2008 Recruiting Class

[Justin Cage]

Here is a link of what ESPN thinks of our recruits. We were ranked honorable mention in the top 25 poll for the 2008 class. UCLA was 1. If you click on the players name, it will give you a more in depth analysis on the individual player.

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/tracker/school?schoolId=2752&season=2008&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb %2frecruiting%2ftracker%2fschool%3fschoolId%3d2752 %26season%3d2008

[Juice]

Holloway got a lower ranking that I would have expected.

[X Factor]

I put absolutely ZERO stock in ESPN's recruiting coverage (ie. rankings, evaluations, etc.)

I'll stick with Rivals and Scout when it comes to recruiting.

They have Holloway listed as the 57th best PG in the '08 class! That's a joke right? And Redford as the 76th best PG? Ok. They don't even have Lyons rated.

If you check out their Top 150, there are huge differences compared to Rivals and Scout. They have guys that have reclassified to 2009 still in their '08 list. It says it's been updated 5/21/08, but it sure doesn't look like it.

I'll stick with Rivals who has Frease at 42, Holloway at 100 and Lyons at 102.

[Arnold Horshack]

The rivals rating system is a joke. Just look at it's historical accuracy.

[Araceli]

What are the "pressures" that a journalist has to support when writing/evaluating? I would suggest that this rating is just anouther example of the "pecking order" that many "under-cover" agents within the NCAA promote. Its a pile of crap and the "proof of the pudding" will be the slap on the hand that the "Maoists" will receive.

[kyxu]

The rivals rating system is a joke. Just look at it's historical accuracy.

I agree that too much stock is put into these things, but more often than not, they get it right. What are the glaring historical inaccuracies of which you speak?

[Smails]

The rivals rating system is a joke. Just look at it's historical accuracy.


Maybe true to an extent. But it's no coincidence that the programs that regularly win the Rivals recruiting rankings are consistently in the top 5 in their respective sports. In football, schools like OSU, LSU, Fla and USC have dominated the rivals rankings and that success has spliied over to the field. In hoops, UNC, Kansas, Memphis and Fla. are in the exact same boat.

While rivals and scout might miss the boat on certain individual players, there is always a strong connection between their recruiting rankings and the end of the year polls...

ESPN blows goats when it comes to recruiting...has for a while

[Arnold Horshack]

All of those services have the top programs consistantly at the top of the rankings. No science there.

[kyxu]

All of those services have the top programs consistantly at the top of the rankings. No science there.

Right, and why do you think those programs are where they are?

[Get Real]

Of course, if ESPN had Xavier listed in the top 20, all of you would be marvelling over the sageness of the writing staff.

[A10fan]

Of course, if ESPN had Xavier listed in the top 20, all of you would be marvelling over the sageness of the writing staff.

I think they would be marveling over the sageness of Miller's recruiting. I tend to look at the rscihoops.com service because the average most of the top recruiting services.

[jcubspoe]

I put absolutely ZERO stock in ESPN's recruiting coverage (ie. rankings, evaluations, etc.)

I'll stick with Rivals and Scout when it comes to recruiting.

They have Holloway listed as the 57th best PG in the '08 class! That's a joke right? And Redford as the 76th best PG? Ok. They don't even have Lyons rated.

If you check out their Top 150, there are huge differences compared to Rivals and Scout. They have guys that have reclassified to 2009 still in their '08 list. It says it's been updated 5/21/08, but it sure doesn't look like it.

I'll stick with Rivals who has Frease at 42, Holloway at 100 and Lyons at 102.

How do you know which one is right? You like the Rivals and Scout one because it talks better about "your" players. How do you know personally know what Hollaway is going to do? Did Odia live up to his ranking? Did CW live up to his 80's ranking by Rivals and Scout??? Most of us on here, on any message board, have never seen these guys play expect for some of the local talent...Benson, KF, CW, Staten, ect. I would probably tend to agree with ESPN that JB should be a top 150 player, but he's not according to Rivals and Scout.

What I'm basically saying is that these recruiting "services" are crap shoots. I'd say in general that Scout and Rivals probably get it closer then ESPN does. I'm not sure what kind of staff ESPN has dedicated to their HS recruiting, but it's prob not as dedicated as the other two, but my no means does Rivals and Scout get it right all the time.

[scooper]

I like the ones that say we're better than Dayton. That kind of accuracy can't be denied.

[MADXSTER]

jcub, I think you are absolutely correct on serveral key areas.

Overall it is a crapshoot, however it also provides a gauge of a players ability. My take is to see a players ranking and figure to give or take about 20 spots. That probably gives one a more fair assessment. Team rankings are going to be similar. Give or take X number of teams. Just keep in mind there are 341 teams.

There are going to be different rankings because of differing opinions but moreso because the recruiting site scouts aren't all at the same games. Rivals may be at one game and see Lyons play great. Scout goes to the next game and Lyons is more average. The next game scout sees Lyons he only plays 3 minutes because of a twisted ankle and the next game he doesn't play at all. Or they they don't even see a player like Redford at all.

