I really disagree with the Rivals formula. It's not set up to align with a head-to-head value judgment. Example: would you trade USC's class for FSU's? What coach would turn away 5 top-30 playmakers for USC's class?
It's hard for me to see college coaches making that swap or trading Clemson's class for Tennessee. ---More 5* talents and a better overall star average should carry more weight. You can look all over the top-100 and compare classes A-to-B and see this recurrence.
The Rivals team formula reminds me of the Olympic boxing controversy. Every judge thought fighter B had won but because they couldn't agree how to score the bout the other fighter won the match on points. Not one judge agreed with the outcome but the disagreement over scoring had cost the better fighter the result.
I appreciate the effort to remove favoritism by replacing subjectivity with a numerical formula. However I don't agree with a formula that doesn't coincide with what a head-to-head comparison would produce from an objective evaluation. The formula should be tweaked to mirror what coaches would like their program to look like.
It's hard for me to see college coaches making that swap or trading Clemson's class for Tennessee. ---More 5* talents and a better overall star average should carry more weight. You can look all over the top-100 and compare classes A-to-B and see this recurrence.
The Rivals team formula reminds me of the Olympic boxing controversy. Every judge thought fighter B had won but because they couldn't agree how to score the bout the other fighter won the match on points. Not one judge agreed with the outcome but the disagreement over scoring had cost the better fighter the result.
I appreciate the effort to remove favoritism by replacing subjectivity with a numerical formula. However I don't agree with a formula that doesn't coincide with what a head-to-head comparison would produce from an objective evaluation. The formula should be tweaked to mirror what coaches would like their program to look like.
