:

*******************
EXAMPLE: Team Z (2 five-stars, 17 four-stars, 8 three-stars, 2 two- stars). Team Z's top 20 recruits then are 2 five-stars, 17 four-stars, and 1 three-star, which gives them an H of 2955 and an L of 248.

Z's score will be somewhere between 2955 and 248.
*******************

OK, now how do we figure out where in this range the final score is?
Time to look at the other two elements of the formula:

( n / ( n + m ) ) and ( m / ( n + m ) )

The variable m is just a constant. We happen to use 50, but it doesn't matter. Changing it just changes the "spread" of the numbers...I picked 50 because it gave us nice-looking numbers without changing the actual places of the teams.

The variable n is the important one. This is the one that changes.

This is where the math gets a little more complex. Notice that as n gets higher and higher, then the expression on the left approaches 1 and the expression on the right approaches 0. As n gets lower and lower, the opposite occurs: the expression on the left approaches 0 and the expression on the right approaches 1.

So, shorthand: AS N GETS HIGHER, A TEAM'S SCORE APPROACHES ITS H. AS N GETS LOWER A TEAM'S SCORE APPROACHES ITS L.

When I try to explain this to people on the boards (which I don't do any more) I didn't want to just reveal the formula, so I asked users to envision a scale, on one end is a high number and on the other end is a low number. And a slider that slides between them, pointing to the actual number somewhere in between.

OK, so what goes into calculating n? Here's where all the factors come in that are just lifted from the old formula. The variable n starts out as 0. And then we add:

--Ten points for every commit in the Rivals100 from 1 to 10, nine points for every commit in the Rivals100 from 11 to 20, and so on down to one point for every commit in the Rivals100 from 91-100.
--The same for every commit in the Rivals100 Juco and the Rivals100 Preps, only we only go down to the top 50 on those two lists, not the entire 100.
--24 points for every commit that is the Number 1 player at an official Rivals Position Ranking.
--18 points for every commit that is number two, three, four, or five at an offical Rivals Position Ranking.
--8 points for every commit that is number six through number X at an official Rivals Position Ranking.

This last one varies by position. Each position has a different cutoff. For kickers, for example, we add 8 to n if a commit is ranked from 6 through 10. But at wide receiver we give it all the way down to 50. Every position has its own cutoff. I didn't dream up the cutoffs...I just used the ones that were there in the original formula, devised by Jeremy Crabtree in 2001.

--The last thing we add to n is the amount over 3.0 for the star rating of the entire class, times 100. For example, if your class is an average 3.03 stars, we add 3 to your n.

************************
EXAMPLE: Continuing with Team Z, they have five commits ranked on the Rivals100...

--Two from 21 to 30 (worth 8 each)
--One from 31 to 40 (worth 7)
--Two from 51 to 60 (worth 5 each)

Z also has one commit ranked in the top 50 on the Juco list (worth 6 for being 41-50) and one on the Prep list (worth 10 for being 1-10).

Z has one player ranked as the tops in the nation at his position (worth 24), five ranked from second to fifth at their positions (18
each) and 16 ranked from sixth on down to their position cutoffs (8 each).

Finally, they have an average star rating of 3.66, which gives their n another 66 points.

All told, Z's value for n is 357.

**************************

So there you have all of the parts of the formula. For our Team Z
example:

H * ( n / ( n + m ) ) + L * ( m / ( n + m ) )

2955 * ( 357 / 407 ) + 248 * ( 50 / 407 ) = 2622

So, when a team that drops nominally wants to know what happened, these are some of possibilities:

--Their average star rating might have gone down a little. Say, they're hovering near 3.0 right now, but if a team's star rating is below 3.0 we don't dock them points, we just don't add any to n.

--A player might have moved down a list. If they had a player in the Rivals100, ranked, say, at 24, and he dropped to 44, that's a couple of points lost on their n. Even bigger is if a player dropped in his position ranking, from the second-to-fifth range into the sixth-to- whatever range, or dropped off the list entirely.

Hope this is helpful.

Thx, Bobby
Click to expand...

Sid · Feb 5, 2008

:? :? :? :?

Gator Bill · Feb 5, 2008

When I first read this I thought it was a joke. However as I read it more I guess it is not.

Here's what I think I can say in general about the calculation.

First in no way could I explain just why they came up with some of their numbers or why they picked the number 50 for m.

However the general idea is that they want to account for more than just the star values, they also take into account the ranking within the top 100, or 5o with prep and JC's, and the rankings of a player within his position.

So the more players you have ranked higher in the top 100 or position rankings the closer you reach your maximum score.

That determines what percentage of the maximum and minimum number you get that makes up your final number.

The number n/(n + m) + m/(n+m) always equal 1, or 100%. So what these two numbers are doing is dividing each teams score into two pieces that determine what percentage of the High and Low number each team would get.

For instance if n/(n+m) is .93 then m/n+m) will be .07. What this means is a team with those two numbers would get 93% of their High number and 7% of their Low number for their final score.

I am not sure whether you really expected an answer from me or not, but there it is anyway. If I look foolish for making the analysis that is ok too! :wink: :wink:

Sid · Feb 5, 2008

After reading Bill's analysis......... :? :? :?

Terry O'Keefe · Feb 5, 2008

You distilled it down to something manageable for us Bill!! Thanks.

Sid: I'm no longer considering you to manage my foundation!!

Terry

Gator Bill · Feb 5, 2008

Let me say something more for Sid!

All that m and n stuff just decides how close you can come to your maximum value, and that is decided by your star average, how many top 100 players you have and how many players you have ranked high in their position.

The more of and higher of each the closer you can get to your maximum.

I hope that makes it perfectly clear Sid????? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Sid · Feb 5, 2008

Aha! I can see clearly now. :lol:

Gator Bill · Feb 5, 2008

Glad I could help Sid. :wink: :wink: :wink:

Terry O'Keefe · Feb 5, 2008

OK Sid you're back in the running!

The total value of my foundation is:

Terry

Sid · Feb 6, 2008

Terry,

Let me work on that. I'll get back to you.

I use math every day in my financial analysis work (MS Excel), but those formulas elude me.

Terry, given the sheer size and scope of your foundation I would recommend a more sophisticated approach to your investment philosophy than what I could provide. :roll:

Log in or Sign up

We will have to get Bill to interpret this for us!!

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Log in or Sign up

We will have to get Bill to interpret this for us!!

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Gator Bill Well-Known Member Administrator

Terry O'Keefe Well-Known Member Administrator

Sid Well-Known Member

Useful Searches