Recruiting rankings

[gary2]

A few days ago, Zion Griffin was ranked 268 on 24/7. Griffin received a Kansas offer. Griffin is now ranked 62.

B.Golden's rankings have continued to drop since he gave Pitt a verbal (Even though his team won one big AAU tournament and finished 2nd in another).

Somehow C.Diong, the player we lost to UNLV ended up ranked 115

Filip Petrusev is a Hartford decommit - He is currently listed as 152 in 24/7's nat.comp.

UNC recruits(only 1 top 100, 3 below 150:
Felton - 30
Brooks - 134
Huffman - 195
Platek - 218
Manley - 263 (that is 10 below Peace at 253)
Are the UNC fans up in arms that they have such low rated recruits?

I can't understand why so much emphasis is placed on these rankings.

 

[KiwiJeff]

They are a bit contrived and lazy.

 

[HailToPitt1985]

It's the damned media's fault. And the Fascists.

 

[Franb]

It's the damned media's fault. And the Fascists.

Russia is hacking the rankings. They are trying to duplicate, in the NCAA, the chaos that we are seeing in the White House. Once the sports world crumbles, we are doomed.

 

[SoufOaklin4Life]

It's almost as if playing in back to back championships, winning the last won- and winning 3 other championships in recent years has the tarheel fans deluding into thinking ole Roy knows what he's doing .

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

It's almost as if playing in back to back championships, winning the last won- and winning 3 other championships in recent years has the tarheel fans deluding into thinking ole Roy knows what he's doing .

Roy is trying to avoid getting more than one "one and done" player. He wants to build an experienced team over time. More seriously, the ratings of those players will suddenly go up based on Roy recruiting them.

 

[gary2]

Roy is trying to avoid getting more than one "one and done" player. He wants to build an experienced team over time. More seriously, the ratings of those players will suddenly go up based on Roy recruiting them.

More seriously, the ratings of those players will suddenly go up based on Roy recruiting them

I can't see how - Those are 2017 recruiting ranking - I think they are sort of cemented at this point. - Many of those players were even signed in the early signing period.

 

[DC_Area_Panther]

More seriously, the ratings of those players will suddenly go up based on Roy recruiting them

I can't see how - Those are 2017 recruiting ranking - I think they are sort of cemented at this point. - Many of those players were even signed in the early signing period.

A couple of observations--

1. Once you get above the first 20-30 players, or so, the big time, significantly contribute as freshmen are mostly all gone. The higher you go up in rating numbers the less significant they become in terms of having any real relative meaning. It then becomes probably best to look at relative ratings as groupings rather than as reflecting any significant meaningful difference in talent between individual players. For example, whether a player at the lower end of, say the #40 - #70 rated players grouping will prove in the college game significantly better than a player rated at the upper end of that same range is far from a given. There is probably very little difference between a #75 rated and a #125 rated player, likewise you might as well see all players rated 150-250 as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of talent level. At this point college coaches are probably looking at potential to develop based on size and speed rather than a sure thing based on present talent level.

2. Maybe Roy actually had trouble recruiting for 2017 due to the potential the NCAA will hit UNC with sanctions--possibly even a year or two of post season bans? Certainly opposing recruiters must have been playing that card in the recruiting wars.

 

[gary2]

A couple of observations--

1. Once you get above the first 20-30 players, or so, the big time, significantly contribute as freshmen are mostly all gone. The higher you go up in rating numbers the less significant they become in terms of having any real relative meaning. It then becomes probably best to look at relative ratings as groupings rather than as reflecting any significant meaningful difference in talent between individual players. For example, whether a player at the lower end of, say the #40 - #70 rated players grouping will prove in the college game significantly better than a player rated at the upper end of that same range is far from a given. There is probably very little difference between a #75 rated and a #125 rated player, likewise you might as well see all players rated 150-250 as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of talent level. At this point college coaches are probably looking at potential to develop based on size and speed rather than a sure thing based on present talent level.

