McBean 2002, 2003 Final and 2004 Preliminary
Note: The spectacular rollercoaster start to the season distracted me from our McBean effort. Back to work. Source Material: Original Post, Definitions, 2002 Class, Problems.
There was a flurry of concern about how our definitions, particularly the proliferation of McBean two-stars when we rarely recruit any Rivals two-stars, necessarily results in an overall decline in performance for any given class. This is a big deal when you recall that the purpose of this project is to allow us to judge whether a staff’s recruiting and talent development exceeds or falls short of expectations. We can say right now that they will almost always fall short of expectations; the question is how much. One day, we may adopt a variation of the proposed formula from wolfman81 to solve this problem (I say variation because I don’t think it goes far enough to compensate for the two-star problem – see the 2003 class RMS below, which narrows the gap as it should for a great class, but not enough…I think somehow weighting five-star players may be the answer):
Lastly, you asked me about my formula. It's really just the Root-Mean-Square. So add up for each player (star rating)^2. Then divide by total number of players. (This is the mean of the squares.) Now take a square root so that the numbers are comparable.
Example: Compare these 2 person classes (2 4 stars, vs. 1 5-star and 1 3 star)
2 **** -> Avg = 4.0, RMS = 4.0
1 ***** + 1 *** -> Avg = 4.0, RMS = 4.123I'll ask the question this way. Would you prefer a class that is half 3-stars and half 4-stars (remember, I'm talking about McBeans here--so 12 All-Conference players and 12 servicable backups) or a class that is half 2-stars and half 5-stars (so we have 12 All-Americans in a single class and 12 guys who never play)? I know what my answer is (especially if we consistently recruit and develop that kind of talent).
I am rolling out this stat below the averages for your consideration.
In the end, we decided to finish out our McBean rating effort and go from there. With three classes in hand, we will be able to gauge the two-star problem and either wallow in that misery, as UMFootballCrazy wants, or create an algorithm to compensate the relative value of players, as wolfman81 wants. The Team Ranking analysis for the 2003 class demonstrates the two-star problem clearly…
…but we’re going to finish and circle back. I will probably even finish the 2005 class, even though we have active players.
So, mush.
Here are the first two final classes, 2002 and 2003:
For the 2003 class, Kraus was bumped to a four star, which was near unanimous except to UMFootballCrazy, who doesn’t like to ignore the NFL draft in this instance. I have felt bad for SanDiegoWolverine in the past because he keeps passionately arguing for certain guys and not getting his way – in this instance, he wins as both Rivas gets moved to a four-star (you can’t use the NFL draft as a tie-breaker for kickers/punters and he is a multi-year starter) and Richard gets reclassified as N/A.
JimHarbaughScramble is clearly still grappling with extreme Mundypobia, but sorry JHS, I can’t make a drafted DB a two-star no matter how many times you see this running through your mind:
Here is the preliminary 2004 class, which is our last class that we can call complete (the 2005 class has six active players). There are plenty of issues, and most of them seem to result from overrating our favorite players, like Henne and Hart.
There's a lot to debate in the 2004 class.
September 29th, 2009 at 1:48 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:46 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:58 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:15 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:53 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 4:21 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 5:45 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 6:28 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:51 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:19 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 4:03 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:09 PM ^
RR | Stars |
---|---|
6.1 | 5-star |
6.0-5.8 | 4-star |
5.7-5.5 | 3-star |
5.4-5.0 | 2-star |
4.9 | 1-star |
RR | Grade | Description |
---|---|---|
6.1 | A+ | Franchise Player; 3 or more years starting, 1st Team All-American, Multiple All-Big Ten, Tiebreaker: goes in 1st Round of NFL Draft |
