hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 5, 2018 12:17:44 GMT -5
Clearly, the better ranked you are, the better odds that you're going to succeed - but it's certainly no guarantee. JT3's problem was never getting well ranked recruits (except maybe the last few years). He got quite a few very highly ranked guys (Monroe, Wright, Freeman, Copeland), but also had a lot of other top 100 guys (Peak, White, Starks, Lubick, Adams, Hopkins). JTIII had three big issues recruiting. One, I'm fairly convinced he was not a very good talent evaluator. A lot of coaches aren't. They often fail to appreciate certain aspects of players or really understand how to build a balanced roster. Some evaluation mistakes like passing on Josh Hart absolutely could have made a huge difference. What was kind of funny early (him commenting that he never would have recruiting Wallace or Hibbert for GU) later manifested itself in poor preference evaluations. Two, the public perception of the system really hurt his ability to recruit guards. Three, he never was able to recruit depth effectively -- and so even when topline talent was there, the team had terrible holes, and when classes underperformed, the prior and next class often had few recruits and couldn't make up the difference. It's worth noting that there's some bad luck here. I've said it before, but the 2011 and 2014 classes underperformed their hype. 2011: Otto Porter - Two great years Tyler Adams - injured, never played Mikael Hopkins - became a decent role player by senior year Greg Whittington - Injuries, Class + Hookers = one good semester Jabril Trawick - Nice role player The 2011 class lost two potential good players. Otto was spectacular, but really only gave one great year (and two years total). I'm being charitable to Hopkins here, and while I love Trawick, this monster class probably gave us 5 semesters of above average basketball. Egads. 2014: Isaac Copeland - showed some promise, never played defense, seemed to stop trying, transferred LJ Peak - Good three year player Paul White - Injured, transferred Tre Campbell - He was really good in the Xavier game Trey Mourning - Not a hyped recruit, hasn't contributed yet We got LJ Peak out of this class and scattered decent games from Copeland. So what's that? Maybe four above average semesters? Again, injuries, transfers, etc. Some of this may be JTIII's fault, but much of it is injury related or other uncontrollables. Especially 2011. We could really use a super class that mostly delivers. I hesitate putting this as I dont want to derail this thread into a JTIII thread but I think he pretty much lost the team in the last few years. I am not exactly sure what happened, I have my ideas but that would even derail this more. You are right there was some bad luck as well. The thing is Copeland went to a new team and made all conference honorable mention and in a major conference. Has he performed up to the 33 rankings? No. But people here act like he is a bust. He clearly gave up here because he didnt like the situation for whatever reason. Paul White also performed well on a major team that is pretty in line with his ranking. From a pure rankings miss the biggest one was Tre. I wish we couldve seen what he was this year but whatever happened with the bus happened. The rankings overall werent really a miss. It was just a miss for Gergetown. There is a difference.
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2018 12:20:03 GMT -5
I dont mind WS as a metric but it is far from perfect as tam results effect it so much. It does work for showing ranked players under the same coaching. I think your graph shows exactly how much rankings matter. Of course there will be individual misses but there are usually some circumstances behind them. If you are going by WS you cant include Vee and Bennimon. They both went down levels and a WS on a mid major is not the same as a high major. Bennimon may have been under ranked but he has pretty much flamed out as a pro. "He has pretty much flamed out as a pro" - let me just get this straight - a sub-300 guy ends up as an honorable AA and gets a cup of coffee in the pros and you want to argue it away because he's not a long term NBA star? The whole point is that a 300 ranking on Benimon is a complete and abject ranking failure because he ended up a honorable AA and in the NBA. Rankings are supposed to predict success, and Benimon was an absolute, unqualified success in college basketball - and would have been in the Big East as well. Find me a SOS-adjusted player value metric - I'm not wedded to WS by any means, it was just something easy I could look up - any league adjusted player value metric is still going to show you are wrong. The crux of your argument is that rankings=ability and we can't have too many 200+ rankings because those guys are going to be bench players. We'd be in the tournament if we had a Benimon and a Pryor this year. I'm pretty sure you are building this all as a proxy against Mac McClung, which is ridiculous given the amount of tape we've seen on him.
|
|
Hoyas4Ever
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
A Wise Man Once Told Me Don't Argue With Fools....
