PennStateHoops.com Discussion Forum

Rivals Ratings on PSU Recruits - FWIW


#1

I just noticed that Rivals has star ratings in for all our 2011 hoops recruits.

Pat Ackerman, Peter Alexis, Matt Glover and Ross Travis are all three stars (for a long time, Peter wasn’t rated). Trey Lewis (who may well be the most heralded recruit) is only a two star. Top to bottom this may be Ed’s best recruiting class and provides Pat Chambers a good foundation to work with.


#2

Rivals’ recruit star ratings are by far the least accurate barometer out there – a major FWIW. :wink:


#3

A couple of years ago Jerry Meyer posted on the rivals board that when a kid commits to a BCS school they will automatically get three stars. I know that doesn’t always hold true, but the fact he made that statement should tell you how they rank kids outside of the Top 150.


#4

Rivals’ system may be flawed - well, it really is pretty flawed - but I do agree that this is the best overall class Ed ever got us. I don’t know if there is any single recruit with the natural talent of a Talor Battle in there, but it’s certainly the most balanced class we’ve had in a long time. Picking up quality guys at four different positions was one hell of a parting gift from Ed. Plus, I can’t remember the last time we had two players in one class who were both 6’11 or taller. That’s a pretty nice bonus.

I’m really optimistic about this group. They’re talented, they have no academic issues to speak of (as far as I’m aware), and they all seem like genuinely good kids. Pretty good deal all around.


#5

[quote=“Spades88, post:4, topic:2498”]Rivals’ system may be flawed - well, it really is pretty flawed - but I do agree that this is the best overall class Ed ever got us. I don’t know if there is any single recruit with the natural talent of a Talor Battle in there, but it’s certainly the most balanced class we’ve had in a long time. Picking up quality guys at four different positions was one hell of a parting gift from Ed. Plus, I can’t remember the last time we had two players in one class who were both 6’11 or taller. That’s a pretty nice bonus.

I’m really optimistic about this group. They’re talented, they have no academic issues to speak of (as far as I’m aware), and they all seem like genuinely good kids. Pretty good deal all around.[/quote]Besides Ross and Trey how do you know we have the much talent? Not taking a jab at ya just curious . I haven’t heard much about the others


#6

Between the returning players and the incoming recruits, I believe there’s some talent on this '11-‘12 team, but it’s going to take some time to get comfortable with Chambers’ system and learn to play together. Freshman, of course, have a huge adjustment to make, particularly in playing defense, but I’m hopeful that Lewis and Travis will emerge as future stars. Ackerman and Alexis will both need some time to develop, but may get thrown into the fire out of necessity. Glover should add some backcourt depth.

If Frazier improves his shooting and his leadership, Graham lives up to his early notices, Borovnjak makes a full recovery from his knee injury, and Marshall more consistently displays his talent, we have a chance to be competitive in most games. Leadership might be my biggest single concern heading into next season.


#7

I agree that leadership will be the main issue heading into next season. That was our biggest problem the year after the NIT Championship and it hurt us.

I’m excited to see all of these Freshman develop, especially Lewis. I think the talent will be there, just have to be patient.


#8

[quote=“ballininthe*valley, post:7, topic:2498”]I agree that leadership will be the main issue heading into next season. That was our biggest problem the year after the NIT Championship and it hurt us.

I’m excited to see all of these Freshman develop, especially Lewis. I think the talent will be there, just have to be patient.[/quote]
I thought it was not having a scorer like Pringle to support Battle.


#9
[quote="Spades88, post:4, topic:2498"]Rivals' system may be flawed - well, it really is pretty flawed - but I do agree that this is the best overall class Ed ever got us. I don't know if there is any single recruit with the natural talent of a Talor Battle in there, but it's certainly the most balanced class we've had in a long time. Picking up quality guys at four different positions was one hell of a parting gift from Ed. Plus, I can't remember the last time we had two players in one class who were both 6'11 or taller. That's a pretty nice bonus.