6.0 | A | All-American Candidate, high-major prospect, long-term impact on the team, Tiebreaker: 1st Day NFL Draft prospect |
5.9 | A- | All-around good player, multi-year contributer, All-Conference candidate, Tiebreaker: Drafted 4th-5th round by NFL team |
5.8 | B+ | Good player, starter by 4th year, considered at peak as All-Conference player, Tiebreaker: NFL prospect in late rounds or undrafted FA |
5.7 | B | Solid player, starter by 5th year, considered a "role player." Ability to make an impact in college, would be a better player for a Mid-Major |
5.6 | B- | Contributer, starter due to circumstances, or dependable "depth player." Typical a "3-star" performer, mid-major starter |
5.5 | C+ | Contributer, but with obvious holes. Would be a middling mid-major starter, considered a liability for a high major |
5.4 | C | Typical "2-star" depth player. Sees some special team action. Would be a bad starter on a mid-major. |
5.3 | C- | Liability player with obvious flaws in his game |
5.2 | D+ | Preferred walk-on |
5.1 | D | Walk-on |
5.0 | D- | Guy in Section 31 eating fat-free pretzels |
4.9 | N/A | Not ranked (shouldn't count in ranking) |
September 29th, 2009 at 2:25 PM ^
Name | Pos | Rating | Grade | McBean | Grade | Diff |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Max Martin | RB | 5.8 | B+ | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Roger Allison | RB | 5.6 | B- | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Keston Cheathem | WR | 5.6 | B- | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Marques Walton | DT | 5.2 | C- | N/A | N/A | N/A |
Adrian Arrington | WR | 5.8 | B+ | A+ | 6.1 | 0.3 |
Alan Branch | OL | 5.8 | B+ | A+ | 6.1 | 0.3 |
Mike Hart | RB | 5.7 | B | A | 6 | 0.3 |
Jamar Adams | DB | 5.7 | B | B+ | 5.8 | 0.1 |
Chad Henne | QB | 6.1 | A+ | A+ | 6.1 | 0.0 |
Morgan Trent | WR | 5.8 | B+ | B+ | 5.8 | 0.0 |
Charles Stewart | DB | 5.7 | B | B | 5.7 | 0.0 |
Jeremy Ciulla | OL | 5.6 | B- | B- | 5.6 | 0.0 |
John Thompson | LB | 5.6 | B- | B- | 5.6 | 0.0 |
Grant DeBenedictis | OL | 5.5 | C+ | C+ | 5.5 | 0.0 |
Tim Jamison | DE | 6.0 | A | A- | 5.9 | -0.1 |
Chris Graham | LB | 5.8 | B+ | B | 5.7 | -0.1 |
Will Johnson | DT | 5.9 | A- | B+ | 5.8 | -0.1 |
Alex Mitchell | OL | 5.9 | A- | B+ | 5.8 | -0.1 |
Michael Massey | DE | 5.9 | A- | B | 5.7 | -0.2 |
Chris Rogers | LB | 5.8 | B+ | B- | 5.6 | -0.2 |
Doug Dutch | WR | 5.9 | A- | B- | 5.6 | -0.3 |
Brett Gallimore | OL | 5.9 | A- | C+ | 5.5 | -0.4 |
5.75 | B+ | 5.77 | -0.5 |
September 29th, 2009 at 3:07 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:29 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 4:22 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:50 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:12 PM ^
Name | Pos | Stars | RR |
---|---|---|---|
Gabriel Watson | DT | 5 | 6.1 |
Jason Avant | WR | 4 | 6.0 |
Steve Breaston | ATH | 4 | 5.9 |
Matt Gutierrez | QB | 4 | 5.9 |
Larry Harrison | DT | 4 | 5.9 |
Darnell Hood | RB | 4 | 5.9 |
Mike Kolodziej | OL | 4 | 5.8 |
Quinton McCoy | ATH | 4 | 5.8 |
Pierre Rembert | RB | 4 | 5.8 |
Carl Tabb | WR | 4 | 5.8 |
Jeremy Van Alstyne | LB | 4 | 5.8 |
Willis Barringer | DB | 3 | 5.7 |
Rondell Biggs | DE | 3 | 5.7 |
Mark Bihl | OL | 3 | 5.7 |
David Harris | LB | 3 | 5.7 |
Rueben Riley | OL | 3 | 5.7 |
Brian Thompson | LB | 3 | 5.7 |
Tom Berishaj | OL | 3 | 5.6 |
Kevin Murphy | TE | 3 | 5.5 |
Obi Oluigbo | LB | 3 | 5.5 |
Paul Sarantos | LB | 2 | 5.4 |
5.76 |
September 29th, 2009 at 3:21 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:31 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 3:37 PM ^
Name | Pos | Stars | RR |
---|---|---|---|
Prescott Burgess | DB | 5 | 6.1 |
LaMarr Woodley | LB | 5 | 6.1 |
Shawn Crable | DE | 4 | 6.0 |
Leon Hall | DB | 4 | 6.0 |
Ryan Mundy | DB | 4 | 6.0 |
Jerome Jackson | RB | 4 | 5.9 |
Adam Kraus | OL | 4 | 5.9 |
Jake Long | OL | 4 | 5.9 |
Quinton McCoy | DB | 4 | 5.8 |
Will Paul | TE | 4 | 5.8 |
Jim Presley | LB | 4 | 5.8 |
Clayton Richard | QB | 4 | 5.8 |
Jeff Zuttah | OL | 4 | 5.8 |
Anton Campbell | RB | 3 | 5.7 |
Garrett Rivas | K | 3 | 5.6 |
Pat Sharrow | OL | 3 | 5.5 |
Brandent Englemon | ATH | 2 | 5.4 |
September 29th, 2009 at 2:13 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 2:56 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 8:29 PM ^
September 30th, 2009 at 6:38 AM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 11:20 PM ^
September 29th, 2009 at 11:24 PM ^
September 30th, 2009 at 6:40 AM ^
October 4th, 2009 at 2:32 AM ^
September 30th, 2009 at 9:53 AM ^
October 4th, 2009 at 12:56 AM ^
Comments