10 Big East newcomers to watch

[MUBoxer]

Great list. Some serious studs will be arriving.

Really looking forward to seeing Omaha's own 5-star Justin Patton. Especially going up against 5-star Ellenson. How cool is that?

With all due respect Justin Patton isn't a 5 star on any site I found. Seems like he'll be a great player and definitely worth getting psyched about but not a 5 star.

[Jet915]

Great list. Some serious studs will be arriving.

Really looking forward to seeing Omaha's own 5-star Justin Patton. Especially going up against 5-star Ellenson. How cool is that?

With all due respect Justin Patton isn't a 5 star on any site I found. Seems like he'll be a great player and definitely worth getting psyched about but not a 5 star.

He was upgraded on Scout to 5 star, #24 overall.

[TrueBlueJay]

Great list. Some serious studs will be arriving.

Really looking forward to seeing Omaha's own 5-star Justin Patton. Especially going up against 5-star Ellenson. How cool is that?

With all due respect Justin Patton isn't a 5 star on any site I found. Seems like he'll be a great player and definitely worth getting psyched about but not a 5 star.

http://www.scout.com/player/192002-justin-patton

[MUBoxer]

When the service that's been severely falling in quality moves him up that doesn't mean he's a big ole 5star here's the the composite ranking. Now compare his composite to the 5 stars you see on all the sites. A true five star is going to be viewed as such by most or all of them. It'd be like me saying Jajuan Johnson was a 5 star out of high school or Vander blue. They were four stars who happened to have a higher ranking by one of the lesser sites

http://247sports.com/Player/Justin-Patton-75635

[chicagojayfan]

When the service that's been severely falling in quality moves him up that doesn't mean he's a big ole 5star here's the the composite ranking. Now compare his composite to the 5 stars you see on all the sites. A true five star is going to be viewed as such by most or all of them. It'd be like me saying Jajuan Johnson was a 5 star out of high school or Vander blue. They were four stars who happened to have a higher ranking by one of the lesser sites

http://247sports.com/Player/Justin-Patton-75635

Just curious about how you rank the different services. IMO, the only one above Scout is Rivals. The others are either complete jokes or have major gaps in their coverage areas.

In any case, everyone who has seen him claims his longer term potential is 5 star, but that his shorter term ability will take some time. No surprise there. The differences in ranking are more or less dependent upon the weighting they put on longer term versus shorter term. Personally I don't really care. Thomas from CU's class may have a bigger impact this year than Patton.

[chicagojayfan]

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.

If you red shirt your first top 50 recruit you might not get another one.

He's skin and bones but he won't redshirt IMO. His rating is based on potential more than current play but he apparently holds his own fine during scrimmages.

I agree that he'll play as he brings shot blocking abilities that nobody else on the roster has right now and he's agile and quick enough on his feet that he can hold his own against most of the backup centers in the conference, but his minutes will be pretty limited in year 1 as there is depth at the 5 on the roster and he's not physically ready to bang with a lot of the other guys.

The article itself is questionable at best. Patton isn't a leaper so much as a coordinated big with a ton of length and a quality of skills not usually found in a guy of his height (good hands, good touch, very light on his feet and mobile, good vision, etc.). As he gets into Creighton's S&C program his explosiveness and strength should grow pretty quickly.

Transfers included in the list should be the ones we can actually WATCH this year instead of the ones we can watch next year.

[TrueBlueJay]

With all due respect Justin Patton isn't a 5 star on any site I found.

Who peed in your Wheaties this morning?

[MUBoxer]

With all due respect Justin Patton isn't a 5 star on any site I found.

Who peed in your Wheaties this morning?

My boss been a bad couple days on a business trip so I'm taking it out on here and MUscoop.

Just curious about how you rank the different services. IMO, the only one above Scout is Rivals. The others are either complete jokes or have major gaps in their coverage areas.

In any case, everyone who has seen him claims his longer term potential is 5 star, but that his shorter term ability will take some time. No surprise there. The differences in ranking are more or less dependent upon the weighting they put on longer term versus shorter term. Personally I don't really care. Thomas from CU's class may have a bigger impact this year than Patton.

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.

[XUFan09]

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).

[MUBoxer]

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.