Public Methodology · v1.0
NB·X Rankings Methodology
How New Breed evaluates and ranks China's youth basketball talent, U11 to U19, boys and girls, nationally.
This document is the standard NB·X holds itself to. We publish it because rankings without a visible method are just opinions, and we are not in the opinion business.
Why this exists
China has world-class youth basketball talent and no rigorous, transparent, independent system for identifying it across every age. High-school star lists exist. Grassroots highlight culture is enormous. But there has never been a single, methodical, national ranking that covers U11 through U19, boys and girls, with a published method anyone can read and challenge.
That is what NB·X is. Not a viral leaderboard. Not a popularity contest. A credibility system, built so that when we say a 15-year-old in Guangdong is the best in her class, you know exactly how we reached that conclusion, what evidence we used, and how we'll know if we were right.
Our standard is simple: a ranking is only as good as the method behind it, and a method is only as good as its willingness to be wrong in public.
What we rank
- Sport: Basketball first. NB·X is built to extend to other sports later; this document covers basketball.
- Age bands: U11, U13, U15, U17, U19, ranked separately. We rank by playing age within each band, and we always note a player's age relative to their band, because a young player excelling against older competition is a different signal than an older player dominating peers.
- Gender: Boys and girls are ranked in separate, equally resourced systems. The girls' rankings are not an afterthought or a smaller list, they receive the same scouting, the same committee, and the same release cadence.
- Geography: National. We build from regional evaluation up, so that talent in second- and third-tier cities is not invisible simply because it plays far from Beijing, Shanghai, or Guangzhou.
- Format: A 5-tier star system (★ to ★★★★★) layered over a 0–100 numeric grade. Stars give the public a fast read; the numeric grade drives the ordering and the analysis.
What we do NOT do
- We do not sell rankings. No player, parent, school, club, agent, or sponsor can pay to be ranked, ranked higher, or protected from a drop.
- We do not rank on hype alone. Viral highlight volume is not a ranking input. A player with ten million views and a player nobody has heard of are evaluated on the same evidence.
- We do not publish demeaning content about minors. Rankings are framed around development and potential, never ridicule.
- We do not pretend to be certain. Youth projection is hard. We rank with conviction and revise without ego.
The five evaluation dimensions
Every ranked player is scored across five dimensions. The weighting shifts by age band, for younger players (U11–U13) we weight projection and tools more heavily because production at that age predicts little; for older players (U17–U19) we weight production and competition level more heavily because the runway to verification is short.
On-court production · performance in real competition
Verified output in sanctioned games, scoring, efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, defensive impact, always adjusted for the level of competition and the player's role. A modest stat line against elite competition can outrank a huge stat line against weak opposition.
Physical tools & projectable frame
Height, length, frame, and athleticism, assessed for where the player is going, not only where they are. We track growth trajectory and note when a player is early or late physically, because a late-developing 14-year-old and an early-developing 14-year-old are not the same prospect even with identical current measurables.
Skill & basketball IQ
Technical skill (shooting, ball-handling, footwork, finishing) and feel, decision-making, spatial awareness, reads, competitiveness. This is the dimension that most separates real prospects from athletes who happen to be tall or fast.
Competition level & results
Strength of schedule and stage. Performance in and against the strongest available competition, CHBL/耐高, CJBL, Jr. NBA School League, CAAU, NYBO, the National Student/Youth Games (学青会), provincial and club competition, and head-to-head results against other ranked players. Winning meaningful games against ranked peers moves a player; padding numbers in low-stakes settings does not.
Projection & trajectory · ceiling
Our best honest read of long-term potential: the realistic ceiling, the development curve, and the likelihood of reaching national-team, professional, or collegiate/overseas pathways. This is where we are most explicitly making a forecast, and where the validation loop later tells us how good our forecasts are.
The process: from discovery to published ranking
NB·X rankings move through a five-step pipeline, and players enter, and exit, it continuously.
