2017 Recruiting Class Could Be The Best Yet

[adoraz]

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.

My argument is that we are recruiting very well and should finish close to the 2014 class, with a chance at matching/beating it. Think I've stated this in my past 10 posts and it isn't an unrealistic position. I've never once said we'll definitely beat or match it, just that we had (and still have) a chance to. The big picture is that we're recruiting very, very well and that's something not even yourself can disagree with. It's highly likely we DON'T beat the class, but regardless the class will be one of the best in the nation and in our history. It'll be an outstanding class regardless. It already is.

You still don't seem to understand this, so I'm done here. Just glad we didn't turn into a mid major like some other conferences...

[stever20]

my problem with your statement is you think if we get 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys, that means this class is better than the '14 class. I just totally disagree with that statement. I think most folks look at things deeper than just the # of 4 star recruits. It would take 4 or 5 top 50 guys for this class to even really come close to the '14 class. I just think top 50 and top 75 mean a lot more in evaluating a class than just plain 4 star guys. There is a difference between #26 and #126.

top 50- '14 had 4, '17 has 1
51-100 '14 had 11, '17 has 8
101-150 '14 had 6, '17 has 4

so '14 has more guys in the 1-50, 51-100, and 101-150 range.

It's funny, I don't think I even quite realized how good that class was.

[stever20]

I still say the biggest problem with the rest of this years class is geography.....

There's 5 states with more than 4 4/5 star guys left. Georgia(8), New York(5), California(5), Florida(5), and Texas(5). Those 5 states also house 18 of the 31 remaining top 50 players.

just of the remaining 4-5 star guys-
NY-5
PA-4
VA-3
IN-2
CT-1
MI-1
MA-1
IL-1
MD-1
WV-1
NJ-1
that's 21 guys left that would be favorable to the Big East region-with 12 being top 50 guys. 38 of the guys that are left aren't favorable to the Big East region- with 19 being top 50 guys. There's only 9 guys left favorable to the Big East region outside the top 50.

[GumbyDamnit!]

It's funny, I don't think I even quite realized how good that class was.

You probably don't remember because at that time you were probably spewing the normal Stever crap about how we shouldn't feel really good about the direction of the conference. Maybe you need to pay attention more. Now's a good time to start.

[adoraz]

/\ haha yeah exactly

my problem with your statement is you think if we get 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys, that means this class is better than the '14 class. I just totally disagree with that statement.

No, once again you are making up stuff. I never said that metric is the one and only metric that matters, but it is a major metric, the one I've used since the thread started and in prior years, and more importantly a standard one. It is not a "top #117" or "Stever system" metric. Obviously if we end up with the same number of 4 and 5 stars that doesn't automatically make the class as good.

Doing an in-depth analysis on an incomplete class, especially with precise rankings being so fluid still, is crazy. Just a simple flaw that I pointed out is your last argument where you tried to take the average recruit number in our class despite most top 50s not yet committing.

I get that you want to analyze every aspect of the class and provide your own forecasts but I have no interest in that, especially because I believe your intention is solely to downplay the league. You've underestimated the class since the start of the thread and all that's happening is more recruits are signing.

[stever20]

/\ haha yeah exactly

my problem with your statement is you think if we get 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys, that means this class is better than the '14 class. I just totally disagree with that statement.

No, once again you are making up stuff. I never said that metric is the one and only metric that matters, but it is a major metric, the one I've used since the thread started and in prior years, and more importantly a standard one. It is not a "top #117" or "Stever system" metric. Obviously if we end up with the same number of 4 and 5 stars that doesn't automatically make the class as good.

Doing an in-depth analysis on an incomplete class, especially with precise rankings being so fluid still, is crazy. Just a simple flaw that I pointed out is your last argument where you tried to take the average recruit number in our class despite most top 50s not yet committing.

I get that you want to analyze every aspect of the class and provide your own forecasts but I have no interest in that, especially because I believe your intention is solely to downplay the league. You've underestimated the class since the start of the thread and all that's happening is more recruits are signing.

I think top 50 and top 100 is just a far superior metric to just 4 stars. And that's a pretty darn standard metric. Frankly the 4 stars metric is kind of a joke, when you have 115 one year, 125 the next, and 138 the next. The rank of players matters.

And the average recruit does matter when this 2017 class could get the top 4 guys available right now- and still be behind on average the 2014 class.

There is 1 and only 1 metric where this class is close to 2014. and that's 4 star guys. 2014 has 3 more top 50 guys, 6 more top 100 guys, and 8 more top 150 guys. The average guy is much higher with the '14 class. So for the '17 class to come close to matching the '14 class- Both Walker and Scruggs would need to commit, plus 1 more top 50, and then 2-3 more guys in the 51-100 range. That's a HUGE ask at this point.

[BEhomer]

Stever said BE would be better off staying with ESPN for less money since FOX would spell doom for our recruiting.

Now his argument is 'sure recruiting hasn't suffered but it's not better than 14'

Next year his argument will be 'sure the recruiting has gotten better but not that much better'.

[adoraz]

/\ haha yeah exactly

my problem with your statement is you think if we get 1 5 star and 17 4 star guys, that means this class is better than the '14 class. I just totally disagree with that statement.

No, once again you are making up stuff. I never said that metric is the one and only metric that matters, but it is a major metric, the one I've used since the thread started and in prior years, and more importantly a standard one. It is not a "top #117" or "Stever system" metric. Obviously if we end up with the same number of 4 and 5 stars that doesn't automatically make the class as good.

