Let me preface by saying, I'm not trying to say anything that most don't know. Talent wins. Upperclassmen wins. Underclassmen inconsistent. Coaching is only as good as talent, upperclassmen and schedule. I also hear so many complain about Coach Pikiell's offensive sets, recruiting, this, that and the other thing. I've decided on tracking top 2 scorers and class of each NET top 30 team as sample and top 7 scorers and class of each NET top 30 team as population, rounded up from half of 13. Just some of these numbers shows the trends of the top 30 NET teams and not an exact science but I'll get to my point with Rutgers and one other team in the top 30 NET.
Recruiting Service Composite Index top 100 for Top 30 NET
how many teams and their 7 top scorers are top 100 players and
If they are upperclassmen dominate or underclassmen dominate
-- (6-4 Upperclassmen>1-3 Underclassmen, 3-1 Up<4-6 Un)
++3 teams with 0 of 7 top 100(*SD St.*,*Dayton*, Penn St.)
-- 2 teams Up(*6*)>Un(*1*), 1 team Up(3)<Un(4)
2 teams with 1 of 7 top 100(Colorado, Butler)
-- 2 teams Up(5)>Un(2), 0 teams++
++++10 teams with 2 of 7 top 100(Creighton, BYU, WVU, SHU, UM, Marquette, Iowa, Auburn)
-- 7 teams Up(6,5,4)>Un(1,2,3), 3 teams Up(3)<Un(4)
5 teams with 3 of 7 top 100(Gonzaga, Az, FSU, Texas Tech, OSU)
-- 2 teams Up(4)>Un(3), 3 teams Up(3,2)<Un(4,5)
4 teams with 4 of 7 top 100(Baylor, Kansas, Oregon, LSU)
-- 2 teams Up(4)>Un(3), 2 teams Up(3)<Un(4)++++
++3 teams with 5 of 7 top 100(Louisville, Md., Nova)
-- 1 team Up(5)>Un(2), 2 teams Up(2)<Un(5)
2 teams with 6 of 7 top 100(MSU, Kentucky)
-- 0 teams, 2 teams Up(2)<Un(5)
1 team with 7 of 7 top 100(Duke)
-- 0 teams, 1 team Up(1)<Un(6)++
Rutgers 0 RSCI top 100, Rutgers 3 Up<4 Un
Statistics don't lie. Some can win with experience(4 teams) but little or no top 100 talent. Some can win with little to no experience but a lot of top 100 talent(5 teams). Most win with the combination of both talent and experience(20 teams) is the happy median. 29 teams. 1 left out.
13 Teams top 2 scorers are both upperclassmen(Ex. Louisville, MSU, Colorado, Butler, SD St.)
13 Teams top 2 scorers are 1 upper, 1 under(Ex. Kentucky, PSU, Md., Nova, Dayton)
Only 4 Teams have top 2 scorers are both underclassmen(Duke, AZ., WVU, Houston)
Rutgers 1 Upper, 1 Under
1 Kansas-- 4 top 100, 7- 3 Up, 4 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
2 Baylor---- 4 top 100, 7- 4 Up, 3 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
3 Gonzaga 3 top 100, 7- 4 Up, 3 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
4 Dayton--- 0 top 100, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
5 S.D. St---- 0 top 100, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 2 Up, 0 Un
Next Year, Rutgers 0 top 100, maybe 1?, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 2 Up ??
Best case scenario top 4-10 NET team next year ??
You can see why Duke, MSU, Kentucky, Md., and Nova win but have had some head scratchers this year with 5 or 6 out of the top 7 scorers as underclassmen but top 100 recruits and why Arizona, WVU and Houston have issues with their top 2 scorers being underclassmen. Louisville is the only team with 5 upperclassmen and 5 top 100 players.
1 team out of 30 falls in 0 RSCI top 100, 3 upper, 4 under and top 2 scorers are 1 upper, 1 under like Rutgers and that is Penn St. Only difference Penn St has 3 Seniors, 1 So, and 3 Fr., Rutgers 1 Sr, 2 Jr., and 4 So. Both have 9 man rotations (PSU 8&9 2 Jrs., Rutgers 8&9- Sr., Fr.). We don't have the "top 100 talent" or a upperclassmen dominate team 4<5 in 9 man rotation but we sure hung around the top 30 NET for most of the year, like Penn St. Penn St is more consistent team and upperclassmen team with 8&9. It skews the stats a little but explains their success as well. I would say Pikiell, like Chambers, have done a fantastic job under the circumstances and statistics.
