Really? I don’t see Kansas there. Kentucky? Nope. USC? Florida? Oregon?
Kihei Clark was a UC-Irvine signee and starts for Virginia.
System and Coaching > Stars 7/10
False Hope
- Thread starter THWG16
- Start date
Really? I don’t see Kansas there. Kentucky? Nope. USC? Florida? Oregon?
Kihei Clark was a UC-Irvine signee and starts for Virginia.
System and Coaching > Stars 7/10
lv20gt
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 5,568
Last year Nova was champs. They were led by Jalen Brunson, Mikal Bridges, Donte DiVincenzo, and Omari Spelmon. All were top 125 recruits, 2 top 25s. Before that was UNC and we know how they recruit. Before that Nova won it and were led by multiple to 70 recruits. Before that it was Duke who had tons of talent, before that Uconn led by Napier, Daniels, and Boatwright all top 50 ish players.
Stars aren't the only factor by any means but you need a certain level to realistically compete and having more stars gives more room for error in case things go wrong. Of course I don't know why we are making this distinction. Hewitt was a better recruiter and better coach than gregory so its a moot point. It may have been right to fire him but it was wrong to fire him for gregory.
GT_EE78
Banned
- Messages
- 3,605
kansa,duke,Kenty,NC , nova win it often and recruit well per that star system which proves my point. I don't understand your beef?
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,502
There is probably the same or better correlation with all-time program record to wins as there is with recruiting rankings and wins. Unless you compare the two it is pretty much meaningless.
I can tell you right now that Duke, UNC, Kansas, Kentucky, and UCLA will be really talented in 5 years without knowing who the players are or how highly ranked they are. The top 25 or so recruits in basketball are fairly obvious each year. There may be a few who don't live up to it but it is only a few. The idea that number 46 is way better than number 84 is misguided and not particularly relevant. It is much more important to each of those guys to go to a program where they fit the system and aren't the fourth guy with the exact same skill set.
The underrated part of Cremins was that he was a great recruiter who also understood how lineups worked together. Hewitt was horrible at that. Guys leaving early killed Cremins because his whole approach to recruiting assumed his guys would stay and he could focus on the next guy or two to fill the holes of the departures. Bobby was a sniper in a game that turned to a broader approach.
- Messages
- 5,739
The star system on the whole is valid, though it can miss on individual players. But there is also the issue that only about 1/2 dozen teams in the country recruit at a level where they can get enough super high level FR to employ a pure star driven system. Pea's teams above show something else.
The other thing to note about 4 of the 5 schools that Pea shows above is who is playing. All those teams except Duke are having most of their min being played by Jr and SR. Heck, of the 8 guys in UVA's rotation -5 were redshirted.
There are a handful of teams - Duke, KY, Kansas, UNC, AZ that can get so many 5 star kids that it can help counter some of the need for experience. But for most programs in order to win you are going to need high 3 and 4* kids (in the ACC this is sort of what UVA, VT, ND all specialize in), develop them and let them gain experience. When those talented, but not super talented, kids get developed and gain experience that allows them to compete and often beat the super talented. Those teams also tend to be very strong defensively most years and good offensively. If you are not a blue blood, that is your best chance for sustainable winning programs.
GTJake
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,956
- Location
- Fernandina Beach, Florida
I fall in the middle on this discussion, I agree with the blue collar guys with alot of heart that you coach-up and aren't the one and done type, but IMO we still need a couple of studs (go to guys) that can pull you across the finish line on shear talent when you are having one of those nights.
GT_EE78
Banned
- Messages
- 3,605
well said, ya gotta do what ya gotta do to compete. It's not like the NCAA would ever do anything to level the playing field. At least the top100 spreads around a little better in bb than fb. It would be interesting if the ncaa would help schools to have a more local flavor limiting out of state recruiting by barring any school from recruiting more than one athlete per state per year (football) and one athlete per state per 4years - basketball. at least that would mitigate the damage when all the Coach Shermans make their annual poaching pilgrimage to burn a path from Atlanta to Savannah.
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,502
It depends what "valid" means in this context. It is valid in that the people who do it do the best they can. The real question is how well do the ordinal rankings correlate to future results compared to how well past results correlate to future results? If there is much difference I'd bet on the past results being more predictive.
- Messages
- 5,739
I think the ranking systems are pretty valid especially near the top. BB players play against each other in AAU all the time so it is pretty easy to see who the dominant talents are.
The Top 25 for the most part are the Top 25. There really isn't alot of argument there.
Where you start having a bigger ask is after about the Top 50 to the Top 150. There is not usually alot of difference between those players and it really comes down to where do they go and how do they fit in the place they go to - and how do they develop once they get there. A kid can be #125 but be developed alot better at one school than the #55 player is developed at a second school and that #125 kid will turn out to be the better college player because there wasn't a huge spread to begin with and then that player grows more.
It will be interesting once the NBA does away with the one and done rule in a few years how many of those Top 25 kids go to college at all.
You need difference makers - but not all difference makers come from the Top 25. Okogie was a difference maker and he wasn't a Top 150 kid coming into college.
I think Jose is going to be a difference maker and he wasn't a 4* player.
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,502
Right. I agree with all of that.
That's why taking averages of star rankings is silly. The arbitrary line between 3 and 4 isn't meaningful so the numbers end up simply wrong. Recruiting is all about getting guys that fit your system that will be developed into better players in that system. Talent is important but not anywhere near the complete answer.
Jay Wright learned that when he first started getting the top guys but ended up with bad cultural fits (excerpt from link below):
The Wildcats earned a 1-seed in 2006 and then reached the Final Four in 2009. They also were finally making their mark on the recruiting trail, landing two five-star prospects in the 2007 class and three five-star prospects in the 2009 class, finishing with the No. 3 recruiting class in the country in '09.
Instead, what followed was the worst stretch of Wright's tenure at Villanova since his opening three seasons.
The Wildcats started 16-1 in the 2010-11 season before going 5-10 the rest of the way -- including a five-game losing streak to close the regular season. They were bounced in the first round of the NCAA tournament by George Mason. It bottomed out the next season, as Villanova finished 13-19 and missed the NCAA tournament for the first time since 2004.
Everyone in the program knew something was wrong.
It went back to recruiting and suddenly trying to outgun the established blue bloods for highly ranked prospects.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22436614/inside-villanova-epic-five-year-run
I’d be interested in your thoughts (@ESPNjacket @RamblinRed ) about the lists from about 40-80 and then 81-120. The difference in those rankings very much lies in the eye of the beholder and the system they run.
IMHO that’s where the money is and where my point kind of lies. I look at a guy like Saddiq Bey who was a high major guy but still a 3*, however, due to circumstance he is a major player at Nova in year 1.
The blue bloods are going to get 65% of the top 30, but those two ranges that I mentioned above are where sustainable programs make their bones year in and year out in my opinion. That is where I was headed so inarticulatley last night
IMHO that’s where the money is and where my point kind of lies. I look at a guy like Saddiq Bey who was a high major guy but still a 3*, however, due to circumstance he is a major player at Nova in year 1.
The blue bloods are going to get 65% of the top 30, but those two ranges that I mentioned above are where sustainable programs make their bones year in and year out in my opinion. That is where I was headed so inarticulatley last night
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,424
JA Morant
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,502
I think we are all saying the same thing from different angles. You guys follow recruiting much more closely than I do. The star based attempts at math miss the entire point, IMO.
I find hearing how coaches approach recruiting strategically far more interesting than the recruiting news that is so popular. Most of the people into the recruiting news seem way too interested in stars and ordinal rankings with little regard for system and cultural fit.
- Messages
- 5,739
I agree ESPN. We are all saying the same basic thing. Just getting a bunch of high star players doesn't make you have a good team.
I thought it was interesting in his initial PC at GT Pastner alluded to that. He talked about making mistakes and about how he realized it wasn't just about getting the highest ranked guys, it was getting guys that could make a good team.
Pea I think you are exactly right in terms of the rankings, especially after about the top 50. You could put 40-50 players in a lottery and they would all really be pretty similar in terms of talent. It becomes more important what school they go to. How does the schemes used by that school fit the player. How well will the staff help them develop.
gtpi
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,642
- Location
- BFE , south carolina
that i remember 'team chemistry' was always on cbc's mind. he mentioned it constantly.
ESPNjacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,502
Amen. Bobby was really good at uniting people.
Those that have come after him don't understand how to do that with the alumni and fan base. We are a strange bunch with an anti-outsider culture. Bobby refused to accept that culture and brought his view of the world to us. We were better for it. We need to get back to that.
I hope Pastner succeeds but I don't think he tries to understand our culture. He has adjusted somewhat but not fully. Bobby won the fans over before he started winning (this pre-dates me by a couple of years but I know enough people who were there that I can say that). The last two guys didn't seem to give any thought to winning over the fans. Pastner seems to flirt with it. Bobby lived it. We may need that. I'm not sure.
YlJacket
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 3,201
We need it if CJP can't recruit enough top end (define it however you want) players to get us in the top half of the ACC. Bobby won fans over but he won basketball games. CJP is trying to win fans over but his last 2 years are a problem for the winning part.
Right now we need one or two of the multiple projects we have to become ACC level players. We'll see if we get there. IMHO that is more important than whether CJP flirts with/lives with the GT culture and makes friends. (FWIW he is very likeable)
Right now we need one or two of the multiple projects we have to become ACC level players. We'll see if we get there. IMHO that is more important than whether CJP flirts with/lives with the GT culture and makes friends. (FWIW he is very likeable)
- Messages
- 5,739
FWIW, if you think Pastner is being replaced anytime soon you need to read this article.
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/georgia-tech-transition-was-not-cheap/7cRAUbhoJpXuhVKODr8ZjI/
If you didn't already understand, there is 0% chance that GT would get rid of Pastner until after year 5 at the earliest.
https://www.ajc.com/sports/college/georgia-tech-transition-was-not-cheap/7cRAUbhoJpXuhVKODr8ZjI/
If you didn't already understand, there is 0% chance that GT would get rid of Pastner until after year 5 at the earliest.
lauraee
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 2,424
Nice of them to spend it all on football......
Bogey
Helluva Engineer
- Messages
- 1,232
Football has been and always will be Tech's base program. A strong, profitable FB program will benefit basketball in the future.
Sent from my ASUS_Z01RD using Tapatalk