How do you rate a recruiting class?

[Mslacat]

I just posted a on my Blog an article on rating a basketball recruiting class. Over the years I have had discussions / arguements with folks on rating recruiting classes, and it ussually all comes down to how each person decides view a reacruiting class long term or short term, national puplications ranking versus coaches ranking. It goes on and on and it all depends on where you stand. Any thoughts on my Blog?

http://mslacat.wordpress.com/

 

[bengal]

It's pretty hard to rate a recruiting class when you haven't seen any (or most) of the recruits play. And any ranking that takes place before a class enrolls and plays is, while perhaps a fine diversion, almost worthless. I look at Idaho State's recruiting class of two years ago. On paper, it looked just like what the doctor ordered: a 7-foot center, a juco PG with Big 12 experience, a serviceable back-up power forward with two years of JUCO experience, a freshman guard who averaged 20 points a game in Memphis, a JUCO guard who came billed as a defensive stopper.

Two years later, here's what we have: the 7-foot center has been a major disappointment, and missed most of last season with injury. The JUCO PG and his buddy, the back-up PF, both quit the program after just one season. The JUCO defensive stopper was academically ineligible after one year, and is still struggling to get eligible for next year. And the freshman guard, well he's provided only a few minutes.

 

[m205ebeckwith]

Bengel,

Judging by the impressive resume' your coach had coming in, I thought he develop the best program around. He certainly has the experience and credentials. I'm glad my paycheck doesn't depend on how a dozen 18 year olds handle the adjustment to college and to D-1 hoops.

 

[citygriz]

kids are like curveballs. you just don't know how they're gonna break.

 

[bigtyme]

It's pretty hard to rate a recruiting class when you haven't seen any (or most) of the recruits play. And any ranking that takes place before a class enrolls and plays is, while perhaps a fine diversion, almost worthless. I look at Idaho State's recruiting class of two years ago. On paper, it looked just like what the doctor ordered: a 7-foot center, a juco PG with Big 12 experience, a serviceable back-up power forward with two years of JUCO experience, a freshman guard who averaged 20 points a game in Memphis, a JUCO guard who came billed as a defensive stopper.

Two years later, here's what we have: the 7-foot center has been a major disappointment, and missed most of last season with injury. The JUCO PG and his buddy, the back-up PF, both quit the program after just one season. The JUCO defensive stopper was academically ineligible after one year, and is still struggling to get eligible for next year. And the freshman guard, well he's provided only a few minutes.

Has as much to do with character than it does basketball skills. It is not a black/white issue by any means so I don't want the racist card to come out but character plays a big part. Look at AJ, he has a solid character which is one reason he excelled at UM. I particularly am looking forward to seeing the next batch of kids because on the outside it appears they fall in the same category! The future is bright!

 

[citygriz]

the more i think about this, the more i think there's only one way to measure a recruiting class: by the stars it produces. so here are my favorite griz recruiting "classes:"
all-time:
1. micheal ray richardson
2. larry krystkowiak
3. derrick pope

more recently
4. derick selvig and brian qvale
5. anthony johnson
6. will cherry

don't give me projects, sixth men, role players, overachievers and and flameouts. gimme stars. at the very least, potential stars. both the cats and the griz have several potential stars in their current recruiting classes, so for right now i give both classes a big thumbs up.

 

[WaGriz4life]

I just posted a on my Blog an article on rating a basketball recruiting class. Over the years I have had discussions / arguements with folks on rating recruiting classes, and it ussually all comes down to how each person decides view a reacruiting class long term or short term, national puplications ranking versus coaches ranking. It goes on and on and it all depends on where you stand. Any thoughts on my Blog?

http://mslacat.wordpress.com/

The main way I judge a recruiting class (before any of them have played in a game), is by their offer list. You can tell a lot by a guys offer list. I just let the coaches decide but also take into account how highly they are ranked by recruiting scouts.

 

[General Disarray]

I also think offers is the best way to really evaluate it. Coaches are paid a lot of money to evaluate talent and unless your name is Mel Kiper, these scouts in the entertainment/online world usually aren't. If a coach at a respected program thinks highly enough of a kid to extend a full-ride offer then I think that's quite an endorsement.

 

[Mslacat]

The main way I judge a recruiting class (before any of them have played in a game), is by their offer list. You can tell a lot by a guys offer list. I just let the coaches decide but also take into account how highly they are ranked by recruiting scouts.

This is a legit way to look at recruiting but like other methods it has its problems, mainly that it does not really rate players from non-urban areas or in small places that do not get a lot of attention. An example would be last years player Brian Qvale and Anthony Johnson. Qvale was from North Dakota and did not get out and play National AAU circuit very much, so quite frankly most coaches did not get the chance to see or recruit him. Johnson played at Walla Walla JC in the Washington / Oregon Junior College league that very few coaches even know exist let along recruit. Out of the whole league of close to 24 team they will only put 4-6 players in D-1 teams. Johnson and Qvale could easily play in the Pac-10.