How do you view Basketball Recruiting Team rankings?

[Original_Irish]

Kind of silly and doesn’t really matter but I’m curious how y’all look at team ratings. I’m asking because on Rivals, Oregon has the 16th ranked class even though they have two 5 stars ranked 17th and 18th in the country. It’s funny to me that they are ranked so low with two 5 star commits.

On the other hand, Michigan and Ohio State both have 4 top 100 commits in their classes but no 5 stars and are ranked 4th and 5th I believe (or close to that).

Top 100 recruits are great and they will keep you good for a long time. Especially since they will grow and stay with your program for at least a few years. But most top programs aren’t counting on top 100 recruits to be staring on their team as freshmen.

So what do you value more, instant impact 5 star freshman or a slew of top 100 recruits?

 

[1016CC0503]

Gotta have a balance.

If you have a really good roster already, adding a couple 5 stars can make you a contender.

But you need to have the building blocks around them. Can’t have 10 5-stars in a rotation all with NBA expectations.

 

[boilerzz]

For football, I tend to look at average stars. It's much better than their rankings. Because of the sheer number of players, it works pretty well.

Basketball is tougher. Frankly, I don't put a lot of stock in the rankings because they completely ignore things like fit and positional need and those are so damn important in basketball. Recent years has also shown that a 40th ranked player who stays 3-4 years can have a much higher impact on a team than a top 10 guy who is one and done.

But as with football, if you had to pin me down, I'd look more at average stars than their ranking.

 

[lurkeraspect84]

Anything subjective is inherently flawed.

 

[jhmossy]

Anything subjective is inherently flawed.

like this opinion?

 

[SheriffBufordTJustice]

Scholarship differences
Some schools have 6 others 2
Quality over quantity

 

[duckboy33]

Team rankings are largely worthless. This isn't football.

Most teams are building their depth with transfers now a days.

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Kind of silly and doesn’t really matter but I’m curious how y’all look at team ratings. I’m asking because on Rivals, Oregon has the 16th ranked class even though they have two 5 stars ranked 17th and 18th in the country. It’s funny to me that they are ranked so low with two 5 star commits.

On the other hand, Michigan and Ohio State both have 4 top 100 commits in their classes but no 5 stars and are ranked 4th and 5th I believe (or close to that).

Top 100 recruits are great and they will keep you good for a long time. Especially since they will grow and stay with your program for at least a few years. But most top programs aren’t counting on top 100 recruits to be staring on their team as freshmen.

So what do you value more, instant impact 5 star freshman or a slew of top 100 recruits?

Both?

 

[Boilermaker03]

Kind of silly and doesn’t really matter but I’m curious how y’all look at team ratings. I’m asking because on Rivals, Oregon has the 16th ranked class even though they have two 5 stars ranked 17th and 18th in the country. It’s funny to me that they are ranked so low with two 5 star commits.

On the other hand, Michigan and Ohio State both have 4 top 100 commits in their classes but no 5 stars and are ranked 4th and 5th I believe (or close to that).

Top 100 recruits are great and they will keep you good for a long time. Especially since they will grow and stay with your program for at least a few years. But most top programs aren’t counting on top 100 recruits to be staring on their team as freshmen.

So what do you value more, instant impact 5 star freshman or a slew of top 100 recruits?

I think the way they rank classes is convoluted. Same with College Football. Teams with MORE recruits will be ranked higher than teams with less but higher ranked recruits. Doesn't make sense to me. Not all teams have the same needs in regards to numbers of recruits.

 

[duckboy33]

I think the way they rank classes is convoluted. Same with College Football. Teams with MORE recruits will be ranked higher than teams with less but higher ranked recruits. Doesn't make sense to me.

In football it makes a little more sense because depth is important and most teams will take roughly the same amount of athletes each year.

In basketball it makes very little sense.

 

[Boilermaker03]

In football it makes a little more sense because depth is important and most teams will take roughly the same amount of athletes each year.

In basketball it makes very little sense.

Agree, I don't think you can use the same methodology in both sports.

 

[Original_Irish]

In football it makes a little more sense because depth is important and most teams will take roughly the same amount of athletes each year.

In basketball it makes very little sense.

Rivals also only ranks your 20 highest ranked recruits

 

[duckboy33]

Rivals also only ranks your 20 highest ranked recruits

Didn’t know that but it makes sense. I just don’t think there’s a good way to do “team rankings” for hoops. I generally just look and see who signed the most top 25 and top 50 players in each class. That usually gives you a good idea of who’s recruiting is top tier for basketball

 

[hailtoyourvictor]

Kind of silly and doesn’t really matter but I’m curious how y’all look at team ratings. I’m asking because on Rivals, Oregon has the 16th ranked class even though they have two 5 stars ranked 17th and 18th in the country. It’s funny to me that they are ranked so low with two 5 star commits.

On the other hand, Michigan and Ohio State both have 4 top 100 commits in their classes but no 5 stars and are ranked 4th and 5th I believe (or close to that).

Top 100 recruits are great and they will keep you good for a long time. Especially since they will grow and stay with your program for at least a few years. But most top programs aren’t counting on top 100 recruits to be staring on their team as freshmen.

So what do you value more, instant impact 5 star freshman or a slew of top 100 recruits?

It’s trickier with the transfer portal because “program guys” aren’t as important as they used to be.

Let’s say you’re trying to compare Ware to Reed and Howard. Before I’d say it’d be fair to call it it Ware + 200 level player vs Reed + Howard when deciding which side I’d rather have. In that case I’d rather have Reed and Howard. But with the transfer portal that 200 level player might be a decent transfer instead.

 

[Afamu]

They mean absolutely nothing until the kids get to campus and learn to become college students and gel with their teammates. Just another way for adults to make money off of kids.

 

[boilerzz]

They mean absolutely nothing until the kids get to campus and learn to become college students and gel with their teammates. Just another way for adults to make money off of kids.

I wouldn't say they mean nothing. They mean IU fans can claim they won the offseason vs Purdue, which is all they have because they haven't won a game in season since Obama was President.

 

[winin11]

Kind of silly and doesn’t really matter but I’m curious how y’all look at team ratings. I’m asking because on Rivals, Oregon has the 16th ranked class even though they have two 5 stars ranked 17th and 18th in the country. It’s funny to me that they are ranked so low with two 5 star commits.

On the other hand, Michigan and Ohio State both have 4 top 100 commits in their classes but no 5 stars and are ranked 4th and 5th I believe (or close to that).

Top 100 recruits are great and they will keep you good for a long time. Especially since they will grow and stay with your program for at least a few years. But most top programs aren’t counting on top 100 recruits to be staring on their team as freshmen.

So what do you value more, instant impact 5 star freshman or a slew of top 100 recruits?

It's just something to look at...It truly means nothing because they don't count transfers. It doesn't indicate who has the best newcomers the next year.