10 Big East newcomers to watch

[chicagojayfan]

I would've agreed with you back in the day with the services but now I'd take 247 over anything. Thrilled to have him in the Big East but Ellenson, Brunson are 5 stars, Whitehead was a real 5 star... essentially Mcdonald's All Americans are all I'd consider real 5 stars.

First off, let me say that I understand and generally agree with your overall point that one site listing a player as a five star doesn't make him categorically a five star. If that one site was 247Sports, though, I'd still be skeptical.

Considering how much B.S. is involved in the McDonald's All-American selections, though, that's a rather untrustworthy condition to set for what a "real 5 star" is. There is a lot of difference between the upper end and lower end of the five star group, sure, but that's a flaw in the ranking (top 10-15 should really be 6 stars), not in the players themselves. There's still a notable difference usually between a guy ranked in the 20s versus a guy ranked in the 40s, moreso than between a guy in the 40s versus a guy in the 80s, making the distinction by the number of stars still worthwhile.

I know everyone has their "pet" recruiting site, but really, none of them are head and shoulders above the rest. Whenever someone puts together a ranking of the sites, the results always end up being different, because different methodologies and different areas of focus will produce different results. They all agree a lot, they all get a lot right, and they all get some wrong. Usually the ones they get wrong are different, because they end up betting on different less predictable guys; even individuals at the same site can have significantly differing opinions on these players. As one of those less predictable players, Justin Patton is hardly the first recruit whose ranking has ranged widely between sites, with Scout taking the high end (top 25), ESPN taking the low end (ranked by position but outside the overall top 100), and Rivals and 247Sports falling in the middle (even they differ significantly, 47 vs. 83). They all agree that he'll be good, but differ on how good. The safe bet might be somewhere in the middle, but it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up performing like a lower 5 star after some conditioning, just as it wouldn't surprise me if he ended up just being a good role player. Scout's ranking is thus worth taking into consideration (and I really don't agree with your characterization of the site).

Fair enough. But my main point about one site stands. Particularly when there's that much variation in ranking it's not like drifting between 15 and 40 it's all over the map. But now that I'm home from my trip I'll let the creighton fans have their moment in the sun saying he's a 5 star.

Without even getting into where he "should" be ranked. Let's look at some of your statements..

You put your faith in 247.. yet, 247 doesn't actually "rank" anyone themselves. Their rankings are merely an aggregation of the other major services and subject to whatever else goes into that average. They have a nice long explanation here. There's a good rationale for averaging perceptions to come to a more accurate ranking, but that depends on what is being used in the average in the first place.

http://247sports.com/Article/247Rating- ... tion-81574

So let's look at the legitimate scouts who make up that ranking.

Rivals - I consider them to be the gold standard as they see the most players and evaluate the most players at a high level every year. It's hard to argue with what Bossi does every year.
Scout - Not up to the standards of Rivals IMO, but they have good coverage and experienced scouts. Evan Daniels is very good. I don't put him on Bossi's level yet, but after some down years (IMO), Scout has started to up its game again.
ESPN - ESPN is the outlier here in a lot of ways. We really don't get insight into who does the evaluations. We don't know who does the evaluations. Their coverage area is minuscule compared to the other two. In particular they tend to only scout a few players in the midwest and often miss BCS offer level players. There are times I read their evals (when they actually have one) and wonder if they have any clue which player is there. Their evals can be very good, but it varies from player to player. In some cases, it's clear they are writing a "me-too" evaluation because the other services have, yet again, beaten them to the punch.

Let's look at where they ranked Patton:

Rivals - ranked #45. Rivals cut off their 5 stars at the 25th spot this year. Patton is ranked as the 10th highest ranked center in the country. When Bossi first saw him, he had no hesitation in saying he'd be top 150 and likely a lot higher after further evaluation.
Scout - ranked #24. Evan Daniels had similar comments when he first saw him, saying he would be top 100 and then kept pushing him upwards. I suspect Patton's performance in Kentucky had something to do with this last bump. I don't know whether or not Rivals had already locked in their rankings at that point.
ESPN - Has some of the elements of the other reviews and comments in their evaluation, but it's obvious they don't really know what to write -- "Patton is a mid major plays high major minus prospect with tons off potential." .. Does anyone know that that means? In any case they are the outlier and it looks to me like they didn't do their homework. Based on the offers they have him ranked 17th at the center position. Interestingly, they do better with players who are in the limelight longer.. provided the player doesn't drop with senior year scrutiny (e.g., Matt Heldt, for instance.. still ranked #22 at center for ESPN)

However, people blathering on about prospects that they haven't bothered to watch isn't that uncommon. The description of Patton in the article that started all of this shows that the auther hadn't bothered to watch him play before writing about him. He's long, but people who watch him play know he isn't a "leaper" at this point.

