Jump to content

Welcome to Hoosier Sports Nation | Indiana Basketball and Sports Forum

Welcome to HoosierSportsNation 3.0 -- our newest and best iteration.  We promise we won't bite -- come on in and register to join the party!


Sign in to follow this  
Indykev

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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Edited by IowaHoosierFan
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Edited by IowaHoosierFan

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Indykev said:

I think Galloway is way better than 140.

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

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TG forced Mekai Lairy into 9 TOs in the state championship game, as well. 

Scored 14p and 5r, as well. He was a SO then. Lairy a SR who avged 9p 3a as a SO at Miami of Ohio this past year. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
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'

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, btownqb said:

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

When I wrote the above I was going to refer to MSU generally -- they often bring in guys outside the top 100, when they're recruiting them, who turn out very good. They know how to recruit. So does CAM.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Edited by Stlboiler23

Share this post


Link to post
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. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, FKIM01 said:

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

Kramer wasn’t bad offensively. We just didn’t have to rely on him to score. 

Share this post


Link to post
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.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 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. 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
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 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 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.

In the state of Indiana and in AAU? Nahh

Share this post


Link to post
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!

Share this post


Link to post
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 %

Share this post


Link to post
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.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...