Recruiting Service Composite Index top 100 for Top 30 NET
how many teams and their 7 top scorers are top 100 players and
If they are upperclassmen dominate or underclassmen dominate
-- (6-4 Upperclassmen>1-3 Underclassmen, 3-1 Up<4-6 Un)
++3 teams with 0 of 7 top 100(*SD St.*,*Dayton*, Penn St.)
-- 2 teams Up(*6*)>Un(*1*), 1 team Up(3)<Un(4)
2 teams with 1 of 7 top 100(Colorado, Butler)
-- 2 teams Up(5)>Un(2), 0 teams++
++++10 teams with 2 of 7 top 100(Creighton, BYU, WVU, SHU, UM, Marquette, Iowa, Auburn)
-- 7 teams Up(6,5,4)>Un(1,2,3), 3 teams Up(3)<Un(4)
5 teams with 3 of 7 top 100(Gonzaga, Az, FSU, Texas Tech, OSU)
-- 2 teams Up(4)>Un(3), 3 teams Up(3,2)<Un(4,5)
4 teams with 4 of 7 top 100(Baylor, Kansas, Oregon, LSU)
-- 2 teams Up(4)>Un(3), 2 teams Up(3)<Un(4)++++
++3 teams with 5 of 7 top 100(Louisville, Md., Nova)
-- 1 team Up(5)>Un(2), 2 teams Up(2)<Un(5)
2 teams with 6 of 7 top 100(MSU, Kentucky)
-- 0 teams, 2 teams Up(2)<Un(5)
1 team with 7 of 7 top 100(Duke)
-- 0 teams, 1 team Up(1)<Un(6)++
Rutgers 0 RSCI top 100, Rutgers 3 Up<4 Un
Statistics don't lie. Some can win with experience(4 teams) but little or no top 100 talent. Some can win with little to no experience but a lot of top 100 talent(5 teams). Most win with the combination of both talent and experience(20 teams) is the happy median. 29 teams. 1 left out.
13 Teams top 2 scorers are both upperclassmen(Ex. Louisville, MSU, Colorado, Butler, SD St.)
13 Teams top 2 scorers are 1 upper, 1 under(Ex. Kentucky, PSU, Md., Nova, Dayton)
Only 4 Teams have top 2 scorers are both underclassmen(Duke, AZ., WVU, Houston)
Rutgers 1 Upper, 1 Under
1 Kansas-- 4 top 100, 7- 3 Up, 4 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
2 Baylor---- 4 top 100, 7- 4 Up, 3 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
3 Gonzaga 3 top 100, 7- 4 Up, 3 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
4 Dayton--- 0 top 100, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 1 Up, 1 Un
5 S.D. St---- 0 top 100, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 2 Up, 0 Un
Next Year, Rutgers 0 top 100, maybe 1?, 7- 6 Up, 1 Un, 2- 2 Up ??
Best case scenario top 4-10 NET team next year ??
You can see why Duke, MSU, Kentucky, Md., and Nova win but have had some head scratchers this year with 5 or 6 out of the top 7 scorers as underclassmen but top 100 recruits and why Arizona, WVU and Houston have issues with their top 2 scorers being underclassmen. Louisville is the only team with 5 upperclassmen and 5 top 100 players.
1 team out of 30 falls in 0 RSCI top 100, 3 upper, 4 under and top 2 scorers are 1 upper, 1 under like Rutgers and that is Penn St. Only difference Penn St has 3 Seniors, 1 So, and 3 Fr., Rutgers 1 Sr, 2 Jr., and 4 So. Both have 9 man rotations (PSU 8&9 2 Jrs., Rutgers 8&9- Sr., Fr.). We don't have the "top 100 talent" or a upperclassmen dominate team 4<5 in 9 man rotation but we sure hung around the top 30 NET for most of the year, like Penn St. Penn St is more consistent team and upperclassmen team with 8&9. It skews the stats a little but explains their success as well. I would say Pikiell, like Chambers, have done a fantastic job under the circumstances and statistics.
Last edited:
