Class of 2025 - SF Aaron Womack (WI) COMMITTED & SIGNED TO SYRACUSE (9/30/24) | Page 11 | Syracusefan.com

Class of 2025 SF Aaron Womack (WI) COMMITTED & SIGNED TO SYRACUSE (9/30/24)

Not sure about the podcast, but the article said “likely”… I know it’s nitpicking, but it’s there.

One likely example of Tulyagijja’s influence is the recent commitment of Aaron Womack, a 6-foot-5 guard from Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Womack is considered a three-star recruit and ranked outside the top-100 players in the 2025 class by all the major recruiting sites.

Yeah I figured they were being cautious a bit on that but language wasn’t definite to your point.
 
Why?

Kline was a guy who worked in an NBA front office. He has great insight into how to evaluate players. It doesn't imply "advanced analytics" on just stats.
I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot
 
I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot
As somebody pointed out, you could watch the game tape and create your own scouting report and analytics.

The staff and analytics team could drill down to minute details, like we only want players with usage rates under "x" amount and assist rates above "x" amount and only guys that can dribble up court above "x" mph on the fast break, because those are hidden characteristics that they think are more likely to result in success. The list of things they could create analytics for it's virtually endless.

Combined with physical measurables like height, arm length, hand size and athletic characteristics, they can find diamonds in the rough more systematically than the old eye test method.

Whatever it is they are looking for, Womack made the cut.

Personally, I was wowed by how well Womack blocked shots. Long arms and great timing. The Syracuse teams that have been great in the past always seemed to have a great shotblocking center, but also a team full of long, lean guys that blocked shots at a high rate for their position.
 
As somebody pointed out, you could watch the game tape and create your own scouting report and analytics.

The staff and analytics team could drill down to minute details, like we only want players with usage rates under "x" amount and assist rates above "x" amount and only guys that can dribble up court above "x" mph on the fast break, because those are hidden characteristics that they think are more likely to result in success. The list of things they could create analytics for it's virtually endless.

Combined with physical measurables like height, arm length, hand size and athletic characteristics, they can find diamonds in the rough more systematically than the old eye test method.

Whatever it is they are looking for, Womack made the cut.

Personally, I was wowed by how well Womack blocked shots. Long arms and great timing. The Syracuse teams that have been great in the past always seemed to have a great shotblocking center, but also a team full of long, lean guys that blocked shots at a high rate for their position.
And you need to play good defense as a team to be great. The good Syracuse teams in the past could get after you.
 
Right, I’m very familiar with what analytics are, and I just think it’s a fools errand to pretend they are useful to meaningfully evaluate a still developing teenager.

I do think it’s a red flag that Marquette, Wisconsin, or any of then Chicago area schools hadn’t offered. We’ve missed on virtually every similar recruit in the last few years
 
Right, I’m very familiar with what analytics are, and I just think it’s a fools errand to pretend they are useful to meaningfully evaluate a still developing teenager.

I do think it’s a red flag that Marquette, Wisconsin, or any of then Chicago area schools hadn’t offered. We’ve missed on virtually every similar recruit in the last few years

Honestly if that’s your take then I don’t think you are as familiar with modern sports analytics even with a younger player. There is a lot that goes into it and that includes analysis against different levels of competition as well as looking for improvement over time and a lot more.

Just because he is still developing doesn’t hinder the effectiveness of the analysis. There is no guarantees when it comes to development but as others have noted there are a number of things to look at even on the surface let alone diving deeper into breaking down film quantatively.
 
His girlfriend is a 4. Tops.
 
Normally when you are looking for high school players who translate to the next level you look for the superstars, for obvious reasons. But often times it's the 3 & D guys who go under the radar, but whose skills end up translating really well. Think Andy Rautins who was a 1 star recruit. This kid seems like a 3 & D guy to me. Like pitching in baseball, every team needs another 3 & D guy, you can never have too many.
 
I replied to a thread that referenced “advanced analytics,” and my point is that it’s functionally meaningless to play money ball with a mid major recruit who grew three inches this year

Lots of other ways to evaluate a kid, but you don’t need Synergy data to realize that we need guards who can shoot
You replied to my post.

And I think what you're missing is that the correct algorithms and advanced metrics are what will determine if this guy is a mid major recruit, or an ACC caliber recruit.

Not subjective bias.
 
Honestly if that’s your take then I don’t think you are as familiar with modern sports analytics even with a younger player. There is a lot that goes into it and that includes analysis against different levels of competition as well as looking for improvement over time and a lot more.

Just because he is still developing doesn’t hinder the effectiveness of the analysis. There is no guarantees when it comes to development but as others have noted there are a number of things to look at even on the surface let alone diving deeper into breaking down film quantatively.
Agreed.
 