So, you can take your "all over the map" belief if you want. to me all ESPN has shown is that once again they are behind the times on a recruit. Even if Patton is "just" a 4 star, the average of the two services (and the gold standard services IMO) that actually bothered to scout him shows him to be at 34.5. Certainly respectable and a highly ranked 4 star.

[xavierfano8]

I'm not jumping in the Justin Patton argument, but did you even read your own link? 247 does a composite as well as their own ranking. personally I think they are better than Rivals,Scout or any other recruiting service.

[chicagojayfan]

I'm not jumping in the Justin Patton argument, but did you even read your own link? 247 does a composite as well as their own ranking. personally I think they are better than Rivals,Scout or any other recruiting service.

The only name I've seen for them for scouting is Jerry Meyers (and another 50 people they mention, but no names), and maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I don't see detailed written analysis coming from him and their rankings always seem to track neatly to their proprietary composite with a few adjustments. Even in Patton's case, they gave him a 95 and ranked him at 66th in their top 100. 95 pts could put him as high as 59 in their rankings and that band of numbers looks remarkably like they took the average of the others (probably before Scout upped their ranking so mid 40's for both scout and rivals and then a bit of a discount for the lower ESPN ranking.

To be blunt, I probably discount them more than I should simply because their "crystal ball" seems to be the kiss of death for Creighton's recruiting. If they say it's a done deal, the guy is going somewhere else.

[hoyahooligan]

Without even getting into where he "should" be ranked. Let's look at some of your statements..

You put your faith in 247.. yet, 247 doesn't actually "rank" anyone themselves. Their rankings are merely an aggregation of the other major services and subject to whatever else goes into that average. They have a nice long explanation here. There's a good rationale for averaging perceptions to come to a more accurate ranking, but that depends on what is being used in the average in the first place.

http://247sports.com/Article/247Rating- ... tion-81574

So let's look at the legitimate scouts who make up that ranking.

Rivals - I consider them to be the gold standard as they see the most players and evaluate the most players at a high level every year. It's hard to argue with what Bossi does every year.
Scout - Not up to the standards of Rivals IMO, but they have good coverage and experienced scouts. Evan Daniels is very good. I don't put him on Bossi's level yet, but after some down years (IMO), Scout has started to up its game again.
ESPN - ESPN is the outlier here in a lot of ways. We really don't get insight into who does the evaluations. We don't know who does the evaluations. Their coverage area is minuscule compared to the other two. In particular they tend to only scout a few players in the midwest and often miss BCS offer level players. There are times I read their evals (when they actually have one) and wonder if they have any clue which player is there. Their evals can be very good, but it varies from player to player. In some cases, it's clear they are writing a "me-too" evaluation because the other services have, yet again, beaten them to the punch.

Let's look at where they ranked Patton:

Rivals - ranked #45. Rivals cut off their 5 stars at the 25th spot this year. Patton is ranked as the 10th highest ranked center in the country. When Bossi first saw him, he had no hesitation in saying he'd be top 150 and likely a lot higher after further evaluation.
Scout - ranked #24. Evan Daniels had similar comments when he first saw him, saying he would be top 100 and then kept pushing him upwards. I suspect Patton's performance in Kentucky had something to do with this last bump. I don't know whether or not Rivals had already locked in their rankings at that point.
ESPN - Has some of the elements of the other reviews and comments in their evaluation, but it's obvious they don't really know what to write -- "Patton is a mid major plays high major minus prospect with tons off potential." .. Does anyone know that that means? In any case they are the outlier and it looks to me like they didn't do their homework. Based on the offers they have him ranked 17th at the center position. Interestingly, they do better with players who are in the limelight longer.. provided the player doesn't drop with senior year scrutiny (e.g., Matt Heldt, for instance.. still ranked #22 at center for ESPN)

However, people blathering on about prospects that they haven't bothered to watch isn't that uncommon. The description of Patton in the article that started all of this shows that the auther hadn't bothered to watch him play before writing about him. He's long, but people who watch him play know he isn't a "leaper" at this point.