I’m really optimistic about this group. They’re talented, they have no academic issues to speak of (as far as I’m aware), and they all seem like genuinely good kids. Pretty good deal all around.[/quote]Besides Ross and Trey how do you know we have the much talent? Not taking a jab at ya just curious . I haven’t heard much about the others

I actually went and saw Alexis play when I was on my way back from a wedding in New Hampshire a while back, and I thought he looked pretty good. There’s also some footage of him on youtube if wanna check it out (assuming you haven’t already). As far as Ackerman is concerned, I totally admit that I’m going off of the various scouting reports, local newspaper articles, and other sources of information I’ve found online. I haven’t seen him play firsthand, but almost everything I’ve read so far has been largely positive. Glover is probably the one player who I haven’t heard much about (not sure many people have, except maybe for Lar). I have found some info on him, and it all sounds good so far, but I do wish I knew a little more about him. As far as Travis and Lewis go, I’ve probably seen much of the same footage that everyone else has and read the same scouting reports everyone else has, and it seems like most people agree that they’re both pretty talented kids.


#10

at least they admit to doing it. i’d be willing to bet that they all do something similar. other than the top, cream of the crop, just how many times do these recruiting services actually see these players? how much evaluation? etc.


#11
[quote="NICU, post:3, topic:2498"]A couple of years ago Jerry Meyer posted on the rivals board that when a kid commits to a BCS school they will automatically get three stars. I know that doesn't always hold true, but the fact he made that statement should tell you how they rank kids outside of the Top 150.[/quote]

at least they admit to doing it. i’d be willing to bet that they all do something similar. other than the top, cream of the crop, just how many times do these recruiting services actually see these players? how much evaluation? etc.

I think hoops is a lot different than football. In hoops, the TOP 100 or so recruits get a LOT of pub, while the rest are relatively overlooked.

How many times have we seen a recruit come from nowhere to announce? I bet half our class has come that route. It seems that the scouts just don’t follow a lot of these kids, or just don’t keep up with them. If they are a 3-star, they are not followed very closely.

When they put together rankings, I’m sure this comes into play. How can you rank this kid against that one, when you are not following either very closely?


#12

Rivals ranked our class 11th in the Big 10.

http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1231130

  1. Ohio State (10)
  2. Illinois (11)
  3. Michigan State (19)
  4. Indiana (26)
  5. Michigan
  6. Minnesota
  7. Wisconsin
  8. Nebraska
  9. Iowa
  10. Purdue
  11. Penn State
  12. Northwestern

#13

The ratings seem a bit old. espn hasn’t updated since what looks like the fall. Scout has old info as well.


#14

The article is from June 13 and Rivals released their final 2011 player rankings on 4/27.

I am curious to see if the ESPN rankings improve now that Dave Telep is on board.


#15

Everyone acts like these recruiting rankings are something more than a bunch of overweight guys in pajamas stealing easy money. I do think there is some general validity to them, but honestly, does anyone expect any of our guys to get a valid evaluation?


#16

[quote=“NICU, post:12, topic:2498”]Rivals ranked our class 11th in the Big 10.

http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1231130

  1. Ohio State (10)
  2. Illinois (11)
  3. Michigan State (19)
  4. Indiana (26)
  5. Michigan
  6. Minnesota
  7. Wisconsin
  8. Nebraska
  9. Iowa
  10. Purdue
  11. Penn State
  12. Northwestern[/quote]

Interesting to compare 10. Purdue to 11. Penn State.

Purdue only has 2(TWO) recruit, each is a 3-star PF. Penn State has 5(FIVE) recruits, 4 of them being 3-star. Yet, Purdue is rated higher than Penn State?


#17

My guess is it comes back to what I mentioned yesterday – there are some 3-star players Rivals is familiar with and ranks as 3-stars based on their game. There are other BCS commits rivals knows little about and assigns 3-stars because they committed to a high-major program. In this case, it’s possible Rivals things, rightfully so or not, that the 2 Purdue recruits will have more of an impact at the high-major level than any of the PSU recruits. That assessment might also come from the fact they don’t really know too much about our recruits.

The quality vs. quantity in recruiting classes is always tough to measure. Clark Francis at Hoopscoop lets the quantity aspect weigh heavily on his team recruiting rankings, which sometimes makes them very odd.


#18

I’m not saying that the rankings are a complete crock or that they don’t put legitimate effort and evaluation into them. However, given the number of kids that are evaluated and ranked, it’s impossible to do a decent job with anyone outside of the cream of the crop. Everyone knows who the top players are, but in my opinion, once you start looking outside of the top 100 overall or top 30 at each position, they begin to be crap shoots. There’s too much inconsistency in level of competion in high school to judge stats. I’m sure that both 'melle & McKenna put up big numbers in high school. Also, with high school there are limited opportunities to see more than one game in a night. Even with the traveling AAU squads and big time invites, the recruitniks are going to focus on the big fish because that’s what their subscribers are paying to read about. When you consider how guard centric and street ball the AAU game is, it’s almost impossible to evaluate defense, teamwork, etc.