Here are the 23-24 AA teams with their HS recruit rating. Anything below a 4 star is outside the top 100 ( some waaay outside) and 2 of the 4 stars here are outside the top 100. If you know what you are doing finding talent the rating is meaningless. Below is a perfect example of why.

2023-24 all Americans 1st team - HS rating
Zach Edey - 3 star - Senior
Tristan Newton- 0 star - 5th Year Senior (Transfer from ECU)
Jamal Shead 3 star - Senior (Houston)
RJ Davis 4 star - Senior
Dalton Knecht - juco 0 star - 5th Year Senior (Transfer from JUCO/N. Colorado)

2nd team
Tyler Kolek- 0 star - Senior (Transfer from George Mason)
Daron Holmes 4 star - Junior
Mark sears - 3 star - Senior (Transfer from Ohio)
Kyle Filipowski- 5 star - Sophomore
Hunter Dickinson - 4 star - Senior

Third team

Jaedon ledee borderline 4 star - 6th Year Senior
Johni Broome 3 star - Senior (Transfer from Morehead State)
Terrence Shannon - 4 star - 5th Year Senior
Caleb love- 5 star - Senior
Baylor Schieierman -0 star - 5th Year Senior (South Dakota State)
Added context to all of these. Talent evaluation matters at the highest levels, because these 0-3 star kids ARE NOT READY to play right away in the ACC.

Look at how many seniors are listed above. All but 2. And anyone that was a 0 star transferred after getting a ton of minutes at lower level schools - Morehead State, South Dakota State, Ohio, George Mason, Northern Colorado, East Carolina).

All this to say, this kid likely won't make an impact at SU unless he stays for 4 years and is OK sitting the bench for the first two (Edey played 19 & 14 minutes per game his first two years). And that happening these days with the transfer portal open is extremely rare.
 
Last edited:
Added context to all of these. Talent evaluation matters at the highest levels, because these 0-3 star kids ARE NOT READY to play right away in the ACC.

Look at how many seniors are listed above. All but 2. And anyone that was a 0 star transferred after getting a ton of minutes at lower level schools - Morehead State, South Dakota State, Ohio, George Mason, Northern Colorado, East Carolina).

All this to say, this kid likely won't make an impact at SU unless he stays for 4 years and is OK sitting the bench for the first two (Edey played 19 & 14 minutes per game his first two years).

The context was implied already to be fair if you read my other responses tacking on. When you are recruiting you need to find talent that you can grow with that’s less of a guess if they can play and less of a guess if they will stick around. That said when you build a team you have to consider all of it.

Just because these kids started somewhere else doesn’t change the point that where you start ranking wise is only somewhat predictive of where you will end as a college player. The easy path to acquiring the best talent is the deepest pocket book for the best HS talent and portal talent. After that then it’s all about finding value and program guys. It’s now become a much bigger challenge than it was pre portal and NIL.

The significance of the post is about the fact there is talent everywhere up and down the HS rankings and the fact that in a world of 1 yr contracts the freshman impact is limited. You either have a monster class like Duke or you have some nice additions you need to surround with returning and portal guys or even a good class with a few top 100 guys doesn’t mean much.
 
The context was implied already to be fair if you read my other responses tacking on. When you are recruiting you need to find talent that you can grow with that’s less of a guess if they can play and less of a guess if they will stick around. That said when you build a team you have to consider all of it.

Just because these kids started somewhere else doesn’t change the point that where you start ranking wise is only somewhat predictive of where you will end as a college player. The easy path to acquiring the best talent is the deepest pocket book for the best HS talent and portal talent. After that then it’s all about finding value and program guys. It’s now become a much bigger challenge than it was pre portal and NIL.

The significance of the post is about the fact there is talent everywhere up and down the HS rankings and the fact that in a world of 1 yr contracts the freshman impact is limited. You either have a monster class like Duke or you have some nice additions you need to surround with returning and portal guys or even a good class with a few top 100 guys doesn’t mean much.
I think the thing missing in this analysis is the impact the year or two (or three) at smaller schools getting big minutes has.

Playing college basketball is not easy for freshmen - even most of the best ones aren't world beaters. Not many 'Melos walking through that door.

And as was stated earlier, the odds of a kid waiting their turn who has shown flashes of being good early a la Southerland are slim.
 
Folks everyone chill and don't berate Womack unless you have actually seen him play. Trust the process. Red is not stupid.
He may not be stupid but seems like we poor.
 
I think the thing missing in this analysis is the impact the year or two (or three) at smaller schools getting big minutes has.

