New Perspective

[AlaskaSU]

I used to think that the hard part of recruiting is t0 get your prospect to sign, and 2) finding a diamond in the rough if you get aced out. Without thinking, I assumed that coaches basically went for the highest ranked players by position that they think they might land.

Looking at this board and all the players of interest brings home the point that it is just as hard to pick the right player as any other aspect of recruiting. Aside from the top handful, that clearly stand out, the top 50 rankings are of virtually no help in deciding who to offer. I'm pretty sure that any player offered by one of the top programs automatically moves up in the rankings. I surmise that Boeheim now has the necessary prestige to move the rankings needle.

Aside from a handful, the top 50 should be thought of as a group, without too much internal ordering. The internal rankings within the top 50 are just static that coaches should ignore.

 

[pfister1]

I used to think that the hard part of recruiting is t0 get your prospect to sign, and 2) finding a diamond in the rough if you get aced out. Without thinking, I assumed that coaches basically went for the highest ranked players by position that they think they might land.

Looking at this board and all the players of interest brings home the point that it is just as hard to pick the right player as any other aspect of recruiting. Aside from the top handful, that clearly stand out, the top 50 rankings are of virtually no help in deciding who to offer. I'm pretty sure that any player offered by one of the top programs automatically moves up in the rankings. I surmise that Boeheim now has the necessary prestige to move the rankings needle.

Aside from a handful, the top 50 should be thought of as a group, without too much internal ordering. The internal rankings within the top 50 are just static that coaches should ignore.

I've always assumed that the coaches ignore the rankings altogether. Also assumed that our recruiting of the true targets begins before there would be any truly meaningful ranking put together because they start looking at these guys really early, e.g. as a campers at JB's basketball camp or in other similar settings.

 

[orangefan13]

Francis mentioned how all these kids want to play. Loosing just Southerland and Triche for sure with the replacements of Gbinje and Grant makes that alittle tougher.

But historically Syracuse thrives on kids that sit a year even mcdAA. For example Hakim Warrick sat his freshmen year on a NIT team. Rautins sat a few years and made the NBA.
Wes Johnson sat out and Future Orange NBAer Gbinije will to.

It just so happens that way. Thats what you get when you get when you play for a cream of the crop school.

 

[moqui]

Also assumed that our recruiting of the true targets begins before there would be any truly meaningful ranking put together because they start looking at these guys really early, e.g. as a campers at JB's basketball camp or in other similar settings.

you are right on both counts, particularly the one I highlighted above . . . recall that, for example, neither Carmelo Anthony nor Anthony Davis were near the top of the rankings when Syracuse began recruiting them. Although less dramatic, I think the same is true of several others, too.

 

[OttoMets]

Francis mentioned how all these kids want to play. Loosing just Southerland and Triche for sure with the replacements of Gbinje and Grant makes that alittle tougher.

But historically Syracuse thrives on kids that sit a year even mcdAA. For example Hakim Warrick sat his freshmen year on a NIT team. Rautins sat a few years and made the NBA.
Wes Johnson sat out and Future Orange NBAer Gbinije will to.

It just so happens that way. Thats what you get when you get when you play for a cream of the crop school.

Hak did start a bunch of games in 2002.

But the point is not a bad one - nearly everyone will benefit from sitting a year.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I used to think that the hard part of recruiting is t0 get your prospect to sign, and 2) finding a diamond in the rough if you get aced out. Without thinking, I assumed that coaches basically went for the highest ranked players by position that they think they might land.

Looking at this board and all the players of interest brings home the point that it is just as hard to pick the right player as any other aspect of recruiting. Aside from the top handful, that clearly stand out, the top 50 rankings are of virtually no help in deciding who to offer. I'm pretty sure that any player offered by one of the top programs automatically moves up in the rankings. I surmise that Boeheim now has the necessary prestige to move the rankings needle.

Aside from a handful, the top 50 should be thought of as a group, without too much internal ordering. The internal rankings within the top 50 are just static that coaches should ignore.

That's not really correct. Usually there are a group of players who stand out among the top 50, at the top 10 or top 20 level are the five stars; those players are going to start and be good freshmen, generally speaking. There are a group in the middle that runs maybe 20 to 50 or 60, those would be like the 4 star guys, and then below that you probably have a group of 50 to 75 who are legit division 1 talent, and then you get the guys who are mid-major guys.

 

[Nerlo Rangel]

That's not really correct. Usually there are a group of players who stand out among the top 50, at the top 10 or top 20 level are the five stars; those players are going to start and be good freshmen, generally speaking. There are a group in the middle that runs maybe 20 to 50 or 60, those would be like the 4 star guys, and then below that you probably have a group of 50 to 75 who are legit division 1 talent, and then you get the guys who are mid-major guys.

i generally agree with your post, but once you get past top 25 or so, the rankings aren't worth much. here is the list of 2011 recruits post-season, and how they shaped up:

http://www.basketballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=2330

as you can see, the elite definitely shined, back many guys ranked 50+ played better than expected (trey burke was ranked in the 80s).

 

[AlaskaSU]

That's not really correct. Usually there are a group of players who stand out among the top 50, at the top 10 or top 20 level are the five stars; those players are going to start and be good freshmen, generally speaking. There are a group in the middle that runs maybe 20 to 50 or 60, those would be like the 4 star guys, and then below that you probably have a group of 50 to 75 who are legit division 1 talent, and then you get the guys who are mid-major guys.

I did say that "aside from a handful". You said "there are a group". Splitting hairs?
My point is that the ratings break down as you go down the line. I'd say that even within the Mickey D's there is uncertainty. Only a handful are sure fire. Beyond that, put your trust in the coach's judgment rather than the rankings.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I did say that "aside from a handful". You said "there are a group". Splitting hairs?
My point is that the ratings break down as you go down the line. I'd say that even within the Mickey D's there is uncertainty. Only a handful are sure fire. Beyond that, put your trust in the coach's judgment rather than the rankings.

You said the top 50 rankings are no help in targeting recruits, and I disagree. I think there is a clear distinction between 4 star and 3 star players.

 

[AlaskaSU]

4 stars have a higher probability of success than 3 stars. However, aside from the top handful (whose size varies each year), the actual ordering means little. Each of the three major raters usually show a wide variation in their rankings. If someone wanted to they could calculate the average variation. The assumption is that a true ranking for each player can be obtained by averaging individual rankings. Bad assumption. The point of my post is that, for the most part, the rankings are only useful as general groupings. I don't think there is real disagreement here.

 

[CU44SE]

Look at MCW, when he committed at the end of his junior year (3 Stars, NR). Do you think in 1 year he really blew up that much to a 4 star, #28? I believe the player rankings are mostly based on the teams recruiting the players.

 

[AlaskaSU]

I also think that is a large factor. Hak was unranked but as soon as we offered he was top 100. I think that we now have enough prestige so that rankings get juiced when we offer.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Two comments - First, I think the coverage now really helps normal people see the tiers. For instance, it looks to me if SU can land one of Tyler, Cat, or Rysheed at pg they have done well for that need. It sheds light on what is going on. As people have said before, the staff has done a great job in identifying who will develop into the top talent before the services rank them. That should help in recruiting - ie like MCW, DC2, and Tyler. But by their senior years, I think the services have a good idea of who the best talent is.

Second, there is a slight difference in what is being ranked. SU is often looking for a fit down the road. For instance with J Grant, SU was looking for a F in the '13-'14 season. There is a projection there, who has the necessary mental makeup, coachability, and attitude along with the physical potential. Much like MCW, I think J Grant will turn out to be another great get and he will fit the time frame for when he is called upon beautifully. But SU could have a slightly different criteria than what the services do.

 

[CusefanATL]

But historically Syracuse thrives on kids that sit a year even mcdAA. For example Hakim Warrick sat his freshmen year on a NIT team. Rautins sat a few years and made the NBA.
Wes Johnson sat out and Future Orange NBAer Gbinije will to.

• Hakim Warrick started like 20 games his frosh year. and was not considered a top recruit.
• Next to no one agreed with offering rautins a scholorship at the time and he weighed 100 lbs his freshman year.
• Wes Johnson was required by rule to sit a year. He never would have if he didnt have to.

If you want an example, you can use Fab Melo, kind of.

 

[Nerlo Rangel]

• Hakim Warrick started like 20 games his frosh year. and was not considered a top recruit.
• Next to no one agreed with offering rautins a scholorship at the time and he weighed 100 lbs his freshman year.
• Wes Johnson was required by rule to sit a year. He never would have if he didnt have to.

If you want an example, you can use Fab Melo, kind of.

well these examples go to show that boeheim and his staff do a great job at developing players. calipari coaches kids who are unbelievably talented and doesn't necessarily make them any better, but guys like izzo and boeheim can take mid-level recruits with mid-level potential and turn them into NBA players.

 

[CusefanATL]

well these examples go to show that boeheim and his staff do a great job at developing players. calipari coaches kids who are unbelievably talented and doesn't necessarily make them any better, but guys like izzo and boeheim can take mid-level recruits with mid-level potential and turn them into NBA players.

yeah, he has always done a really great job maximizing non-nba talented players as well as sending few surprises to the league like Warrick and Rautins.

 

[AlaskaSU]

FWIW. After college graduation I roomed with a mid-major former Div I starting guard who won most improved player in his league. The coach ate it up but my friend said that coaching had nothing to do with it. He simply was dedicated and worked hard, perfecting spin moves etc. A coach's ability to improve a player is probably based on psychology, ability to motivate. Running drills, demonstrating mechanics and asking a player to put in extra work on his jump shot etc. is something that every coach does.

We used to play one on one full court outdoors. Of course, I could not stop him, and he had 8 inches on me, but i could also score. In basketball, offense has a clear advantage, unless fouls are not called. IMHO, defense only makes a marginal difference, but that difference is often crucial.

 

[CusefanATL]

FWIW. After college graduation I roomed with a mid-major former Div I starting guard who won most improved player in his league. The coach ate it up but my friend said that coaching had nothing to do with it. He simply was dedicated and worked hard, perfecting spin moves etc. A coach's ability to improve a player is probably based on psychology, ability to motivate. Running drills, demonstrating mechanics and asking a player to put in extra work on his jump shot etc. is something that every coach does.

We used to play one on one full court outdoors. Of course, I could not stop him, and he had 8 inches on me, but i could also score. In basketball, offense has a clear advantage, unless fouls are not called. IMHO, defense only makes a marginal difference, but that difference is often crucial.

HEY NOW!

 

[orangefan13]

There seems to be a pretty fair amount of good ball handling taller shooting guards/forwards this year. With syracuses isolation offense and transition style, and loving to press I hope we grab one. Hopefully one of the top tier ones. There are 3-4 who we are looking at.