The recrutniks have to rely on reactionary evaluation. When a player gets bumped up or down after they commit to a school, it’s not because they watched more film. If a two star signs with an ACC school, he must be better than they thought. If a four star signs with the CAA, he must have been overrated.

Here’s an example. Colin Klebon from Southeren Columbia in Catawissa, Pa is now at Bucknell. He was on Penn State’s radar, was up at a few games, don’t know hf he was ever here on an official visit. If you were to dig up his ratings, he’d probably average out to be a 2 star, maybe 130 among forwards. I’d be willing to bet that if we had given him a scholly, he would have become a consensus 3 star and about 85 among forwards. I saw him play six high school games, which was probably five more than any recruitnik saw. Even if his AAU team from Altoona was at a big invite, everyone would be too busy watching the top players for the umpteenth time to bother watching him.

I tend to put more weight looking at which schools are recruiting or offered a player or where a player visits. Of course, finding reliable info on that is problematic as well. I received letters and spoke on the phone with coaches from Syracuse, Maryland & GATech when I was a high school football player. Does this mean that I was really being recruited by the ACC & BigEast? I say no. I was visited by and visited schools from the Ivies, CAA and Patriot. Actually, the Patriot was still the Colonial League at the time. Big difference.

I can’t even begin to comprehend how they rank football players. There’s only around ten games each year, most played on Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Most high school game film is single camera, meaning it follows the ball. Most of the game happens where the ball is not.


#19

[quote=“timauman, post:18, topic:2498”]I’m not saying that the rankings are a complete crock or that they don’t put legitimate effort and evaluation into them. However, given the number of kids that are evaluated and ranked, it’s impossible to do a decent job with anyone outside of the cream of the crop. Everyone knows who the top players are, but in my opinion, once you start looking outside of the top 100 overall or top 30 at each position, they begin to be crap shoots. There’s too much inconsistency in level of competion in high school to judge stats. I’m sure that both 'melle & McKenna put up big numbers in high school. Also, with high school there are limited opportunities to see more than one game in a night. Even with the traveling AAU squads and big time invites, the recruitniks are going to focus on the big fish because that’s what their subscribers are paying to read about. When you consider how guard centric and street ball the AAU game is, it’s almost impossible to evaluate defense, teamwork, etc.

The recrutniks have to rely on reactionary evaluation. When a player gets bumped up or down after they commit to a school, it’s not because they watched more film. If a two star signs with an ACC school, he must be better than they thought. If a four star signs with the CAA, he must have been overrated.

Here’s an example. Colin Klebon from Southeren Columbia in Catawissa, Pa is now at Bucknell. He was on Penn State’s radar, was up at a few games, don’t know hf he was ever here on an official visit. If you were to dig up his ratings, he’d probably average out to be a 2 star, maybe 130 among forwards. I’d be willing to bet that if we had given him a scholly, he would have become a consensus 3 star and about 85 among forwards. I saw him play six high school games, which was probably five more than any recruitnik saw. Even if his AAU team from Altoona was at a big invite, everyone would be too busy watching the top players for the umpteenth time to bother watching him.

I tend to put more weight looking at which schools are recruiting or offered a player or where a player visits. Of course, finding reliable info on that is problematic as well. I received letters and spoke on the phone with coaches from Syracuse, Maryland & GATech when I was a high school football player. Does this mean that I was really being recruited by the ACC & BigEast? I say no. I was visited by and visited schools from the Ivies, CAA and Patriot. Actually, the Patriot was still the Colonial League at the time. Big difference.

I can’t even begin to comprehend how they rank football players. There’s only around ten games each year, most played on Friday night or Saturday afternoon. Most high school game film is single camera, meaning it follows the ball. Most of the game happens where the ball is not.[/quote]

Football players are much simpler, it has a lot more to do with a measuring tape and stop watch. The OLB that is 200 lbs and runs a 4.5 is much higher rated than the one who is 170 and runs a 4.8. Film really doesn’t matter in that instance, outside of differenciating between a par of 200 lb 4.5 OLBs.


#20

Weren’t Joonas and Milos both 6’ 11"+?