I was looking through some recruits in Allen, and I stumbled across William Lafon. This is the first ranked recruit I have seen under 450.

What is the lowest rated / worst ranked recruit anyone has ever seen?

Wow, what in the world could the ranking algorithm possibly see in that guy?

This guy may have a higher overall rating, but he's the worst ranked recruit I found in Tark.

This guy is the #108 ranked SG and has a DEF of 1

There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

I've wondered before if a players ranking could give you some hints on just how high their potential may be?

Posted by clouseb on 5/18/2014 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

I've wondered before if a players ranking could give you some hints on just how high their potential may be?

That's very interesting. 

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

Maybe the overall nationwide SF pool just sucked, and this was simply the 198th best SF... 

I think this is it. I've seen some guys ranked in the 150s and I've had FSS for them. There is no way that their rankings are based on potential. I've seen guards with passing and perimeter in the 20s and average potential and with non usable perimeter (30 and average or low). There are just some awful, awful ranked recruits.

Looking at a players ranking is secondary or tertiary in considering a recruit. Or not a factor at all. There are plenty of up ranked players that are way, way, way better. I've had better direct big recruits at DIII than some of the ranked bigs

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

there is a random factor in recruit rankings. i am convinced potential plays no impact. neither of these are facts, but once a couple years ago (and i doubt seble changed it since then), i wrote a program to figure out the ranking formula, position by position, and it could not converge to one formula. i mean, it did, but there were still a bunch of exceptions, meaning pairs of guys where the game ranking and the program ranking did not line up. also, different iterations found slightly different formulas (which sort of makes sense if there isn't 1 definitive answer). like most of these programs, i did it one night while drinking, so maybe it just didn't work - but comparing certain pairs of guys ranked higher, it didn't seem possible it was just based on their ratings. at first, i thought it might be FTA and GPA, so i included those, but that didn't help. i think there is a significant random factor in there.

edit: just in case anyone is wonder why the hell i would care about the ranking formula, it used to be true that in d2, if say, the 150 SG would talk to you, but the 149SG would not, then 148 up would not and 151 down would (70 miles excluded from all of this). i wanted to derive the ranking so i could see the unlisted rankings for all recruits, and hopefully not have to hunt and peck as much in d2 and d3. but then seble broke that in the new engine. maybe this was more than 2 years ago... hmm. i think it was after seble broke it actually, i can't remember exactly what i was getting at.... maybe it was something about the overall ratings, i was theorizing something like maybe the overall rankings still lined up in the d2/d3 way but not the position ones? i don't know...

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

he could get to 100 in speed, perimeter, and ball handling.  he could sit back and launch 3s all day and no one would be able to stop him

Posted by gillispie1 on 5/19/2014 1:04:00 PM (view original):

Posted by dcy0827 on 5/18/2014 11:00:00 PM (view original):
There are some that insist that a recruit's ranking is based off of his ratings at the time he is recruited (what his initial ratings are).  Numerous examples like the one above lead me to believe that the recruit's ranking may be based at least somewhat off of future projections.  I may be totally off base with that thinking (though I don't think so), but how else could you possibly justify that guy being a ranked recruit?

there is a random factor in recruit rankings. i am convinced potential plays no impact. neither of these are facts, but once a couple years ago (and i doubt seble changed it since then), i wrote a program to figure out the ranking formula, position by position, and it could not converge to one formula. i mean, it did, but there were still a bunch of exceptions, meaning pairs of guys where the game ranking and the program ranking did not line up. also, different iterations found slightly different formulas (which sort of makes sense if there isn't 1 definitive answer). like most of these programs, i did it one night while drinking, so maybe it just didn't work - but comparing certain pairs of guys ranked higher, it didn't seem possible it was just based on their ratings. at first, i thought it might be FTA and GPA, so i included those, but that didn't help. i think there is a significant random factor in there.

edit: just in case anyone is wonder why the hell i would care about the ranking formula, it used to be true that in d2, if say, the 150 SG would talk to you, but the 149SG would not, then 148 up would not and 151 down would (70 miles excluded from all of this). i wanted to derive the ranking so i could see the unlisted rankings for all recruits, and hopefully not have to hunt and peck as much in d2 and d3. but then seble broke that in the new engine. maybe this was more than 2 years ago... hmm. i think it was after seble broke it actually, i can't remember exactly what i was getting at.... maybe it was something about the overall ratings, i was theorizing something like maybe the overall rankings still lined up in the d2/d3 way but not the position ones? i don't know...

I love that you were writing HD programs while drunk. That's just fricking awesome! :)