Recruiting Myths - the way I see it.

H

hawkeye12345

Well-Known Member
I've spent the morning using Van Coleman's website to try and determine how in the world this guy can give Iowa a top 25 recruiting class and here is what I've found:

Iowa has 3 recruits per hoopmasters that are in the top 150 - not going to argue his assessments, just going to take them at face value. They are #55, #108, #141.

There are 31 teams that have at least one player signed that are rated higher than Iowa (#55) and there are still 6 players in the top 55 that are uncommitted. These uncommitted players could move Iowa up if we sign any of them (not likely) or down if they sign with teams not already ranked ahead of us (likely).

Trying to weight the criteria is truly mythical to be honest so here is my criteria for rating a class:

1) If you have a top 10 player you are in the top 25 regardless
2) Top 10 players receive 10 points,
11-25 receives 7 points,
26-50 receive 5 points,
51-75 receive 3 points,
76-125 receive 2 points,
125-150 receive 1 point.

3) The number of players signed makes little difference in the overall ranking as basketball is a game of individuals. I am simply using a weighted average of players signed. Point being, 1 top 10 player is a heck of a lot better than ten players ranked 125-150 although having only 1 player signed won't mean you have the best class (See Texas and Baylor rankings). I've bolded the Big10 teams and I've noted which teams have only 1 commitment for the class.

I didn't know what the outcome would be when I started the spreadsheet, although I did guess that Iowa would be out of the top 25 (and I was right #32 by my calculations) but I never imagined that Iowa would have a top 5 Big10 recruiting class (#5 actually) so that was a pleasant surprise.

So here it goes:

Top 25

North Carolina
Memphis
Ohio State
UCLA
Duke
Tennessee
Baylor - signed 1 player
Texas - signed 1 player
Florida
Louisville
Missouri
Illinois
UConn
Mich St
NC St
Stanford
Fl St
Georgetown
Oklahoma
Marquette
Arizona St
Miami
Michigan

Next 25

Providence
Kentucky - signed 1 player
California
Alabama
ND
Oregon St
IOWA
LSU
Ok St
Arizona
BYU
Dayton
DePaul
Ga Tech
Kansas
New Mexico
Penn St
South Carolina
Maryland
Pitt
Purdue
Texas A&M
Ol' Miss
Arkansas
Davidson

****Player rankings were pulled using this webpage. I did not include JUCOs although I may go back and update the information with JUCOs included if I have time.******* Hoopmasters.com: Basketball recruiting information from the foremost authorities at Van Coleman's Hoopmasters.Com!
 
Editors Note:

Iowa could be ranked higher than Alabama, ND, Ok St, Providence, Michigan & Kentucky. Although then you are putting all of the weight of a recruiting class on using Van's assessments of players and ignoring the other rankings sites. An example would be Evan Smotrycz who has signed with Michigan. Rivals has Evan as a 4 Star with a national rank of 52. Van has him as #70. Van has Iowa players listed pretty high compared to the 'other' outlets. Take it for what it's worth.
 
Thanks for the info

Recruiting rankings are not an exact science. This shows that Iowa arguably has a top 25 class. Even if they arent its a step in the right direction
 
I looked at the JUCO rankings and signings and the only team that I could see that might move ahead of Iowa is Oklahoma State. They have the #13 ranked JUCO signed. All the others are pretty much directional schools or schools that have a very poor class coming in to begin with.

The best that I could see Iowa ranked is #25 but I believe that once the final rankings come out we will be between 30 and 40. I only used Van's rankings and his top 150 players in the country. I do know this; We won't be in the top 20 and we won't be worse than 40.
 
You can't take Van Coleman seriously about any Iowa school. He is very pollyannish when it comes to recruits coming in. Not saygin this is not a good class, but I would rely more on what others are saying.
 
I am going to use Rivals Top 150 using the same criteria as Coleman's and see if there is any difference. Should take about an hour or so.
 
hoosieriniowa said:
You can't take Van Coleman seriously about any Iowa school. He is very pollyannish when it comes to recruits coming in. Not saygin this is not a good class, but I would rely more on what others are saying.
Click to expand...