Playing college basketball is not easy for freshmen - even most of the best ones aren't world beaters. Not many 'Melos walking through that door.

And as was stated earlier, the odds of a kid waiting their turn who has shown flashes of being good early a la Southerland are slim.

And you don’t seem to be taking fully into consideration that freshmen up and down the top 100 struggle in general and need the same development to your own point you even made. If you just use the 23-24 class, almost half the top 30 struggled to play to their ranking. A number of kids outside the top 100 had as good or better freshman years than some of the top 30/40 kids. So there is a bit of fools gold that just having more top 50 kids is a golden ticket. It’s about identifying talent and roster construction.

You need immediate impact players and stars and it’s great to get that through HS and/or portal and then you need to fill out the roster and have contributors and then multi year guys if you can get them.

Whether a kid is ranked 50 or 250, both could be ready day 1 or need to play for 2 years to help your team. The point of the list is that there is more than one way to build a successful roster and program and that we shouldn’t over react to having 2 top 75 kids vs having 4 given freshmen in general take time and in this environment the top 100 kids are constantly chomping at the bit if year 1 doesn’t go as well as hoped. So the key is finding talent that can help you now and in the future because we know that some kids take longer.

Yes playing at a smaller school gives them opportunities for sure but that’s also not the only way these kids reach their potential and blow up.

This is why a guy like Kline is such an important hire. Find the talent and the ranking might or might not follow but if they give you what you expected who cares. Even look at Choppa- whose ranking hasn’t matched tape and production in HS. Look at how mature he presents and the work he’s putting in to get better. He very well could out play a lot of higher rated kids this year.
 
Last edited:
Who else offered him after his visit?
Don't know. This is from Mike Waters article earlier this week:

By the time Womack left Syracuse, he was receiving recruiting phone calls from several other high-major schools, but the 6-foot-5 shooting guard had made up his mind. He committed to Syracuse coach Adrian Autry on Saturday and announced his decision on Monday.
 
He may not be stupid but seems like we poor.
Petar and Womack are at a minimum skilled 2nd unit basketball players. Petar will help right away and Womack by his 2nd year. Unless you are Kentucky or Duke, it's hard to fill out the back end of your roster with 3 to 5 star players. For years the back end of our roster was filled with players under development with a lot to learn. Red is finding basketball players with skills and understanding of the game and with a shorter learning curve.
 
People seem to be forgetting Majstorovic isn't your everyday freshman.

He played three years in France's under ProA U-21 league, starting at age 16. The league is France's highest amateur league.

He is more like a mid major senior transfer than a freshman.
 
People seem to be forgetting Majstorovic isn't your everyday freshman.

He played three years in France's under ProA U-21 league, starting at age 16. The league is France's highest amateur league.

He is more like a mid major senior transfer than a freshman.

Given the talent pool trends this makes it important we establish an overseas pipeline if we can. Foreign players continue to influence the NBA more every year so it’s only natural to be following the trends. Finding a kid or two in Europe each cycle would be a really smart play even if it is one that has more challenges to get the paperwork done.
 
Given the talent pool trends this makes it important we establish an overseas pipeline if we can. Foreign players continue to influence the NBA more every year so it’s only natural to be following the trends. Finding a kid or two in Europe each cycle would be a really smart play even if it is one that has more challenges to get the paperwork done.
Especially Euro bigs who can shoot and pass.
 
Don't know. This is from Mike Waters article earlier this week:

By the time Womack left Syracuse, he was receiving recruiting phone calls from several other high-major schools, but the 6-foot-5 shooting guard had made up his mind. He committed to Syracuse coach Adrian Autry on Saturday and announced his decision on Monday.

It seems more than a few programs know if we are on a kid that others aren’t yet that they need to jump on him as well… glad this time we landed the kid vs losing in a free for all brinks competition.
 
What did we land Sadiq white with? Chuckie cheese tickets? What about freeman? Was that Monopoly money? FFS
Amen. I do not quite understand the ongoing sentiment from some folks that Syracuse doesn't have any NIL money. I'm not saying Syracuse is on the same level with the huge public universities in NIL, but 'Cuse has dollars. Just remember, for example, SU will play next season in a tourney in Vegas where it is guaranteed at least $1M in NIL payouts. That's not too shabby. :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
525
    • Like
Orangeyes Daily Articles for Wednesday for Basketball
Replies
1
Views
744
Replies
1
Views
491
Replies
0
Views
413
Replies
2
Views
656

Forum statistics

Threads
170,476
Messages
4,893,135
Members
6,000
Latest member
Wilnur13638

Online statistics

Members online
24
Guests online
932
Total visitors
956


...
Top Bottom