PF Mamadou Diarra (Signed LOI on 11/14) | Page 20 | The Boneyard

PF Mamadou Diarra (Signed LOI on 11/14)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sky ball said:
LOL ..Yesterday I looked at his Star ranking and he was 3 star at Rivals, Scout and one other with an ESPN exception of 4 star. Just now I see he is 4 Star at Rivals. Quick rating change? Hopefully our staff sees the potential in Diarra and are correct in their assessment.

From the Boneyard Blog:
His rankings:
247Sports: 3 star
ESPN: 4 star
Rivals: 3 star
Scout: 3 star
Expand ...


I just find the rating services to be just a little loose in the accuracy of their information. Makes me a little skeptical regarding their evaluations.

For example today on 247:
Mamadou Diarra is a 7-0, 235-pound Center (BK) from Putnam, CT.

Stars/# grade seems very inconsistent

EG. ESPN grades
Tyler Olander as a 3* yet his grade is 90
Philip Noland 3* 91
Kentan Facey 4* 82
Terrence Samual 3* 74
Amida Brimah 3* 70
Ryan Boatright 4* 94
Mamadou Diarra 4* 80

Anybody here thinks this makes sense?

I have more faith in eyeball test/coaching staff >ratings services
 
Catsailor said:
EG. ESPN grades Tyler Olander as a 3* yet his grade is 90
Philip Noland 3* 91
Kentan Facey 4* 82
Terrence Samual 3* 74
Amida Brimah 3* 70
Ryan Boatright 4* 94
Mamadou Diarra 4* 80

Anybody here thinks this makes sense?

I have more faith in eyeball test/coaching staff >ratings services
Expand ...

I think it's understood that the numerical ratings won't be consistent from year to year, because the rating services adjust their scoring systems, and as such, a number in one year won't mean the same thing 5 years down the road. I wouldn't worry about that.
 
Sky ball said:
Agree but still, he does have a lot of offers so it's not like no one knew about him. I guess all the other good basketball schools coaches can't judge talent. Overall I'll take Ollies judgement of talent over the rating services but still overall and year by year if we get 4 recruits I would rather have 4 - 5 stars than 4 - 3 stars that Ollie thought were underrated. I hope Ollie is right, and yes he and his staff are better judges of talent then you, me not so much...LOL (Joking for all you literal readers)
Expand ...

I think there are a few factors at play that have people excited beyond the recruiting rankings.

1) Based on nothing but instinct, but others have the same view, I think that Diarra will be a valuable college player. Probably not a star, but a guy who gets you some rebounds and hustle points, plays solid interior defense, and stays for four years, hopefully improving his offense as he goes. He seems to be active around the rim and a quick leaper. There's value in those guys - even if he is closer to Marcus White than Jeff Adrien.

2) We are going to have massive roster turnover in the next two years. If Hamilton doesn't become a senior and Adams doesn't make it to junior year, both of which we have to be prepared for, then Steve Enoch will be the only guy left from this year's squad in two years. We need bodies. If we hold out for only top 50-75 recruits, we'll find ourselves with little depth and reaching to fill out our roster. This past year showed how tough it can be when you get nothing from your bench. An injury (or a starter in a funk) means you struggle since there aren't other options. Diallo is a great start in that regard. Maybe he doesn't start, but he hopefully means we don't have a big drop off when we rotate our bigs. If we only had 2-3 scholarships open, maybe we could be more choosy, but that's not our world at the moment. And Diarra could be top 75 before the final 2016 rankings are done.

3) While I don't think that you can or should plan for package deals, Diarra can't hurt with getting a top 50 wing one class in behind him in Diallo. For a program worried about roster replenishment, that's a big leg up on another key piece.

Locking in a future rotation guy this early in a recruiting class that you need to be a big recruiting class is good news. More work to be done, but if Diarra went somewhere else, we'd still be at the bottom of the uphill climb.
 
