Jump to content

Rivals Final 2020 rankings out


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Indykev said:

IU now #1 class in Big Ten, #11 overall.

I still don't know which service is the best to use....seems like they keep changing quite a bit. Glad they have us ranked first for notoriety and honestly was tired of Howard getting the attention with his class. 

#1 in rankings in Big 10....and has to be #1 academically as well. 2 very strong characteristics that Archie seems bent on finding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Landers at 25 overall, #7 at his position in 2020 class.

We have 25, 88, 124, and 140 in the class of 2020.  That is pretty good to have 4 in the top 150, 2 in the top 100, and 1 in the top 25

As I've said before, I don't place too much stock in high school rankings, particularly in distinguishing players based on rankings in the 25-100 or 50-150 range etc., how they are ranked includes who ranked them, who saw them, when they saw them, what factors they're weighting, etc.

But all that said, yes, this looks like a deep and balanced class with a legit top 25 player / point guard, who brings areas of need,  and a collective group of highly regarded players who have built reputations on toughness, winning, and skill to go along with upside. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

As I've said before, I don't place too much stock in high school rankings, particularly in distinguishing players based on rankings in the 25-100 or 50-150 range etc., how they are ranked includes who ranked them, who saw them, when they saw them, what factors they're weighting, etc.

But all that said, yes, this looks like a deep and balanced class with a legit top 25 player / point guard, who brings areas of need,  and a collective group of highly regarded players who have built reputations on toughness, winning, and skill to go along with upside. 

I think the Movement recruiting group for Coach Crean soured lots of people on highly touted recruiting classes.  Most kids in the top 100 should be able to impact a team as a freshmen if the minutes are there.  After that, i think you're usually in the raw talent area or they have a specific tool set that allowed them to be successful but may or may not translate to the college game.  I really only expect Landers and maybe 1 other to contribute this coming season.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

I think the Movement recruiting group for Coach Crean soured lots of people on highly touted recruiting classes.  Most kids in the top 100 should be able to impact a team as a freshmen if the minutes are there.  After that, i think you're usually in the raw talent area or they have a specific tool set that allowed them to be successful but may or may not translate to the college game.  I really only expect Landers and maybe 1 other to contribute this coming season.  

Lots of guys outside the top 100 impact well. As I said above, I'm not big on relying much on rankings to distinguish guys in that general range. Off the top of my head, think Hulls (consistently ranked in the 105-10 range, 247 had him at 139), Juwan Morgan, obviously Oladipo and OG, Sheehey, etc. Guys may not be stars (e.g., Sheehey) but the idea if you're not ranked top 100 you won't impact the team as a frosh is often just wrong. And frankly differentiating a guy ranked 80 or so from a guy ranked 110-20 or so has really little value. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, IowaHoosierFan said:

Landers at 25 overall, #7 at his position in 2020 class.

We have 25, 88, 124, and 140 in the class of 2020.  That is pretty good to have 4 in the top 150, 2 in the top 100, and 1 in the top 25

I think Galloway is way better than 140.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Indykev said:

I think Galloway is way better than 140.

100% he is.. and I'll bet AL is better than 124. 

6'5 wing that can shoot, drive, and play defense that was the best player on a top 3 undefeated 4A Bloomington South team. Cmon now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sark said:

Where do you think he should be ranked and why do you think he’s at 140?

140 because of the quality of player and team he has been around have hurt his overall numbers. If he goes somewhere else he could have avged 25p yotta yotta, but you don't see his true value until you put him on a team where his attributes can flourish. He makes so many winning plays (defense, loose ball, an assist, a steal, etc).. recruiting services don't always rate those players well. 

There's a reason TG won 4 sectionals, 2 regional and 1 state championship in HS. 87-17 and played a big time schedule.  

AL won 4 sectionals and was probably going to win the regional this year. AL went 98-12. 

They were both ultra successful on the team level in AAU. 

None of this is coincidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Recruiting ratings are fun for fans to discuss but mean very little. Outside a select handful at the top recruits in each class (sometimes less) it's not logical to think these rating services have seen enough of these kids to distinguish between the rest. A lot of it falls short of speculation and lands in the valley of conjecture. They just saw a kids scored 30+ in a game and that means he's a top 20. They watched one tournament and noticed this kid stood out, so he's a lock 5 star. It does not translate to the next level. If it did, college coaches could stop traveling the country wasting their time and just sit back and wait for the rankings to come out.

What I've noticed over the years is it seems there is an expansion of the number of kids that fall into the 5 and 4 star categories. You can now see 25 to 35 with a 5 stars rating, the remaining Top 100 are all 4 stars. If a blue blood program recruits you and offers, then your rating magically jumps up. If you have a down game or two in a tournament, your rating falls off. If it were up to the fans a lot of kids would be dropped from consideration after one bad weekend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, btownqb said:

140 because of the quality of player and team he has been around have hurt his overall numbers. If he goes somewhere else he could have avged 25p yotta yotta, but you don't see his true value until you put him on a team where his attributes can flourish. He makes so many winning plays (defense, loose ball, an assist, a steal, etc).. recruiting services don't always rate those players well. 

There's a reason TG won 4 sectionals, 2 regional and 1 state championship in HS. 87-17 and played a big time schedule.  

AL won 4 sectionals and was probably going to win the regional this year. AL went 98-12. 

They were both ultra successful on the team level in AAU. 

None of this is coincidence. 

This is exactly the kind of insight the rankings often lack. On top of guys getting ranked based on who viewed them, when, how many times, etc. The rankings are useful, but they are far from the end all in assessing a player.

It's why you see guys often getting recruited by major schools despite being 'ranked' well below top 50 or 100, and why you see guys ranked outside the top 100 often far outperforming their 'ranking'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

This is exactly the kind of insight the rankings often lack. On top of guys getting ranked based on who viewed them, when, how many times, etc. The rankings are useful, but they are far from the end all in assessing a player.

It's why you see guys often getting recruited by major schools despite being 'ranked' well below top 50 or 100, and why you see guys ranked outside the top 100 often far outperforming their 'ranking'

MSU offered so its not like we're the only ones. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, btownqb said:

140 because of the quality of player and team he has been around have hurt his overall numbers. If he goes somewhere else he could have avged 25p yotta yotta, but you don't see his true value until you put him on a team where his attributes can flourish. He makes so many winning plays (defense, loose ball, an assist, a steal, etc).. recruiting services don't always rate those players well. 

There's a reason TG won 4 sectionals, 2 regional and 1 state championship in HS. 87-17 and played a big time schedule.  

AL won 4 sectionals and was probably going to win the regional this year. AL went 98-12. 

They were both ultra successful on the team level in AAU. 

None of this is coincidence. 

I def think Galloway will be a solid player for you guys. If I’m an IU fan, I’m hoping he can provide some of what Kramer provided for us back in the day. Do the dirty work and play really good defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stlboiler23 said:

I def think Galloway will be a solid player for you guys. If I’m an IU fan, I’m hoping he can provide some of what Kramer provided for us back in the day. Do the dirty work and play really good defense.

I hope he's a hell of a lot better than Kramer offensively. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Sark said:

Where do you think he should be ranked and why do you think he’s at 140?

What btoenqb said. I will add the kid does it all. Not flashy and loud is why his ranking isnt better. Just went back and watched some of his games and if he can get his shot off quicker we are going to love this kid for 4 years. I also think he could play 3 spots. Really good with the ball.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sark said:

But isn’t 140 a way of comparing him with other players? Most every top high school kid surely has a great resume like this.

Yes, generally, but see above. The rankings depend on who viewed the player, when, how many times, what factors the service is weighting (athleticism, perceived next level body type - length, wingspan, burst, shooting, defense (usually a small percentage factor), rebounding, etc. 

And if you think there’s a real difference between a guy at 90 or 120 etc I’ve got some real estate to sell you 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me the most important ranking at this time is the CAM ranking! How does coach Miller rank these guys based on what he has seen? Have to say he has had some misses like Jake, who I thought was going to be the X factor. Shows how much I know! All in all, I'm happy with the players he has brought in, but like I said what do I know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Sark said:

But isn’t 140 a way of comparing him with other players? Most every top high school kid surely has a great resume like this.

i'm with ya Sark.  fan bases often think their recruit is underrated and rankings don't matter anyway.  not saying the kid won't be good, but if you're in the top 150, you were likely a stud on your high school team and carried them to a great win %

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Hoosierhoopster said:

Yes, generally, but see above. The rankings depend on who viewed the player, when, how many times, what factors the service is weighting (athleticism, perceived next level body type - length, wingspan, burst, shooting, defense (usually a small percentage factor), rebounding, etc. 

And if you think there’s a real difference between a guy at 90 or 120 etc I’ve got some real estate to sell you 

i agree with the 90-120 point.  BGleas broke it down into sections not long ago that i agreed with.  you can't sell me that the success rate of a top 25 kid compared to a 125 kid aren't very different.  of course it always comes up about guys like Oladipo or DWade.  sure, there are always exceptions.  but it is very very tough to predict who those exceptions are.  just to say that he could do it all in high school and his team won a bunch of games, so he's overrated is tough to convince me.  i still think the thing that interests me the most is what other teams offered.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having followed recruiting back to the 1980s, IMO the recruting services overall tend to suffer from a variety of problems.  They get caught up in group think.  I’ve gone out to AAU events and, yes, they are fun. But guys hang out, talk, and suddenly the group think phenomenon kicks in.  They tend to overrate athleticism, even if the kid is soft and more flash over substance.  What they miss though, are precisely what Btown refers to, the kid that makes the winning play as well as tenacity and motor.  

The other thing is you don’t need to collect the highest ranked kids in a mish-mash that doesn’t make sense.  You need to construct a team that complements each other.  Knight had roles in mind for a winning formula.  Nobody has the mind of Knight today but you can still see the importance of complementary players.  

30 years ago one of my siblings saw a kid named Calbert Cheaney before he broke his leg and he was positive he would be a stud in college.  We had him as the best player in the class other than Funderburke yet he wasn’t ranked particularly as an elite player.  Since then I’ve sort of decided that I will decide for myself.  I’m not claiming I’m always right.  I saw Brian Evans and had my doubts.  I couldn’t envision what he would turn out to be.  But, and I don’t mean to be cocky, I do alright with my own assessments.  

The gurus will always overrate Bracey Wright and Andrae Patterson and Hanner Perea and underrate Tom Coverdale, Chris Kramer, Brian Evans, Kirk Haston, and Brian Cardinal.  

I think Archie is putting together a roster that will make sense, where, hopefully, the sum of the parts will exceed the individuals. 

That’s not to say that rankings are totally useless.  Some players are obviously good and I don’t just mean the Kobe’s and the Lebron types.  You can see that some kids have that winning gene and are talented and skilled.   Most of the top 20 will be good and that will be obvious to someone who doesn’t even understand ball.  But that kid may not stick around long to win a bleeping thing.  Beyond that, does it matter if a kid is ranked 44 or 87 (of course not)?  You take the athletic kid at 44 who is kind of self absorbed and lacks self awareness and I will take the kid ranked 87 who wants to kick everyone’s ass and who is a team guy with fundamentals.  And I will win more often than not.  The objective is to win, not collect a trophy for recruiting guru rankings.  Overall, I would say that some of the recruiting gurus are good in aggregating information and data.  But that doesn’t validate them as assessors or talent.  Far from it.  

I endorse what HoosierHoopster said because he articulated my feelings well. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, NCHoosier32 said:

i agree with the 90-120 point.  BGleas broke it down into sections not long ago that i agreed with.  you can't sell me that the success rate of a top 25 kid compared to a 125 kid aren't very different.  of course it always comes up about guys like Oladipo or DWade.  sure, there are always exceptions.  but it is very very tough to predict who those exceptions are.  just to say that he could do it all in high school and his team won a bunch of games, so he's overrated is tough to convince me.  i still think the thing that interests me the most is what other teams offered.  

Agree on offers including who offered - and when. Quick example - Hollowell. Good player, but after being offered early by schools like OSU, OSU and some others backed off later while the offers still showed. Hollowell was a good player but not per his “ranking.” And there are of course a gazillion examples of guys ranked in the top 25-50 who don’t pan out at all. Again, rankings are just one way to try to measure a player, and they are in many cases hit or miss. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...