(04-21-2018 01:30 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote: I agree with some of the geniuses here. Recruiting rankings are worthless. I’m expecting the University of Alabama (football) to file a lawsuit against the recruiting services for misleading them into going after so many terrible 4 and 5 Star recruits.
Lol who got beat by Auburn who supposedly had worse players and a worse coach. An Auburn team that got worked by lowly UCF who could never compete with SEC caliber teams, just look at the recruit rankings.
Or WSU in their final 4 run with their top rated class.
Or UMBC with it's much better class then Virginia.
Houston sure is killing Tulsa with those way better classes in every sport.
Texas wins everything and doesn't suck.
Some of you really don't seem to get it.
Millions of kids play these sports, millions. There are what, 6 major recruiting sources. Even giving them each 500 staff you have 3,000 people trying to see millions of kids play. Most of whom don't have true scouting skills or evaluation experience. That alone blows your recruiting schtick all to hell.
Where would Larry Bird have been ranked by a service?
Long shooter, hard worker, good scorer, low athletic ability going to a midmajor conference school from a small town in Indiana? Low 3 star lots of upside.
What about Magic Johnson?
Gifted athlete, can control the game, played in a big population state in major metropolitan area, signed with a huge state school. 5 star must have.
Yet they were for all intents and purposes a match as the center pieces of two of the best college teams and NBA franchises.
TLDR. I didn’t say recruiting ratings are the end all/be all, but nobody is winning big with scrubs. In basketball you have senior laden teams that can make a run in the tournament. There’s no doubt experience helps.
Studs definitely slip through the cracks in college football, but the reality is if you have a team full of 4 and 5 stars you’re gonna have better depth and a lower chance of a prospect not panning out. FWIW UCF recruits pretty good in football.
Lol which is why you are a prime example of who the recruiting services are catering to. "Just tell me how good we are going to be."
WSU's final four team blows up your first paragraph.
For your second paragraph, in football that is not such a big deal, it's truely a team sport where advantage is gained by a group superiority, such as a great pass rush, a shut down secondary, or gifted passing partnerships.
Way more kids play basketball and a single player can change the entire team. So missing one of them is more likely to happen and more likely to show up on the court.
UCF's classes don't rank within smelling distance of Auburn or Alabama. Thankfully games are played instead of comparing recruiting rankings aka the eye test.
I agreed with you to some extent, but nobody is turning away blue chippers for three star dudes. However, I wouldn’t say WSU recruits scrubs either. As far as their Final Four team goes, they had a number of solid upperclassmen with some talented younger guys mixed in. Nevertheless, I’d say the step up to the AAC has been a tougher road than many of their fans expected.
??? WSU was one shot from being a co-champion. Do you really think WSU fans thought there wasn't much difference between Temple and Evansville? I think many AAC fans will be surprised how well WSU does next season after so much roster turnover.
(04-21-2018 07:37 PM)cscottl1981 Wrote: Maybe (prior to the season) you didn’t act like WSU was gonna steamroll everyone in the American, but most of your fellow fans did.
The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 star
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2018 09:53 PM by Tiger1983.)
(04-21-2018 09:05 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 start
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
seems like a lot of work just to contradict the delusions of one tulsa poster. the rest of us know recruiting rankings are important
(04-21-2018 09:05 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 start
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
seems like a lot of work just to contradict the delusions of one tulsa poster. the rest of us know recruiting rankings are important
During the tenure of the former Tiger coach, I encountered a surprising number of posters - some impervious to facts and logic until the bitter end - that shared his or her point of view.
(04-21-2018 09:05 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 start
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
seems like a lot of work just to contradict the delusions of one tulsa poster. the rest of us know recruiting rankings are important
During the tenure of the former Tiger coach, I encountered a surprising number of posters - some impervious to facts and logic until the bitter end - that shared his or her point of view.
Reading comprehension isn't strong for you all is it?
5 stars= 11
Nr= 23
4 stars = 27
3 stars/2star = 15
38 4/5 stars
38 3 stars or less, 23 not ranked
But hey thanks for backing up the point.
By the way more than half of those 5 stars were on one team that didn't make the final 4.
(This post was last modified: 04-21-2018 10:41 PM by TU4ever.)
If Evans comes back (small chance I know), UC can be just as good as next year. Fredericks is a big pickup. 1st team juco AA with great athleticism, scoring and rebounding ability.
Bearcat fans are elated about this commitment. He can start at the 3 for us from day 1 and play the 4 in small ball line-ups.
He looks athletic and shoots comfortably from three.
Averaged over 1.5 blocks and steals per game. Should do well in athletically in UC's matchup zone if he can get the concepts down. Really excited about this pickup. Now UC doesn't have to rely on Moore and Williams to make big jumps.
(04-21-2018 09:05 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 start
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
seems like a lot of work just to contradict the delusions of one tulsa poster. the rest of us know recruiting rankings are important
During the tenure of the former Tiger coach, I encountered a surprising number of posters - some impervious to facts and logic until the bitter end - that shared his or her point of view.
Reading comprehension isn't strong for you all is it?
5 stars= 11
Nr= 23
4 stars = 27
3 stars/2star = 15
38 4/5 stars
38 3 stars or less, 23 not ranked
But hey thanks for backing up the point.
By the way more than half of those 5 stars were on one team that didn't make the final 4.
But how many of those 3*/NR played significant minutes and contributed compared to the 4/5 stars?
(04-21-2018 09:05 PM)Tiger1983 Wrote: The top ten players (in terms of minutes) of the Elite Eight teams last season had the below ESPN ratings:
Villanova
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
One 3 start
One 2 stars
Michigan
Five 4 stars
Two 3 star
One 2 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas and lead team in scoring)
Kansas
Two 5 stars
Six 4 stars
Two NR (one walk on and one overseas)
Loyola-Chicago
Four 3 stars
Six NR (one of whom was #36 JUCO)
Florida State
One 5 star
Six 4 star
One 3 star
Two NR (one of whom played overseas)
Texas Tech
One 4 Star
Two 3 Star
Two 2 Star
Five NR
Kansas St
Four 3 stars
One 2 star
Five NR
Duke
Six 5 stars
Three 4 stars
One NR (overseas)
In the past, I researched the Elite Eight teams and the 2018 season was unusual. Note, however, that the teams making the Elite Eight more than once or twice in program history are the ones with five and four star players.
In sum, high level talent alone will not achieve the Elite Eight , but without high level talent it is very difficult to consistently obtain high level results.
seems like a lot of work just to contradict the delusions of one tulsa poster. the rest of us know recruiting rankings are important
During the tenure of the former Tiger coach, I encountered a surprising number of posters - some impervious to facts and logic until the bitter end - that shared his or her point of view.
Reading comprehension isn't strong for you all is it?
5 stars= 11
Nr= 23
4 stars = 27
3 stars/2star = 15
38 4/5 stars
38 3 stars or less, 23 not ranked
But hey thanks for backing up the point.
By the way more than half of those 5 stars were on one team that didn't make the final 4.
How many 4 and 5 stars does Tulsa have? Do you think you guys have a chance to win it all next year?
/
AAC basketball news thread
