MAC recruiting classes

[mes102]

I expect to hear more on name recognitiopn instead of the ratings because I don't always agree with ESPN's ratings...

Here's the past 3 years from ESPN:

2008:

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/...8%26confId%3d14

2009:

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/...9%26confId%3d14

2010:

http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/...0%26confId%3d14

[Quickzips]

Still far to early to judge the 2010 class and probably the 2009 class as well. Most of the kids from the 2009 class haven't even played yet and none of the 2010 kids have. As far as 2008 goes the Zips, Can't and Buffalo seem to be the only ones who have gotten multiple contributing players (although Can't has already graduated three of them). Multiple schools got one good contributor (Jarrod Jones of Ball State, Scott Thomas of BG, Mike Dinnuno of NIU, Steven Coleman of OU). All in all doesn't seem to be a great class for the MAC at this point. I think if this does teach us anything it is not to put too much value into the ESPN rankings.

There are some early returns from the 2009 class particularly with Zeke and the dynamic duo of Keely and Cooper from OU.

I do think it is interesting that 2010 has a lot more 80's and 90's than 2008 when we had mostly 40's - 70's. Don't know if this reflects an actual uptick in quality of recruits or just a shift in the rankings ability of ESPN.

[ZachTheZip]

I do think it is interesting that 2010 has a lot more 80's and 90's than 2008 when we had mostly 40's - 70's. Don't know if this reflects an actual uptick in quality of recruits or just a shift in the rankings ability of ESPN.

It's the latter. They're really ramping up the recruiting ratings. They rate far more players than in the past. I would say they're even more thorough now than Scout and on par with Rivals.

[Dave in Green]

I'm thinking that all those 40 grades in 2008 translate to "we really don't rate players beneath a certain point, so we just assign an arbitrary 40 to those dudes."

In any case, all of the ratings are basically "we think we know about where the dude is now compared to his peers, and here's where we think he might be headed if he works hard and continues developing."

Some work out about right, some fall short, and some overachieve. Among the many thousands of question marks are a few "can't misses" -- the LeBron category (had he elected to attend college).

Zeke is a classic example of someone who's hard to predict. He started playing basketball late in his youth. He had a huge growth spurt that left him much, much taller than average, and he's still getting used to what he can do with that lllllooooonnnnnngggggg body. If he really wants to play basketball beyond college and really works at it, he could possibly become a solid NBA player. If he loves his computers more than basketball, he might still be a good college player, and then move into the computer business and leave basketball behind.

Nobody really knows for sure on more than 99% of these players.

[ZachTheZip]

A 40 means that they never received film to evaluate. They rate every single player who sends in film.

[zippyman23]

I do think it is interesting that 2010 has a lot more 80's and 90's than 2008 when we had mostly 40's - 70's. Don't know if this reflects an actual uptick in quality of recruits or just a shift in the rankings ability of ESPN.

It's the latter. They're really ramping up the recruiting ratings. They rate far more players than in the past. I would say they're even more thorough now than Scout and on par with Rivals.

ESPN rankings are still a complete joke. Their "scouts" are very rarely out on the road at AAU events or high school games scouting these kids. Compare that to the Rivals/Scouts who are constantly on the road actually watching these kids play. I wouldn't put any faith in ESPN when it comes to recruiting.

As for there being more 80s and 90s in '09 and '10, that has to do with ESPN changing their grading scale. A 70 in '08 would translate to a rating somewhere in the 80's with the new scale.

[Quickzips]

For my time I still find Rivals to be the most helpful of the big three (ESPN, Scout, Rivals). They tend to update their database more frequently, they are on the trail more often and they have more in terms of actual insight into a lot of these kids than the other two. I still find star rankings and grades and all that to be kind of a sham. I mean, go back to those 2008 rankings. Jarrod Jones from Ball State has been one of the best players from that class and was ranked a 71. Lawrence Bridges from Central Michigan had the highest grade, a 90, averaged a little over a point and a rebound per game in his freshman year and is apparently now out of basketball all together.

[Dr Z]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm voting on here. No real question was asked. I voted as if the question was "who has had the best recruiting class in the last three years" To me those bs ratings mean nothing. I have never seen a trophy case with a best recruiting class plaque or trophy in it. I voted OU because they made it to the second round in the big dance. They got results and rewarded their fans with an upset win in the big dance. If I could vote for second place I would have voted Akron.

[Zipmeister]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm voting on here. No real question was asked. I voted as if the question was "who has had the worst recruiting class in the last three years"

[ksu sucks]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm voting on here. No real question was asked. I voted as if the question was "who has had the most men on their dance squad."

[Zipmeister]

I'm not exactly sure what I'm voting on here. No real question was asked. I voted as if the question was "who has had the worst recruiting class in the last three years"

Hey I just noticed this.

<----- What's this?