Recruting Formula...thing

[KB0 827]

Alright guys, I need some help/advice. I got bored earlier (this is a dangerous thing) and started looking at old recruiting classes. I am currently in the process of looking at creating a formula to determine how successful a team is and compare it to their recruiting class. It's very rough right now and I need to work out some kinks. So I came here for some help. Here's an example.

 

As of right now teams gain points in this manner:

Regular season conference championship - 10

Regular season conference runner-up 8

Conference tournament champ - 8

Conference tournament runner-up 6

NCAA 1st round - 1

NCAA 2nd round - 2

NCAA 3rd round - 6

NCAA 4th round -10

NCAA 5th round - 14

NCAA Runner-up - 18

NCAA Champ - 22

 

So this most points you can achieve would be 40.

Then you take the average of the recruiting ranking.

 

 

Player 1 ---97

Player2 --93

Player 3---88

Player 4---85

Total - 363

Average 90.75

 

Then you would take 90.75 divided by 40 to get the best possible score. Which in this case would be 2.26875.

 

So say the team was second in their conference, won the conference tournament, and made it to the 5th round of the NCAA tournament. A good year. It would result in 30 points. 90.75/30 = 3.025.

 

3.025 - 2.26875 = .75625. So they were .75625 away from a perfect score.

 

Do this for 4 years and take the average.

 

So my question here is what should be the benchmark for how good a score is? Would you have to be within 1.5 for it to be a good class? Or within what? Obviously there is the problem of people leaving early and transferring.

 

Thoughts? Suggestions? Does something like this already exist? I really hope this makes sense to everyone.

[IU Hoosier41 14,465]

I like the idea, but there are so many intangibles to this that I think it would be very difficult to track.

I would change the points for championships etc to equal a max of 100 instead of 40 since your player scores are out of 100 as well. Will make your final results a little easier to interpret.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[KB0 827]

Yeah, I realize it may not be the most accurate metric, but I thought it would be interesting.

I like the idea of making it out of 100, but the issue is within assigning the correct weight for each outcome.

 

I guess I could try this:

National Champ - 50

NCAA Runner-up - 45

Final Four - 40

Elite Eight - 30

Sweet Sixteen - 25

Rd 32 - 15

Rd 64 - 10

 

Conference Champ 30

Conference Runner-up 20

 

Tourney Champ 20

Tourney runner-up 10

 

That would make best possible out of 100. Does that look about right?

[IU Hoosier41 14,465]

[quote name="luburch" post="46833" timestamp="1394684204"]Yeah, I realize it may not be the most accurate metric, but I thought it would be interesting.
I like the idea of making it out of 100, but the issue is within assigning the correct weight for each outcome.

I guess I could try this:
National Champ - 50
NCAA Runner-up - 45
Final Four - 40
Elite Eight - 30
Sweet Sixteen - 25
Rd 32 - 15
Rd 64 - 10

Conference Champ 30
Conference Runner-up 20

Tourney Champ 20
Tourney runner-up 10

That would make best possible out of 100. Does that look about right?[/quote]
Looks like a better starting point to me. Your final result numbers will make a little more sense id assume.


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[IU Hoosier41 14,465]

I'd also probably use player "stars" instead of grade. The difference between a 97 and 92 player shouldn't matter. They are both 5 star players. I think ranking our players by the 5 stars will help your formula by limiting some of the variability. It's easy to agree some players are 5 star vs 4 stars. It's a lot harder to agree a player rating should be 94 vs 92


Sent from my iPhone using BtownBanners

[Yackbutter 0]

Are you also going to take into effect playing time, number of Sophmores, Juniors and Seniors?  A recruiting class that doesn't play due to more upper classman may still be a good class.  So you may need to carry this out over at least 4 years to get look at the class.  Where does the playing time for each member average out to and how the team did when the majority of minutes were given to said recruiting class or vise versa.  I think you also have to someonehow add in transfers and leaving early for NBA or quiting the team over the 4 year span.

 

Just a couple thoughts

 

Jason