BEAST currently has 5 of the top 25 2014 recruiting classes

[handdownmandown]

I would rather have three top 100 guys than Carmelo. Really. But that has as much to do with what I think Creighton should be, and not as much as what it could be.

To wit: for a brief moment earlier this offseason, Myles Turner had a couple of nice things to say about CU and McDermott, and a bunch of CU fans rightfully started salivating. And while I was blown away with his character (which would alleviate one of my concerns about taking a one-and-done guy), part of me was thinking, what would this do for us? Well, we'll definitely be weaker next season than this one, so I can't see Turner making us a title contender. And while Turner would help, it would also force a heckuva Bluejay to the bench for his senior season in Artino, and also stunt the growth of another guy who'll be a key player when Artino leaves in Geoff Groselle. And for a one year bump? Larry Hughes didn't elevate St. Louis, and Griffin didn't do it for the Hall either.

A Carmelo type would be totally a one shot deal because Creighton won't ever compete for top 10 talent nationally; if we could replace one ridiculous talent with another it might be different, but let's face it, we won't. Would it do more lasting good than harm?

In fact, knowing what I know about the AD and current head coach, I don't think it wants to be that type of team anyway. But it does want to be consistently top shelf, so the three top 100 guys sticking around for four or five years and (ahem) speading their wings as a Jay is more resonant to me than a one time lightning bolt. I wouldn't trade him for one top 100 guy, but if you gave me a whole class, then yeah.

[Bill Marsh]

I'd hardly call Big East recruiting "phenomenal" when they havent't come close to the ACC or the Big Ten in recruiting the players at the top of these lists. And they aren't involved with enough players at this level to catch either of these 2 leagues, whose recruiting actually could be called phenomenal with legitimacy.

Btw, Last week I asked Adam Finkelstein about this exact topic in an online chat. He couldn't deny it & said "The BE has recruited as well as any conference in the country..." His only caveat was whether the league could maintain this success against the fb conferences over time. Check it out for yourself around 28m:30s mark...I (Jay) asked this question after prov got a verbal from Bentil.

http://www.spreecast.com/events/adam-finkelstein-oct-1

You have an opinion and are cherry picking data only to prove that a few teams in these other conferences skew the numbers (Kent, Louisville, Mich, Duke, UNC, etc) for the entire conference (top 35-50, how about top 100 or 150 like everyone else). Right now 80% of the BE schools have a top 100 player and that'swith noe from SJU, one of the better recruiting schools nationally. No one without a negative bias is saying the BE is losing to any conference on a whole on the recruiting trail this summer, no one.

How am I cherry picking data?

My point was that the rankings are going to change significantly based on what happens with those who are still uncommitted. The fact that the uncommitted players are disproportionately in the upper third of the top 100 means that they will have a greater impact on the rankings.

Since you prefer the top 100 to my focus on the top 35, let's look at the top 100. According to both Scout and Rivals, 25% of the top 100 are still uncommitted. According to Future 150, a third of the top 100 remain uncommitted.

Think about what you're saying. Only 75% of the results are in on the top 100 - maybe less than 70% if you believe future 150 - but you're saying that the final standings are essentially already set and that the final rankings will not show any substantial change.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. As the remaining 25-30 % of players make their decisions, we will see lots of changes in these rankings.

For the record, I'm not touting the importance of these rankings. I think the Big East is just fine with its recruiting.

BTW. Are you seriously suggesting that getting Whitehead isn't a big deal for Seton Hall, that he isn't a game changer for that program and the way it's perceived?

[GumbyDamnit!]

I would rather have three top 100 guys than Carmelo. Really. But that has as much to do with what I think Creighton should be, and not as much as what it could be.

To wit: for a brief moment earlier this offseason, Myles Turner had a couple of nice things to say about CU and McDermott, and a bunch of CU fans rightfully started salivating. And while I was blown away with his character (which would alleviate one of my concerns about taking a one-and-done guy), part of me was thinking, what would this do for us? Well, we'll definitely be weaker next season than this one, so I can't see Turner making us a title contender. And while Turner would help, it would also force a heckuva Bluejay to the bench for his senior season in Artino, and also stunt the growth of another guy who'll be a key player when Artino leaves in Geoff Groselle. And for a one year bump? Larry Hughes didn't elevate St. Louis, and Griffin didn't do it for the Hall either.

A Carmelo type would be totally a one shot deal because Creighton won't ever compete for top 10 talent nationally; if we could replace one ridiculous talent with another it might be different, but let's face it, we won't. Would it do more lasting good than harm?