Posts: 5,448
|
Post by Hoyas4Ever on Mar 5, 2018 12:24:31 GMT -5
85% of top 20 kids get drafted by the NBA. About 85% of the next 30 are usually safe bets to be good college players. After that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Trust what you see vs trust the ratings imo. Ratings are imperfect because it's impossible to see all of the kids in a class so they rely too heavily on what kids do in the summer circuits. If you don't play on a major circuit, you get missed (Bracey, Greg Whittington). If you have injuries during the summer and don't play up to level, you get missed. Get hot at the right time and you're ranking soars (Domingo). You see a kid like Daxter Miles during the summer, he looks ok. You see him in an actual game setting you think, how is this kid ranked 350? The opposite was true for Domingo. It's also just a snapshot in time. Just like there's a lot of change in rankings from kids Sophomore season to their Senior season the same is true for Senior year in HS vs Soph in College. Imo they're a good starting point, but if I were coaching I would trust me eyes more than the rankings. This is especially true once you get past the top 50 range... Agree with mostly everything you said but I have an even a narrower scope. I think in most years their are 5-10 prospects in a given class that can play for any program in the country and make a day 1 huge impact. They would be the players most likely going strait to the Association out of high school if the NBA got rid of the 1&done. Really closer to 5 prospects on most years and in an outstanding class up to 10. IMO after that it's crapshoot and it really becomes about 4 criterias; need, fit, usage and development. To really understand this conversation you need to take out NBA draft positioning and 1 & done. This is about college basketball impact. The draft is completely about future potential and thus has nothing to do with college basketball. In the 2017 class that would include Baggley, Ayton, Bamba, Porter and Wendell Carter. Players like Sexton, Jackson Jr., Trae Young, Waters all really the rest of "highly ranked top 50" who have been highly impactful their freshman seasons, it's because of either one of or all of the 4 criterias. Your mistaken if you think Trae Young has the same statistical or impactful season he had playing at Duke, UNC, Kansas or Kentucky. Coach Self admitted as much in an interview earlier this year on why he had to turn down Trae Young because his father wanted Trae to be given freedom to play his game. Self in the interview said he couldn't give Young that kind of freedom. Oklahoma needed Young more than Kansas, there was a need and a fit because they were in a complete rebuild. Since there was a need and a fit he was given the keys to the program to play his game so his usage and continued development fit his game. Waters as well would be limited in his freedom if he had attended any number of other programs. Duval at Duke was the highest "ranked PG" by most of these services. He hasn't had nearly the impact in college basketball that either Young or Waters has had. Jackson Jr. would probably start for any program in the country but the fit was important with him as he needed to go somewhere he didn't have to be the man Day 1 as he needed adjust to the physicality and speed of the game. Lets look at Isaac Copeland here at Georgetown. His fit and usage was tremendous as a freshman. What changed his sophomore year? His usage as he was moved from the Big Forward to the wing which was a position he struggled with on both sides of the ball. At Nebraska his game has stabilized again because of his usage primarily at the power forward spot. Paul White IMO hasn't been as good at Oregon as he should be because his usage is awful and doesn't fit his game. They have him starting at Center playing a small ball 5 and most of his minutes are at the 5 & 4 positions. Hopefully it will change for him if he spends his last 2 remaining years of eligibility at Oregon. Reports are he is on pace to graduate this spring and could be a college free agent if he chooses to be or could stay playing in a more familiar 3/4 position once Brown declares for the draft and Bol Bol comes in. After the top 5-10 players in any given class, Coaches and prospects should be looking at need, fit, usage and development when they each try to make their decisions. Prospects now also have to look at the stability of the program with all the noise in college basketball and staffs that aren't really in contention for top 5-10 prospects have to focus heavily on fit and development. If you're a program like Villanova you can take all kind of chances in recruiting on a Gillespie kid because you have the need fit, usage and development down to a science. You can even bring in a highly ranked PG who may be suspended for his freshman year because he's in the middle of a major FBI probe into college basketball or red shirt players without missing a beat because you have a mastery of the need, fit, usage development criterias. Same goes for Virginia who regularly bring in "top 60 players" like Hunter and Diakite and redshirt them without missing a beat because they are confident in their ability to get right and maximize the 4 criterias of need, fit, usage and development to their style of play. For those reasons, I pay very little attention to the rankings or stars next to a players name outside the 5-10 range. After that it's about need, fit, usage and development. So I don't care what McClung, Grayson, or LeBlanc's ratings are. I care about if they answer a need, do they fit stylistically, character skill wise. Are they "Buy in Guys"? How are they going to deployed and used and what's their potential and how will they develope.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,791
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Mar 5, 2018 12:31:11 GMT -5
Agree, but I think people are way too likely to put it **all** on JTIII. We went through a run of players -- Copeland included -- who obviously were not self-motivators. That's on JTIII, too, in some ways, and I am excited to see how many gym rats Ewing is bringing in.
