Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="Oakland, post: 1957199, member: 590"]
This would be a good exercise which I would luv to see (SWC, have any extra time on your hands?).   The results should be fairly robust given the number of data points over the last 20(?) years.  I suspect it would punch a hole in the Kentucky mystique as you intend - not that they would be worse but probably no better than peer schools (maybe worse :-) ).

HS prospect talent probably follows a bell shaped curve (like so many things in life), but I would not use the star system as it does not adequately differentiate the talent at the top end (I've stated before that there should be a 6 star category for the sure-fire NBAers like Anthony Davis).  Start with the cumulative ranking of the services.  Break out the tiers so that the true high end talent is isolated and the tiers follow a rough bell shape.  I'd suggest the following: top 5, next 10, next 20, next 40, and next 80 (if you have the time or are really good at doing this).  The results could be as easy as comparing the % of players in each group that make the NBA vs. other schools.  An issue is the definition of making the NBA.  For simplicity's sake, I'd make it that the player is on the 13 man roster of an NBA team the next season, draft position would also be interesting (do both!).  Penalizing for non-performance would probably only add information if you had a secondary criteria, for example: a hit is if a player makes an NBA roster, a miss if the player is not drafted.  You could then assign a negative value if the player is not drafted (this would probably only make sense to do for the top 3 or 4 tiers).  However, the miss value would be arbitrary.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?