In fact, knowing what I know about the AD and current head coach, I don't think it wants to be that type of team anyway. But it does want to be consistently top shelf, so the three top 100 guys sticking around for four or five years and (ahem) speading their wings as a Jay is more resonant to me than a one time lightning bolt. I wouldn't trade him for one top 100 guy, but if you gave me a whole class, then yeah.

I understand what you are saying but you do realize that Carmelo brought Syracuse a championship, right? Isn't that the goal?

Creighton has an AA in McDermott and from all accounts a solid PG in Gibbs. Last year they had Echinique who was more than a serviceable center. Imagine adding someone like an Andrew Wiggins or a Michael Gilchrist to that lineup. That person makes everyone else better. GM is no longer doubled. You have someone who can drive and completely change how teams can defend you. Creighton could have easily been a FF contender (I mean Wichita made it afterall), and who knows what happens when you get there. I "get" that one-and-dones can be disruptive to programs but the upside is sometimes that they can be the missing peice that helps your program take it's shot. I think when you are talking about Top 10 talent you take your shot and hope for the best.

[TheHall]

How am I cherry picking data?

My point was that the rankings are going to change significantly based on what happens with those who are still uncommitted. The fact that the uncommitted players are disproportionately in the upper third of the top 100 means that they will have a greater impact on the rankings.

Since you prefer the top 100 to my focus on the top 35, let's look at the top 100. According to both Scout and Rivals, 25% of the top 100 are still uncommitted. According to Future 150, a third of the top 100 remain uncommitted.

Think about what you're saying. Only 75% of the results are in on the top 100 - maybe less than 70% if you believe future 150 - but you're saying that the final standings are essentially already set and that the final rankings will not show any substantial change.

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me. As the remaining 25-30 % of players make their decisions, we will see lots of changes in these rankings.

For the record, I'm not touting the importance of these rankings. I think the Big East is just fine with its recruiting.

BTW. Are you seriously suggesting that getting Whitehead isn't a big deal for Seton Hall, that he isn't a game changer for that program and the way it's perceived?

Remember, in my original response I said technically you are correct. But given that technical point you tried to infer that we don't know if the BE has already had a great year recruiting. So my respomse was what BE fan could say recruiting hasn't already been phenomenal in a year where 3 teams (prov, shu, x) may have recruited one of their best classes ever, already, with creighton, nova & butler already exceeding expectations too and gtown & marquette matching them. How does that story change if Tyus Jones goes to Duke or Myles Turner goes to Kentucky. For a BE program success is, did you get the players you were going after, not what other schools do. Most BE schools have won their recruiting battles this year period.

I can't tell if this is a serious conversation or another way to put out a position about the lack of value in recruiting overall. Anyway, I consider the star system way more effective for this type of analysis. 5* players are most likely the one & doners, 4* & 3* players are typically high-major recruits. If we did a count like this across the top 175 players or so (that's where 2* usually appear on most rankings) it would show the BE is dominating that sweet spot for cbb success of 3*-4*player range as a conference. Whether a 4* player is ranked 45th or 105th they are still a 4* player. The movement in the rankings you are referring to has more to do with the elite recruiting schools most who are already in the top 25. The numbering system is much more subjective and inaccurate and maybe the only way to even attempt to downplay the BE recruiting success this year.

As for IW, it was a very big deal, but as a cherry on top to a foundation of solid recruits already. Ask any SHU fan, we were ecstatic before IW signed because we had 3 very solid verbal commits already. The idea that he would be part of an already great class was where more of the excitement came from. The other benefit IW presents is for the ability to get recruits looking at SHU in the future, but that's hit or miss. It's hard to build a successful program without a solid recruiting class to complement the superstar recruit. It's not like SHU is one player away from competing for championships like some programs.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but an example of what I'm talking about just showed up. Louisville just jumped 13 spots in the ESPN rankings. Why? Because they added the 74th best player on ESPN's list, the 8th best center.

Louisville jumped from 19th to 6th with that add. What do you think would have happened if they added the 4th best player instead of the 74th? Or the best center instead of the 8th best?

There are still a lot of dominoes left to fall.

[yorost]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but an example of what I'm talking about just showed up. Louisville just jumped 13 spots in the ESPN rankings. Why? Because they added the 74th best player on ESPN's list, the 8th best center.

Louisville jumped from 19th to 6th with that add. What do you think would have happened if they added the 4th best player instead of the 74th? Or the best center instead of the 8th best?

There are still a lot of dominoes left to fall.

WE GET THAT RANKINGS WILL CHANGE. Who is saying the rankings will not? You said the rankings will completely change, but 19th to 6th is not an example of that. It didn't change the teams in the top 25 one bit. At this point, most of the current top 25 ranked classes will stay top 25 by the end. Many of those will improve their classes like Louisville just did and others are simply high enough that there isn't enough recruits for currently low ranked programs to grab to move up that far. How many classes currently in the top 5 do you think will finish outside the top 15? How many classes ranked int he top 25 do you think will finish outside the top 40? How many classes currently ranked outside the top 50 do you think will enter the top 15?

