Rivals 2019 Rankings Updated

[Scrutineer]

It looks as if the Rivals 150 for 2019 has been updated and the names frequently posted on this board have seen some movement.

4 Cole Anthony
6 Precious Achiuwa
9 Jalen Lecque
20 Chol Marial
23 Aidan Igiehon
31 Kofi Cockburn
62 Lester Quinones
71 Jaiden Delaire
78 Anthony Harris
79 Joe Girard
92 Akok Akok
95 James Bouknight
97 Maxwell Lorca-LLoyd
106 Tre Mitchell
116 Sherif Kenney
138 Paul Mulcahy

 

[CardiacAndre7]

Give me Achiuwa/Lecque, Cockburn, Delaire and Mulcahy. Thats my dream class.

 

[UconnU]

Cole Anthony and Chol Marial are too high. Anthony Harris, Aidan Igiehon, and Paul Mulcahy are too low. IMO.

 

[UconnU]

Joe Girard moved wayyy up. Have to be thinking he's going to Duke.

 

[Mokum]

Cole Anthony and Chol Marial are too high. Anthony Harris, Aidan Igiehon, and Paul Mulcahy are too low. IMO.

If you are in the top 150 HS players you are good. Arbitrary numbers are subjective. I suspect a lot of BS involved in this, how good your HS coach was, AAU coaches having influence. Really, how
Can you say this guy is 87, this guy is 102 and so on. You can't really do that. It is somewhat accurate but if a guy is top 150 he is good and can get better in a good college program.

 

[DaveHuskiesFan]

If you are in the top 150 HS players you are good. Arbitrary numbers are subjective. I suspect a lot of BS involved in this, how good your HS coach was, AAU coaches having influence. Really, how
Can you say this guy is 87, this guy is 102 and so on. You can't really do that. It is somewhat accurate but if a guy is top 150 he is good and can get better in a good college program.

Number 151 can't though?

 

[Marbles90]

If you are in the top 150 HS players you are good. Arbitrary numbers are subjective. I suspect a lot of BS involved in this, how good your HS coach was, AAU coaches having influence. Really, how
Can you say this guy is 87, this guy is 102 and so on. You can't really do that. It is somewhat accurate but if a guy is top 150 he is good and can get better in a good college program.

Not sure I totally agree. I agree everyone on the list is good and can make an impact at the next level based on the situation and coaching. I also agree that how they play in HS may or may not translate positively or negatively at the next level. And I also agree that there probably is little difference between two guys 5-10 spots apart. But where I don't agree is that assuming those that are judging and ranking talent know what they are talking about, there could be a big difference to guys on the top of the list to guys on the bottom. I would love to see a correlation between the number of 5*, 4*, 3* college recruits to the number of first round NBA draft picks...

 

[Purple Stein]

Not sure I totally agree. I agree everyone on the list is good and can make an impact at the next level based on the situation and coaching. I also agree that how they play in HS may or may not translate positively or negatively at the next level. And I also agree that there probably is little difference between two guys 5-10 spots apart. But where I don't agree is that assuming those that are judging and ranking talent know what they are talking about, there could be a big difference to guys on the top of the list to guys on the bottom. I would love to see a correlation between the number of 5*, 4*, 3* college recruits to the number of first round NBA draft picks...

It's really a tiered probability game-- a recruiting list provides an indication of likelihood. No one is saying number 25 will be better than number 32 (even though it looks that way in a list). As you suggest the argument is that the top 25 are more likely to be great than 75-100, etc.

Use history as a context -- here's the rivals 150 for 2014 (DHam's class).

 

[businesslawyer]

It's really a tiered probability game-- a recruiting list provides an indication of likelihood. No one is saying number 25 will be better than number 32 (even though it looks that way in a list). As you suggest the argument is that the top 25 are more likely to be great than 75-100, etc.

Use history as a context -- here's the rivals 150 for 2014 (DHam's class).

Thank you. People who can't understand means and standard deviations shouldn't be allowed to discuss recruiting rankings. Someone needs to make a rule.

Rankings are a relevant indicator. people have shown that. Even if they weren't subjective, which theyo are, they would not be a definitive judgment of how any one player will do.

 

[Chin Diesel]

It's really a tiered probability game-- a recruiting list provides an indication of likelihood. No one is saying number 25 will be better than number 32 (even though it looks that way in a list). As you suggest the argument is that the top 25 are more likely to be great than 75-100, etc.

Use history as a context -- here's the rivals 150 for 2014 (DHam's class).

Thank you. People who can't understand means and standard deviations shouldn't be allowed to discuss recruiting rankings. Someone needs to make a rule.

Rankings are a relevant indicator. people have shown that. Even if they weren't subjective, which theyo are, they would not be a definitive judgment of how any one player will do.

Isn't that more aligned to the star ranking system?
A five star is more likely to be really good than a three star.

Just group them by star and alphabetical order by star or by position.

 

[UofCT]

It's really a tiered probability game-- a recruiting list provides an indication of likelihood. No one is saying number 25 will be better than number 32 (even though it looks that way in a list). As you suggest the argument is that the top 25 are more likely to be great than 75-100, etc.

Use history as a context -- here's the rivals 150 for 2014 (DHam's class).

Mikal Bridges at #95
Wade Baldwin at #100

 

[gtcam]

I understand the whole top 100 BS
But my idea of recruitment is finding kids who are talented for sure but character, commitment and aptitude comes into play.
If the kid fits in your system and has the skill sets and personality you are looking for - pull the trigger. there are many 2*, 3* that have proven to be great 3 and 4 year players.
Going after the cream of the crop and ignoring the "middle class" has hurt programs - the was KO's biggest issue

 

[Lefty2one]

Man, we are really shooting for the stars with our 2019 class. So exciting to be after highly-rated local kids again.

We are only two years removed from a Top 10 class that included four Top 100 kids. We can get back to relevance pretty quickly and the 2019 class is going to be the start of it.

 

[VindiKate]

4 years later and Larrier still doesn't weigh 205 lmfao

 

[Scrutineer]

It's really a tiered probability game-- a recruiting list provides an indication of likelihood. No one is saying number 25 will be better than number 32 (even though it looks that way in a list). As you suggest the argument is that the top 25 are more likely to be great than 75-100, etc.

Use history as a context -- here's the rivals 150 for 2014 (DHam's class).

There are so many factors and so much subjectivity.

Take Bonzie Colson.
Was he really only #145?
After having seen him play at ND a couple times (TV) my instant thought was he was rated there because he has no neck. He was like John Gwynn. Give him Hilton Armstrong's neck and he's 6'8" or 6'9" and he's top 25.

 

[VindiKate]

This is where we miss Calhoun, he and his staff were able to evaluate and attract the under the radar kids.

 

[auror]

Isn't that more aligned to the star ranking system?
A five star is more likely to be really good than a three star.

Just group them by star and alphabetical order by star or by position.

Yes, that's the idea behind the stars, although I don't think they've done any empirical work to assign the cutoffs. It's probably more like 15 for 5*, 30 for 4* (there actually has been work done that top 30 are more likely to be freshman contributors), and then I have no idea after that.

But they need to make some sort of ranking to make the stars anyways, so might as well post it (for the clicks.. people like me eat this up).

 

[Danzz]

This is where we miss Calhoun, he and his staff were able to evaluate and attract the under the radar kids.

We also recruited kids that were under the radar and stayed that way.