Yes, that's the same basic methodology that I used to rank the recruiting classes in this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/modaph7I definitely think that this is a better way to rank recruits, especially for G5 recruits. Analysts spend a lot of time ranking the 4-5 star recruits, and very little on 2-star recruits, so for the traditional services, the accuracy drops as they move down to the lower recruits. Meanwhile, a coach that is considering making an offer will spend a lot of time looking at a recruit because he's not just assigning an arbitrary number, he has to put his money where his mouth is.
Their method is more sophisticated in that they used a sliding scale for the weighting to assign to an offer from a specific team, whereas I used a simple split, 3 points for P5, 1 point for G5, no points for FCS. On the other hand, my method had a significant advantage in that I used the offer information from 247Sports, Rivals, and ESPN, while they used only Rivals and ESPN. The problems is that Rivals data is somewhat incomplete for G5 recruits, and ESPN's data is very, very incomplete for G5 recruits. The two most complete sources of information on G5 offers is probably Scout.com and 247Sports, neither of which they used.
My end result was pretty close to theirs. They rank Buffalo worse than I do, and NIU and Ball State much higher, but otherwise most are in the same general area. Their ranking:
#78 Ohio
# 82 WMU
#83 Toledo
#88 NIU
#91 BG
#93 Miami
#94 Kent
#104 Ball State
#106 EMU
#111 Buffalo
#115 UMass
#124 CMU
#126 Akron
My ranking:
4.67 WMU
4.57 Ohio
4.27 Toledo
4.00 Kent
3.75 BG
3.16 Buffalo
2.86 Miami
2.30 NIU
2.12 U.Mass
1.56 EMU
1.31 Akron
1.04 Ball State
0.50 CMU
In any case, looking at the recruiting this way confirms the general impression that I think most of us have, that this is not a run of the mill, middle of the MAC recruiting class.
Last Edited: 2/10/2015 8:01:56 AM by L.C.