gokinsmen
Postdoc
Posts: 3683
Reg: 02-06-10
|
03-02-10 09:47 PM - Post#77657
In response to puband09
The past few years it has seemed like other schools' (thinking Penn, Cornell, and Harvard here) highest scoring recruit on ESPN.com are anywhere from 5-10 points better than our "best" recruit. Is that mostly meaningless because good HS players might not be good college players, and because improvement in college is ultimately more important than anything (see Foote and Lin), or is it because Coach J is forced to recruit more niche, under-the-radar players to fit in the Princeton offense?
Both those explanations sound good to me. I mean, Clement doesn't even have an entry on ESPN's site despite looking like our most gifted recruit. For the most part, those numbers and rankings are pretty arbitrary and functionally useless. And they always favor physically imposing players over basketball IQ and ability to play within a team offense/defense. Will Barrett had a higher score than Hummer even though he's clearly not as college-ready. Probably just because of his size relative to his position.
BTW, Hummer is an interesting case. He was graded at an 86, but that was before he had a monster senior year. It was assumed he was mostly the beneficiary of talented teammates, but that turned out not to be true. One of the reports even said he could be a top 50 or 100 prospect. He was even ESPN's RISE National PotW. Yet his rating stayed the same.
Anyway, I don't put much stock in ratings...esp. for mid-to-low major recruits. That's why I can't get too excited for Bray yet. I gotta see him play first.
|
