CRIB
Technical Document № 02
Methodology
Version 0.1 (Pilot).
Subject to revision after the
first season’s data.

How the
numbers are made.

A ranking is only as honest as the method that produced it. This page is the complete, public-facing methodology for the CRIB Player Index, Academy Accreditation, and Professional Marketplace.

§ 01. The Player Index

A composite score, role-weighted.

Every player on the registry receives a CRIB Score — a number from 0 to 100, calculated monthly from four components. The weights below are the pilot defaults; they vary by role and age band, and are published in full in the technical appendix.

Component
Weight
Source
Match performance
40%
Verified match logs, academy & tournament
Combine metrics
25%
CRIB Combine, attended within last 12 months
Scout & coach evaluation
20%
Accredited scouts & CRIB-verified head coaches
Consistency & growth trend
15%
Derived from longitudinal data

A player whose CRIB Score is computed from fewer than three of the four components is flagged as provisionally indexed and shown with a confidence interval rather than a single number. This is non-negotiable: incomplete data, openly displayed as such.

§ 02. The CRIB Combine

A standardised physical test, the same in every state.

CRIB Combines are held quarterly in each pilot state, and run by CRIB-employed measurers using identical equipment and protocols. The same Stalker radar gun. The same Yo-Yo recording. The same sprint surface. Without this, the index is not an index — it is a comparison of incompatible numbers.

Yo-Yo intermittent recovery (Level 1)
Aerobic endurance
20 m sprint, electronic timing
Acceleration
Vertical jump, force plate
Lower-body power
Bowling speed, radar (5 deliveries)
For pace bowlers
Bat-swing speed, optical sensor
For batters
Throwing velocity, radar
Fielding arm
Reaction-time test
For all roles
Anthropometry
Height, wingspan, lean mass

§ 03. Match data

Only verified matches count.

A match enters the index only if (a) it is played between two CRIB-registered teams, or in a tournament officially partnered with CRIB; (b) it is scored by a CRIB-accredited scorer; and (c) video of the full match is uploaded within seventy-two hours.

Self-reported scorecards are not accepted. This is a hard line, and we know it limits early data volume. The alternative — accepting unverifiable figures — undermines the entire registry.

Performance is contextualised against opposition strength. A 50 against a Tier-I academy is not a 50 against an unrated opposition. Opposition strength is itself derived from the accreditation tier of the opposing academy.

§ 04. Academy accreditation

Three tiers, annually reviewed.

Tier I
Full accreditation
Audited facility, BCCI-certified or NCA-certified head coach, on-site physiotherapist, structured age-group programme, complete match-recording infrastructure.
Tier II
Standard accreditation
Audited facility, qualified head coach, partial support staff, structured programme. Most pilot-stage academies are expected to enter at this tier.
Tier III
Provisional accreditation
Documents verified, on-site audit pending. Players may register; their CRIB Scores are flagged as provisional until the academy audit is completed.

§ 05. Professionals

Credentialled, or not listed.

Sports professionals on the CRIB marketplace are verified against the registers of their respective professional bodies — for instance, the Indian Association of Physiotherapists for physios, and recognised institutions for S&C and sports psychology qualifications. Listings carry a verification badge only after credentials have been confirmed with the issuing body.

The marketplace does not rank professionals. It lists them, with credentials, experience, and contact information. Selection is the academy’s decision.

§ 06. Governance & appeals

A wrong number is a problem with the methodology.

Any player, parent, academy, or scout may file an appeal against a CRIB Score, accreditation tier, or marketplace verification. Appeals are reviewed by a panel that does not include the co-ordinator responsible for the original entry. Outcomes are published in an anonymised appeals log, quarterly.

The methodology itself is reviewed every twelve months. Proposed revisions are open for public comment for thirty days before adoption.