Rivals updates 2016 rankings | The Boneyard

Rivals updates 2016 rankings

Status
Not open for further replies.
tcf15 said:
Risers
Alterique Gilbert: 36 to 34
Mamadou Diarra: 142 to 134
Christian Vital: UR to 146

Fallers
Juwan Durham: 31 to 47
Vance Jackson: 71 to 80
Expand ...


Compared to the ESPN re-rank, this seems more normal. A few go up and a few go down. Mostly within a +/- 10 spots.
 
tcf15 said:
Risers
Alterique Gilbert: 36 to 34
Mamadou Diarra: 142 to 134
Christian Vital: UR to 146

Fallers
Juwan Durham: 31 to 47
Vance Jackson: 71 to 80
Expand ...

VJ has been falling the last two years. Not surprised
 
tcf15 said:
Risers
Alterique Gilbert: 36 to 34
Mamadou Diarra: 142 to 134
Christian Vital: UR to 146

Fallers
Juwan Durham: 31 to 47
Vance Jackson: 71 to 80
Expand ...

I thought Diarra was closer to the 80-90 range, and Jackson closer to 50-60.

Durham dropping is understandable, but what's the story with those two?
 
Tenspro2002 said:
I thought Diarra was closer to the 80-90 range, and Jackson closer to 50-60.

Durham dropping is understandable, but what's the story with those two?
Expand ...

Well, Diarra is 93 on ESPN, is that what you were thinking of? And Jackson has been slipping.
 
Leebo said:
Well, Diarra is 93 on ESPN, is that what you were thinking of? And Jackson has been slipping.
Expand ...

Probably.

I'm mostly curious about why Jackson has been dropping. Did he have a mediocre season or unimpressive results against top competition?
 
.-.
Tenspro2002 said:
Probably.

I'm mostly curious about why Jackson has been dropping. Did he have a mediocre season or unimpressive results against top competition?
Expand ...
I don't think in the last year or two Jackson has ever been ranked in the 50-60 range you have listed.
 
7774 said:
I don't think in the last year or two Jackson has ever been ranked in the 50-60 range you have listed.
Expand ...
Jackson was 49th in the ESPN 100 when he committed. His shortcomings are athleticism and ball skills. He's 6'8" and can shoot though which gives him the top 100 ranking. He'll be a good player, just needs to work on conditioning. He's the type of guy that would benefit from Rip Hamilton's model of moving off the ball and getting open shots.
 
Yeah, there's an old article on Rivals that says Jackson was the 30th ranked prospect in the class of 2016.

A lot of these sites base their sophomore and junior rankings on potential more than anything else. Jackson just didn't develop the way they envisioned, which is why he was steadily dropping.

Shouldn't be seen as such a bad thing though, because he is still a top 100 player that will hopefuly arrive with a chip on his shoulder and have an immediate impact at UConn
 
Yankees32123 said:
Jackson was 49th in the ESPN 100 when he committed. His shortcomings are athleticism and ball skills. He's 6'8" and can shoot though which gives him the top 100 ranking. He'll be a good player, just needs to work on conditioning. He's the type of guy that would benefit from Rip Hamilton's model of moving off the ball and getting open shots.
Expand ...
We're talking about the Rivals rankings.
 
7774 said:
We're talking about the Rivals rankings.
Expand ...
He's been dropping in almost all the rankings. At one point, if I recall correctly, he was a consensus top 50 recruit.
 
.-.
tcf15 said:
Shouldn't be seen as such a bad thing though, because he is still a top 100 player that will hopefuly arrive with a chip on his shoulder and have an immediate impact at UConn
Expand ...
Yup. Give me a forward who can shoot & pass any day, even if he's not an exceptional, NBA-style athlete.
 
CallMeBruce said:
I'd love to know how a scout watches a guy play and says "Hm. I thought this guy was the 50th-best recruit in his class, but now I think he's the 80th-best."
Expand ...
Pretty simple. He doesnt improve has much as the players that were ranked behind him.
 
CallMeBruce said:
I'd love to know how a scout watches a guy play and says "Hm. I thought this guy was the 50th-best recruit in his class, but now I think he's the 80th-best."
Expand ...

The players are evaluated on their skills and given numerical scores and then those are scores are ranked. It's not hard to see how other kids could improve scores while someone else stagnates.
 
Leebo said:
The players are evaluated on their skills and given numerical scores and then those are scores are ranked. It's not hard to see how other kids could improve scores while someone else stagnates.
Expand ...

I think the bottom line is its very hard to quantify what makes a kid the 40th best player instead of the 50th or so, especially when these recruiting experts only see a kid a handful of times each year at best. That's how you get scouting reports like "Daniel Hamilton is a ballhog" and "Roscoe Smith is a great 3-point shooter."
 
I definitely think like Bruce said the rankings are highly opinionated and agendas run rampant among the larger services. Yet, at the end of the day I still think there is a correlation between rank and the final product a couple years into the player's career.
 
.-.
They don't actually see these kids enough is dead on. Even at the big events theirs six games going on at once. Plus teams are spread out all over the country.
 
Burnsbros23 said:
They don't actually see these kids enough is dead on. Even at the big events theirs six games going on at once. Plus teams are spread out all over the country.
Expand ...
The type of program and names of coaches after kids heavily influence these rankings as well. I haven't checked the 2016 rankings in a few months but I have a strong hunch that Sacha Killeya-Jones and Wenyen Gabriel rose in the latest ESPN rankings.
 
Rico444 said:
I think the bottom line is its very hard to quantify what makes a kid the 40th best player instead of the 50th or so, especially when these recruiting experts only see a kid a handful of times each year at best. That's how you get scouting reports like "Daniel Hamilton is a ballhog" and "Roscoe Smith is a great 3-point shooter."
Expand ...

Yes, this was my point.
 
It's true that these rankings sites don't see the kids often. And ideally, that's why an average (RSCI or 247 composite) are more accurate as they get a cumulative higher sample. Unfortunately I have a feeling some of these sites bias the other sites, so you get a real noisy result (along with being biased by what schools are offering, etc.)
 
They dropped Charles Matthews a ton and he was a Kentucky kid. But I agree a kid commits to a blue blood it's rare they drop him.
 
Burnsbros23 said:
They dropped Charles Matthews a ton and he was a Kentucky kid. But I agree a kid commits to a blue blood it's rare they drop him.
Expand ...

Wasn't he injured most of his senior year?
 
.-.
Why is it that I am going with Patino's and Ollie's assessment of Vital?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,159
Messages
4,555,196
Members
10,438
Latest member
UConnheart


Top Bottom