Copeland has been good and White has been fine, but I'm never going to trust a player like Copeland. I haven't watched him this year, but two years in he couldn't or wouldn't find his spot in a zone. I don't care what the situation is, I don't want that on my team. White was hurt, and that's bad luck.
I'm not sure your point here, but the overall rankings are often wrong. Tre wasn't highly ranked but he was a still a rankings miss. These classes were mostly injury issues at heart, but the rankings miss plenty of times. I'm not sure why people are so insistent that they are always right -- and then proceed to just repeatedly bash recruits, committed or otherwise, over and over.
Evaluation is inherently flawed and players aren't finished products. Hard work matters. That's all most of the people here are saying. Hell, the NBA draft isn't even close to perfect, and that's just the top end of the rankings + college, so it should be better.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 5, 2018 13:01:57 GMT -5
I dont mind WS as a metric but it is far from perfect as tam results effect it so much. It does work for showing ranked players under the same coaching. I think your graph shows exactly how much rankings matter. Of course there will be individual misses but there are usually some circumstances behind them. If you are going by WS you cant include Vee and Bennimon. They both went down levels and a WS on a mid major is not the same as a high major. Bennimon may have been under ranked but he has pretty much flamed out as a pro. "He has pretty much flamed out as a pro" - let me just get this straight - a sub-300 guy ends up as an honorable AA and gets a cup of coffee in the pros and you want to argue it away because he's not a long term NBA star? The whole point is that a 300 ranking on Benimon is a complete and abject ranking failure because he ended up a honorable AA and in the NBA. Rankings are supposed to predict success, and Benimon was an absolute, unqualified success in college basketball - and would have been in the Big East as well. Find me a SOS-adjusted player value metric - I'm not wedded to WS by any means, it was just something easy I could look up - any league adjusted player value metric is still going to show you are wrong. The crux of your argument is that rankings=ability and we can't have too many 200+ rankings because those guys are going to be bench players. We'd be in the tournament if we had a Benimon and a Pryor this year. I'm pretty sure you are building this all as a proxy against Mac McClung, which is ridiculous given the amount of tape we've seen on him. Did you believe his ranking was an abject failure when he played for Gtown? Rankings aren't telling folks that kids are bad players or won't amount to much, its just where they fall in a given class..
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,459
|
Post by TC on Mar 5, 2018 13:22:12 GMT -5
I thought Benimon was the best rebounder on the team when he was here. Go check the search page for the receipts. If rankings don't have projection built in we should ignore them completely. They absolutely build in projection though - guys weighing too much get dropped despite skills, taller guys with room for muscle get pushed up, etc Anyone want to have a fun trip down memory lane? Here's the Greg Whittington recruiting thread. Lots of fun stuff in there like he's too thin, why's he a 2*, plays in a weak conference - everything we hear about McClung today. I'm not comping McClung to Whittington, I'm saying that when a guy is All Met POY that maybe the 2* ranking might be a little off. hoyatalk2.proboards.com/thread/23634/greg-whittington-signs-loi-georgetown
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 5, 2018 13:38:16 GMT -5
I thought Benimon was the best rebounder on the team when he was here. Go check the search page for the receipts. If rankings don't have projection built in we should ignore them completely. They absolutely build in projection though - guys weighing too much get dropped despite skills, taller guys with room for muscle get pushed up, etc Anyone want to have a fun trip down memory lane? Here's the Greg Whittington recruiting thread. Lots of fun stuff in there like he's too thin, why's he a 2*, plays in a weak conference - everything we hear about McClung today. I'm not comping McClung to Whittington, I'm saying that when a guy is All Met POY that maybe the 2* ranking might be a little off. hoyatalk2.proboards.com/thread/23634/greg-whittington-signs-loi-georgetownFair enough but you didn't really answer my question.. I think you danced around the question because you didn't give JB one thought when he left Gtown.. This is purely hindsight on your part imho.. GW is a much better example than JB & Pryor..
