Scout's recruiting rankings?

[JeffAtlanta]

There ranking are heavily biased on the number of recruits.

There is something to be said about having warm bodies around, but their ranking seem to take that to the extreme.

Good point. I wish the initial graphic included Southern Cal's recruiting class since it would give a little better perspective.

USC has 12 total commits: 8 of which are Top 100 players. Their average player rating is 4.42 - if they sign a 4 star player, their average will actually go down. Scout has them ranked #13.

 

[timmer0911]

I place more interest on the number of stars average.

ME TOO!! 3.86 avg right now and could increase a little depending on tomorrow.

 

[Bama1985]

Saban has never been into large numbers of JUCOs, but, when he picks one, they usually make a real impact. With a lot of other coaches, it's really desperation. The funny thing is, looking at the ND sites, they're convinced that, along with grayshirting, oversigning, attrition, antler dust, having huge numbers of JUCOs. A couple of Bama posters tried to point out that we have only two, but that curtain of ignorance is impenetrable...

Yes the Irish fans are certainly very conflicted on why they got destroyed in the BCS title game. A psychiatrist could certainly establish a profitable practice in South bend, Indiana assisting them with BCS post traumatic stress.

 

[Probius]

Most services devalue JUCO players, and it is crazy given their impact on top teams every year. Players like Carpenter, Cody, Williams and Newton, all JUCOs, were critical pieces on the last 4 national championship teams. Without them, it is very possible that NONE of those teams win the BCSCG.

They may be less valuable to teams that are rebuilding, but they are critical to teams that are on the cusp and need a player to fill an immediate need.

I've never understood the way JUCO recruits get treated by the scouting services. JUCO players are a big help as they add instant experience, and should get ranked above high school players. I love JUCO recruits, and over that last few years we have received a lot of help from JUCO players like Darren Mustain, Terrence Cody, James Carpenter, Jesse Williams, and Deion Belue. rtr.

 

[TideFan in AU]

Good point. I wish the initial graphic included Southern Cal's recruiting class since it would give a little better perspective.

USC has 12 total commits: 8 of which are Top 100 players. Their average player rating is 4.42 - if they sign a 4 star player, their average will actually go down. Scout has them ranked #13.

USC was 12 on their list, IIRC. Well, before the latest decommit(s).

 

[TideFan in AU]

There ranking are heavily biased on the number of recruits.

There is something to be said about having warm bodies around, but their ranking seem to take that to the extreme.

I don't really see that. ND has one more commit than we do, and they they have 6 top 100 players and (1) 5 star and they are nearly 400 points higher than us with 11 top 100 players and (5) 5 stars. They have (18) 4 stars compared to our (10) 4 stars, but having 4 more 5 stars at what is supposed to be double the point value of a 4 star, it seems like it would be closer.

Either way, as Bamarich said, when your rankings are that drastically off from other big services, it reflects poorly on the validity of the rankings.

 

[DocCrimson]

Yes the Irish fans are certainly very conflicted on why they got destroyed in the BCS title game. A psychiatrist could certainly establish a profitable practice in South bend, Indiana assisting them with BCS post traumatic stress.

Personally, I'm happy where I am. Lots of 10rc saps wondering what happened to their program though. ;-)

 

[BamaBoots]

Reuben Foster is not yet on our total ranking, though they have him on the team page.

That's why all the other sites have us at 23 recruits, and Scout at 22.

His additional 300 points would move us to #5

When I looked a few minutes ago they did not have Tenpenny listed as a commit either. Although we have 10 players in the top 100 compared to 7 for Michigan not including Tenpenny and 5 5stars to Michigan's 4 5 stars the gap is way too wide.:BigA::BigA::BigA:

 

[JeffAtlanta]

Tennpenny was listed as a soft-verbal because he was still going on visits after he committed.

 

[LCN]

I've never understood the way JUCO recruits get treated by the scouting services. JUCO players are a big help as they add instant experience, and should get ranked above high school players. I love JUCO recruits, and over that last few years we have received a lot of help from JUCO players like Darren Mustain, Terrence Cody, James Carpenter, Jesse Williams, and Deion Belue. rtr.

Darren was not a JUCO signee . It's Mustin and he transferred to Alabama from MTSU .

 

[First Sergeant]

I place more interest on the number of stars average.

I concur wholeheartedly, sip!!!! great minds think alike...LOL

 

[tide96]

I don't think hardly anyone is left manning the helm over there. They haven't updated the rankings in hours now.

 

[CHATTBRIT]

ESPNU reporting Tide is #1 class in 2013 - natural position.

 

[Padreruf]

Scout now has us #3. Here's my question: Cole Mazza is a 2*. If we took him off, would we move to #1? (Not that I care, just curious...)

