Building off of Al's last question (who spent the least with the most impact), I thought it would be fun see who got the most bang for their buck when landing 5-star recruits. I calculated the average overall rating of all 5-star recruits, along with the average winning bid for all 5-star recruits, and then I compared each recruit's rating and bid to the mean. The scatter plot below (sorry if it blows up your browser) shows how much more or less than the mean each team paid for its 5-star recruits, compared to how much better or worse than the mean each recruit's rating ended up being. I call this chart "Recruiting Efficiency" because if you got a better than average recruit for a below average price, then you were more "effiicient" in recruiting them, although obviously we can only guess at how efficient our bids will be prior to the dice rolls. 

In the chart below, the bottom right quadrant is the most efficient (well done to Kevin and Martyn), and the top left quadrant is least efficient. Query whether the bottom right quadrant is definitively the best place to be. I think Micki might argue otherwise, since although she paid a fair amount above average for her setter, he is clearly miles better than any other freshman 5-star. Also, you can't fault James for getting three "average" 5-stars for well below the average price.

Correction: James got *four* 5-star recruits for below the average price. The label for his fourth recruit is jumbled up with one of Mike's on the lefthand side of the chart. That said, the dice weren't kind to the fourth guy.

I like videos.

Al, talk to me.

That is all

Hmm... 1 in the upper left quadrant and 2 in the lower left quadrant... I think that's a bad thing.

Charts! I like it. Interesting to see a pretty decent spread, and not too many outliers, yeah?

Nice job Jason, thank you!