Warrior10
All-American
.why I was surprised we didn't keep recruiting Winston Wright. Dude has blazing speed.
Last edited by a moderator:
.why I was surprised we didn't keep recruiting Winston Wright. Dude has blazing speed.
The question is.... did we stop recruiting him or did he back off when we got Robinson? It’s my understanding he was done? Maybe I’m wrongwhy I was surprised we didn't keep recruiting Winston Wright. Dude has blazing speed.
The formula they use looks to complicatedfor me to figure out, but here it is.
View attachment 14210
My head hurts.... that’s way to hard to follow.The collection of recruit's individual ratings are summed, but not in a uniform way ( which it looks like many people are assuming). They are weighted using a Gaussian distribution, which may or may not be more valid. If 2 teams have the same number of recruits, and an identical average composite rating....they would be equal if the distribution was uniform. Since it is Gaussian, a team with more highly rated recruits is rewarded more than they are punished for having lower rated recruits.
My best attempt at an explanation.
The collection of recruit's individual ratings are summed, but not in a uniform way ( which it looks like many people are assuming). They are weighted using a Gaussian distribution, which may or may not be more valid. If 2 teams have the same number of recruits, and an identical average composite rating....they would be equal if the distribution was uniform. Since it is Gaussian, a team with more highly rated recruits is rewarded more than they are punished for having lower rated recruits.
My best attempt at an explanation.
Why is he not counting Wandale? The gap between Held and Davis is already pretty significant, but that widens it significantly.....
Wandale is more of a receiver who will sometimes line up in the backfield. Think JD Spielman
Yeah, I get that. But isn't he listed as the #2 All-Purpose back in the country?
(I'm starting to make to big of a deal about Severe's twitter rankings.)
So, if two teams have 20 players and an average of .8805 with team 1 having all 20 rated .8805.....team 2 has a couple players rated .9500 and then appropriate distribution to have the same average....team 2 would have the higher rated class.The collection of recruit's individual ratings are summed, but not in a uniform way ( which it looks like many people are assuming). They are weighted using a Gaussian distribution, which may or may not be more valid. If 2 teams have the same number of recruits, and an identical average composite rating....they would be equal if the distribution was uniform. Since it is Gaussian, a team with more highly rated recruits is rewarded more than they are punished for having lower rated recruits.
My best attempt at an explanation.
That would be correctSo, if two teams have 20 players and an average of .8805 with team 1 having all 20 rated .8805.....team 2 has a couple players rated .9500 and then appropriate distribution to have the same average....team 2 would have the higher rated class.
The collection of recruit's individual ratings are summed, but not in a uniform way ( which it looks like many people are assuming). They are weighted using a Gaussian distribution, which may or may not be more valid. If 2 teams have the same number of recruits, and an identical average composite rating....they would be equal if the distribution was uniform. Since it is Gaussian, a team with more highly rated recruits is rewarded more than they are punished for having lower rated recruits.
My best attempt at an explanation.
I could have said 'normal' distribution, but that would probably be even more confusing.You only said "Gaussian" to sound fancy.