2017 Recruiting Class Could Be The Best Yet

[adoraz]

The thing is it is totally ridiculous to think we'll finish *CLOSE* to the 2014 class.

2017: 0 five star and 13 four stars
2016: 1 five star and 12 four stars
2015: 2 five stars and 9 four stars
2014: 1 five star and 16 four stars
2013: 0 five star and 10 four stars

We will probably end up with 1 five star and 15 four stars, which obviously isn't anywhere close to the 2014 class. Really nobody should be impressed with the 2017 class at this point.

The truth is, we aren't recruiting the top 50 4 year players like the big time schools are. AAC already has one top 33 player (Big East has 0). Now you may say "wait AAC only has two four star recruits total for all of 2017", however those teams are in on a lot of five star players that just haven't committed yet.

When you have 2014 with 15 top 100 players, and 2017 with only like 10-11 top 100 players, that makes the 1/15 vs 1/16 gap much bigger. I'm not saying the 2017 class isn't good, but it's not the special class that the 2014 class was.

1 thing that's different as well- there's 14 more 4 star guys than in '14.
2017- 139 4/5 star players total
2014- 125 4/5 star players total.

The 2014 class for the Big East also had guys # 134 and #137. And Kelan Martin at #141.

2017- 13 top 150 players
2014- 20 top 150 players

It would take a LOT for this class to beat '14.

You go through a crazy amount of effort to discredit our league. Wonder why that is, maybe because your own is becoming a mid major? Maybe this year the recruits are better than in 2013?

Quit moving the goal posts. Yes still could beat the class. I said most likely we'll get close (with an outside chance of matching or beating it). I think we'll beat the class in certain areas like depth (more top 50 teams).

Regardless we'll finish a strong second at a minimum which is a huge accomplishment.

[stever20]

I think part of things is how opposite we look at things....

You are more concerned with depth than I am. If this year had 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys(even though 7 of them were from 101-139)- you would say automatically that the class was better than '14. My position is that there are other metrics than 4 star recruits.
top 50- '14 had 4, '17 has 1 so far. '15 had 3. '16 had 2.
top 100- '14 had 15, '17 has 9 so far. '15 had 7. '16 had 7.
top 150- '14 had 20, '17 has 13 so far. '15 had 14. '16 had 16.

You act like the ONLY metric is 4/5 star guys, and I think that's crazy. '14 had 4 top 20 classes along with 5 top 50 classes.

'14 had 18 points by my calculator- 5 pts for top 10, 4 pts for 11-20, 3 pts for 21-30, 2 pts for 31-40, 1 pt for 41-50.
'17 now has 22 points by my calculator.

the key's going to be to maintain where we are right now. And that's going to be pretty difficult.

[SJUBBALL]

When you make your own "recruiting calculator" up to support your argument

I know a lot of people hate stever but you have to admit he is passionate about his trolling and he's good at it too

[milksteak]

4-Star Wabissa Bede (PG) is announcing his commitment in just under an hour. It's between Butler, LaSalle, Minnesota, UMass and Virginia Tech. He's likely picking Virginia Tech.

[stever20]

4-Star Wabissa Bede (PG) is announcing his commitment in just under an hour. It's between Butler, LaSalle, Minnesota, UMass and Virginia Tech. He's likely picking Virginia Tech.

what a strange group of schools as a final 5.

[stever20]

Bede goes to Va Tech as expected.

[adoraz]

I think part of things is how opposite we look at things....

You are more concerned with depth than I am. If this year had 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys(even though 7 of them were from 101-139)- you would say automatically that the class was better than '14. My position is that there are other metrics than 4 star recruits.
top 50- '14 had 4, '17 has 1 so far. '15 had 3. '16 had 2.
top 100- '14 had 15, '17 has 9 so far. '15 had 7. '16 had 7.
top 150- '14 had 20, '17 has 13 so far. '15 had 14. '16 had 16.

You act like the ONLY metric is 4/5 star guys, and I think that's crazy. '14 had 4 top 20 classes along with 5 top 50 classes.

'14 had 18 points by my calculator- 5 pts for top 10, 4 pts for 11-20, 3 pts for 21-30, 2 pts for 31-40, 1 pt for 41-50.
'17 now has 22 points by my calculator.

the key's going to be to maintain where we are right now. And that's going to be pretty difficult.

No, we see things differently because you are going out of your way to downplay our league. That's how you've spent the last 4 years on this board. Data sets can be manipulated to say whatever you want. I work in analytics and need to do that all the time so I have zero interest in your own system.

For this reason I have stuck with 4/5 stars because it is not a biased figure. It is the same dimension I used since this thread first started and we only had a handful of recruits.

You on the other hand have spent the entire topic making up ridiculous parameters (top 117??) and even created your own system to try to justify your position.

You can use whatever parameters you want, but obviously nobody will care or put stock into biased statistics. We will finish a strong second with a shot at first, that's all there is to it.

[stever20]

how exactly are top 50, 100, or 150 biased statistics?

The average 4/5 star recruit tells the story big time....
2014- 69.35
2015- 78.40
2016- 85.83
2017- 92.31

4 of the 2017 recruits are ranked lower than the last 2014 recruit(who was at #107).

I'm not downplaying the league, I'm just saying this class right now is no where near the '14 class was. That class had 10 top 75 guys. I don't think you realize just how good that class was. And that class is why the Big East has had so much success the last few years. This class right now doesn't come close to matching that class.

So 2014 had more top 50, more top 100, more top 150, and had an average player 23 spots better right now than 2017. How exactly is this even remotely close? The only metric where things are remotely close quite frankly is 4 star guys. You think all 4 stars are alike. There's a difference between a 4 star ranked #25 and a 4 star ranked #138.

[adoraz]

how exactly are top 50, 100, or 150 biased statistics?

The average 4/5 star recruit tells the story big time....
2014- 69.35
2015- 78.40
2016- 85.83
2017- 92.31

4 of the 2017 recruits are ranked lower than the last 2014 recruit(who was at #107).

I'm not downplaying the league, I'm just saying this class right now is no where near the '14 class was. That class had 10 top 75 guys. I don't think you realize just how good that class was. And that class is why the Big East has had so much success the last few years. This class right now doesn't come close to matching that class.

So 2014 had more top 50, more top 100, more top 150, and had an average player 23 spots better right now than 2017. How exactly is this even remotely close? The only metric where things are remotely close quite frankly is 4 star guys. You think all 4 stars are alike. There's a difference between a 4 star ranked #25 and a 4 star ranked #138.

So, let me get this straight. On one hand you're talking about how top 50 players haven't committed yet (you spent the first 10+ pages talking about this). Now you're criticizing the Big East for not having a high average?

Put 2 and 2 together. The Big East average will go up once those top 50 players like Lonnie Walker (#21- favored with Nova) and Paul Scruggs (#29- favored with Xavier) start committing.

For the thousandth time, yes currently we aren't close to the 2014 class but we should be once all is said and done. It is September, not May.

Honestly Stever, it's good to have someone on this board to play devil's advocate but you take it way too far and lose credibility.

[stever20]

Here's the flaw with your argument....

2014 sum of all 17 players ratings- 1179
2017 sum of all 13 players ratings- 1200

so if Walker and Scruggs went, that would make the 2017 average 83.33.. Still 14 spots behind the '14 average. Even if the BE got 2 other guys with the same ranks, that would put the average at 76.47. That's what happens when you have in '14 17 top 107 guys. '17 only has 9 top 107 guys right now. 1 of the recruits for '17 is 30 slots lower than the lowest guy of '14. That's why the average is so huge.

Also you say it's September and not May. The problem with that argument is the fact that on average the last 3 years, the Big East has gotten 3 guys since the month of September. The Big East normal recruits are early-mid process. Don't get more than a handful of them after September. If the Big East was likely to get more than 2-3 of those top 50 guys, sure you'd have more of an argument.