- Oct 21, 2016
You want me to define something that can't be defined. The only measurable (when the players are in high school) are the rankings.Actually no you didn't answer my question about how you define a top 20 class.
What hypocrisy? I did not say anything about top 100 or 100-200. You keep going back to the one link you posted as some type of single source of truth despite numerous corrections on how rankings are sourced.
The class I'm looking for is two fold. First it's about needs. You need impact guys and depth and to fill holes. Sometimes that's a big, sometimes that is a shooter sometimes it's a playmaker at guard. If a guy is ranked low but his tape is great and meets the need we have then that is who I want and what makes a good class. Ideally you want at least one top 30 guy if you can get him. Goodine is that type of talent so we already have success there.
Next we need another big and another PF based on expected attrition. Akok has been rising in the rankings but was much closer to the Fringe of your rankings you so cherish until more recently and I think has the exact tools and fit for our system. At guard since we have Goodine and will have several guys returning we most definitely need depth more than just a high ranking guy. I like we have targeted several like Girard, Guerrier etc and I think we are winning with any of those we have targeted based on fit. So it's not as simple as numbers here. We are already targeting talented guys that have a lot of potential and others who can bring something right
Away. That is the balance we need and a solid class. I don't see it as targeting based on rankings at all because what you get in output is the real value. This past years class really highlights that point.
If you want to talk about readjusting ratings afterwards that's different. The 2017 class overachieved. They didn't have a great regular season. They made a great run in a tournament they got lucky to make. Does that make them a top 20 class? I can't say. I think JB did one heck of a coaching job.
I agree that we should not recruit solely on ranking. Needs of the team are of course important. But to not value rankings at all is IMO unwise.
You guys want your cake and eat it too. You want to say you recruit with the big boys, but then when we miss and it's suggested to aim a tad lower you scoff at the idea.