ADVERTISEMENT

Way-too-early top 25 college basketball teams for next year

Often when you see recruiting breakdowns the bands widen as you go down the list, which makes sense to me. In other words a player ranked 5th is typically night and day over a player ranked 25th. However a player ranked 70 might not be much different than 100. So, you see that as you move down the bands widen. 1-10,11-25, 26-50, 51-75, 76-100....something like that.

I am embarrassed to say that I didn;t look closely enough at the chart you posted and didn't catch that every grouping but the last was for 5 players per class. Paterfamilias, you put a lot of thought, effort and data into your posts, and deserve better. ;) Oh, well, probably not the first time someone jumped to conclusions because they didn't look closely enough. Please keep posting things like this, I find them very interesting.

Lol... Don't beat yourself up. I'm the one that did it and it took me an hour to find it and another half hour looking at the chart and the associated data to remember what the whole study was even about. At first glance, I didn't remember what the 45's were either.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
(I screwed up the quote somehow, so ignore the quote)

As for as the accuracy of recruiting rankings, I have to disagree with the coaches and so does the NBA.

A couple of years ago I did a study to find out what % of players were able to earn at least $5 Million in their NBA careers, all broken down by ranking in the RSCI Top 100. I ended up pulling up short and only did Top 70, just because by that point it felt like going further would just be a waste of time.

Here are the results from the recruiting classes 2004-2012. I didn't get more recent than that because players from the latest classes wouldn't have time to finish college careers and make NBA money.

rsci%2Bstudy%2B7.PNG


Hopefully, the chart is self explanatory. As you can see, the probability of earning at least 5 Mill in an NBA career is highly correlated with recruiting ranking. If the rankings were not legit, I don't think this chart would have such a neat and clean decline in probability as ranking decreases.
But does those nba salary levels correlate to college team performances? That’s where I’m seeing the disconnect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paterfamilias
But does those nba salary levels correlate to college team performances? That’s where I’m seeing the disconnect.

I think you might be making a key point here, if I'm seeing where you're headed. Coaches are looking for specific things relative to system, coachability and team needs etc. From their perspective, the 120th ranked point guard might be a higher recruiting priority than the 38th ranked small forward.

I think coaches don't need recruiting rankings, so they tend to downplay their accuracy. In study after study I've found the rankings (as a whole) to be fantastic. There are errors on an individual basis though, and I'm guessing that coaches often don't make the same errors as the recruiting analysts. I may not even be right about that though, because even the best coaches have recruited complete busts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: .Gerdis
(I screwed up the quote somehow, so ignore the quote)

As for as the accuracy of recruiting rankings, I have to disagree with the coaches and so does the NBA.

A couple of years ago I did a study to find out what % of players were able to earn at least $5 Million in their NBA careers, all broken down by ranking in the RSCI Top 100. I ended up pulling up short and only did Top 70, just because by that point it felt like going further would just be a waste of time.

Here are the results from the recruiting classes 2004-2012. I didn't get more recent than that because players from the latest classes wouldn't have time to finish college careers and make NBA money.

rsci%2Bstudy%2B7.PNG


Hopefully, the chart is self explanatory. As you can see, the probability of earning at least 5 Mill in an NBA career is highly correlated with recruiting ranking. If the rankings were not legit, I don't think this chart would have such a neat and clean decline in probability as ranking decreases.
Very interesting and thanks for posting.

I agree that it shows that the rankings do a decent job. There are definitely tiers of talent.

Unsurprisingly, the top 5 is pretty much a guarantee. This is probably due to a couple of factors. 1) They're much better than their peers and an obvious choice for that high of a ranking. 2) They're drafted high because of that and their rookie contract gets them their $5M.

6-10 not quite as good as the top 5 but still significantly better than everyone else.

Those seem to be the only groups that it works well by groups of 5. 11-20 looks like just being top 20 is enough to distinguish them from lower ranked peers but within that group the exact ranking might not matter much. For example, #12 might not actually be much better than #18. It looks like this trend is the same for 21-30 and 31-40. 41 and beyond are roughly equal and unlikely to play in the NBA.

Interestingly, if you want someone that might be slightly "under ranked" it appears from your numbers that you want someone in bottom half of those groups of 10.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paterfamilias
Very interesting and thanks for posting.

I agree that it shows that the rankings do a decent job. There are definitely tiers of talent.

Unsurprisingly, the top 5 is pretty much a guarantee. This is probably due to a couple of factors. 1) They're much better than their peers and an obvious choice for that high of a ranking. 2) They're drafted high because of that and their rookie contract gets them their $5M.

6-10 not quite as good as the top 5 but still significantly better than everyone else.

Those seem to be the only groups that it works well by groups of 5. 11-20 looks like just being top 20 is enough to distinguish them from lower ranked peers but within that group the exact ranking might not matter much. For example, #12 might not actually be much better than #18. It looks like this trend is the same for 21-30 and 31-40. 41 and beyond are roughly equal and unlikely to play in the NBA.

Interestingly, if you want someone that might be slightly "under ranked" it appears from your numbers that you want someone in bottom half of those groups of 10.

Yeah, what you noticed was a bit odd. I'm thinking it would balance itself out if I had a few more classes in the study, but maybe not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: minneman
But does those nba salary levels correlate to college team performances? That’s where I’m seeing the disconnect.

Also to your point, I think this is the problem with trying to deduce how good a team might be based purely on recruiting rankings + experience, like my roster rankings try to do.

