Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="javadoc, post: 4026801, member: 338"]
Have you shared those studies?  I'd be very interested to see them.  Have thought about doing the same thing, going back to (embarrassed) about 2003 when I had plans to write a web crawler and keep track of rankings over time, etc etc.  And then life gets in the way.

I'm not arguing with the entirety of your premise, either.  It's possible (probable?) that an offer from Alabama is a reliable predictor of individual success.  Maybe the statistical confidence is 90%.  But how valuable is an offer from Wisconsin?  NC State?  Arizona?  So you can look at the team at the top of the ACC and say, yeah, based on offers alone, according to an objective model, that's a good class likely to result in team success.  But what about the ACC's median team?  It'll quickly become a crapshoot.

And the weight placed on teams' offers should be dynamic.  I'll bet it's not.  And maybe the ratings should be weighted based on the contributions of individual positions to team success.  Maybe you can come up with a complex model that predicts success reliably.  I doubt it's there yet, outside of perhaps the top O(10) teams.

And here's where I get irritable and vent.  Folks kvetch about "we're last in the ACC according to 678".  I'm sick of hearing it, because it's a useless metric.  If you put that much weight in what's happening outside the potentially reliable predictor-window in offer-based ratings, then please, put your money where your mouth is (OK, not really possible, pardon the phrase).  Let's get a new coaching staff, with a stipulation in the contract that if you don't recruit at XYZ level according to site ABC, then you're fired for cause - even after one year.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?