1. Discovery & nomination
Players enter the evaluation pool through tournament performance, regional scout submissions, coach and program nominations, verified game film, and open nominations (anyone can flag a player; a flag is an entry to evaluation, not a ranking). The goal is a wide funnel so that talent is found, not missed.
2. Evidence gathering
For each player in the pool we assemble live evaluation where possible, verified game film, and verified statistics tied to sanctioned competition. Highlight reels are context, not evidence, we evaluate full performances, not edits.
3. Independent scoring
Players are scored on the five dimensions by the regional scouting network, independently, before any group discussion. This reduces anchoring and groupthink.
4. Committee review & calibration
The NB·X Evaluation Committee, a panel of professional scouts, reconciles the independent scores, debates disputed cases, and calibrates across regions so that a ★★★★ in one province means the same thing as a ★★★★ in another. Every contested ranking has a named decision trail internally, and final ranking decisions require committee consensus rather than any single voice.
5. Audit & release
Before publication, rankings are audited for internal consistency (does the ordering match the evidence?) and released on a fixed seasonal cadence. We do not publish a list once and abandon it.
How we release rankings (and why incrementally)
We release incrementally and on a season-long cadence, not as a single annual list. Early in a cycle we publish with appropriate humility, fewer top tiers confirmed, more "watch list." As the season produces evidence, we promote, demote, and add. A player can rise from unranked to elite within a season on the strength of what they show. This mirrors how the most credible rankings systems operate: conviction grows as evidence accumulates, and the ranking is a living document, not a verdict carved in stone.
Each update publishes what changed and why- the movement, not just the new order, because the reasoning is the product.
How you'll know if we're any good: the validation loop
Anyone can publish a ranking. The question is whether it predicts anything. NB·X holds itself accountable by tracking ranked players against real outcomes over time:
- Selection to national youth teams and provincial squads.
- All-tournament and all-star recognition in CHBL/耐高, CJBL, and other sanctioned competition.
- Progression to CUBAL, CBA youth systems, and professional pathways.
- Overseas and collegiate (NCAA and equivalent) pathways.
We publish our hit rate. When our top-ranked players reach the levels we projected, that is the method working. When they don't, we say so and we examine why. A rankings brand that never publishes its misses is hiding something; we intend to publish ours.
Integrity & independence
- No pay-for-ranking, ever. Rankings are walled off from commercial relationships. Sponsors, advertisers, and partners have no input into who is ranked or where.
- Conflict-of-interest policy. Evaluators disclose any relationship with a player, family, school, club, or program, and recuse themselves from scoring those players.
- Commercial firewall. The evaluation process is walled off from New Breed's commercial operations. While the committee is founder-led, rankings are never shaped, overridden, or adjusted for commercial, promotional, or sponsor-related reasons, the only inputs are the evidence and the five dimensions.
- Correction policy. Factual errors (wrong age, wrong stats, misidentification) are corrected promptly and visibly.
Minors, consent & wellbeing
We are ranking children. We treat that as a responsibility, not a content opportunity.
- Guardian consent. Where we feature a minor in profile or video content, we work through appropriate guardian and program consent. Inclusion in a ranking is based on public, sanctioned competition; featured editorial content involving a minor is handled with consent.
- Data minimization. We collect only what the evaluation requires. We do not publish home addresses, schools beyond what is publicly associated with competition, contact details, or other sensitive personal information about minors.
- Wellbeing-first framing. Rankings and the surrounding content focus on development, potential, and achievement. We do not publish content that ridicules, demeans, or exposes minors to harassment, and we moderate our communities against bullying directed at ranked players.
- Appeals & review. Players, guardians, or programs may request a review of factual information or raise a wellbeing concern. We will respond.
These commitments align with China's regulations on the protection of minors online, and, independent of any regulation, with our own standard for how a brand built on young athletes should behave.
Review & versioning
This methodology is a living standard. We will revise it as the system matures, as we add age bands and sports, and as the validation loop teaches us where our weighting is right and where it is wrong. Each revision is versioned and dated. This is v1.0.
, New Breed / NB·X