 

[JeffAtlanta]

Scout now has us #3. Here's my question: Cole Mazza is a 2*. If we took him off, would we move to #1? (Not that I care, just curious...)

Mazza is actually worth 120 points since his position rank is #1. Brandon Hill (3* Prep School) is worth the least amount of points on scout since JUCO & prep school players don't get any position ranking points.

Also, Scout just sums up the points for the top 25 players in the class, so lower ranked players can't bring down the overall team rankings.

 

[GreatDanish]

Scout now has us #3. Here's my question: Cole Mazza is a 2*. If we took him off, would we move to #1? (Not that I care, just curious...)

This is why pure "average stars" is not the best metric.

Consider two teams with identical classes except one team has one additional player, a two-star DT. The team with the two-star DT has one more player who could potentially become a starter than the other team.

However, a team with only ten signees but all are blue chippers is probably better than a class of 15 mediocre players.

So, there is a balance. This is why many of the ranking systems are on "total points." Still, though, some don't have their algorithm working correctly.

I understand why JUCOs are weighted less. A team that signs 20 blue chip HS Seniors, and another team signs 20 identically talented JUCOs... Which class would you rather have? But, a 5 star JUCO is overall preferable to the 2 star HS Senior.

Again, balance.

And, the obvious takeaway is that Nick Saban knows how to recruit, regardless of how you measure it.

 

[JBama_in_PCOLA]

I don't understand scout at all. They are all over the place with their rankings. 14 in the top 100 and nobody else comes remotely close. I guess I'll take 1,1,1,3 for the rankings, but man does scout suck!

 

[uafan4life]

Scout.com's ranking formula is a little asinine, in my opinion. At first glance it seems logical but it isn't. Here is their formula:

Star Rating Points --- (5* = 200, 4* = 120, 3* = 40, 2* = 20, 1* = 0)
+
Position Ranking Points --- (#1 = 100, #2 = 99, #3 = 98, etc.)
=
Total Points

There are a few things wrong with this. For example, JuCo and Sign-and-Place recruits get no position ranking. If they are a 4* recruit and the 3rd best player in the nation at Left Tackle, for example, then they only get 120 points (The 3rd best Offensive Tackle in Scout's rankings this year is a 4*). Meanwhile, a typical high-school recruit who is a 3* recruit and the 20th best player in the nation at Tight End, for example, is worth "more" at 121 points. And a 4* Wide Receiver who is the 41st best player in the nation at his position is worth a lot "more" at 180 points.

In addition, the position ranking scoring system doesn't take into account relative depth at the different positions. That 41st best Wide Receiver earns a whopping 60 position ranking points even though he's a 4* player. Meanwhile, a 2* Center is worth 75 position ranking points simply because there were only 25 Centers ranked ahead of him.

As further evidence, look at a few of Ohio State's Scout.com Top 300 player rankings:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]National Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Star Rating[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Position[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Position Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Player's Last Name[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Scout Points[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]S[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD]Bell[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]299[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]28[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]MLB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD]Mitchell[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]299[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD]Marshall[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]295[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]38[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]DE[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD]Bosa[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]297[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]RB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD]Elliott[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]212[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]72[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]OT[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD]Lisle[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]216[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]73[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TE[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD]Baugh[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]218[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]CB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD]Apple[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]210[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]129[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]CB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD]Conley[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]151[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]QB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]203[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]OLB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]16[/TD]
[TD]Johnson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]205[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]222[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]30[/TD]
[TD]Clark[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]191[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]246[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]S[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD]Thompson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]201[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Meanwhile, the #293 player in the Scout.com Top 300 is Wyatt Shallman, a 4* Fullback, who ends up with 219 total points simply because there are only two 4* Fullbacks in this year's class. That gives him more total points than each of the eight 4* recruits in the Top 50 of Scout's rankings - including WR Derrick Griffin, RB Ezekiel Elliott, DT Dee Liner, OT Kyle Bosch, and RB Dontre Wilson!

Using that scoring system, here are how the Top 5, Top 10, Top 15, Top 20, and Top 25 players in each of Alabama's and Ohio State's recruiting classes score up against each other:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 480"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Alabama[/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Ohio State[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1494[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1402[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2655[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2466[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3689[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]55[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3492[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4414[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4471[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]132[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4824[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]149[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5046[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]166[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Note: Any player not ranked in the Top 300 receives a value of 301 for the calculated average.




A better ranking would be to keep the Star Rating points but substitute the National Ranking for the Position Ranking. Let's say that the #300 ranked player in the nation (a 4*) gets 25 points in addition to his Star Rating points for a total of 145 points. Player #299 gets +26 points for a total of 146, #298 gets +27 points for a total of 147, and so on and so on all the way up to the #1 player in the country who gets 525 total points. That way, every player in the Top 300 is only 1 point behind the person in front of them and 1 point ahead of the person behind them.