2. Maybe Roy actually had trouble recruiting for 2017 due to the potential the NCAA will hit UNC with sanctions--possibly even a year or two of post season bans? Certainly opposing recruiters must have been playing that card in the recruiting wars.

Totally agree with your first observation - I am pretty skeptical of the second (I think Roy signed the players he wanted - He liked them and could care less about their ranking.)

 

[ameoba defense]

Totally agree with your first observation - I am pretty skeptical of the second (I think Roy signed the players he wanted - He liked them and could care less about their ranking.)

Some coaches prefer to get players who will fit what they want to do, as opposed to grabbing the highest rated players, and trying to figure out how to mold them into a team. I always felt that Pitt was at it's best when Jamie was bringing in those scrappy players that fit his style. Once he started reaching to take any 5 star he could get, regardless of how they fit Pitt's style, the teams weren't as good anymore.

 

[gary2]

A couple of observations--

1. Once you get above the first 20-30 players, or so, the big time, significantly contribute as freshmen are mostly all gone. The higher you go up in rating numbers the less significant they become in terms of having any real relative meaning. It then becomes probably best to look at relative ratings as groupings rather than as reflecting any significant meaningful difference in talent between individual players. For example, whether a player at the lower end of, say the #40 - #70 rated players grouping will prove in the college game significantly better than a player rated at the upper end of that same range is far from a given. There is probably very little difference between a #75 rated and a #125 rated player, likewise you might as well see all players rated 150-250 as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of talent level. At this point college coaches are probably looking at potential to develop based on size and speed rather than a sure thing based on present talent level.

2. Maybe Roy actually had trouble recruiting for 2017 due to the potential the NCAA will hit UNC with sanctions--possibly even a year or two of post season bans? Certainly opposing recruiters must have been playing that card in the recruiting wars.

Here is how the Pitt 2017 high school signees are ranked:

Carr 150
Peace 253
Stevenson 260
Stewart 269 (player with our most power 5 offers)
T.Brown 322
Samson 416

That is not how I would have ranked them and I know that is not how DT or ThirteenNine would have ranked them. They both thought Peace was an extreme reach(had a nothing HS career and played for the Montverde junior varsity or "developmental" team) These ranking have him as our second best frosh and 10 points higher than UNC's Manley. I am sure people would have been ecstatic had Pitt landed Manley.

All this makes me very dubious of recruiting rankings.

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

That is not how I would have ranked them and I know that is not how DT or ThirteenNine would have ranked them. They both thought Peace was an extreme reach(had a nothing HS career and played for the Montverde junior varsity or "developmental" team) These ranking have him as our second best frosh and 10 points higher than UNC's Manley. I am sure people would have been ecstatic had Pitt landed Manley.

But you have to understand that most of the recruiting rankings aren't based on how good the players are now, they are based on how good they think the players will become. If someone thinks that Peace is the 500th best player right now, but he has the potential to be the 250 best player then his ranking is 250, not 500.

I've never seen either play so this is just an educated guess, but my guess is that some people think that Peace is a "high ceiling, low floor" kind of player whereas Manley is more of a "low ceiling/high floor" player. In other words, Manley might never be a star but he's likely to at least be good, and Peace could either be pretty good or he could be a total bust.

 

[gary2]

But you have to understand that most of the recruiting rankings aren't based on how good the players are now, they are based on how good they think the players will become. If someone thinks that Peace is the 500th best player right now, but he has the potential to be the 250 best player then his ranking is 250, not 500.

I've never seen either play so this is just an educated guess, but my guess is that some people think that Peace is a "high ceiling, low floor" kind of player whereas Manley is more of a "low ceiling/high floor" player. In other words, Manley might never be a star but he's likely to at least be good, and Peace could either be pretty good or he could be a total bust.