Doing an in-depth analysis on an incomplete class, especially with precise rankings being so fluid still, is crazy. Just a simple flaw that I pointed out is your last argument where you tried to take the average recruit number in our class despite most top 50s not yet committing.

I get that you want to analyze every aspect of the class and provide your own forecasts but I have no interest in that, especially because I believe your intention is solely to downplay the league. You've underestimated the class since the start of the thread and all that's happening is more recruits are signing.

I think top 50 and top 100 is just a far superior metric to just 4 stars. And that's a pretty darn standard metric. Frankly the 4 stars metric is kind of a joke, when you have 115 one year, 125 the next, and 138 the next. The rank of players matters.

And the average recruit does matter when this 2017 class could get the top 4 guys available right now- and still be behind on average the 2014 class.

There is 1 and only 1 metric where this class is close to 2014. and that's 4 star guys. 2014 has 3 more top 50 guys, 6 more top 100 guys, and 8 more top 150 guys. The average guy is much higher with the '14 class. So for the '17 class to come close to matching the '14 class- Both Walker and Scruggs would need to commit, plus 1 more top 50, and then 2-3 more guys in the 51-100 range. That's a HUGE ask at this point.

No way top 50 or even top 100 is a more relevant metric. That is limiting data to fit your own biased agenda. I guarantee nearly every school, outside of a few like Duke, would take the lower 4 stars.

In 2017 the lowest 4 star score is a 92.01 at position 139.
In 2014 the lowest 4 star score is a 92.09 at position 123

The 3 stars start once you go below 92.

Again, maybe this is a crazy theory but perhaps the 2017 class overall is stronger than the 2014 class?

Essentially you've spent the past 10 pages arguing 2 points:
1. Eliminating the 16 spot difference between the 2014 and 2017 class
2. Top 50 Top 50 Top 50

Now the second point is very overrated, but the BIg East should get a couple more when all is said and done. As a SJU fan our highest ranked recruit since Artest was Jordan. He spent 2 years here thinking he was better than everyone else and auditioning for the NBA. Other top 50 players for us in recent years included Harrison and Pointer (these 2 worked out well for us) but also Harkless and Sampson who spent their 1-2 years auditioning for the NBA until they left.

So out of SJU top 50 players in the past decade 2 of 5 certainly helped the program. Those 2 also were at the tail end of the top 50 (#34 and #47) and weren't projected one and dones. The other 3 were disruptive, selfish, and played with one goal in mind. They destroyed our chemistry. That may be a bit harsh on Harkless, but he was only here for 1 year anyways so he didn't advance the program.

My personal view, and maybe you believe me maybe not, is that I'd take top 51-100 players over top 1-50 players. They are far more likely to stay for all 4 years and play unselfishly.

Go ahead though with your in-depth analysis about how top 50 one and dones define the NCAA. Just don't tell Nova fans.

[stever20]

You can't just say top 50 are one and dones. Because they aren't. Last year there were 14 1 and done guys. 1 of those was actually rated #60. So of the top 50, 37 remain this year. Prior year- 14 freshmen entered the draft. Prior year 11. So last 3 years- averaged 13 1 and done guys per year.

Class position to me is much more relevant than number of stars. I mean- if you are #132 and a 3 star or #138 and a 4 star- the 3 star guy is still viewed as being 6 spots better in the specific class.

The thing that made the '14 class so special is the middle tier though. '14 had 11 guys in that 51-100 range. '17 has 8. Then in the 101-150 range, '14 had 6, '17 has 4. So in the 51-150 range that you say is so important- '14 had 17, '17 has only 12. 14 had not only the top tier, but they also had the depth.

The ONLY metric that the '17 close is close to '14 is the number of 4 star guys. Now if the Big East goes opposite what they normally do- and get a boatload of guys later on in the process- maybe that can change with all the other metrics.

[adoraz]

You can't just say top 50 are one and dones. Because they aren't. Last year there were 14 1 and done guys. 1 of those was actually rated #60. So of the top 50, 37 remain this year. Prior year- 14 freshmen entered the draft. Prior year 11. So last 3 years- averaged 13 1 and done guys per year.

Class position to me is much more relevant than number of stars. I mean- if you are #132 and a 3 star or #138 and a 4 star- the 3 star guy is still viewed as being 6 spots better in the specific class.

The thing that made the '14 class so special is the middle tier though. '14 had 11 guys in that 51-100 range. '17 has 8. Then in the 101-150 range, '14 had 6, '17 has 4. So in the 51-150 range that you say is so important- '14 had 17, '17 has only 12. 14 had not only the top tier, but they also had the depth.

The ONLY metric that the '17 close is close to '14 is the number of 4 star guys. Now if the Big East goes opposite what they normally do- and get a boatload of guys later on in the process- maybe that can change with all the other metrics.

We can drag this out for another 20 pages but clearly you have no intention of giving the Big East credit where it is due. You only will find the negatives with the sole intention of bringing negativity into a very positive topic. You've been proven wrong so many times throughout the past 4 years it's not worth debating, especially when a large portion of the discussion is still unknown as the class is incomplete. Maybe we can resume this discussion once the class is finished... but frankly I don't care if this is the best class or a strong second. Recruiting is doing extremely well, despite all your failed predictions over the last 4 years.

Again, enjoy seeing your league turn into a mid major, it will only get worse for you. Sad that you've been reduced to cluttering a topic about how the 2017 BE recruiting class won't be ***THE*** best in its history but simply second best.

Feel free to use whatever Stever system metric you like but I'll stick to what I've always used. Sorry that it doesn't fit your agenda.

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