I would say the best thing would be to take the ranking from all of the recruiting services and average them, maybe throwing out any extreme outliers. That should be more accurate than just looking at 1 or 2 rankings from given services, even if you do keep the outliers. As pointed out, Van Coleman may not be totally unbiased, so looking just at his ranking might be a bit misleading. Still, this sounds like a respectable class at least.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
I've spent the morning using Van Coleman's website to try and determine how in the world this guy can give Iowa a top 25 recruiting class and here is what I've found:

Iowa has 3 recruits per hoopmasters that are in the top 150 - not going to argue his assessments, just going to take them at face value. They are #55, #108, #141.

There are 31 teams that have at least one player signed that are rated higher than Iowa (#55) and there are still 6 players in the top 55 that are uncommitted. These uncommitted players could move Iowa up if we sign any of them (not likely) or down if they sign with teams not already ranked ahead of us (likely).

Trying to weight the criteria is truly mythical to be honest so here is my criteria for rating a class:

1) If you have a top 10 player you are in the top 25 regardless
2) Top 10 players receive 10 points,
11-25 receives 7 points,
26-50 receive 5 points,
51-75 receive 3 points,
76-125 receive 2 points,
125-150 receive 1 point.

3) The number of players signed makes little difference in the overall ranking as basketball is a game of individuals. I am simply using a weighted average of players signed. Point being, 1 top 10 player is a heck of a lot better than ten players ranked 125-150 although having only 1 player signed won't mean you have the best class (See Texas and Baylor rankings). I've bolded the Big10 teams and I've noted which teams have only 1 commitment for the class.

I didn't know what the outcome would be when I started the spreadsheet, although I did guess that Iowa would be out of the top 25 (and I was right #32 by my calculations) but I never imagined that Iowa would have a top 5 Big10 recruiting class (#5 actually) so that was a pleasant surprise.

So here it goes:

Top 25

North Carolina
Memphis
Ohio State
UCLA
Duke
Tennessee
Baylor - signed 1 player
Texas - signed 1 player
Florida
Louisville
Missouri
Illinois
UConn
Mich St
NC St
Stanford
Fl St
Georgetown
Oklahoma
Marquette
Arizona St
Miami
Michigan

Next 25

Providence
Kentucky - signed 1 player
California
Alabama
ND
Oregon St
IOWA
LSU
Ok St
Arizona
BYU
Dayton
DePaul
Ga Tech
Kansas
New Mexico
Penn St
South Carolina
Maryland
Pitt
Purdue
Texas A&M
Ol' Miss
Arkansas
Davidson

****Player rankings were pulled using this webpage. I did not include JUCOs although I may go back and update the information with JUCOs included if I have time.******* Hoopmasters.com: Basketball recruiting information from the foremost authorities at Van Coleman's Hoopmasters.Com!
Click to expand...

So you went to two different sources - one of whom has been described as an Iowa homer - but there is only a difference of seven spots? Split the difference, and Iowa comes in at 29th for next season.
 
I guess this isn't going to take as long as I thought. Iowa doesn't have a single player listed in the top 150 per rivals.
 
Here you go:

TOP 31 Based on Rivals Rankings -

North Carolina
Memphis
Ohio State
NC State
Tennessee
UCLA
Duke
Illinois
Baylor
Marquette
Arizona St
Texas
Syracuse
NC State
Florida
Mich State
Stanford
Dayton
Oklahoma
Purdue
Wake Forest
Fl State
Miami
Michigan
Virginia - **score was lower but I moved them up based on overall class stregth
Ok State
ND
Providence
Villanova
South Carolina
Virginia Tech

The last 5 can all be thrown under a blanket and just pick one of them.

Iowa didn't have a single kid in the top 150 so they aren't ranked. There were 67 unique teams that had at least 1 kid from the top 150 and Iowa was not one of them.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Mich State, Northwestern, Ohio State, and Purdue all had at least one kid out of the top 150.
 
That is a lot of work Hawkeye12345, kudos for the effort. The ranking systems are pretty much a sham if you ask me, in that you can't tell me that one kid is the #50 player in all of American and another is #100. I bet there isn't hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two, and different places will rank then different depending on what nights they watch them play. I think if you are getting a top 150 player, you are getting a pretty good player. Sure it would be nice to get top 20 guys, as they are heads and tails better, but it just isn't something we get, never really have, probably never will.

I like the kids we have coming in, but you can never tell if you have an Eric May, or a Anthony Tucker until they hit the court, and play the game....
 
ShadasRevenge said:
So you went to two different sources - one of whom has been described as an Iowa homer - but there is only a difference of seven spots? Split the difference, and Iowa comes in at 29th for next season.
Click to expand...
What two sources? In the first compilation I used an Iowa homer who has 3 players listed in his top 150. In the latest poll I used rivals rankings who has NO players listed in their top 150. This was a blind number generated spreadsheet. I didn't fudge the numbers and I didn't change the rankings.

You can check the rivals site, you can check hoopmasters site. He!! you can check any ratings services site and use the formula I posted to come up with these figures with a few exceptions that I tried to note in the OP. I didn't much much weight on # of bodies but I did adjust the rankings once I realized teams like Virginia have 4 committed players with them being 35, 99, 114, 143 when a team like Virginia Tech only signed one player who had a 63 ranking. If you do a weighted average for Virginia they are #40 but Virginia Tech was 31. Va clearly had a better player but the number of players brought down their weighted average. I did this more on the rivals poll rankings than on hoopmasters - I don't think I changed more than 1 team ranking on hoopmasters but I changed about 5 on rivals based on this formula.

I didn't make this stuff up, I didn't manipulate any numbers. These are purely factual statements with the only judgment being what score do you give a player. But even if you changed that number, you aren't going to significantly change the outcome of the data.

Facts are facts, we don't have a good recruiting class to anyone outside of Iowa.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
What two sources? In the first compilation I used an Iowa homer who has 3 players listed in his top 150. In the latest poll I used rivals rankings who has NO players listed in their top 150. This was a blind number generated spreadsheet. I didn't fudge the numbers and I didn't change the rankings.

You can check the rivals site, you can check hoopmasters site. He!! you can check any ratings services site and use the formula I posted to come up with these figures with a few exceptions that I tried to note in the OP. I didn't much much weight on # of bodies but I did adjust the rankings once I realized teams like Virginia have 4 committed players with them being 35, 99, 114, 143 when a team like Virginia Tech only signed one player who had a 63 ranking. If you do a weighted average for Virginia they are #40 but Virginia Tech was 31. Va clearly had a better player but the number of players brought down their weighted average. I did this more on the rivals poll rankings than on hoopmasters - I don't think I changed more than 1 team ranking on hoopmasters but I changed about 5 on rivals based on this formula.

I didn't make this stuff up, I didn't manipulate any numbers. These are purely factual statements with the only judgment being what score do you give a player. But even if you changed that number, you aren't going to significantly change the outcome of the data.

Facts are facts, we don't have a good recruiting class to anyone outside of Iowa.
Click to expand...

So Van Coleman and Hoopmasters are the same thing? As in he runs the site?
 
deanvogs said:
That is a lot of work Hawkeye12345, kudos for the effort. The ranking systems are pretty much a sham if you ask me, in that you can't tell me that one kid is the #50 player in all of American and another is #100. I bet there isn't hardly a dimes worth of difference between the two, and different places will rank then different depending on what nights they watch them play. I think if you are getting a top 150 player, you are getting a pretty good player. Sure it would be nice to get top 20 guys, as they are heads and tails better, but it just isn't something we get, never really have, probably never will.

I like the kids we have coming in, but you can never tell if you have an Eric May, or a Anthony Tucker until they hit the court, and play the game....
Click to expand...


Thanks.
 
hawkeye12345 said:
based on my research it appears that only Van Coleman's do.
Click to expand...

Obviously he must feel as if this incoming class will do well in the slapping the floor on defense and the "fist to the heart thing that everyone does these days" categories...those things equate to high effort levels rite?
 
hawkeye12345 said:
Dude, check out the website. His frickin picture is at the top right hand corner of the home page. If he doesn't come up with the rankings then somebody close to him certainly does.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't know who Van Coleman was if he punched me in the face. It was pretty simple question, and required only a "yes" or "no" answer. I don't really follow recruiting, because I don't know how a grown man can make a living speculating on the decisions a 17 or 18 year old is going to make.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top