Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="billsin01, post: 502569, member: 837"]
This is an interesting idea. My only quibble with the system is that it can tend to underrate kids who are 5's and 6's in a day and age where a 9 or 10 is almost certainly gone after a year, maybe two. And you could lose a fair number of 8s as well. Meanwhile, kids who have a fair amount of talent [I]and [/I]stick around can be invaluable.
 
For example, CJ Fair, as a 3-star, probably wouldn't have warranted more than maybe a 6? in the system. Yet, he's going to be close to 1,000 points and probably north of 500 rebounds with a full year left. He's obvioulsy brought immeasurable value despite being a lesser player -- generally -- than Waiters, Fab as a soph or MCW. 
 
And it's not like Fair is alone in this distinction -- Keita has really nice value as a solid backup frontcourt player, BT a solid four-year guy, Rautins was excellent ...
 
And, conversely, some of those 8s/9s can do some damage -- a guy like Fab being way out of shape in year 1, then deciding to bag class in year 2. Waiters being a bit out of shape in year 1, telling the coach to  off and then nearly transferring or leaving before we saw his brilliant soph season. Donte Greene was a nice player but we really never saw him with a hint of polish to his game ...
 
So, I'm not really trashing the system -- and I think it's actually fun and far more worthwhile than stars. But it's tough to rate hoops players b/c you can't win with a roster of 5s and while you're talented, it's still tough to manage a roster of 9s/10s.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?