Matt Painter on Recruiting Rankings

[dpwhite]

 

[gregkoko]

Hell yes. Love it.

 

[BillyC80]

He nailed it.

 

[RUsojo]

Always found the anti- recruit rankings conversation a bit strange because the people who take this stand kind of change the premise of the rankings process.

Rankings definitely have proven themselves to provide strong directional correlations to players abilities. Obviously there are a bunch of misses. Obviously it is a point in time ranking system not accounting for late bloomers and physical changes at times.

But they obviously have value. Most of the top programs have better recruiting ranking talent than most of the lesser programs on average.

And just because a great coach can get more out of a given team that might be perceived as less talented than a worse coach with a team of “better” players, doesn’t exclusively mean the rankings stink, but can also be a testament to coaching, player development, and/or roster construction.

The only reason I can think of for why these types of arguments result in people giving definitively critical, is feelings, whether it be a reporter who asks a question causing someone to get upset, a player who brings up their disappointment with their own ranking, or a coach defending their players.

 

[patk89]

Ranking matter, but so does coaching. We have a good one. Thank goodness for that. Back to back NCAAs? Likely 3 in a row without Covid? Am I dreaming?

 

[littlenis5]

Fans, who don’t go recruiting in hundreds of gyms every year, want to learn more so they turn to these rankings, which target athleticism and highlights more than toughness, work ethic, and game IQ. Fans get mad at coaches for not having highly ranked classes based on the former attributes.

Painter even admits that the top 25 is probably pretty accurate, but outside of that it’s about fit, role, etc. Rankings could say someone is the 500th best player in an isolated setting but maybe that guy only needs to be the best rebounder and screen setter on the floor.

I’m sure it’s very frustrating for coaches who understand the realities of college basketball. Every year can’t be an up year, no one goes to the tournament forever, every school isn’t the perfect destination for every recruit.

 

[Caliknight]

It's not an exact science but the rankings are real. People spend time and money on this.

The person with the highest upside of anyone on our team is Cliff. He's also was the highest rated. That was a helluva job by the staff to get him.

Get more of those types of guys and we will win even more games.

 

[needmorecowbell]

Always found the anti- recruit rankings conversation a bit strange because the people who take this stand kind of change the premise of the rankings process.

Rankings definitely have proven themselves to provide strong directional correlations to players abilities. Obviously there are a bunch of misses. Obviously it is a point in time ranking system not accounting for late bloomers and physical changes at times.

But they obviously have value. Most of the top programs have better recruiting ranking talent than most of the lesser programs on average.

And just because a great coach can get more out of a given team that might be perceived as less talented than a worse coach with a team of “better” players, doesn’t exclusively mean the rankings stink, but can also be a testament to coaching, player development, and/or roster construction.

The only reason I can think of for why these types of arguments result in people giving definitively critical, is feelings, whether it be a reporter who asks a question causing someone to get upset, a player who brings up their disappointment with their own ranking, or a coach defending their players.

Rankings are directional but wildly inaccurate, especially in basketball outside the top 20. A high % of top 150 players never contribute while a lot of over looked players contribute a lot. That’s the point.

 

[kcg88]

Always found the anti- recruit rankings conversation a bit strange because the people who take this stand kind of change the premise of the rankings process.

Rankings definitely have proven themselves to provide strong directional correlations to players abilities. Obviously there are a bunch of misses. Obviously it is a point in time ranking system not accounting for late bloomers and physical changes at times.

But they obviously have value. Most of the top programs have better recruiting ranking talent than most of the lesser programs on average.

And just because a great coach can get more out of a given team that might be perceived as less talented than a worse coach with a team of “better” players, doesn’t exclusively mean the rankings stink, but can also be a testament to coaching, player development, and/or roster construction.

The only reason I can think of for why these types of arguments result in people giving definitively critical, is feelings, whether it be a reporter who asks a question causing someone to get upset, a player who brings up their disappointment with their own ranking, or a coach defending their players.

Yes. I will bet on a team of randomly selected #50-125 recruits over a team of randomly selected #200-300 recruits every single time.

That doesn't mean you don't do the boots-on-the-ground recruiting. Any coach who ignores possible avenues of talent acquisition is a fool. So good on Painter for recruiting Edey. But it doesn't mean the numbers are meaningless.

 

[Salvi's Headband]

Isn't our highest ranked recruit of the Pikiell era, after Cliff, Doucoure?

 

[Scangg]

The general concept sure, but you need high end talent no matter what they are ranked. He uses Edey and Sasha as examples but Ivey and Williams were both highly rated 4 stars. They are obviously nowhere near where they are without them.

The odds of your stars being 4 star recruits are much higher then them being 3 stars.

Our star players Cliff Ron Paul, Purdue's stars, Illinois stars, OSU' stars etc etc are 4 stars. The vast majority of stars in the B1G are 4 stars.

If you can find 4 star talent lower ranked great. Evaluate each player on their own merits not just looking at a number. The high end talent is most often going to be rated as 4 star though

 

[Scangg]

Isn't our highest ranked recruit of the Pikiell era, after Cliff, Doucoure?

There will always be 4 star busts but the hit rate on 4 stars is higher than 3 stars which is higher than 2 stars

 

[LeapinLou]

As the PSU coach said, Pike created a blueprint for getting guys that fit his style and developing them. And we're lucky to have him. But you can't deny it would be better to have Cliff caliber talent in every class.

We have the conference. We have the facilities. We've been to the dance. And we have room for great players to step right in and play next year. Either by recruiting or the portal, Pike's got to land some stars if we don't want a big drop off from the past 3 years.

 

[richthedentist]

Isn't our highest ranked recruit of the Pikiell era, after Cliff, Doucoure?

MIght be Jaden Jones

 

[Scarlet Shack]

My second favorite coach in the big ten ….

The reality is that the rankings are great for us to talk about ..but there are a lot of basketball players that have 4 stars that are great , and I can think of more than a few that turned out “okay to a bust “

 

[PSAL_Hoops]

There will always be 4 star busts but the hit rate on 4 stars is higher than 3 stars which is higher than 2 stars

I think with basketball ratings the correlation declined steeply the further you move from 5 star. There’s not much different from a kid whose a fringe 4 star and a 3 star, etc.

 

[DHajekRC84]

Love him.
They should just go with the Quad system too. That works so well.