Stairmaster said:
I know from personal correspondence with site staff that VerbalCommits cross-references these offers with coaching staffs. The AZ offer is reported as coming in late March of Nolan's senior year, which makes sense; plenty of programs up and down the hierarchy extend offers to kids who may or may not be "reaches" due to missing out on previous targets and needing to fill scholarships. We've seen it happen here before to mixed results. You are right in that I downplayed their importance a bit too much in my initial post. But you cannot judge a kid like Diarra and immediately conclude that he's an "OK mid-major player" just by looking at which schools were the first ones to see him. To make that judgement, you have to watch his tape, hear what analysts and coaches are saying, and look at where he's ranked on some of the more trustworthy sites in addition to seeing which schools are interested. Citing Samuel and Nolan's offers were to prove the point that if you solely go off of lists, you get a skewed picture. BTW, I think that the point on his school's situation is still valid; if he were at a school in Class AA, I'd be willing to wager money that he would have more P5 offers than Tyrique Jones does at Vermont Academy. PSA/Woodstock being an independent really cuts down on the chances that coaches are going to be coming out and seeing him.
Expand ...

The pretty simple point is that some of the crowing about the Diarra commitment would be a little more warranted if some heavy hitters had prioritized him and we beat them out for the kid. You can tie yourself in knots arguing that that's not the case but it's not persuasive.
 
Leebo said:
I think it's understood that the numerical ratings won't be consistent from year to year, because the rating services adjust their scoring systems, and as such, a number in one year won't mean the same thing 5 years down the road. I wouldn't worry about that.
Expand ...


Nevertheless suppose to make sense and be somewhat consistent
guidelines from ESPN:

RecruitingNation High School Basketball Grading System
90-100: High-major plus prospect (5 stars)
Player demonstrates rare abilities. He should have an immediate impact at a national program with the potential for early entry into the NBA.

85-89: High-major prospect (4 stars)
Player is the centerpiece to a high-major program who starts three to four years.

80-84: High-major minus prospect (4 stars)
Player has the potential to significantly contribute to a high-major program over four years.

70-79: Mid-major plus prospect (3 stars)
Player is a fringe high-major recruit who contributes or a standout mid-level recruit.

65-69: Mid-major prospect (2 stars)
Player is a multi-year starter at the mid-major level.

60-64: Mid-major minus prospect (2 stars)
Player is a role player at the mid-major level.

50-59: Low-major prospect (1 star)
Player is a low-major Division I prospect.

NR: Pending Prospect
Player evaluation is pending film.

How RecruitingNation evaluates

In order for RecruitingNation to grade any high school prospect, we must have seen the player in action, either on tape or in person.
 
BigErnMcCracken said:
The pretty simple point is that some of the crowing about the Diarra commitment would be a little more warranted if some heavy hitters had prioritized him and we beat them out for the kid. You can tie yourself in knots arguing that that's not the case but it's not persuasive.
Expand ...

O. What BS

I've been watching recruiting with some degree of interest since the early 90s, there's lots of contra to this. Only the TRUE one&done are really accurately evaluated at this stage. Even Superplayers from our past BLEW up at a comparable stage. You just don't know. You hope Ollie et al have some extra evaluative skill.
 
.-.
It's early enough, still May, that we just don't know how much interest Diarra would have drawn. Compare him to Jeremy Lamb. Texas was his only only major offer, and they offered in August, he visited in September, committed to UConn a week later. He was ranked 79 on Rivals in the final rankings, probably ranked even lower in the Spring.
 
upstater said:
It's early enough, still May, that we just don't know how much interest Diarra would have drawn. Compare him to Jeremy Lamb. Texas was his only only major offer, and they offered in August, he visited in September, committed to UConn a week later. He was ranked 79 on Rivals in the final rankings, probably ranked even lower in the Spring.
Expand ...

DHam's offers were still mostly the likes of Colorado State, USC and UTEP when he committed to us. Better ones would have obviously come, and he was ranked much higher than Diarra, but it shows that the list of who you beat is pretty meaningless. There's are a lot of great players we got early (Lamb, Napier, Oriakhi, DHam, Adrien) before it would have maybe become more difficult (Bynum too, but that proved meaningless). And another list of guys we got on the rebound late (CV, KEA, DD, Boat) when we maybe didn't go up against heavier hitters in the traditional recruiting period. Plus a few great players we only had to beat lightweights for (Gordon over Seton Hall, Okafor over Arkansas, Kemba over Cincy, Caron over UNLV). And Drummond showing up in August was just a weird scenario.

