iabhoops88
Sophomore
Posts: 107
Loc: Los Angeles
Reg: 01-26-13
|
10-09-15 02:15 PM - Post#192995
In response to SomeGuy
As mrjames commented on Twitter, there would be little or no offense with Zena, Egi and Agunwa on the floor at the same time, unless they have transformed their offensive games over the summer.
My guess is we see three from Miller, McCarthy, Chatfield, and Johnson on the floor along with two from Zena, Agunwa, Egi, and Cummins. Don't know what to expect from Dragovic or Perez. Hopefully the freshmen surprise to the upside.
We'll find out soon enough.
|
QHoops
Senior
Posts: 369
Reg: 12-16-04
|
10-10-15 10:25 AM - Post#193008
In response to mrjames
Mike, you have been around this block enough to know that BRF used the offers criteria simply because he thought it helped his case more.
Now that he will have to compare Ohio St, Stamford,etc offers to Div 2 offers he will be constructing a new argument. Given the new reality, I almost look forward to seeing how he tries to spin it.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
10-10-15 11:02 AM - Post#193009
In response to QHoops
Ha! Of course, it's like all pieces of evidence. If you want to see something, you can read the evidence the way that is most convenient.
Offers are great signals, though, if you're willing to read them correctly. For instance, if a middling Power 5 school has six schollies open two years from now and offers like 10 kids from that class, including some real fliers and then backs off a few of them when they don't develop, you probably shouldn't read that Power 5 offer as evidence of the prospect's ability. Same thing if a spring commit had some Power 5 schools sniffing around late because they had scholarships to fill, you shouldn't read those the same as a strong push by a Power 5 school in the summer and fall.
If you want to see a certain thing, then adding evidence helps because some piece will ultimately enable you to tell the story you want to tell. But if you're willing to read offers and visits objectively, they correlate better with future performance than stars and rankings (at least among the kids outside the Top 150-200 who are seen a lot less by the big recruiting agencies).
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
10-10-15 05:28 PM - Post#193023
In response to mrjames
Ha! Of course, it's like all pieces of evidence. If you want to see something, you can read the evidence the way that is most convenient.
Offers are great signals, though, if you're willing to read them correctly. ....
...But if you're willing to read offers and visits objectively, they correlate better with future performance than stars and rankings (at least among the kids outside the Top 150-200 who are seen a lot less by the big recruiting agencies).
Right on at least 2 points here.
1. Analysts often like to "fit" the numbers to their theories.
2. Offers are probably based on more peoples' eyes' views than ratings compiled by fewer eyes of fewer non-coaches. Plus, financially, more money is being spent on D-I schools' recruiting budgets, focused on a smaller number of high-end athletes, vs. the rating services' budgets spread over a larger pool of athletes.
|
|
