So I maintain that the recruiting rankings list, while interesting, is not the most useful measuring stick.
On this point we agree. It would make more sense to take the sum of player rankings divided by number of recruits for an average ranking. But, my larger point is that recruiting success is of little value in this analysis.
Wow UNC fell off you would never dare say that of a Michigan basketball team coached by Beilein as evidenced how you have protected him the past couple years. Yep and Michigan lost to a 13 seed in one of those same years. Michigan obviously wasnât that good rightâŚ
You guys keep comparing random examples to try to make your point. Neither really makes any sense. KenPom is probably the best measurement of conference strength and as referenced above the Big Ten was tougher than the ACC those years.
Your flailing attempts to salvage a losing argument are hilarious. The bottom line is that your original premise (that Maryland was actually better than their ranking indicated because they played in the ACC for 3 years) is laughablyâand unsurprisinglyâdead wrong. Yet, rather than accept that and move on, youâve decided to double down on your original argument? Pure comedic gold.
Agreed. Instead of rankings they should compile each players 247 composite score and then either take the total or the average per player. I can see the merits in either looking at total, average or both, But the rankings method is too subject to being skewed by large or small classes.