mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-20-16 02:13 PM - Post#199763
ESPN released its new 2016 player and class rankings and Harvard nudged its way back into the Top 10. The impetus was the strong senior season being posted by Seth Towns, who was only dropped out of the different recruiting services' rankings because he didn't play the circuit this summer. Towns has been put back into the Top 100 at ESPN and will likely follow at the other sites when they update their rankings. Towns joins Chris Lewis and Robert Baker in the Top 100. Bryce Aiken remains a four-star player and was listed in the 5 on the cusp rankings.
http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sports/basket ba...
Looking ahead to 2017, Harvard is strongly targeting a consensus Top 5 player in that class in Mohamed Bamba. I wouldn't be totally surprised if the Crimson land him. Regardless, Harvard's 2017 class will likely be 3, 4 players max and the Crimson will be very choosy with how it fills those spots.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
01-20-16 05:02 PM - Post#199777
In response to mrjames
Wow...Quite a recruiting class. Imagine how strong Harvard would be without that damn AI!!!
|
H78
PhD Student
Posts: 1458
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
Reg: 01-06-11
|
Re: Harvard 2016 Class Ranked 10th by ESPN 01-20-16 05:28 PM - Post#199779
In response to mrjames
The biggest context shift here is that high-academic star (as in ESPN Top 100) athletes are now more inclined to consider Ivy schools. And several other Ivy coaches i.e. Yale, Princeton, Columbia and Brown, have also stepped up their games to go after similar athletes.
I think the biggest issue here isn't about AI, it's about Tommy Amaker's efforts now making Ivy schools really viable competition for the kinds of athletes from whom Harvard has gotten commitments for 2016. The real losers here aren't so much the AI tweekers or enforcers, the ones getting their oxen gored are the high majors who are losing some kids who value a 4-year diploma from an Ivy school.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-20-16 06:26 PM - Post#199782
In response to JadwinGeorge
The AI really has nothing to do with it for Harvard, at least. If Harvard were trying to maximize the talent it could get and minimize the other Ivies could get, it would vote to raise the AI, not lower it.
The gamechanger would be increased aid.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
01-20-16 08:54 PM - Post#199790
In response to mrjames
If by "it" you refer to basketball recruiting I have suspected as much since Amaker arrived.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 12:22 AM - Post#199808
In response to JadwinGeorge
Not sure I follow, but just to be clear, what I'm saying is that over the past few classes and going forward, Harvard would probably be better off if the AI floor rose rather than fell or stayed the same relative to its Ivy competitors.
|
Penndemonium
PhD Student
Posts: 1878
Reg: 11-29-04
|
01-21-16 07:47 AM - Post#199819
In response to mrjames
I'm not sure I get this. I can understand how Harvard would benefit if the AI increased equally for all Ivy Schools. How would it be better for them if their AI rose relative to other Ivies? It seems like all that would do is remove an option for Harvard to recruit a lower AI athlete.
Congrats to Harvard on the recruiting class. This is the stuff I used to dream about in Penn's Ivy championship years.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 08:53 AM - Post#199821
In response to Penndemonium
Sorry - dangling modifier there. I was referring to a world in which changes were hypothetically made equally for all Ivies. I was saying that relative to other Ivies Harvard would be more advantaged if the AI bar rose for the league as a whole.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
01-21-16 09:06 AM - Post#199823
In response to mrjames
Hypotheticals are not important, particularly regarding the AI. No one knows how the AI is interpreted, applied or "enforced" at any school.
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 10:18 AM - Post#199825
In response to JadwinGeorge
It's a shame that the AI scores aren't public, because if they were, boy would the existing narratives change. That's all I'm saying.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-21-16 11:50 AM - Post#199836
In response to JadwinGeorge
What exactly does this mean? Isn't the AI a hard number? How do schools get to "interpret" the AI?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 01:21 PM - Post#199850
In response to SomeGuy
My presumption is that refers to how schools hit their AI averages, which can involve decisions of targets across sports. The AI can't be interpreted, but how you get to your AI target is largely up to the school.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-21-16 01:27 PM - Post#199852
In response to mrjames
Right. If Harvard decides to give it's lower AI slots to basketball and football, they have every right to do so. The numbers are still the numbers though.
The one place where people might have a point about the narrative, however, is coding high AI kids as basketball players who then don't play. I've never totally understood how the AI works in terms of those guys who end up not suiting up (just like i'm not totally sure of how they apply to the limits on the number of basketball recruits over a 4 year period).
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 01:45 PM - Post#199856
In response to SomeGuy
The AI boosters count toward the 21 rolling four year cap. They do not count toward the team GPA unless they remain on the active roster, though.
|
JadwinGeorge
Senior
Posts: 357
Age: 75
Reg: 12-04-15
|
01-21-16 06:42 PM - Post#199881
In response to mrjames
Usually you get to the "I know more than anyone else but I can't tell you how" sooner. Remarkable restraint. Has the recruiting class been early admitted?
|
mrjames
Professor
Posts: 6062
Loc: Montclair, NJ
Reg: 11-21-04
|
01-21-16 06:54 PM - Post#199883
In response to JadwinGeorge
Sometimes you slow-play the aces. But yeah, as far as I know, everyone is admitted.
|
digamma
Masters Student
Posts: 466
Loc: Minneapolis
Reg: 11-27-11
|
01-21-16 08:11 PM - Post#199890
In response to mrjames
At times I wish this forum had a like button.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2685
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
01-21-16 08:17 PM - Post#199891
In response to digamma
Not applicable for most sub-fora on here.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-21-16 09:59 PM - Post#199895
In response to JadwinGeorge
I'm still curious as to exactly what you are insinuating. Mrjames seems to be suggesting that, if we knew the AI numbers for the players on every team, Harvard would look pretty good comparatively. My question, though, is who cares? Assume mrjames is wrong, and Harvard has the lowest AIs in the league. So what? If they are operating within the rules, who cares? Why can't Princeton just do the same thing? Why complain about someone operating within the rules?
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2685
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
01-21-16 11:22 PM - Post#199902
In response to SomeGuy
Actually, because the AI limits are calculated based on the averages of that particular institution, it is highly unlikely that Harvard has the lowest or even one of the lower AI's.
Also, as the AI was supposedly created in part to respond to Penn's Philly recruiting, then one should assume that Harvard's recruiting must be within acceptable parameters as the very accusations being launched at Harvard were addressed by the creation of the AI.
Likely, every coach and school has a strategy on how to build a team and comply with the rules. In the absence of any hard data, it appears that Amaker and Harvard's only verifiable sin is success!
Go ahead and tighten the rules further. I suspect that others will suffer more than Harvard does.
|
SomeGuy
Professor
Posts: 6391
Reg: 11-22-04
|
01-22-16 10:03 AM - Post#199921
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Correct. That said, the system does make it easy to complain, because there can be instances where a kid who is above the floor doesn't get in one place because his AI didn't fit with the other AIs that year, and gets in somewhere else. So there could be instances where Princeton can't fit a player on their team because of the AI, and Harvard can fit the same player because there are other high AIs on the team (or playing squash).
Harvard may be prioritizing basketball more than other schools. But again, so what? That doesn't strike me as a moral failing.
|
SRP
Postdoc
Posts: 4894
Reg: 02-04-06
|
01-22-16 05:35 PM - Post#199951
In response to SomeGuy
I have gotten the impression that some of the new recruits for Harvard have quite high academic profiles as well as basketball rankings. That may be what Mr. J is referring to.
|
HARVARDDADGRAD
Postdoc
Posts: 2685
Loc: New Jersey
Reg: 01-21-14
|
02-23-16 12:21 AM - Post#202480
In response to SRP
Want to know which Harvard recruit is transcendent? According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution:
"Milton’s boys basketball team is 14-5 overall, but 15-2 with four-star recruit Chris Lewis in the lineup."
|
Chip Bayers
Professor
Posts: 6997
Loc: New York
Reg: 11-21-04
|
02-23-16 04:08 AM - Post#202481
In response to HARVARDDADGRAD
Heh.
|