 |
| Charles Woodson would have been approximately a 1,000 |
Last week I proposed a player rating system that received some positive and some negative comments. Sifting through the comments and using my own preferences/judgment, I liked the idea of adding a letter grade to the numeric rating, but it seemed too complicated for people to easily understand. I reserve the right to tweak the system at some point, but this is the jumping-off point:
100 = Best prospect in the country at his position; high likelihood of 1st round NFL potential
90-99 = Outstanding starter in Big Ten; likely All-Big Ten and All-American; high likelihood of NFL draft potential
80-89 = Very good starter in Big Ten; good chance of All-Big Ten; some NFL draft potential
70-79 = Solid starter in Big Ten; some NFL draft potential
60-69 = Average starter in Big Ten; little NFL draft potential
50-59 = Below average starter or good backup
40-49 = Average backup or solid special teams contributor
1-39 = Below average backup or special teams contributor
I realize that the scale probably won’t rate many players in, say, the 1-20 range, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles. No scale is perfect, everybody has good reasons for an argument, etc. This gives me eight different categories in which to place players, so that already makes it somewhat more refined than the 5-star rating systems used by recruiting sites. And in the meantime, it prevents me from having to say some poor high school kid is a 10 out of 100. I’m cold-hearted, but not heartless.
Also, some people were against using a scale of 1-100, but this system allows me to place two players in one category (for example, the 80-89 range) while also highlighting which player I might prefer by a slim margin.
This rating system will be permanently placed on a page at the top of the screen, allowing for easy access whenever someone needs a reference point.
Some initial ratings will be out later this week.
Happy criticizing!