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on Mar 5, 2018 13:57:48 GMT -5
I dont mind WS as a metric but it is far from perfect as tam results effect it so much. It does work for showing ranked players under the same coaching. I think your graph shows exactly how much rankings matter. Of course there will be individual misses but there are usually some circumstances behind them. If you are going by WS you cant include Vee and Bennimon. They both went down levels and a WS on a mid major is not the same as a high major. Bennimon may have been under ranked but he has pretty much flamed out as a pro. "He has pretty much flamed out as a pro" - let me just get this straight - a sub-300 guy ends up as an honorable AA and gets a cup of coffee in the pros and you want to argue it away because he's not a long term NBA star? The whole point is that a 300 ranking on Benimon is a complete and abject ranking failure because he ended up a honorable AA and in the NBA. Rankings are supposed to predict success, and Benimon was an absolute, unqualified success in college basketball - and would have been in the Big East as well. Find me a SOS-adjusted player value metric - I'm not wedded to WS by any means, it was just something easy I could look up - any league adjusted player value metric is still going to show you are wrong. The crux of your argument is that rankings=ability and we can't have too many 200+ rankings because those guys are going to be bench players. We'd be in the tournament if we had a Benimon and a Pryor this year. I'm pretty sure you are building this all as a proxy against Mac McClung, which is ridiculous given the amount of tape we've seen on him. Benimon is what happens when a highly ranked player for low major transfers and get to play his RS JR and SR years against weak competition. I do not believe for one second he makes a huge enough impact to make him honorable mention Big East let along AA. There is a reason he transferred down. I never said Mac cant be good just that the odds of him being good before junior or senior year are very low. If you read the thread you will see I said there is a chance a 200+ may be good eventually but if you recruit a team of majority 200+ players your team wont be good in a high major conference.
|
|
Bigs"R"Us
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,642
|
Post by Bigs"R"Us on Mar 5, 2018 14:22:48 GMT -5
Agree, that we need to start landing top-100 guys every year. Ideally, a top-50 every other year. Trying to find diamonds-in-the-rough or attempting to coach up kids with holes in their game is going to keep us in the basement.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 5, 2018 14:52:33 GMT -5
Benny killed HM's when he faced them including us.
|
|
jwp91
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,040
|
Post by jwp91 on Mar 5, 2018 15:32:42 GMT -5
Clearly, the better ranked you are, the better odds that you're going to succeed - but it's certainly no guarantee. JT3's problem was never getting well ranked recruits (except maybe the last few years). He got quite a few very highly ranked guys (Monroe, Wright, Freeman, Copeland), but also had a lot of other top 100 guys (Peak, White, Starks, Lubick, Adams, Hopkins). JTIII had three big issues recruiting. One, I'm fairly convinced he was not a very good talent evaluator. A lot of coaches aren't. They often fail to appreciate certain aspects of players or really understand how to build a balanced roster. Some evaluation mistakes like passing on Josh Hart absolutely could have made a huge difference. What was kind of funny early (him commenting that he never would have recruiting Wallace or Hibbert for GU) later manifested itself in poor preference evaluations. Two, the public perception of the system really hurt his ability to recruit guards. Three, he never was able to recruit depth effectively -- and so even when topline talent was there, the team had terrible holes, and when classes underperformed, the prior and next class often had few recruits and couldn't make up the difference. It's worth noting that there's some bad luck here. I've said it before, but the 2011 and 2014 classes underperformed their hype. 2011: Otto Porter - Two great years Tyler Adams - injured, never played Mikael Hopkins - became a decent role player by senior year Greg Whittington - Injuries, Class + Hookers = one good semester Jabril Trawick - Nice role player The 2011 class lost two potential good players. Otto was spectacular, but really only gave one great year (and two years total). I'm being charitable to Hopkins here, and while I love Trawick, this monster class probably gave us 5 semesters of above average basketball. Egads. 2014: Isaac Copeland - showed some promise, never played defense, seemed to stop trying, transferred LJ Peak - Good three year player Paul White - Injured, transferred Tre Campbell - He was really good in the Xavier game Trey Mourning - Not a hyped recruit, hasn't contributed yet We got LJ Peak out of this class and scattered decent games from Copeland. So what's that? Maybe four above average semesters? Again, injuries, transfers, etc. Some of this may be JTIII's fault, but much of it is injury related or other uncontrollables. Especially 2011. We could really use a super class that mostly delivers. Regarding JT3 and his talent evaluation skills, I am not sure it was that he was a bad evaluator or that he fell in love with players like himself......big versatile forwards. We would have an abundance of difference making, big, versatile forwards, but not enough of the rest of the pieces to be successful.