So, you can take your "all over the map" belief if you want. to me all ESPN has shown is that once again they are behind the times on a recruit. Even if Patton is "just" a 4 star, the average of the two services (and the gold standard services IMO) that actually bothered to scout him shows him to be at 34.5. Certainly respectable and a highly ranked 4 star.

247 does their own ranking.

And they rank him 66th. Thus his composite is 83rd.

Look you guys seem to want it both ways. On one hand Creighton fans want to talk about him as a 5 star but in the other thread you all say he's too skinny to play meaningful minutes this year and another suggesting he redshirt. If he's actually anywhere close to 5 star talent no way he red shirts.

[chicagojayfan]

....

247 does their own ranking.

And they rank him 66th. Thus his composite is 83rd.

Look you guys seem to want it both ways. On one hand Creighton fans want to talk about him as a 5 star but in the other thread you all say he's too skinny to play meaningful minutes this year and another suggesting he redshirt. If he's actually anywhere close to 5 star talent no way he red shirts.

5 star talent can still be considered as a redshirt. A few years ago Creighton brought in a skinny forward who was ready to redshirt before another player got hurt. He ended up as a 3 time AA. And that was in the Missouri valley not the BE. Being a 5-star talent can be potential for the future or can be right now talent, it really depends on how the evaluation is being done.

As I noted before, I don't really care what he's ranked. That stuff is meaningless once people hit the court and with Patton his best basketball is a ways ahead, but I do think there are scouts who have better track records than others. Not to mention Creighton has several guys who can play the 5 on the roster already, meaning his minutes are likely to be more limited as he works on his S&C. The long term potential is excellent, though, as it's easier to build up a bit of strength and bulk on a guy with Patton's frame than it is to try to teach a guy to have better hands or better touch, for instance.

As I also said before, I actually think Thomas may have a bigger impact as a freshman. His skillset is more ready to play immediately after a year at Prep and it's a skillset that is unique on their roster.

[MUBoxer]

To be blunt, I probably discount them more than I should simply because their "crystal ball" seems to be the kiss of death for Creighton's recruiting. If they say it's a done deal, the guy is going somewhere else.

So you aren't objective, thus discounting them and how reputable they can be.

Regarding your 5 star talent point McDermott was not a 5 star talent in High sschool, flew tremendously under the radar, so did D Wade, but neither of them were 5 star talent in high school.

I will say this, go the Bo Ryan route and red shirt or barely play your biggest recruit in ages and see what happens. It took years before Bo Ryan wasn't laughed out the doors of top recruits.

Personally I agree with what you say about it doesn't matter once they hit the floor, guys like Mcdermott and Wade proved that. But once you have a real unanimous 5 star you'll know the difference in the feeling between that and claiming borderline guys like Patton (or in Marquette's case Jajuan Johnson and Vander Blue) are 5 stars.

[xavierfano8]

I'm not jumping in the Justin Patton argument, but did you even read your own link? 247 does a composite as well as their own ranking. personally I think they are better than Rivals,Scout or any other recruiting service.

The only name I've seen for them for scouting is Jerry Meyers (and another 50 people they mention, but no names), and maybe I'm looking in the wrong places, but I don't see detailed written analysis coming from him and their rankings always seem to track neatly to their proprietary composite with a few adjustments. Even in Patton's case, they gave him a 95 and ranked him at 66th in their top 100. 95 pts could put him as high as 59 in their rankings and that band of numbers looks remarkably like they took the average of the others (probably before Scout upped their ranking so mid 40's for both scout and rivals and then a bit of a discount for the lower ESPN ranking.

To be blunt, I probably discount them more than I should simply because their "crystal ball" seems to be the kiss of death for Creighton's recruiting. If they say it's a done deal, the guy is going somewhere else.

I'll agree the crystal ball thing is dumb most people just pick the school a recruit most recently visited. They have made some adjustments to it, but I don't put much stock in it. I just like 247 because all the articles I've come across are free.

[jfan]

Without even getting into where he "should" be ranked. Let's look at some of your statements..

You put your faith in 247.. yet, 247 doesn't actually "rank" anyone themselves. Their rankings are merely an aggregation of the other major services and subject to whatever else goes into that average. They have a nice long explanation here. There's a good rationale for averaging perceptions to come to a more accurate ranking, but that depends on what is being used in the average in the first place.

http://247sports.com/Article/247Rating- ... tion-81574

So let's look at the legitimate scouts who make up that ranking.