Obviously, you want to assemble a great roster, and it can take a number of possible means to to that point - sometimes it's winning a tough recruiting battle, but sometimes it's a keen eye early in the process, or opportunism when players open up late (or transfer).

Whether Diarra turns into an example of a keen eye remains to be seen. But we had a chance to get someone who seems to be a good, active big with some rebounding prowess before folks got a closer look at him on the summer circuit. I don't think you pass that up to wait and see what else comes down the pike when you have 10 or more roster spots to fill in two years.
 
upstater said:
He was ranked 79 on Rivals in the final rankings, probably ranked even lower in the Spring.
Expand ...

I'm pretty sure he was ranked a lot lower. After his commitment I remember reading articles saying his recruitment was mid major until he blew up at the Peach Jam.
 
Gurleyman said:
DHam's offers were still mostly the likes of Colorado State, USC and UTEP when he committed to us. Better ones would have obviously come, and he was ranked much higher than Diarra, but it shows that the list of who you beat is pretty meaningless. There's are a lot of great players we got early (Lamb, Napier, Oriakhi, DHam, Adrien) before it would have maybe become more difficult (Bynum too, but that proved meaningless). And another list of guys we got on the rebound late (CV, KEA, DD, Boat) when we maybe didn't go up against heavier hitters in the traditional recruiting period. Plus a few great players we only had to beat lightweights for (Gordon over Seton Hall, Okafor over Arkansas, Kemba over Cincy, Caron over UNLV). And Drummond showing up in August was just a weird scenario.

Obviously, you want to assemble a great roster, and it can take a number of possible means to to that point - sometimes it's winning a tough recruiting battle, but sometimes it's a keen eye early in the process, or opportunism when players open up late (or transfer).

Whether Diarra turns into an example of a keen eye remains to be seen. But we had a chance to get someone who seems to be a good, active big with some rebounding prowess before folks got a closer look at him on the summer circuit. I don't think you pass that up to wait and see what else comes down the pike when you have 10 or more roster spots to fill in two years.
Expand ...

Yeah but DHam ended up at a true blue blood in UCLA.
 
.-.
Northbound said:
I'm the opposite - the nails on a chalkboard for me are the folks that want to rationalize that it's acceptable to be in the AAC. When you're in a conference with a wacky amalgamation of schools that have zero common reference point it's a bad deal. Spin that there could be 3 top 25 teams all you want, the conference is filled with schools that aren't well known nationally and in most cases arent flag ships in their own state.

Conference affiliation won't determine our on court success in the short term, even if the AAC affiliation can be a recruiting disadvantage, but how people can convince themselves that there is potential in this conference while knowing what is driving college athletics is beyond me.

If it's simply case of being optimistic, congratulations, I wish I had wherewithal to look at it positively.

Sorry to add to the conference affiliation part of this thread which is so far off topic from the great news of MD coming aboard.
Expand ...
it's reality... if it makes things easier for you, just go away!!! go root for Ohio State or Michigan or Texas. They're all in better conferences.
I didn't choose the AAC. but that's where Uconn is today. And as long as they're in the AAC, I'll pull for that conference. When they move to a P5 conference, which I hope is soon, I'll root for that conference.
 
.-.
Matrim55 said:
Kentan was way up there until about mid-January as well. I bet he surprises folks this year - ideal "energy big" off the bench.
Expand ...
Simply put, our offense, or lack of it, swallowed Kentan up. We never ran any sets for him and when we started a play with 10 seconds left on the shot clock, the ball never really went below the foul line. I believe in this kid and I feel outside of a select(elite) few, Kentan has the most upside. I also believe that by coming off the bench with more of a second unit, he will become a more viable option and his production will show it.
 
.-.
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,202
Messages
4,556,747
Members
10,442
Latest member
Virginiafan


Top Bottom