Yes I did. I like your selective reasoning though. Did you read the entire thing, or just that part? Bro?
Prospect's original ranking is USED and displayed, but the rankings themselves are based on production and potential. That's where "objectivity" comes in... or a relative disregard for previous ranking (unranked players like Manziel). I can say "objectivity" a fourth time if needed. Hopefully you can access Google from the trailer park WiFi to look that word up.
You're joking right? Surely you aren't being even remotely serious. It says that the RANKING is based on production AND original ranking. The OBJECTIVITY stuff (for a word you have a precarious grasp on, you sure do love to repeat it ad nauseam) is a separate clause, stating that the original ranking is not a requirement for admission into the list, but that they also included prospects who had not been ranked at all. This is saying that even though previous ranking is a component part in the new ranking, it is not a necessary condition for inclusion, since many unranked players clearly deserved to be included.
The prior ranking is USED in the sense that it is incorporated into the new ranking as a component part in the new evaluation of the player,
It becomes abundantly clear that this is what they mean when they continue on to say that players that they never evaluated are not eligible for inclusion. This would not be a relevant criterion were previous rankings not a major part of the list. If the list went solely on success in college, whether or not they scouted somebody would be irrelevant.
This is a way of marketing themselves, too. By weighting the rankings with their original ranking of the player, they end up making the list more closely approximate their original evaluations, thus making them look more prescient than they really were.
Moreover, they are saying objective here to show that they are not being biased - they are allowing for the fact that their original rankings were at times mistaken, and that unranked players could be good enough to make the list, and to end up high on the list. If the list were solely made up of previous ESPN 300 recruits, it would be skewed too dramatically towards their original interpretation, restricting the relevant sample unduly, and making themselves look much better at evaluating talent than they actually are.
Thanks for playing.