[TheHall]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but an example of what I'm talking about just showed up. Louisville just jumped 13 spots in the ESPN rankings. Why? Because they added the 74th best player on ESPN's list, the 8th best center.

Louisville jumped from 19th to 6th with that add. What do you think would have happened if they added the 4th best player instead of the 74th? Or the best center instead of the 8th best?

There are still a lot of dominoes left to fall.

WE GET THAT RANKINGS WILL CHANGE. Who is saying the rankings will not? You said the rankings will completely change, but 19th to 6th is not an example of that. It didn't change the teams in the top 25 one bit. At this point, most of the current top 25 ranked classes will stay top 25 by the end. Many of those will improve their classes like Louisville just did and others are simply high enough that there isn't enough recruits for currently low ranked programs to grab to move up that far. How many classes currently in the top 5 do you think will finish outside the top 15? How many classes ranked int he top 25 do you think will finish outside the top 40? How many classes currently ranked outside the top 50 do you think will enter the top 15?

Academic conversations like this really distract from the phenomenal recruiting accomplishments collectively by the staffs of our newly refurbished league, and at a time where the vultures are circling. No way a real fan of a BE school would spend so much bandwidth critiquing something that's so roundly praised by all in the know...moving on

[GumbyDamnit!]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but an example of what I'm talking about just showed up. Louisville just jumped 13 spots in the ESPN rankings. Why? Because they added the 74th best player on ESPN's list, the 8th best center.

Louisville jumped from 19th to 6th with that add. What do you think would have happened if they added the 4th best player instead of the 74th? Or the best center instead of the 8th best?

There are still a lot of dominoes left to fall.

WE GET THAT RANKINGS WILL CHANGE. Who is saying the rankings will not? You said the rankings will completely change, but 19th to 6th is not an example of that. It didn't change the teams in the top 25 one bit. At this point, most of the current top 25 ranked classes will stay top 25 by the end. Many of those will improve their classes like Louisville just did and others are simply high enough that there isn't enough recruits for currently low ranked programs to grab to move up that far. How many classes currently in the top 5 do you think will finish outside the top 15? How many classes ranked int he top 25 do you think will finish outside the top 40? How many classes currently ranked outside the top 50 do you think will enter the top 15?

I can name a couple that I would expect will make an appearance before it is all said and done:
- Duke
- Kansas
- Indiana
- Michigan State

And then there are those that if they get one of the Top 4 remaining players, could enter the Top 10.
- Baylor
- Texas
- OK State
- Memphis
- DePaul
- Minnesota

And then there are those that might grab 2 of the remaining Top 100 players and jump way up in the rankings. Top 10? Maybe not, but definitely Top 20.
- Oregon
- UCLA
- USC
- Texas A&M
- Missouri
- Gonzaga

So you may think that the list is pretty much "said and done" but when was the last time teams like Duke and Kansas completely whiffed on a recruiting class? And to Bill's point if one Top 100 player can move one school up that many spots, I think that would tell you that this list is not set in stone by any means. Can we expect SHU, G'twn & Xavier to stay in the Top 25? Certainly, but where exactly is still up to debate. There's still a slight chance that none of them end up in the Top 10 if certain things fall right for Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Arizona, Mich State, & Baylor (and am probab missing a few).

[yorost]

Nothing that you wrote is even remotely counter to what I was saying. Most of 25 is at least 13. The questions I wrote are not at all implying I think those situations won't occur.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't want to beat a dead horse here, but an example of what I'm talking about just showed up. Louisville just jumped 13 spots in the ESPN rankings. Why? Because they added the 74th best player on ESPN's list, the 8th best center.

Louisville jumped from 19th to 6th with that add. What do you think would have happened if they added the 4th best player instead of the 74th? Or the best center instead of the 8th best?

There are still a lot of dominoes left to fall.

WE GET THAT RANKINGS WILL CHANGE. Who is saying the rankings will not? You said the rankings will completely change, but 19th to 6th is not an example of that. It didn't change the teams in the top 25 one bit. At this point, most of the current top 25 ranked classes will stay top 25 by the end. Many of those will improve their classes like Louisville just did and others are simply high enough that there isn't enough recruits for currently low ranked programs to grab to move up that far. How many classes currently in the top 5 do you think will finish outside the top 15? How many classes ranked int he top 25 do you think will finish outside the top 40? How many classes currently ranked outside the top 50 do you think will enter the top 15?

The top 25 hasn't changed, but the top ten sure has.