If you used that scoring system with Scout's rankings, then you would end up with:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 480"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Alabama[/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Ohio State[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2567[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2380[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4617[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4181[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6342[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]55[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5575[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6950[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6572[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]132[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7130[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]149[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6852[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]166[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Note: Any player not ranked in the Top 300 receives a value of 301 for the calculated average.

 

[Padreruf]

Scout.com's ranking formula is a little asinine, in my opinion. At first glance it seems logical but it isn't. Here is their formula:

Star Rating Points --- (5* = 200, 4* = 120, 3* = 40, 2* = 20, 1* = 0)
+
Position Ranking Points --- (#1 = 100, #2 = 99, #3 = 98, etc.)
=
Total Points

There are a few things wrong with this. For example, JuCo and Sign-and-Place recruits get no position ranking. If they are a 4* recruit and the 3rd best player in the nation at Left Tackle, for example, then they only get 120 points (The 3rd best Offensive Tackle in Scout's rankings this year is a 4*). Meanwhile, a typical high-school recruit who is a 3* recruit and the 20th best player in the nation at Tight End, for example, is worth "more" at 121 points. And a 4* Wide Receiver who is the 41st best player in the nation at his position is worth a lot "more" at 180 points.

In addition, the position ranking scoring system doesn't take into account relative depth at the different positions. That 41st best Wide Receiver earns a whopping 60 position ranking points even though he's a 4* player. Meanwhile, a 2* Center is worth 75 position ranking points simply because there were only 25 Centers ranked ahead of him.

As further evidence, look at a few of Ohio State's Scout.com Top 300 player rankings:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 600"]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]National Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Star Rating[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Position[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Position Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Player's Last Name[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Scout Points[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]S[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD]Bell[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]299[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]28[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]MLB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2[/TD]
[TD]Mitchell[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]299[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6[/TD]
[TD]Marshall[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]295[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]38[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]*****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]DE[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4[/TD]
[TD]Bosa[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]297[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]47[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]RB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]9[/TD]
[TD]Elliott[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]212[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]72[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]OT[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5[/TD]
[TD]Lisle[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]216[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]73[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]TE[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3[/TD]
[TD]Baugh[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]218[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]CB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]11[/TD]
[TD]Apple[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]210[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]129[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]CB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD]Conley[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]151[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]QB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD]Barrett[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]208[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]203[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]OLB[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]16[/TD]
[TD]Johnson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]205[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]222[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]WR[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]30[/TD]
[TD]Clark[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]191[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]246[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]****[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]S[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]20[/TD]
[TD]Thompson[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]201[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]


Meanwhile, the #293 player in the Scout.com Top 300 is Wyatt Shallman, a 4* Fullback, who ends up with 219 total points simply because there are only two 4* Fullbacks in this year's class. That gives him more total points than each of the eight 4* recruits in the Top 50 of Scout's rankings - including WR Derrick Griffin, RB Ezekiel Elliott, DT Dee Liner, OT Kyle Bosch, and RB Dontre Wilson!

Using that scoring system, here are how the Top 5, Top 10, Top 15, Top 20, and Top 25 players in each of Alabama's and Ohio State's recruiting classes score up against each other:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 480"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Alabama[/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Ohio State[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1494[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]1402[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2655[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2466[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3689[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]55[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]3492[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4414[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4471[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]132[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4824[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]149[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5046[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]166[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Note: Any player not ranked in the Top 300 receives a value of 301 for the calculated average.




A better ranking would be to keep the Star Rating points but substitute the National Ranking for the Position Ranking. Let's say that the #300 ranked player in the nation (a 4*) gets 25 points in addition to his Star Rating points for a total of 145 points. Player #299 gets +26 points for a total of 146, #298 gets +27 points for a total of 147, and so on and so on all the way up to the #1 player in the country who gets 525 total points. That way, every player in the Top 300 is only 1 point behind the person in front of them and 1 point ahead of the person behind them.

If you used that scoring system with Scout's rankings, then you would end up with:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 480"]
[TR]
[TD="width: 64, align: center"][/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Alabama[/TD]
[TD="width: 128, colspan: 2, align: center"]Ohio State[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"][/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Total Points[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]Avg. Nat. Ranking[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 5[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2567[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]13[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]2380[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]34[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 10[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4617[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]32[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]4181[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]60[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 15[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6342[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]55[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]5575[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]96[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 20[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6950[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]111[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6572[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]132[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: center"]Top 25[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]7130[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]149[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]6852[/TD]
[TD="align: center"]166[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
Note: Any player not ranked in the Top 300 receives a value of 301 for the calculated average.

You win the prize for analysis -- how late did you stay up to figure this out? My bet is that this ends this thread!