Coaches realize the importance of role players relative to team building. Recruiting rankings don't give proper appreciation to the guys that just make your team better (maybe even great) by doing the little things that don't necessarily get you paid in the NBA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: minneman
I see no use for these ratings. It's obvious that they have no relationship to the BT teams. So why rate teams bye how their players are rated in highschool! IU looks like they best highschool talent, but that "highschool" talent can't beat teams like Wisconsin or Purdue who's "highschool" talent is so poor? I think the only thing you have established, that the ratings do not translate to the college basketball court.

Then don't use them jackass. It's one guy giving an opinion that some of us enjoy. Holy hell.
 
I think you might be making a key point here, if I'm seeing where you're headed. Coaches are looking for specific things relative to system, coachability and team needs etc. From their perspective, the 120th ranked point guard might be a higher recruiting priority than the 38th ranked small forward.

I think coaches don't need recruiting rankings, so they tend to downplay their accuracy. In study after study I've found the rankings (as a whole) to be fantastic. There are errors on an individual basis though, and I'm guessing that coaches often don't make the same errors as the recruiting analysts. I may not even be right about that though, because even the best coaches have recruited complete busts.
I really like what you’ve put together . . . I’m just trying to see if / where there is “drift” in that the rankings begin to be less predictive and reliable. Thanks again. Good stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Paterfamilias
I really like what you’ve put together . . . I’m just trying to see if / where there is “drift” in that the rankings begin to be less predictive and reliable. Thanks again. Good stuff.

Oh yeah, I get that! I'm right there with ya. I think the further down the rankings you go the more important something like offer list becomes. I've been thinking of trying to devise a system based on offers for players outside the Top 100, but until now I haven't had as much spare time to do the stuff I used to do. I've got nothing but time now, but I'm not feeling particularly motivated either.
 
I didn't see anybody last year in the big ten that I would call elite. The only thing separating Indiana, MSU, and Maryland is coaching. Great coaches find a way to win.
 
I didn't see anybody last year in the big ten that I would call elite. The only thing separating Indiana, MSU, and Maryland is coaching. Great coaches find a way to win.
So it really doesn't matter what talent is on the team or whether the team has each position filled. It doesn't mean a thing if a starting guard is injured or is having a bad day. A great coach can just will 25 wins each season. Every season. Even against better teams and coaches.
 
So it really doesn't matter what talent is on the team or whether the team has each position filled. It doesn't mean a thing if a starting guard is injured or is having a bad day. A great coach can just will 25 wins each season. Every season. Even against better teams and coaches.

He's delusional. Both Maryland and Michigan State had exceptionally better talent than Indiana this year. Not even a comparison.
 
Fwiw... here are my current Big 10 roster ratings for next season. Taking a few guesses on leave early dudes. The individual player ratings are based on recruiting rankings an experience only... not performance based. Torvik and others are obviously much superior, but at least it's something to look at during the way too early off-season:) The ranking next to each teams name is a six year average for where they would land nationally, if my projected Sagarin Rating turned out to be accurate. This isn't my prediction or "guarantee" as predictions are sometimes viewed here... just extremely early roster ratings. For entertainment purposes only:)

Illinois%2B21.PNG


Indiana%2B21.PNG



Iowa%2B21.PNG


Maryland%2B21.PNG


Mich%2BState%2B21.PNG


Michigan%2B21.PNG


Minnesota%2B21.PNG


Nebraska%2B21.PNG


Northwestern%2B21.PNG


Ohio%2BState%2B21.PNG


Penn%2BState%2B21.PNG


Purdue%2B21.PNG


Rutgers%2B21.PNG


Wisconsin%2B21.PNG

IU should be a top 10 team next year. We will be an extremely experienced and talented team. For comparison, I like our roster next year more than Maryland’s this year who was a top 10 team for most of the year. It should be a fun year.
 
IU should be a top 10 team next year. We will be an extremely experienced and talented team. For comparison, I like our roster next year more than Maryland’s this year who was a top 10 team for most of the year. It should be a fun year.
I agree. The one thing that can hold this team back is if no one develops enough of a 3-point shot to keep defenses honest. The guards did seem decent shooters when they were catching it ready to shoot, but that didn't seem to happen often enough. Hopefully, adding Lander will address that if he is able to penetrate and kick out to set shooters. Someone able to do that was missing this year. It was either pass around the perimeter or pass inside, often to a double team. If TJD improves passing out of double teams that would help, too.

There is potential to be a better perimeter shooting team next year. Hunter came on towards the end of the year and closed out the season shooting a bit over 40% the last 10 or 12 games, I think. Durham shot 38% for the season. Franklin shot terribly for the season but he did have a few games were he was on fire so if he can become consistent in the off season that would help the team. I don't expect the freshmen to shoot well, but maybe one of them will surprise me. Phinisee improved a couple of percentage points from his freshman year. If he can do that again he would be an okay 3-point shooter at around 35-36%.

That said, with the experience that is returning, I expect the defense to be consistently good all year long. So even if the shooting doesn't improve much that should be good enough to keep the games close. Assuming, of course, that experience has also taught them they need to play hard every minute of every game. That is more of a key to a successful season for this team than even better shooting.
 
IU should be a top 10 team next year. We will be an extremely experienced and talented team. For comparison, I like our roster next year more than Maryland’s this year who was a top 10 team for most of the year. It should be a fun year.
In the Big 10, presumably.
 
Have you ever posted about basketball? The only post you make is following a few posters around and attacking them after their every post. After thinking about it, this is your first basketball post describing IU’s shooting this part year. Carry on. BAU

You got it, Dr. Naismith. The board awaits your next “basketball post” with bated breathe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Radio Zero
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT