Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Millhouse, post: 928582, member: 78"]
most people who say stars don't matter are not saying talent doesn't matter.  what we're saying is that stars and talent are not the same thing.

the basketball team is awesome every year.  no matter who boeheim selects, they're going to get lots of stars because boeheim selected them.  if SU becomes less successful, the stars will follow suit.  lagging indicator.  i'm trying to think of examples of these players.  (almost everyone that came the few years after the national championship?  people thought josh wright was good because he could forrest gump into the band really fast on every coast to coast missed layup?)

great programs could have a dropoff in talent not immediately reflected in stars.  lesser programs could have improved talent not immediately reflected in stars.

it's not about pursuing some strategy of raw diamonds in the rough or pretending like we have some secret to finding players no one else thinks is good.  i just want people to relax a little and recognize that it's really hard for some one to have foresight based on ranking a million high school kids.  it's way easier to just rank 120 programs and hope there is stability in the pecking order so that no one realizes that your rankings lag behind what actually happened

i don't know if there's a good way to gauge interest from schools but maybe something similar to strength of schedule - some sort of average ranking of the prior years' results from programs interested in a player.  coaching changes will screw this up but there are enough schools making offers to balance things out.  it would be a crude measure but at least it would be a measure instead of a subjective grade
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?