|
|
prhoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 23,358
|
Post by prhoya on Mar 5, 2018 16:21:07 GMT -5
From a pure rankings miss the biggest one was Tre. I wish we couldve seen what he was this year but whatever happened with the bus happened. The rankings overall werent really a miss. It was just a miss for Gergetown. There is a difference. For me, the JT3 poster child of recruiting miss is Bolden. It's still a mystery how bad that was.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Mar 5, 2018 20:04:37 GMT -5
Here's the grading scale ESPN uses for players.. All the kids who receive a number grade has been seen either in person or has seen film/tape of the player.. Here are the scores from Gtown's current 4 year players.. At this point Johnson hasn't lived up to his grading, unfortunately Mosely seems to be tracking that way too. Govan & Derrickson are playing to their grades though, too early to tell for Pickett & Walker Govan - 85 Derrickson - 82 Johnson -81 Mosely -80 Pickett - 83 Walker - 80 Blair didn't have a grade.. Here's the 2018 class.. LeBlanc - 82 Carter - 81 McClung - 79 www.espn.com/college-sports/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=263951490-100: High-major plus prospect (5 stars) Player demonstrates rare abilities. He should have an immediate impact at a national program with the potential for early entry into the NBA. 85-89: High-major prospect (4 stars) Player is the centerpiece to a high-major program who starts three to four years. 80-84: High-major minus prospect (4 stars) Player has the potential to significantly contribute to a high-major program over four years. 70-79: Mid-major plus prospect (3 stars) Player is a fringe high-major recruit who contributes or a standout mid-level recruit.
|
|
mdtd
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,567
|
Post by mdtd on Mar 5, 2018 20:16:18 GMT -5
Regarding Copeland, when we played in Miami against La Salle I was told that JT3 asked him to go in the game and he just said "no." He stopped trying and just was not apart of the team his third year. The offense clearly did not fit his play style. Remember, according to the recruiting rankings, he's a pro player now. There has to be multiple reasons on why he didn't succeed.
|
|
EtomicB
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 14,962
|
Post by EtomicB on Jun 2, 2018 10:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by michaelgrahmstylie on Jun 2, 2018 12:15:44 GMT -5
Don't worry, Big Pat's philosophy already.
|
|
hoyainla
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Suspended
Posts: 4,719
|
Post by hoyainla on May 21, 2020 15:09:24 GMT -5
Since I just went through and put together this list I am bumping this thread with all the Top 140 HS guys signed in the BE since 2016. Yes rankings aren't perfect but they are still a great indicator. The one recent great player that wasn't a transfer and isn't on this list is Baldwin and he was 155.
