It had better be because we are looking at maybe having 6 scholarship players on roster after this year.
Recruiting Level
- Thread starter sdspider
- Start date
You're right about Godwin, though I don't pay attention to anything 247 says, but if our recruits for next year pan out, he does not play a position of need. We have no big men, which is a desperate need.
After this season our roster is:
SDJ (Sr)
TJ Cline (Sr)
Marshall Wood (Sr)
Khwan Fore (So)
JP (So)
JJ (So)
KoVien (So)
PF (So)
Sherod (Fr)
Buckingham (Fr)
GG (Fr)
?????? (we are still recruiting)
In order for us to only have 6 scholarship players at least 5 of these players will need to leave the program this summer. Which 5 will they be? It seems impossible that 5 of these guys will leave. Mooney isn't kicking anyone out, we are already under our scholarship limit and are nowhere near over recruiting.
I read it as if PA didn't word it well. To me he was saying that if the only measure of a great player is their on court performance at UR then nobody in our 2016&2017 classes are great...yet.
Davidson's Aldridge averaged 29pts/7reb against our vaunted defense. Much better than Simmons (LSU) or Hield (OK) for Wooden award. Lol
Last year, when we actually had a good defense, he averaged 4 points and 2.5 rebounds in the 2 games we played.
I wasnt counting incoming freshman and think that 2 of our current players will be transferring. So that is 6 enrolled players on the roster come April.
K0 must have shut him down !! Thx for the info, I didn't remember him doing anything last year.
You're correct, sorry for my off hand response. I was also referring to the fact that you cannot call a class great if it is not addressing the HUGE elephant in the room which is our lack of front court players.
Well, I do think GG is going to be a front court player for us, so it's not like we aren't addressing this in part with this class. I would agree we need another true 4 for us, as I think Grant is listed as a SF in spite of his height, and I think he projects as a 5 for us potentially. That last part is speculation though.
I agree and Not only that you can't call a class great until they actually show up and produce. Does anyone know how well the correlation is between recruiting class rankings and actual results. My guess is, If it's like most projections it's purely a crap shoot.
As a population higher star ratings means on average more points scored, more rebounds, more assists, more playing time, more of everything really. On an individual level it varies wildly though.
You mean there isn't a precise correlation to recruiting rank?
I thought sure that it was (500-Rank) x 4.6 for career points, x 1.8 for career rebounds...
but is that a good predictor or determination of future performance at the college level?
I think the official correlation is referred to as Gross Unencumbered Expectation of Statistical Success. Or GUESS for short.
There is a pretty precise correlation if you bin recruits into 5 different groups (5*, 4*, 3*, 2*, unranked). After binning the correlation is clear, higher ranking correlates with higher points scored, minutes played, rebounds, assists, just all around better college performance.
However, within each bin there is huge variance. Even though 4*s are on average much better than 3*s the variance within each group means that there is significant overlap between the groups. If you choose two random players their recruiting ranking tells you which one is more likely to be the better player, but it is far from a guarantee.
What that means for us is recruits with more *s have a higher probability of being good, but it doesn't guarantee it. Recruiting consistently at a higher level (more *s) over the long term is the key, this will result in a higher percent of recruits being good players and a lower percent being busts.
However, within each bin there is huge variance. Even though 4*s are on average much better than 3*s the variance within each group means that there is significant overlap between the groups. If you choose two random players their recruiting ranking tells you which one is more likely to be the better player, but it is far from a guarantee.
What that means for us is recruits with more *s have a higher probability of being good, but it doesn't guarantee it. Recruiting consistently at a higher level (more *s) over the long term is the key, this will result in a higher percent of recruits being good players and a lower percent being busts.
Last edited:
Similar threads