Typically the higher the ranking there will be fewer questions about a players ability. The crapshoot with higher ranked players is gauging natural ability vs the intangibles such as desire, work ethic, behavior, etc. The best players have both but sometimes it's no so easy to recognize. Sometimes a coach will take a chance figuring the player lightbulb will go off and just become an absolute stud. Thus a lesser ranked player can be a better gamble than a higher ranked player as to who will mature more quickly as a person and a player at the college level.

Bottom line is that there is a definite corallation between top programs getting highly ranked players and being contenders vs lower programs who never contend.

[jcubspoe]

jcub, I think you are absolutely correct on serveral key areas.

Overall it is a crapshoot, however it also provides a gauge of a players ability. My take is to see a players ranking and figure to give or take about 20 spots. That probably gives one a more fair assessment. Team rankings are going to be similar. Give or take X number of teams. Just keep in mind there are 341 teams.

There are going to be different rankings because of differing opinions but moreso because the recruiting site scouts aren't all at the same games. Rivals may be at one game and see Lyons play great. Scout goes to the next game and Lyons is more average. The next game scout sees Lyons he only plays 3 minutes because of a twisted ankle and the next game he doesn't play at all. Or they they don't even see a player like Redford at all.

Typically the higher the ranking there will be fewer questions about a players ability. The crapshoot with higher ranked players is gauging natural ability vs the intangibles such as desire, work ethic, behavior, etc. The best players have both but sometimes it's no so easy to recognize. Sometimes a coach will take a chance figuring the player lightbulb will go off and just become an absolute stud. Thus a lesser ranked player can be a better gamble than a higher ranked player as to who will mature more quickly as a person and a player at the college level.

Bottom line is that there is a definite corallation between top programs getting highly ranked players and being contenders vs lower programs who never contend.

All good points. Not to beat a dead horse but since I didn't bash UD in my previous post, here goes. Good ol Jimmy Binnie was a Top 150 player by scout and rivals coming out of high school. After 4 years of college ball I wonder how he made the Top 400 even. As you said, total crap shoot.

I've always liked to say that if you can land a Top 1-20, you're probably getting a sure bet stud...after that, roll the dice.

[jcubspoe]

I like the ones that say we're better than Dayton. That kind of accuracy can't be denied.


In all honesty, your post has much more truth in it then you prob know. That's kind of my point in posting in this thread. I think all fans (X and UD included) like to post about the rankings that favor them and ignore the ones that don't. We're all guilty of it.

[MADXSTER]

All good points. Not to beat a dead horse but since I didn't bash UD in my previous post, here goes. Good ol Jimmy Binnie was a Top 150 player by scout and rivals coming out of high school. After 4 years of college ball I wonder how he made the Top 400 even.

I think you also have to take in consideration the program that he joined forces with. Not saying that he would have been a stud here at Xavier, but do you honestly feel that if he came to Xavier he would have been the same player/traffic cone after four years? I didn't think so.

[Masterofreality]

Good ol Jimmy Binnie was a Top 150 player by scout and rivals coming out of high school. After 4 years of college ball I wonder how he made the Top 400 even.

Rivals ranked him as the #1 Traffic Cone in that year's class.

[MADXSTER]

Rivals has Xavier recruiting class ranked 25th.

Frease 4 star
Holloway 4 star
Lyons 3 star
Redford 3 star
Walsh 3 star

[birdman71]

I don't think that any of the rankings consider the factor that XU succeeds at the most, and that is the character/work ethic of recruits. We've missed on that some, but rarely. We enjoyed our XU student years, but a recruit can get seduced by the schools whose visits include female escorts, promises of no academic pressure, etc. Our recruits meet Sr. Rose and hear about the expectation to graduate. If they don't like it, maybe their parents do and help them with their decision. It worked for Knight at IU, it works for KRY....KSVI...KZRY......Coach K at Duke, and it has worked for us since Gillen.

Our second best factor has been recognition of diamonds in the rough, mostly big guys [e.g. Hill, Williams, Strong, Grant, West, Posey].

3rd factor is the beautiful and always packed Cintas Center.

I'll always be a fan, but factor #1 has to continue. Our recent success and ability to take it up a notch may put that at risk. I encourage the powers that be not to compromise that institutional character which many of us wouldn't trade for that next level. I'm a little worried right now.

My favorite ''basketball'' picture each and every year is the one with our senior players in caps and gowns waving diplomas and smiling as big as they do when they cut down nets. Equally cool this year was David West's props to XU in Sports Illustrated.

[kyxu]

Rivals has Xavier recruiting class ranked 25th.

Frease 4 star
Holloway 4 star
Lyons 3 star
Redford 3 star
Walsh 3 star

Nice...ranked ahead of Duke and UC.