2016 Brendan Bailey 92 Sam Hauser 83 Markus Howard 68 Shamorie Ponds 45 Richard Freudenberg 109 Quentin Goodin 78 Tyrique Jones 105 Omari Spellman 20 Maliek White 127 Alpha Diallo 117 Joey Brunk 107 Myles Powell 81
2017 Paul Scruggs 34 Naji Marshall 58 Makai Ashton-Langford 41 Nate Watson 100 Jacob Epperson 77 Mitchell Ballock 94 Ty-Shon Alexander 113 Jermaine Samuels 46 Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree 97 Jamarko Pickett 76 Myles Cale 92
2018 Jahvon Quinerly 29 Cole Swider 44 Brandon Slater 53 Saddiq Bey 137 David Duke 47 A.J. Reeves 48 James Akinjo 90 Josh LeBlanc 122 Marcus Zegarowski 110 Joey Hauser 52
2019 Jeremiah Robinson-Earl 16 Bryan Antoine 17 Justin Moore 57 Eric Dixon 71 KyKy Tandy 89 Dahmir Bishop 119 Zach Freemantle 134 Romeo Weems 62 Qudus Wahab 136 Symir Torrence 75 Khalif Battle 99 Greg Gantt 67
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 16:10:36 GMT -5
Just a quick observation but I'm looking at this and I see a lot of lower ranked players who outplayed higher ranked players. The best three players for 2018 are the three lowest listed. Top 2 guys really haven't done much.
The best player for 2017 is the lowest ranked player listed. Best prospect from that class (Paul Reed) unranked. Gillespie 2nd team all Big East unranked. MAL, and Samuels not really killing it. Scruggs ok.
4 starters on the team that tied for 1st not listed. 4-5 of their top players/scorers not listed. The defensive player of the year (Gil) not listed.
Half of BE first team ranked 100+ coming in. All of the second team are 100+ players or unranked.
Within reason development and fit seem more important to me once you get passed the top 25 range.
|
|
daveg023
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 5,352
|
Post by daveg023 on May 22, 2020 5:33:32 GMT -5
Just a quick observation but I'm looking at this and I see a lot of lower ranked players who outplayed higher ranked players. The best three players for 2018 are the three lowest listed. Top 2 guys really haven't done much. The best player for 2017 is the lowest ranked player listed. Best prospect from that class (Paul Reed) unranked. Gillespie 2nd team all Big East unranked. MAL, and Samuels not really killing it. Scruggs ok. 4 starters on the team that tied for 1st not listed. 4-5 of their top players/scorers not listed. The defensive player of the year (Gil) not listed. Half of BE first team ranked 100+ coming in. All of the second team are 100+ players or unranked. Within reason development and fit seem more important to me once you get passed the top 25 range. ^^^ This Every year I go back and look at the Top 100 guys and the common theme is usually the Top 10-15 were can’t miss and now in the NBA. After that, guys ranked 35 and 125 were just as likely to pan out. I think part of that is it’s impossible to rank these guys objectively once you get past the surefire recruits. On the flip side, unranked guys often do not wind up being productive players more time than not. I think the rating sites are good at identifying Top talent and then distinguishing the cutoff to guys who can contribute at a high major (say rankings up to 200), but the actual rankings between 20-200 are really subjective and often proven to be wrong. That’s why I favor us targeting guys in the 75-125 range, as many have advocated for. But the caveat is we must also develop these guys once they get here. Similarly, I am ok if we want to round out a class on one flier of the unranked ilk (Igohefe, Harris, etc) but I don’t think we should be handing out more than one scholarship a year to these players. Unfortunately the trend here is increasing as we miss out on other priority candidates.
|
|
LCPolo18
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,406
|
Post by LCPolo18 on May 22, 2020 8:18:39 GMT -5
Something else to watch for is how the new NCAA summer recruiting calendar affects how the recruiting sites evaluate players.
Traditionally the recruiting sites put a lot of emphasis on how players perform with their AAU teams. But with fewer AAU weekends/events, players will have fewer opportunities to be noticed. And with the new regional camps, players will be playing with their high school teams more, which recruiting sites have not focused on as much due to level of competition. Meanwhile, the new Top 100 camp only benefits the top 100 players, who have already pretty much established themselves.
So if a recruit is in the top 100, not much has changed. If a recruit is outside of the top 100, it might be harder to get noticed by recruiting sites for rankings unless the recruiting sites devote more resources to the high school seasons and regional camps. Tyler Beard is an example of this. I’m not saying he necessarily should be ranked higher, but he had to have a pretty impressive high school season to get back up to the 140 range after a disappointing AAU season last summer.
College coaches will also need to be more effective at identifying talent from high school teams. So maybe in the future, the definition of a “100-200 ranked player” will change to be “top high school team performers”.
All of this could be even more true with the summer recruiting being more disrupted this year due to the pandemic.
|
|