New ESPN rankings

[xu15]

So the new ESPN 100 is out. Sim is up to number 84 and ranked a 93.
Not sure why those geniuses ranked Christon a 94 (and a 4 star) yet still forgot to put him in the new 100.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/index

[xu15]

Also, they upped Myles Davis to a 3 star and rated him as an 89.

[xufan02]

Sim and Davis are the only players in the 2012 class that would be eligible for the ESPN rankings. Reynolds, Farr, and Christon are all 2011 class members that re-classified and are taking a prep year and according to ESPN don't fall in the 2012 class. They are considered Post grads.

I expected Sim to be there and he was. Congrats to him.

[JimmyTwoTimes37]

Sim and Davis are the only players in the 2012 class that would be eligible for the ESPN rankings. Reynolds, Farr, and Christon are all 2011 class members that re-classified and are taking a prep year and according to ESPN don't fall in the 2012 class. They are considered Post grads.

I expected Sim to be there and he was. Congrats to him.

From what I've been reading, the way Sim played in that Adidas final tourney against Tony Parker (6'10" 255pounds - #7 center in the country) really opened some eyes. The improvement in his conditioning and his aggressiveness have improved leaps and bounds.

His passing and his hands have always been great for his size. What's scary is that he is just scratching the surface.

[XUFan09]

Sim and Davis are the only players in the 2012 class that would be eligible for the ESPN rankings. Reynolds, Farr, and Christon are all 2011 class members that re-classified and are taking a prep year and according to ESPN don't fall in the 2012 class. They are considered Post grads.

I expected Sim to be there and he was. Congrats to him.

With how common re-classifying has become these days, I think they need to change this to include prep players. The players still come in as college freshmen with four years of eligibility.

[XUFan09]

Also, they upped Myles Davis to a 3 star and rated him as an 89.

They also dropped Reynolds (inexplicably) to an 89 from a 91 and Farr to an 87 from an 89 :(

I can understand a recent drop for Farr, considering it was tough for him to get playing time or even get the ball when he was in playing for his new AAU team Indiana Elite. Reynolds just doesn't make sense.

[xu15]

They also dropped Reynolds (inexplicably) to an 89 from a 91 and Farr to an 87 from an 89 :(

I can understand a recent drop for Farr, considering it was tough for him to get playing time or even get the ball when he was in playing for his new AAU team Indiana Elite. Reynolds just doesn't make sense.

Less viewings means a rankings drop sometimes unfortunately.

[X-band '01]

We all know espn is the be all end all of rankings.

It's funny how newspapers never innundate us with rankings and power polls for CBSSports.com and Yahoo Sports.

I'd repost this in the pet peeves thread but I've already made that contribution. Rankings just make for lazier journalism.

[xtremefan13]

class is ranked 10th in the country tho!

[A10fan]

ESPN just reclassified again and X moves back up to #14.

ESPN TOP25 (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/classrankings?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb %2frecruiting%2fclassrankings)

[nkymuskie]

Mitch McGary drops from #2 to #21. Ouch.

Torian Graham drops from #38 to #83.

Ouch.

[UCGRAD4X]

ESPN just reclassified again and X moves back up to #14.

ESPN TOP25 (http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/classrankings?&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb %2frecruiting%2fclassrankings)

It says that none of the recruits are top 100. Is that correct and how can we have the 14th ranked class with nobody in the top 100?

[xu15]

It says that none of the recruits are top 100. Is that correct and how can we have the 14th ranked class with nobody in the top 100?

Three of them are post grads (don't get included in that 100), but are still two 4 stars and a 3 star. Davis is a 4 star and is just outside that top 100 (he is graded a 92, which is the same grade as the last 15 or so players in the top 100).

[ArizonaXUGrad]

Go to scout, they include everyone and from what I hear on other boards they are a lot more accurate.

[Masterofreality]

I really don't give a crap.

Rankings are made by guys who A) Either are failed coaches- for a reason. B) Guys who have somehow made themselves into "experts" by spending their entire lives in gyms watching undisciplined AAU basketball and writing about it. They never coached, probably never played, never go to watch a kid's practice with a real team and somehow, because they write a lot, got some gig with ESPN, Scout or Rivals. 90% of this stuff is BS and based upon a kid's raw physique and "athleticsm". Basketball IQ is way down the list.

I prefer, as winning coaches do, to watch kids play, not only in real HS games, but also in practice to see what the kid's practice habits are. You see a lot beyond the flash and statistics. How do they handle adversity? How do they react in crunch time? How do they interact with their coach? How do they react when the coach challenges them? Do they sell out on defense? Do they box out, share the ball, take charges, compete on the boards and read the defense?

Want an example? Aaric Murray is the poster boy. Top 10 recruit to LaSuck. Was a team wrecker and only wanted to shoot 3's. Left. LaSuck is way better without him.

Screw the rankings.

[UCGRAD4X]

Screw the rankings.

1. I try to take all of this with a huge block of salt...but I can't help myself.

2. True, it seems like there are as many unranked players who do well and highly rated busts.

3. In general, players are (pretty much) complete unknowns until they contribute in a regular season D1 game.

4. 'Fit' is as important, maybe more so at X, as talent...but talent sure helps.

5. ESPN is only reliable to report what is in their best interest to report. It is a business, after all.

That being said, what is a reasonably reliable source for this information about recruits?

[Juice]

I really don't give a crap.

Rankings are made by guys who A) Either are failed coaches- for a reason. B) Guys who have somehow made themselves into "experts" by spending their entire lives in gyms watching undisciplined AAU basketball and writing about it. They never coached, probably never played, never go to watch a kid's practice with a real team and somehow, because they write a lot, got some gig with ESPN, Scout or Rivals. 90% of this stuff is BS and based upon a kid's raw physique and "athleticsm". Basketball IQ is way down the list.

I prefer, as winning coaches do, to watch kids play, not only in real HS games, but also in practice to see what the kid's practice habits are. You see a lot beyond the flash and statistics. How do they handle adversity? How do they react in crunch time? How do they interact with their coach? How do they react when the coach challenges them? Do they sell out on defense? Do they box out, share the ball, take charges, compete on the boards and read the defense?

Want an example? Aaric Murray is the poster boy. Top 10 recruit to LaSuck. Was a team wrecker and only wanted to shoot 3's. Left. LaSuck is way better without him.

Screw the rankings.

I share some of your views but the guys from those sites do go to a ton of normal high school games, not simply the AAU games.

[Masterofreality]

I share some of your views but the guys from those sites do go to a ton of normal high school games, not simply the AAU games.

However, the primary time when these "rankings" are developed is at AAU tournaments in the spring and summer. That is where all the kids are at one time so the "experts" see a bunch of them at once- and most of the time they see them only 3 or 4 times.

When the high school season starts, all the players are spread out all over the country, so most of these guys only go to the games where their "Top Ranked" players are playing, so perpetuating their tunnell vision.

[MADXSTER]

Sometimes it's hard to judge kids when they play HS ball. A kid can be very dominating but playing inferior talent. That is why the AAU games are so important for judging purposes. It's not an exact science.

A lot of these kids fall under the radar because they don't play AAU like Anthony Davis. From obscurity to top 5 recruit.

[Masterofreality]

A lot of these kids fall under the radar because they don't play AAU like Anthony Davis. From obscurity to top 5 recruit.

Thus proving my point.

[Juice]

Sometimes it's hard to judge kids when they play HS ball. A kid can be very dominating but playing inferior talent. That is why the AAU games are so important for judging purposes. It's not an exact science.

A lot of these kids fall under the radar because they don't play AAU like Anthony Davis. From obscurity to top 5 recruit.

His rise in the rankings could also be attributed to growing about 8 inches in high school and becoming a completely different player.

[DoubleD86]

I really don't give a crap.

Rankings are made by guys who A) Either are failed coaches- for a reason. B) Guys who have somehow made themselves into "experts" by spending their entire lives in gyms watching undisciplined AAU basketball and writing about it. They never coached, probably never played, never go to watch a kid's practice with a real team and somehow, because they write a lot, got some gig with ESPN, Scout or Rivals. 90% of this stuff is BS and based upon a kid's raw physique and "athleticsm". Basketball IQ is way down the list.

I prefer, as winning coaches do, to watch kids play, not only in real HS games, but also in practice to see what the kid's practice habits are. You see a lot beyond the flash and statistics. How do they handle adversity? How do they react in crunch time? How do they interact with their coach? How do they react when the coach challenges them? Do they sell out on defense? Do they box out, share the ball, take charges, compete on the boards and read the defense?

Want an example? Aaric Murray is the poster boy. Top 10 recruit to LaSuck. Was a team wrecker and only wanted to shoot 3's. Left. LaSuck is way better without him.

Screw the rankings.

This is ridiculous. I love how people use one or two examples to discredit rankings. I'll counter Aaric Murray with examples of top 5 recruits who went on to be best in the country. The hits are MUCH more numerous than the misses.

Plus, everything you said you want to see, writers get to see at AAU tournaments. You can see how they handle adversity, how they react in crunch time, how they interact with coaches (and teammates and refs), how they react when the coach challenges them, how they play defense, box out, share the ball, etc. etc. etc.

These people get to the positions they are because they are good at what they do. They watch basketball ALL THE TIME. They get to know the kids and the families. To discredit their work is ridiculous.

Obviously you can't use rankings as the end all be all, but to discredit them completely is unfair. Also, please tell me how much high school and AAU ball you watch personally? How often do you watch recruits practice? By your own standards, you are not entitled to an opinion on any prospect.

[XUFan09]

This is ridiculous. I love how people use one or two examples to discredit rankings. I'll counter Aaric Murray with examples of top 5 recruits who went on to be best in the country. The hits are MUCH more numerous than the misses.

Plus, everything you said you want to see, writers get to see at AAU tournaments. You can see how they handle adversity, how they react in crunch time, how they interact with coaches (and teammates and refs), how they react when the coach challenges them, how they play defense, box out, share the ball, etc. etc. etc.

These people get to the positions they are because they are good at what they do. They watch basketball ALL THE TIME. They get to know the kids and the families. To discredit their work is ridiculous.

Obviously you can't use rankings as the end all be all, but to discredit them completely is unfair. Also, please tell me how much high school and AAU ball you watch personally? How often do you watch recruits practice? By your own standards, you are not entitled to an opinion on any prospect.

But no, 86, the rankings are flawed, so the only solution is for them to be completely abolished!

[Masterofreality]

Obviously you can't use rankings as the end all be all, but to discredit them completely is unfair. Also, please tell me how much high school and AAU ball you watch personally? How often do you watch recruits practice? By your own standards, you are not entitled to an opinion on any prospect.

Since you asked.

A) I played high school basketball for Father Ryan HS in Nashville, Tennessee
B) I head coached scholastic basketball for 20 years at various levels. I have over 300 wins.
C) I have two nephews that played very high level high school basketball, played AAU ball and played D1 and D2 basketball- one at Marist and one at Seton Hill in PA.
D) I've been to plenty of high school practices, was involved with some, and sat in way too many gyms in the spring and summer when I should have been playing golf.
E) I see high school basketball games at least twice a week. Thank Gawd I don't have to go watch AAU anymore.
F)I've seen the dirty way that AAU basketball is run- by the shoe companies who have influence on rankings and where players go- and by the alleged "coaches" who have their hands out while "helping" their players.
G) I've seen plenty of the pasty faced "recruiting gurus" in those AAU gyms, watched them munch on their hot dogs, seen their physique and know that they never, ever played the game at any level.
H) I've seen rankings. Some are accurate. Most are speculation. Many are influenced by the media employer of the "expert" who wants their contracted conferences player recruits to be ranked higher so they can fawn all over them in a national forum. A group of them are set by friendships between the recruiting "expert" and the college coach so he can keep the braying alumni at bay by pointing out what a great recruiting class he has coming in.

There are your answers. No, I don't coach now- I stopped 2 years ago- and my last nephew is a Senior in college so I am not as "connected" as I used to be, but I've seen plenty to know how off base these things are. By the way. I haven't offered an opinion on any prospect, just my knowledge of how F-ed up these supposed "rankings" are.

You want to go overboard on rankings? Be my guest, but those who are wise take them with a huge grain of salt.

[DoubleD86]

Since you asked.
A) I played high school basketball for Father Ryan HS in Nashville, Tennessee
B) I head coached scholastic basketball for 20 years at various levels. I have over 300 wins.
C) I have two nephews that played very high level high school basketball, played AAU ball and played D1 and D2 basketball- one at Marist and one at Seton Hill in PA.
D) I've been to plenty of high school practices, was involved with some, and sat in way too many gyms in the spring and summer when I should have been playing golf.
E) I see high school basketball games at least twice a week. Thank Gawd I don't have to go watch AAU anymore.
F)I've seen the dirty way that AAU basketball is run- by the shoe companies who have influence on rankings and where players go- and by the alleged "coaches" who have their hands out while "helping" their players.
G) I've seen plenty of the pasty faced "recruiting gurus" in those AAU gyms, watched them munch on their hot dogs, seen their physique and know that they never, ever played the game at any level.
H) I've seen rankings. Some are accurate. Most are speculation. Many are influenced by the media employer of the "expert" who wants their contracted conferences player recruits to be ranked higher so they can fawn all over them in a national forum. A group of them are set by friendships between the recruiting "expert" and the college coach so he can keep the braying alumni at bay by pointing out what a great recruiting class he has coming in.

There are your answers. No, I don't coach now- I stopped 2 years ago- and my last nephew is a Senior in college so I am not as "connected" as I used to be, but I've seen plenty to know how off base these things are. By the way. I haven't offered an opinion on any prospect, just my knowledge of how F-ed up these supposed "rankings" are.

You want to go overboard on rankings? Be my guest, but those who are wise take them with a huge grain of salt.

No one said anything about going overboard on rankings. I just said you can't just ignore them because (and yes it almost always is because) you disagree with the ranking on a certain prospect. That was an impressive list you offered. Too bad only 1 or 2 even apply to this discussion. Let's dissect:

A) I played HS basketball as well, doesn't mean anything. I still have seen 0 prospects in the top 100 play live. Also, I am fat and out of shape but apparently to you that means you can tell I never played the game. This point means nothing in this discussion.

B) Honestly, awesome to hear you have 300 wins. I mean that sincerely. Unfortunately, still no prevalence to our discussion at all.

C) Once again, sincerely, awesome that your nephews have had success and gotten to enjoy basketball at such a high level. Still same problem, no relevance to our discussion.

D) Those high school practices, are those ones you coached? Were you there scouting players or were they just your teams or your nephews teams? The answer to that means a ton. However, unless you have seen the players in discussion in the rankings, how many practices you have seen is still irrelevant.

E) I am willing to bet you watch the same high schools in the same region play twice a week. While that is good (and better than most who challenge rankings) it still does not give you any comparison to the rest of the prospects being discussed in the rankings. These gurus watch high school and AAU games all across the country all year long. Also, as a side point. Why do people believe HS is somehow a better indicator than AAU? The stereotype of HS = structured real basketball and AAU = street ball aside, AAU is much more likely to match up similarly skilled players and teams. Do you learn anything watching one prospect play against a bunch of non-prospect HS players. I played against OJ Mayo and Bill Walker in HS. I can guarantee you that nobody learned anything about those two watching their games in our HS season.

F) An attack on AAU. Nice. What is your point? That has nothing to do with whether or not gurus or rankings are worth following.

G) The best argument of all. The argument constantly used against every sports analyst or expert in the history of time. That guy doesn't know what he is talking about because he is a fat out of shape white guy. How can someone who didn't play high level sports know anything about sports? Clearly the only pre-requisite to being able to analyze or know sports is playing at a high level. That is why our best analysts are the ex-player analysts right? What level designates playing high enough to be qualified for you MOR? Belicheck played football for a Division III school to keep in shape for his good sport, Lacrosse. Yet somehow he has managed to become a great coach.

Some of the best players don't know how to teach or analyze the sport because it came so easy to them they never had to truly learn that game. What is the saying "those that can do and those that can't teach." While meant to be an insult often, it is true in that those without natural ability but still have that passion tend to pour themselves into the sport learning the game as best as possible. To stereotype rankings guys based on their looks is wrong in general, but even if they didn't play to a level that appeases you, that has no impact on their ability to see, evaluate, and rank players.

[Masterofreality]

Whatever, dude.

I've probably been in gyms for more hours than you've been alive.

Whatever. I've established my credentials.

Believe what you want.

[Titanxman04]

Whatever, dude.

I've probably been in gyms for more hours than you've been alive.

Whatever. I've established my credentials.

Believe what you want.

MOR is also a gentleman and a scholar...and if you're lucky, that tall SOB will buy you a beer or two.

[SixFig]

Whatever, dude.

I've probably been in gyms for more hours than you've been alive.

Whatever. I've established my credentials.

Believe what you want.

This reminds me of that dude who called into the Chris Mack Show this week and established his "credentials" because he played decades ago for some unnamed "genius" coach. He then proceeded to embarrass himself talking about defending ball screens and attacking Mack's strategy.

Playing the game doesn't mean you know the game.

[XUFan09]

Whatever, dude.

I've probably been in gyms for more hours than you've been alive.

Whatever. I've established my credentials.

Believe what you want.

I think this is MoR's version of the concession that he doesn't have a counter-argument.

[Masterofreality]

Lebron James was ranked #1 in the 2002-2003 High School class.

Ok. They got one right. props.

Jimmer Fredette had a scout score of 79 and was ranked NOWHERE. That is N-O-W-H-E-R-E in 2007.

Uh. I think they may have missed.

Believe what you want.

[paulxu]

MOR is also a gentleman and a scholar...and if you're lucky, that tall SOB will buy you a beer or two.

This is very true. Which reminds me, I think he owes me drink from last year's (and this year's) Charlotte game.
Come to think of it, don't you owe me drink too Titan?

Bunch of welchers.

[Muskie in dayton]

Three words about recruiting rankings: David Freakin' West.
Three words about David Freakin' West's recruiting rankings: Unheralded, unranked, unknown.
Three words about David West's career: All-American, Stud, NBA.
Three reasons not to care about "high ranked" recruites: Brien Hanley, Erik Edwards, Churchill Odia.
Three reasons not to discount unheard of recruits: Tyrone Hill, Brian Grant, Jason Love.

I gotta go with MOR on this one, three-times over.

[DoubleD86]

Whatever, dude.

I've probably been in gyms for more hours than you've been alive.

Whatever. I've established my credentials.

Believe what you want.

You may very well have spent more time in gyms than I have been alive and you have established your credentials. The problem is this discussion was never about your credentials, but the recruiting writers. You keep arguing around the point, but never to the point.

And since we want to cherry pick a couple of misses, lets count hits:
2011 Top 5: Austin Rivers, Anthony Davis, Michael Kidd-Gilchrist, Brad Beal, Marquis Teague. All studs as freshman

2010 Top 5: Josh Selby, Harrison Barnes, (Enes Kanter not counting) Kyrie Irving, Jared Sullinger, Brandon Knight. Could call Selby a miss, the other 4 studs.

2009 Top 5: John Wall, Demarcus Cousins, Derrick Favors, Avery Bradley, John Henson. Three lottery picks, a first round pick, and one of the better big men in the country.

[XUFan09]

I loved the continued citation of exceptions and the continued strawmanning of those who disagree as just religiously following rankings. It's just missing the point. Obviously rankings aren't perfect. No one is saying that they are. They're gonna miss players, they're gonna pick busts, but they're also going to frequently be pretty good. So many people are setting up false dichotomies.

[DoubleD86]

MOR is also a gentleman and a scholar...and if you're lucky, that tall SOB will buy you a beer or two.

I don't doubt his gentlemanliness or scholarlyness. I also enjoy most of MORs posts. Just think he is way off on this and his "arguments" to support his point have had nothing to do with his original point.

[Muskie in dayton]

I loved the continued citation of exceptions and the continued strawmanning of those who disagree as just religiously following rankings. It's just missing the point. Obviously rankings aren't perfect. No one is saying that they are. They're gonna miss players, they're gonna pick busts, but they're also going to frequently be pretty good. So many people are setting up false dichotomies.

Exactly the point. Why put so much stake in someting so imperfect? Rank 'em what you want. In Mack I trust.

[XUFan09]

Exactly the point. Why put so much stake in someting so imperfect? Rank 'em what you want. In Mack I trust.

Except it's not so imperfect. It's pretty good the majority of the time at giving an idea of how a player is going to produce. Think of it as a range. A top 50 guy, for example, should be decent to good in his first year (partly depending on roster depth) but may have some growing pains. It varies by position (i.e. PGs and bigs take a little longer to adjust on average) and by the rationale for ranking him there (i.e. immediate contributor vs. major upside and everything in between). By his sophomore year, the top 50 guy is generally expected to be a significant contributor (Frease, for example, would have been in his sophomore year probably, if not for off-season neglect in his first summer. He just postponed it a year).

Take Dee Davis for example: Ranked on the edge of the top 100 (I don't remember if he finished there, but if he didn't he was in the discussion). As a freshman, he appears to be contributing as a borderline top 100 prospect usually should, with the potential to improve. Take a look at the top players of recent years that DoubleD86 posted; they've generally proven their worth.

[Masterofreality]

I think this is MoR's version of the concession that he doesn't have a counter-argument.

Oh, I got plenty. Just that I don't have time to sit and write a post for an hour.

Last one, and I'm done.

Notre Dame football recruiting rankings- always Top 10. Notes Dame football- never Top 10.

Like I said. Believe what you want. Even a monkey can get 90% of the top 5 players right. That's a reeeeeeeeeeeeeal tough call. After that, though, it's a crapshoot, and there is no guarantee that your "TEAM" will be on top. Lot of variables.

Done and done.

[DoubleD86]

Exactly the point. Why put so much stake in someting so imperfect? Rank 'em what you want. In Mack I trust.

The post right after yours responding is my basic thoughts. Its good enough to use as a source of information and a starting point.

You say rank 'em what you want, but I have seen 1 high school game this year. How am I supposed to rank anyone from that 1 game? I have absolutely no clue about any of the prospects. Therefore, like I do in most aspects of life, I use information and opinion of experts to give me a guide and go from there.

Look, I am not saying rankings need to be obsessed over or are the end all be all. MOR is absolutely right in saying that rankings are a piece of the pie that leads to success. I enjoy recruiting because I am a humongous nerd and there is no amount of sports information that is too much. However, I have no emotional connection to the rankings. Where players are ranked doesn't affect my day one bit. For me it is just another set of information to follow and I focus much more on the commentary and scouting reports of these gurus than the rankings. I also like when X recruits well just like I prefer when the Reds or Bengals draft well. It is a fun way to look into the future.

I just don't get the "screw the rankings" outlook. Although to give MOR credit, I have looked back at some of his posts and he genuinely seems to not care about rankings. Too many, I find, love the rankings until it doesn't tell them what they want to hear and then they attack. That I have no respect for. MOR just genuinely doesn't care. That I can respect.

[XUFan09]

Oh, I got plenty. Just that I don't have time to sit and write a post for an hour.

Last one, and I'm done.

Notre Dame football recruiting rankings- always Top 10. Notes Dame football- never Top 10.

Like I said. Believe what you want. Even a monkey can get 90% of the top 5 players right. That's a reeeeeeeeeeeeeal tough call. After that, though, it's a crapshoot, and there is no guarantee that your "TEAM" will be on top. Lot of variables.

Done and done.

That was more a product of Charlie Weiss' coaching.

[LA Muskie]

Player rankings have value. They insure against some risk and trim the talent pool to a more manageable group.

By analogy, the large firm I once worked for would recruited almost exclusively from the top third of top 20 law schools. The recruiting chair would be the first to admit that they were missing out on plenty of talent by applying such a policy. But it was justified by two factors: (i) the odds of a flame-out from that talent pool were much, much lower; and (ii) it minimized the time and expense of recruiting from a broader pool.

I don't think any coach recruits to the rankings. The rankings may help them sift through the options, but in the end the staffs have to make their own judgments -- and they always do.

As for class ratings, that's just a creation of the media. If a program is in the Top 20, they will take it as a source of pride even if they know that it is fundamentally flawed. If the program does not make the cut, it will cut holes in the methodology even though they'd be touting the rankings if they were in.

In other words, class ratings are no different than just about every other ranking system.

[X-TACY]

I tweeted Dave Telep (who puts this ranking together) about Semaj and the updated rankings last week. His response:

"was in Top100 year before. We give you one chance in 100. He would have been top 35."

That's good enough for me.

[paulxu]

Continuing to be confused by Scout's upgrading Semaj, and knowing what the rest of our class looks like which has ESPN ranking the class #14, I emailed Snow and Daniels about why our class wasn't in their Top 25.

They were both kind enough to respond and said they hadn't updated their team rankings yet (even though they show to be updated on Feb 1st.). I suspect we'll crack their top 25 when they do the update.

[XUFan09]

As for class ratings, that's just a creation of the media. If a program is in the Top 20, they will take it as a source of pride even if they know that it is fundamentally flawed. If the program does not make the cut, it will cut holes in the methodology even though they'd be touting the rankings if they were in.


I think the class ratings are pretty bad, though there is some correlation between class ranking and team success. It's weird when a team gets ranked for having one top 100 kid along with a bunch of unranked guys. Grats for needing to fill a number of roster spots?

[Masterofreality]

That was more a product of Charlie Weiss' coaching.

Ok, sorry, but one last one.

While this is football, USA Today had a recap of the 3 major recruiting ranking services and how they ranked the incoming 2008 class. Then they showed the actual 2011 results- four years later.

Result. 9 out of the projected best 10 classes appeared no where in the final Top 10 of the season rankings. Only Alabama did. Notre Dame, for the record had the #2 ranked class. I believe that the genius Brian Kelly is now the coach. They were not in the Top 20 final poll.

While there are many reasons, and maybe the following classes were derelict, there was little correlation to a class rank to the final result.

And, no. I really don't care about individual player rankings. I look for other small things when I watch a player play. Those tell me how valuable he really is to a team succcess. And, after all. Isn't what the team does the real rank at the end?

In the commercial words of Brady Quinn: "Now I'm Done".

[xu95]

Ok, sorry, but one last one.

While this is football, USA Today had a recap of the 3 major recruiting ranking services and how they ranked the incoming 2008 class. Then they showed the actual 2011 results- four years later.

Result. 9 out of the projected best 10 classes appeared no where in the final Top 10 of the season rankings. Only Alabama did. Notre Dame, for the record had the #2 ranked class. I believe that the genius Brian Kelly is now the coach. They were not in the Top 20 final poll.

While there are many reasons, and maybe the following classes were derelict, there was little correlation to a class rank to the final result.

And, no. I really don't care about individual player rankings. I look for other small things when I watch a player play. Those tell me how valuable he really is to a team succcess. And, after all. Isn't what the team does the real rank at the end?

In the commercial words of Brady Quinn: "Now I'm Done".

Since we are talking football, Alabama has had the top class pretty consistently since Saban has come on board. I believe there is a direct correlation to that and two national championships in three years.

Now back to basketball, I believe that the Top 25 (around 25, could be 30 some years) pretty much stand above everyone else, but from there to about 150-200, there really isn't that much of a difference.

xu95

[DoubleD86]

Ok, sorry, but one last one.

While this is football, USA Today had a recap of the 3 major recruiting ranking services and how they ranked the incoming 2008 class. Then they showed the actual 2011 results- four years later.

Result. 9 out of the projected best 10 classes appeared no where in the final Top 10 of the season rankings. Only Alabama did. Notre Dame, for the record had the #2 ranked class. I believe that the genius Brian Kelly is now the coach. They were not in the Top 20 final poll.

While there are many reasons, and maybe the following classes were derelict, there was little correlation to a class rank to the final result.

And, no. I really don't care about individual player rankings. I look for other small things when I watch a player play. Those tell me how valuable he really is to a team succcess. And, after all. Isn't what the team does the real rank at the end?

In the commercial words of Brady Quinn: "Now I'm Done".

I swear I am not trying to argue with you specifically, but that study is flawed. It looked at one class and yet judged the team of four classes. Other than that #2 class Notre Dame has been around #15-#20 in Rivals team rankings each year since 2008. The #2 class, + three slightly above average classes + a couple of misses or prospects who don't become as good as you think = a slightly above average team.

FOLLOW UP - ND's rivals team rankings since 2008: 2008 #2, 2009 #21, 2010 #14, 2011 #10. Plus, from that #2 class Kyle Rudolph left early for the NFL thus removing the highest rated recruit from that #2 class.

[DoubleD86]

Now back to basketball, I believe that the Top 25 (around 25, could be 30 some years) pretty much stand above everyone else, but from there to about 150-200, there really isn't that much of a difference.

xu95

I agree with this to an extent. I use the rankings as rough tiers:
1-5 or 10 are my elite of the elite.
5/10-25/30 are the great players.
25/30 - 50/60 are the very good and should be stars.
50/60-75/85 are the player who should be really good but may not be instant impact.
After about 85 - 100/125 I think they are very similar players with a couple of holes but some obvious strengths. A lot will depend on coaching and player.
125-200 (3* roughly) or so are players who should be role players and will help out a team but probably not become stars and probably take a while (all with an assumption they are going to a major team)

[nkymuskie]

This is a silly argument. The analysts make the lists. There are hits and there are misses. It happens. Generally the higher ranked the recruit, the fewer misses.

A lot of time when there are misses its not due to talent, but some other outside factors ie coaching, coaching changes, legal trouble, the wrong people in the recruits ear,

No one is perfect so no list is going to be flawless. You have to trust your coaches evaluation abilities above everyone else though. Would I prefer a top 30 prospect? Only if Mack has evaluated him and think he is a good fit. Would I want a 3 star recruit on no lists? If Mack wants him, then I absolutely trust in Mack.

In the end rankings are just something nice for fans to try and follow the prospects the coaches are looking at.

[AdamtheFlyer]

This is a good discussion. I think people are missing MOR's point. Recruit rankings are fine, but when you look at it from a team building perspective, they are overrated. I'm much younger than him and have never coached, but I do study the game at the HS and college levels. I learned the game from a man who was regarded as the best HS player in Ohio in his class, played at OSU, and has over 20 years of experience with nearly 300 wins at a public school who has had no D1 players in his tenure. The guy is one of the best teachers of the game in not only Ohio, but the country.

I have friends in the HS hoops "industry" and watch dozens of games each year. MOR's point rings true all the time. You see a kid who is highly regarded, and he does nothing to show he can be successful at the next level. Sure enough, that kid isn't successful in college. The most prime example I can give is Griffen Mckenzie. I didn't see it when I watched him, nor did I talk to a single person who bought into his game when he was at Moeller. But yet, he rose from near obscurity to borderline top 100 in the rankings because he had 2 good weekends in July before his senior year.

Why? Because the folks who do the rankings often times rank stories and not players. A kid playing well for a month and gaining a bit of interest is a story they can sell. They aren't ranking how a kid understands defensive rotations and positioning. They don't rank a PGs ability to understand passing angles into the post. If a guard gets to the rim a lot, he is "lightning quick"...when often times he's simply facing subpar athletes or good athletes who don't yet know how to move their feet defensively. Projecting how a kid will do when he's not just a man among boys is not as scientific as people think. There are very real, very telling signs.

They rank based on made shots, fancy passes, number of college coaches in the crowd, and number of subscriptions they can sell with scoops. That is a dangerous game. Saw a kid a few weeks ago, ranked in the top 60 and signed to Houston. He could score over HS kids, but he's 6'9" and weighs 170 lbs at most, and he's completely lost on both sides of the floor. Has no idea how to play basketball. His chances at overall success are pretty slim.

Under the radar guys develop into successful players because they do know the game. Take Jason Love. Not highly regarded because he had poor hands and was kinda fat, but he knew the game. As his coordination improvedand the baby fat burned off, he became an all-A10 caliber player because he knew how to use the tools even before he had them. The same thing is happening for Matt Kavanaugh at Dayton. The signs of him being successful in college were always there. The switch was going to flip on sooner or later.

[GIMMFD]

To switch things up a bit, do you think if we get Torian Graham (I have a weird feeling in my stomach that he's going to come to Xavier) that we'll break into the top 10 for recruiting classes?

[xavierj]

I think the class very well could be top 10 if they landed Graham. I would also expect them to add at least 1 maybe 2 juco's to balance out the classes that lost basically the entire class. If I had to guess I would say we lose 3 more guys off this years roster and replace them with a high school player and 2 juco's, most likely being big men and who can shoot the 3 a little. Xavier needs a pick and pop guy.

[xu15]

I think the class very well could be top 10 if they landed Graham. I would also expect them to add at least 1 maybe 2 juco's to balance out the classes that lost basically the entire class. If I had to guess I would say we lose 3 more guys off this years roster and replace them with a high school player and 2 juco's, most likely being big men and who can shoot the 3 a little. Xavier needs a pick and pop guy.

I would guess 2, not 3 leave this year. But I get where you're coming from. Are there any good juco's available?

Also, if we get Graham, do you see a four guard set in our future within two years? It might work out that way...not that that's good or bad.

[xavierj]

I would guess 2, not 3 leave this year. But I get where you're coming from. Are there any good juco's available?

Also, if we get Graham, do you see a four guard set in our future within two years? It might work out that way...not that that's good or bad.

From what it seems like Graham is a big time scorer so you can put him at the 2 along with Semaj or Dee at the 1 and Dez the 3. I would guess that they would want a 4 man who can shoot the 3 and probably Jalen at the 5. So they could go 4 guard but if I had to guess Chris would rather have a big man to play the 4 (Farr) who can shoot and pick and pop along with Jalen at the 5.

[muskienick]

From what it seems like Graham is a big time scorer so you can put him at the 2 along with Semaj or Dee at the 1 and Dez the 3. I would guess that they would want a 4 man who can shoot the 3 and probably Jalen at the 5. So they could go 4 guard but if I had to guess Chris would rather have a big man to play the 4 (Farr) who can shoot and pick and pop along with Jalen at the 5.

Don't forget about Davis. From all appearances, he can hit threes from just about anywhere on the court and shows evidence of being able to penetrate well off the dribble also.

[boozehound]

The future is bright, but next year is going to be very interesting. Probably the lowest expectations we will have had in a while, but a lot of (young) talent.

[GIMMFD]

You don't think we'll get another big man that's a bruiser inside? I think there's a couple guys available and we should put in some time. Dez actually talked to me about Torian yesterday and said he's really really liking Xavier, and will probably end up here if nothing goes sour. It'll add some depth for next year. Boy we are going to be YOUNG.

[paulxu]

Scout brings us up to #16 with the re-ranking of Christon.
It Torian comes to X, what do you do with Myles Davis...and Mark if he stays. Would seem to be a lot of SG's. And what if Brad stays?
I am very confused.

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/1156470.html

[boozehound]

You don't think we'll get another big man that's a bruiser inside? I think there's a couple guys available and we should put in some time. Dez actually talked to me about Torian yesterday and said he's really really liking Xavier, and will probably end up here if nothing goes sour. It'll add some depth for next year. Boy we are going to be YOUNG.

There are worse things than having a core of young guys all develop together. You could end up with a group of guys who are extremely close and play very well together in a few years. I'm sure that we would like another decent big man, maybe a Juco, if one is available.


Scout brings us up to #16 with the re-ranking of Christon.
It Torian comes to X, what do you do with Myles Davis...and Mark if he stays. Would seem to be a lot of SG's. And what if Brad stays?
I am very confused.

http://scouthoops.scout.com/2/1156470.html

You find solutions for those kinds of problems. Personally I don't think that Mark is back next year so it will be a moot point. I don't know that for a fact, but that is just my theory. I also think that we will have at least one transfer, although I'm not sure who.

[xu95]

There is a 0% chance that Xavier passes on Graham if he wants to come here.

[tjb]

did we get a commitment from chris thomas? i know we were in his final 3 but someone told me he committed last nite. i havnt seen it anywhwere though. he is the #5 player overall in the 2013 class and #1 sg.


nevermind. i think he saw myles davis won mvp of a tourney and he was xu bound. he doesnt follow recruiting at all so doesnt know who davis was. it was on the news last nite i believe.

[xu15]

did we get a commitment from chris thomas? i know we were in his final 3 but someone told me he committed last nite. i havnt seen it anywhwere though. he is the #5 player overall in the 2013 class and #1 sg.

Highly doubt it. He is at a juco right now. Weird things have been happening with him. Doubt he committed last night and the whole world doesn't know about it.

[LA Muskie]

I think the class very well could be top 10 if they landed Graham. I would also expect them to add at least 1 maybe 2 juco's to balance out the classes that lost basically the entire class. If I had to guess I would say we lose 3 more guys off this years roster and replace them with a high school player and 2 juco's, most likely being big men and who can shoot the 3 a little. Xavier needs a pick and pop guy.
I doubt we'll see 2 JUCO's in one class. Mack himself is on record as saying that the pickings are usually very thin at the JUCO level, especially in terms of players who can jump in and play immediately. I don't disagree that we could use some more experienced players to even out the roster, but I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't take any JUCO's at all. Mack seems to prefer transfers even if they have to sit a year.

[ThePowerOfX]

He will have to spend 2 years at the Juco then will be instantly eligible wherever he goes and have 2 years of D1 Eligibility, at this point he can't commit to any college

[xavierj]

I doubt we'll see 2 JUCO's in one class. Mack himself is on record as saying that the pickings are usually very thin at the JUCO level, especially in terms of players who can jump in and play immediately. I don't disagree that we could use some more experienced players to even out the roster, but I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't take any JUCO's at all. Mack seems to prefer transfers even if they have to sit a year.

I would be shocked if Xavier does not get at least one Juco or a 4 or 5 man who can shoot that can play right away from another college. They will need one in a bad, bad way next year. Because of the some changes to prep school rules their seems to be more options at the juco level then in the past.

[xu15]

I would be shocked if Xavier does not get at least one Juco or a 4 or 5 man who can shoot that can play right away from another college. They will need one in a bad, bad way next year. Because of the some changes to prep school rules their seems to be more options at the juco level then in the past.

I hope so. We could REALLY use a Jae Crowder type player for next year.

[LA Muskie]

I would be shocked if Xavier does not get at least one Juco or a 4 or 5 man who can shoot that can play right away from another college. They will need one in a bad, bad way next year. Because of the some changes to prep school rules their seems to be more options at the juco level then in the past.
I agree we could use some older big bodies, so long as they could play at this level. I disagree that we'll see as many as 2 JUCO transfers. I could see 1, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it's 0.

[GoMuskies]

Hopefully Torraye Braggs has an equally crazy younger cousin in JUCO right now.

[boozehound]

I agree we could use some older big bodies, so long as they could play at this level. I disagree that we'll see as many as 2 JUCO transfers. I could see 1, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it's 0.

I agree. I don't want us to reach too far for a Juco if they can't play. I would rather give a promising freshman some playing time. We haven't taken a Juco in forever, there is no way we are going to bring in 2 this year, particularly with the kind of recruits we have coming in. I don't want crappy Juco's tying up roster spots that we could be giving to stud recruits.

Remember that we do have Philmore next year as well. I'm not sure what to expect from him (particularly after the Travis Taylor debacle this year) but he can hopefully provide us with another option in the front court.