In partnership with CBSSports.com
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Okay, so much for funny titles.
Regarding the 247 ranking points and our latest commitment Eddie Jackson.
Before Eddie announced,we had approximately 776 points. Earlier today after his announcement we had 778 points. Although our average points per player is about 35, we only got 2 points for Eddie???? I know it is really a complex algorithm, but the average is 35 points. Eddie is a 4-star and his impact is only 2 points?
Now we only have 776 points, back to where we were before Eddie announced. Come on man!!
Sumpin fishy right there.
Without digging into the match. Here's a couple thoughts:
*** Stars do NOT matter. Under the default 247Composite Team Ranking, it uses the value of the player index, for example that would be 0.8856 with the addition of Jackson.
*** 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.
With those two factors and due to the fact that Alabama has so many highly rated prospects, a player with an index value of 0.8856 will add very little to Alabama's 247Composite Team Ranking.
Hope this explains it.
247Sports and BOL updates: http://twitter.com/sbterry247
You said Gaussian. On that note. Close lap top. Go home. Drink a Maker's Mark on the rocks with a twist of lemon rind.
Trust me ... I have had "one of those days." I am one poke away from going beast mode today.
I know a bit about stats having used them for over forty years as an analyst with NASA so I understand your explanation. But I don't understand the results. And stars do matter if only by categorizing the players according to their value.
So what you're saying is that the first 5-star was worth 100 points (illustratively speaking), the next maybe 95 and so forth and the latest 4-star is only worth 2 points because he came on board late in the process. Now that and deer antlers can get you something really special.
So let's say we get EV. I guess he would be worth only 3 points maybe?
Just thought I would ask.
I am not qualified to engage in a stats debate with you. I am son of a farmer.
Click on the rankings explanation. I will get our lead architect in for a chat soon for more details.
When he said "last" recruit, he was talking about the lowest rated...not the last to commit.
It's not the will to win, but the will to prepare to win that makes the difference.
-Coach Bear Bryant
Also adding a higher rated player won't up your score the exact amount of points that that particular player contributes because it will decrease the score contributions of every player ranked below him by pushing them down the gaussian curve.
I don't debate stats either. They give me a headache. I'm the son of a welder so we're on common ground.
I'm not really arguing the issue either. Just thought I would inquire.
Thanks for your response by the way.
I lol'd when I clicked on that chart!!
I failed Algebra but I have the utmost trust in our team!
You guys do a great job!
Magic. Got it.
I like your style.
I would love to chat with the stats guys. I think i have this about figured out in excel, but I am just getting a different straight average rating than what is posted.
EDIT: i think the difference is just due to rounding.
This post was edited by DST39471 18 months ago
Agree. It also appears that:
When landing the same player, Team A benefits more than Team B if either:
(a) Team A has fewer players than Team B.
(b) Team A has lower-ranked commits than Team B.
So Eddie Jackson might account for more points for another school, compared with Bama, when the other school has lower-rated commits OR if the other school has similarly rated commits but fewer of them.
Yeahhh....moving on to the next thread.
if you put anything in makers besides ice......................you are a borsh eating, Chaika driving,lenin loving red faced communist !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
To shed some more light on your original comments here:
I am a little off somewhere because I am getting a point total of 780.68, but Eddie is currently contributing somewhere near 5.8 points to our total score.
If anybody can show me where I am going wrong that would be awesome :)
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports