Does anyone know how many 5 star recruits are in this year's final 4? I doubt Texas Tech or Auburn has any. Just great coaching. Not sure on Virginia and Michigan St
How many 5 star recruits in Final 4
- Thread starter edub72
- Start date
I don't pay much attention to the recruiting services or their ratings, but there's more than just great coaching. I don't want to take anything away from Beard because he's an excellent coach, but he's not doing it all with kids he recruited and developed. Both Owens and Mooney are grad transfers. Owens led the nation in blocked shots per game at St. Johns. Mooney was the best player in the conference at South Dakota. Great players help make great coaches.
Langford for MSU is the only one and he is out with the injury
MICHIGAN STATE: https://247sports.com/Team/Michigan-State-Spartans-Basketball-74/Roster/
5*: Joshua Langford (injured)
Close: Cassius Winston, Nick Ward
AUBURN: https://247sports.com/Team/Auburn-Tigers-Basketball-169/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Austin Wiley, Chuma Okeke (injured)
VIRGINIA: https://247sports.com/Team/Virginia-Cavaliers-Basketball-20/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Mamadi Diakite, Kyle Guy, Ty Jerome
TEXAS TECH: https://247sports.com/Team/Texas-Tech-Red-Raiders-Basketball-48/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Brandone Francis, Khavon Moore (injured)
For comparison...
INDIANA: https://campbell.247sports.com/Team/Indiana-Hoosiers-Basketball-68/Roster/
5*: Romeo Langford
Close: De'Ron Davis
NOTES: 5* = 0.9900+ rating. Close = 0.9800-0.9899 rating. Jerome Hunter is 0.9799
MICHIGAN STATE: https://247sports.com/Team/Michigan-State-Spartans-Basketball-74/Roster/
5*: Joshua Langford (injured)
Close: Cassius Winston, Nick Ward
AUBURN: https://247sports.com/Team/Auburn-Tigers-Basketball-169/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Austin Wiley, Chuma Okeke (injured)
VIRGINIA: https://247sports.com/Team/Virginia-Cavaliers-Basketball-20/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Mamadi Diakite, Kyle Guy, Ty Jerome
TEXAS TECH: https://247sports.com/Team/Texas-Tech-Red-Raiders-Basketball-48/Roster/
5*: None
Close: Brandone Francis, Khavon Moore (injured)
For comparison...
INDIANA: https://campbell.247sports.com/Team/Indiana-Hoosiers-Basketball-68/Roster/
5*: Romeo Langford
Close: De'Ron Davis
NOTES: 5* = 0.9900+ rating. Close = 0.9800-0.9899 rating. Jerome Hunter is 0.9799
Do you know how many Jr's and Sr's are in the backcourts? Its almost as if experienced guards make a difference or something?
Skippy1813 already addressed this and you're wrong. What else is new?
Reading Is Fundamental - RIF.
Which - along with critical thinking - is not his strong suit.
Nuh-huh.
So - on average - how many 5 stars are on Final Four teams? C'mon, CDK, don't let us down!
BTW -Michigan St. has the ONLY 5 star in the Final Four - Josh Langford. But he's injured; has been since mid-season. So, ZERO active players in Final Four.
I don't think it so much 5 stars most 4 stars become great NBA players same goes for NFL players.
Once again you either lie or are just ignorant to the truth. Might want to go back and do a little more research sport.
Focus on Wiley from auburn and Guy from Virginia.
Nope - did my research.
Kyle Guy is highest ranked on ESPN (27th) from 2016. Wiley (same class) is ranked 17th by ESPN.
Scout/247 had Wiley 35th, Guy 37th.
Rivals had Guy at 43rd. If you search the profile for Wiley is says 5 star but gives no ranking. So we don't know if he was 15th / 25th / 35th (I've seen some recruiting sites has 5 stars ranked AS HIGH as 38th).
Take a look as RSCI 2016. If a kid makes the top 25 there in basketball circles they're considered true 5 stars - not ranked 27th on one site as best ranking. Guy is ranked 32nd (his rankings that make up the composite are listed to the right); Wiley isn't listed at all. Probably should have been, but he's not there.
But let's - for arguments sake - say both guys are marginal 5 stars. Both players are JUNIORS. You know - veteran players that impact winning? That concept you never can grasp the concept of?
But you keep cherry-picking ranking - and rooting for your man Cal.
Last edited:
Once again, Skippy already addressed this. Links to 247 with the roster of each team which show the players' rankings out of HS were included. If you want to dispute this, the onus is on you to provide other evidence then say why yours is correct and this is wrong. Of course, you won't do this. As usual, you'll just ignore any evidence which doesn't fit your narrative. Some of those in the "close" category may have been 5 stars on other services but the links above to 247 show their composite ranking.
This year is very rare as the final four is usually loaded with 5 stars. I guess the you do not need 5 stars fan club is going to use this as an example on why IU should never go after a 5 star again.
Plus the the coaches in the final four are very good coaches. The jury is still way out on our coach.
Define "usually loaded".
How many per year is "usually"?
EDIT: I also agree - the jury is still out on Archie. At least you're not convicting him until all the evidence is heard.
There were probably 6 or 7 five stars last year but the arugment is going to be you do not need five stars and IU should never recruit a five star again. People who are dead set on that will not change their minds so it is not even a discussion worth having.
Of course they will. It’s just pure delusion from people who don’t understand percentages.
It’s like when Tiger was in his prime and a tournament would have the field as a slight favorite over Tiger. These clowns would argue the entire field is better than Tiger disregarding how percentages work.
I don’t know how you keep getting so confused.
I’m not for or against upperclassmen. I’m simply for getting the very best possible players and building a roster with them. If they stay 4 years great. If they leave after 1 great.
This is just reality and the formula every coach follows. These kids aren’t going to Duke, UK, etc because Auburn, Texas Tech, etc turned them down.
247 isn’t the only service. We’re not even on a 247 site. Get a clue man. I’m not going to argue with what a “true” 5 star is. They are or they aren’t.
“Get a clue.” Never heard of irony, huh CDK?
Isn’t the only service? I listed for you the rankings of those kids on all the major sites. But you want to cherry pick one to try to make s point - typical. Knowledgeable people look at the RSCI for a players true evaluation, but I guess that’d leave you out, huh?
Last edited:
Yes, it's not the only service but it takes all the others into account, hence the composite ranking. So when you refer to a player's ranking you always look at Rivals and only Rivals (that is the site we're on, after all)? In that case, by Taz's post above, Guy was 43rd. Is that 5*? Or do you pick and choose the service and ranking which fit your argument while claiming none others count? I think you do the latter.
As for the last part of your statement...LMAO. If that were true then there would always be an agreement between every service. And of course you're not going to argue it, you can't.
Last edited:
Wrong - there were three:
Code:
Villanova
Player Class RSCI Top 100
Jalen Brunson JR 19 (2015)
Mikal Bridges JR 96 (2014)
Donte DiVincenzo RS-SO
Omari Spellman FR 17 (2016)
Eric Paschall JR
Phil Booth JR 84 (2014)
Collin Gillespie FR
Dhamir Cosby-Roundtree FR 74 (2017)
Michigan
Player Class RSCI Top 100
Moritz Wagner JR 97 (2015)
Charles Matthews JR 50 (2015)
Muhammad-Ali Abdur-Rahkman SR
Duncan Robinson SR
Zavier Simpson SO 54 (2016)
Jordan Poole FR 99 (2017)
Jon Teske SO
Isaiah Livers FR
Ibi Watson SO
Eli Brooks FR
Kansas
Player Class RSCI Top 100
Devonte' Graham SR 65 (2014)
Sviatoslav Mykhailiuk SR 95 (2014)
Malik Newman RS-SO 8 (2015)
Lagerald Vick JR 56 (2015)
Udoka Azubuike SO 33 (2016)
Marcus Garrett FR 54 (2017)
Mitch Lightfoot SO
Silvio De Sousa FR
Sam Cunliffe SO 39 (2016)
Loyola-Chicago
Player Class RSCI Top 100
Clayton Custer JR
Marques Townes JR
Donte Ingram SR
Aundre Jackson SR
Cameron Krutwig FR
Ben Richardson SR
Lucas Williamson FROnly three 5 stars; only 1 OAD (Spellman).
But look at how many 3-4 year players. Just a coincidence, right?
Do you want 5 stars? Sure - if they're a good fit to your team. But you want guys with experience. There's a reason Archie says he wants guys "to grow old". You're looking at it above.
The problem with stars are people on these boards (ours too) is that they make the star evaluations more important than the eye test. When a player doesn't get minutes early and they are 3 star player they say "see.....why did we recruit him".
While some final 4s have more 5stars than this year, the thing final 4 teams have in common is they are usually balanced without huge flaws. Surrounding those 5stars destined to the NBA are ball handlers, shooters, rebounders, shut down defensive guys etc.
They say you win the big10 with big guys (inside out basketball) and you win the tournament with guards (outside in basketball). Which is why there are teams that struggle during the year and make deep ncaa runs etc.
IU needs 5 stars, but it needs juniors and seniors who know their lane too.
While some final 4s have more 5stars than this year, the thing final 4 teams have in common is they are usually balanced without huge flaws. Surrounding those 5stars destined to the NBA are ball handlers, shooters, rebounders, shut down defensive guys etc.
They say you win the big10 with big guys (inside out basketball) and you win the tournament with guards (outside in basketball). Which is why there are teams that struggle during the year and make deep ncaa runs etc.
IU needs 5 stars, but it needs juniors and seniors who know their lane too.
Even Spellman was a redshirt, so not a true 1-and-done.
I think I've been pretty hard core on standing against the dedicated 1-and-done, but even I have never said that I didn't want 5 star players. That is where the argument is misconstrued by some.
There are some players that have no intention whatsoever of playing beyond their frosh season. These are the players that I really don't care if we land or not. Even then, I realize that it's important to land them if they are in-state. Landing Romeo was important, even if we never really benefited from his playing career.
Regardless, it probably doesn't matter, because I think most coaches are going to get the best talent they can draw. It's just an interesting fan debate which is mostly fueled by the fact that all 5 stars are not necessarily 1-and-done.
Hey - I don't mind someone having a different opinion than me. And I'm not above changing my opinion on something, either.
But at least check out the facts behind what you're trying to discuss. Google isn't that hard.
You're right - I missed that.
Can you imagine Calipari redshiting Keion Brooks next year? A top 20 RSCI kid got red-shirted at Nova by Jay Wright. Think Wright values development?
This is where we differ.
If you do the OAD route, you better do it like Coach K is. Like Kentucky used to do. Because even with all that talent there is an extreme void of maturity (both physical and mental).
Just think what UK would have been without Reid Travis this past season. Calipari was as fortunate to get Travis as Tom Crean was in getting Max Bielfeldt. A big hole for UK next year is replacing PJ Washington and Travis. Good luck finding another 2-time all Pac-12 player to fit the bill.
Something else to consider with regard to the experience void at UK and Duke. Sure, they have had plenty of success, but check this out.
We now have 14 seasons since the 1-and-done rule went into effect. During that time Duke and UK have combined for 6 Final Four appearances out of combined 28 possible... not bad right. However, the 20 years prior to 1-and-done they combined for 14 out of a possible 40. That's 35% before 1-and-done to 28% after and UK had the 3 year post season ban connected to "Kentucky Shame" during that time, which would really make it 38% to 28%.
Point being, UK and Duke have been super talented since the expansion to 64 teams, but the 1-and-done rule seems to have effected their ability to win the big games late in the post season. Once you get to the sweet 16 and beyond, they face other really good, hot teams, which invariably have a decided experience advantage over them.
And here’s where I disagree. Every single coach in america is trying to land the 5 star OAD players. Everyone. Archie, Izzo, Self, Holtmann...everyone. It’s just some schools land more than others. We want to be on the end of landing top players rather than the end of landing average players. It’s that simple for me....and every single coach.
Hey - I agree IF you can get 5 star players it’s a plus for your program.
But you’ve said REPEATEDLY we should “be like Kentucky”. And I whole heartedly disagree - because their pitch is “we’ll get you to the NBA” (like other places can’t
). And by doing that you’ll turn your roster over with new players every year.This year (and most other years) shows that to get to Final Fours and win championships (which SHOULD be the goal) programs need to place a premium on having veteran players. I lean toward the Villanova model more than the Duke/UK OAD model because you get the bedroom of both worlds - and a better chance of consistent success.
In Jay Wright’s 18 years he’s been to 4 Elite 8s, 3 Final Fours, 2 championship games, and won 2 titles. In his first 14 years he went to 2 Elite 8s and 1 Final Four.Hey - I agree IF you can get 5 star players it’s a plus for your program.
But you’ve said REPEATEDLY we should “be like Kentucky”. And I whole heartedly disagree - because their pitch is “we’ll get you to the NBA” (like other places can’t
This year (and most other years) shows that to get to Final Fours and win championships (which SHOULD be the goal) programs need to place a premium on having veteran players. I lean toward the Villanova model more than the Duke/UK OAD model because you get the bedroom of both worlds - and a better chance of consistent success.
In Cal’s 10 years he’s been to 7 Elite 8s, 4 Final Fours, and 1 Title.
It’s fair to assume in 8 more years Cal will easily pass all of Wright’s accomplishments.
Again, the argument for loading up on 3-4 year players is simply taking the field vs the top 3-4 programs. Sure the field may win more but you’re talking about 50-60 programs compared to 3-4. The odds are much better if you’re in the group of 3-4 to accomplish what we want. For every Villanova there are dozens of programs running that model who have never won anything.
No, it isn’t.
You insist on acting like Cal is going to continue having the same kind of success he did from 2010-15 with the recruiting he’s had since 2016.
The difference is night and day. I can’t guarantee it won’t happen anymore than you can guarantee that it will. But without elite OAD talent Cal is more likely to have the results of the past 4 years than those of his first 6 years.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you look trying to make that kind of claim? Don’t take my word for it - ask the rest of the board.
Similar threads