Rivals - I consider them to be the gold standard as they see the most players and evaluate the most players at a high level every year. It's hard to argue with what Bossi does every year.
Scout - Not up to the standards of Rivals IMO, but they have good coverage and experienced scouts. Evan Daniels is very good. I don't put him on Bossi's level yet, but after some down years (IMO), Scout has started to up its game again.
ESPN - ESPN is the outlier here in a lot of ways. We really don't get insight into who does the evaluations. We don't know who does the evaluations. Their coverage area is minuscule compared to the other two. In particular they tend to only scout a few players in the midwest and often miss BCS offer level players. There are times I read their evals (when they actually have one) and wonder if they have any clue which player is there. Their evals can be very good, but it varies from player to player. In some cases, it's clear they are writing a "me-too" evaluation because the other services have, yet again, beaten them to the punch.

Let's look at where they ranked Patton:

Rivals - ranked #45. Rivals cut off their 5 stars at the 25th spot this year. Patton is ranked as the 10th highest ranked center in the country. When Bossi first saw him, he had no hesitation in saying he'd be top 150 and likely a lot higher after further evaluation.
Scout - ranked #24. Evan Daniels had similar comments when he first saw him, saying he would be top 100 and then kept pushing him upwards. I suspect Patton's performance in Kentucky had something to do with this last bump. I don't know whether or not Rivals had already locked in their rankings at that point.
ESPN - Has some of the elements of the other reviews and comments in their evaluation, but it's obvious they don't really know what to write -- "Patton is a mid major plays high major minus prospect with tons off potential." .. Does anyone know that that means? In any case they are the outlier and it looks to me like they didn't do their homework. Based on the offers they have him ranked 17th at the center position. Interestingly, they do better with players who are in the limelight longer.. provided the player doesn't drop with senior year scrutiny (e.g., Matt Heldt, for instance.. still ranked #22 at center for ESPN)

However, people blathering on about prospects that they haven't bothered to watch isn't that uncommon. The description of Patton in the article that started all of this shows that the auther hadn't bothered to watch him play before writing about him. He's long, but people who watch him play know he isn't a "leaper" at this point.

So, you can take your "all over the map" belief if you want. to me all ESPN has shown is that once again they are behind the times on a recruit. Even if Patton is "just" a 4 star, the average of the two services (and the gold standard services IMO) that actually bothered to scout him shows him to be at 34.5. Certainly respectable and a highly ranked 4 star.

247 does their own ranking.

And they rank him 66th. Thus his composite is 83rd.

Look you guys seem to want it both ways. On one hand Creighton fans want to talk about him as a 5 star but in the other thread you all say he's too skinny to play meaningful minutes this year and another suggesting he redshirt. If he's actually anywhere close to 5 star talent no way he red shirts.

Honestly, I think Patton has 5* potential and that may be why he has been ranked so high. His play last year in high school doesn't suggest a 5* ranking. I think he has some work to do before he is ready for the BE, but I hope to be pleasantly surprised. As far as having it both ways, we aren't used to 5* recruits, so we probably don't know how to react. I don't think he is a guarantee star like most 5* recruits but time will tell like with all recruits!

[gtmoBlue]

Note to Creighton fans everywhere...

The proper reaction to signing a Top 25 to Top 50 recruit is to:

a) Jump for Joy!
b) Promote the kid as though it was Jesus' 2nd coming.
c) Play the damned kid immediately, excessively, and often...Start him if there is any doubts.
d) Promote your team as the immediate "favorite" to leap up in the conference and national standings (like Espn, CBS, SI, and the other promotional tools do).
e) Have your school fansites and their lead writers promote, publicize, and propagandize the hell out of your team and the upcoming season (just like S'cuse, L'ville, KU, UK, Dukie's, and the rest do).
f) have gtmo do one of his preposterous rants on Bluenotes. Then spam tweet the hell out of it.
G) Pray. (God is a Bluejay Booster).

if you need an assist - call gtmoBlue. My rates are reasonable.

[FlyJays]

The Jays have two returning post players that have seen considerable time (Groselle and Hanson if he can get his shoulder healthy), and Coach McD requires new players to be pretty solid at defense before seeing much court time, so the "Patton should play right away" comment seems naive.

His athleticism can be a huge benefit, but he weighs about a buck ninety dripping wet, so he probably needs a red shirt year to get used to the speed of BE play and put some weight on.

The chances of Patton redshirting are 0.0%. You don't redshirt a 5-star recruit.