OK - that is news to me - I always thought the rankings were for now (guess I just never read any descriptive justification)

Thanx

 

[Sean Miller Fan]

More seriously, the ratings of those players will suddenly go up based on Roy recruiting them

I can't see how - Those are 2017 recruiting ranking - I think they are sort of cemented at this point. - Many of those players were even signed in the early signing period.

A couple of observations--

1. Once you get above the first 20-30 players, or so, the big time, significantly contribute as freshmen are mostly all gone. The higher you go up in rating numbers the less significant they become in terms of having any real relative meaning. It then becomes probably best to look at relative ratings as groupings rather than as reflecting any significant meaningful difference in talent between individual players. For example, whether a player at the lower end of, say the #40 - #70 rated players grouping will prove in the college game significantly better than a player rated at the upper end of that same range is far from a given. There is probably very little difference between a #75 rated and a #125 rated player, likewise you might as well see all players rated 150-250 as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of talent level. At this point college coaches are probably looking at potential to develop based on size and speed rather than a sure thing based on present talent level.

2. Maybe Roy actually had trouble recruiting for 2017 due to the potential the NCAA will hit UNC with sanctions--possibly even a year or two of post season bans? Certainly opposing recruiters must have been playing that card in the recruiting wars.

I'd say there are a few levels

1-5: One and Done 1st Round
6-15: Still has that potential
15-75: Can be very good right away
75-150: Good program players
150-300: Getting a bit dicey
300 and up: Lottery tickets

 

[Joe the Panther Fan]

OK - that is news to me - I always thought the rankings were for now (guess I just never read any descriptive justification)

Thanx

To use a Pitt example, do you think that anyone had Steven Adams ranked as high as he was because they thought he was going to be one of the top freshmen in the country? Of course not, everyone knew he was a raw player still developing his game. He was ranked that high because if he met his potential he was going to end up being a very, very good player. It's the same reason why he was the 12th pick in the NBA draft. Not because he was the 12th best player, but because OKC thought that he could develop into a player befitting that ranking (or better).

 

[Fsgolfdr]

A couple of observations--

1. Once you get above the first 20-30 players, or so, the big time, significantly contribute as freshmen are mostly all gone. The higher you go up in rating numbers the less significant they become in terms of having any real relative meaning. It then becomes probably best to look at relative ratings as groupings rather than as reflecting any significant meaningful difference in talent between individual players. For example, whether a player at the lower end of, say the #40 - #70 rated players grouping will prove in the college game significantly better than a player rated at the upper end of that same range is far from a given. There is probably very little difference between a #75 rated and a #125 rated player, likewise you might as well see all players rated 150-250 as pretty much indistinguishable in terms of talent level. At this point college coaches are probably looking at potential to develop based on size and speed rather than a sure thing based on present talent level.

2. Maybe Roy actually had trouble recruiting for 2017 due to the potential the NCAA will hit UNC with sanctions--possibly even a year or two of post season bans? Certainly opposing recruiters must have been playing that card in the recruiting wars.

Didn't seem to bother Cam !

 

[recruitsreadtheseboards]

I'd say there are a few levels

1-5: One and Done 1st Round
6-15: Still has that potential
15-75: Can be very good right away
75-150: Good program players
150-300: Getting a bit dicey
300 and up: Lottery tickets

For say 1-15, I say dependent upon the year. I always use this example, but the year Blair was a Sr, he wasn't ranked in the top 20 for various of reasons, none of which was that he couldn't play. But that class was loaded. LOADED. You had Michael Beasley, OJ Mayo, Derrick Rose, Eric Gordon, Kevin Love, James Harden, DeAndre Jordan, Blake Griffin, Kyle Singler, et al. Contrast the year Dante Taylor was ranked in the top 10, John Wall, Damarcus Cousins, Lance Stephenson and alot of guys you either never heard of or long forgot about.

But your ratings are pretty fair. In fact I would think anywhere above 150 is a lottery ticket.