By depth, I did mean quality depth. I was generally looking at the number of recruits above the NW lowest threshold.its just that your words nearly always relied on "depth". i think the visual almost does your analysis for you - I was surprised at how our 6-15 stacked up versus others (or didn't) - it was sobering - but given the lack of reliable scouting on the .86-.83 recruits makes me want to say recruit A vs B are a virtual tie if within x. maybe summarize into number of recruits in "quadrants", ie intervals.
Originally I had all of the recruits on their school rank. But I thought it gave a better picture to try to align the recruits with a similarly rated recruit for the other school. In that way, I think you can visualize the number of recruits in the quadrants without me having to define the quadrants.