Boiler UP - #3 ranked 2020 recruiting class
- Thread starter Do Dah Day
- Start date
Just checked. #3 in USA, but only a fraction of 4 and 5 stars have committed, at this pt. Our #3 will dive with this fact in mind, but of course rebound with the addition of our 3rd 2020 guy PLUS Ivey's expected eventual upgrade.
Mostly a function of us having 2 guys committed. Very few schools have 2. Once they do things will level off.
Basketball recruiting rankings don't mean a whole lot.
Recruiting rankings are based on points that are assigned for the quality of each commitment.
Given basketball recruiting classes can be 1-6 players, that's a huge swing. You can't really compare them apples to apples based on a point system.
This is why the "Baby Boilers" class was ranked so high - it was 5 players, 4 of them four stars.
You don't see a lot of 5 player classes.
Recruiting rankings are based on points that are assigned for the quality of each commitment.
Given basketball recruiting classes can be 1-6 players, that's a huge swing. You can't really compare them apples to apples based on a point system.
This is why the "Baby Boilers" class was ranked so high - it was 5 players, 4 of them four stars.
You don't see a lot of 5 player classes.
I like the class we have, but like others have said it will not stay ranked 3rd. That is unless we get multiple 5 stars to commit.
One things for sure, Purdue is in a whole lot better shape than our little brothers to the South.
These ranking fail to take into account the way the next class fills holes in the team. It's nice to be ranked 3rd, but it is meaningless in reality.
For example we could recruit 3 highly rated 5* small forwards every year and have a terrible team after 4 years (12 small forwards trying to bring the ball up or rebound). Balancing talent and players by position so that the result is a strong coachable team makes the recruiting evaluation multi-faceted. These numerical comparisons have no real meaning.
For example we could recruit 3 highly rated 5* small forwards every year and have a terrible team after 4 years (12 small forwards trying to bring the ball up or rebound). Balancing talent and players by position so that the result is a strong coachable team makes the recruiting evaluation multi-faceted. These numerical comparisons have no real meaning.
Our biggest need is the 4 spot. Still need to address that in this class.
I think 5 small forwards would be pretty good actually, especially 5*s. They would dominate.
5 pgs or centers on the other hand, not so much. Give up too much size or speed.
Sorry, I just got thinking of a lineup.
Kevin Durant
LeBron James
Paul George
Kawhi Leonard
Giannis Ante........
Pretty damn scary, but of course that's saying they are Hall of Famers
They’re good . And if the rules were you had to have 5 of one position only, wing forwards would be the way to go. But the game still has roles despite people saying it’s “position less” basketball now. Counter that “position less” team with hall of fame players from 5 different positions and the “combined arms” team wins.
Give me Magic Johnson, Michael Jordan, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Shaquille O'Neil. Then you’ll see how the game is played.
Just one caveat. Shaq has to bring the ball up court.
We already know Magic can play all five positions. He has done that on championship teams. He is an exception. My point still remains. You have to recruit to needs, and the ranking services don't take that into account. Simply ranking the recruits as individuals is nothing more than a press conference gimmick.
We are talking about high school seniors here, not HOF pro players. Teams that recruit unbalanced talent do not do well in the long run. Good coaches recruit to needs, and the ranking services don't account for that. That is my point.
Last edited:
We will have some additional clarity soon on rankings because 247 is updating 2020 rankings today. I believe Rivals is later this week as well.
Check that - Purdue is now #2 behind Gonzaga
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basketball/CompositeTeamRankings/
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basketball/CompositeTeamRankings/
Morton at 121 and Jaden at 124.
Morton dropped because of his offensive struggles. They said Ivey would have gone higher but since he committed to Purdue, that their system won't allow a ranking better than the 120s.
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basketball/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
Morton dropped because of his offensive struggles. They said Ivey would have gone higher but since he committed to Purdue, that their system won't allow a ranking better than the 120s.
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basketball/RecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
Who’s gettin in his way? Not me!Just one caveat. Shaq has to bring the ball up court.
We already know Magic can play all five positions. He has done that on championship teams. He is an exception. My point still remains. You have to recruit to needs, and the ranking services don't take that into account. Simply ranking the recruits as individuals is nothing more than a press conference gimmick.
I agree completely with choosing pieces that fit being as important as the rankings, maybe more important. Didn’t mean to argue that. That’s one of my favorite things I have seen in Painters recruiting over the last four or so years. Beiline and Izzo have been masters at it too. We are seeing what happens when the pieces don’t fit at the institution down south. When I would play pickup ball I always enjoyed being on a team with four guards/wings plus me in the post. It gave room to operate and good passing lanes too. I loved making a move to draw defenders then hitting a wing or baseline cutter for an assist. Lots of team configurations can work but the more skill set types it contains the better from my view.
Yes, the reason the Baby Boilers were ranked that high is partially the number, but partially they were that good. That class was a legitimate national championship caliber recruiting class. Not saying 2020 isn't, but I wouldn't downplay how good that Baby Boiler class was. If we would have kept Martin, and Hummel wouldn't have gotten hurt, we would have been hard to stop.
It was a very good class, but it didn't have any top 40 players. I've been told for the last 10 years you have to have them to be good!! lol
In all seriousness, the class was unique and not your typical class. Painter was basically starting a program from scratch with almost a guaranteed starting spot for anyone that came. That certainly doesn't mean everything falls into your lap, but you typically are looking for much more class balance than that individual class. I think people unfairly expect a "top 10" class like that - when in reality, if that was a 3-4 person (with Calasan included), it wouldn't have been top 10 -- even though it was exactly what we needed.
Recruiting classes are about fulfilling needs, maintaining balance, and right chemistry. You can have a great recruiting class on paper, but if they don't check those boxes, there's going to be some problems.
Last edited:
E'Twaun Moore was well inside the top 40, and JaJuan Johnson was just outside the top 40, IIRC.
Sorry, E'twaun was 35. Still, there was no "premiere" recruit..i.e. a 5 star...that many are obsessed with.
We're talking in the Baby Boilers class. Many people "clamor" to have that top 10 basketball recruit ranking, but I'm just pointing out that class as an example of how recruiting rankings work. I'd venture to guess that almost every top 10 class has a 5 star....but because recruiting rankings are a point based system (i.e. each individual recruit is assigned a point value), a class of 5 with a few four star recruits....can be ranked ahead of a class of 2 with a 5 star. Doesn't mean one class is better than the other - it totally depends on need, chemistry, etc.
I’d rather have the 30-100 kids that are most likely going to stick around for 3-4 years, like Etwaun, Carsen, Nojel, etc.
PLEASE don't take this as being critical of Painter. But that class was the best he's had. And it showed in the results. In 2009-2010 they were 13-0 in non-conf, destroying #6 West Virginia and ranked #6 at the end of the season. They would have had a very good chance of beating Duke in the Sweet Sixteen, or been a #1 seed in another bracket.
Of course it was a tremendous class. But as I mentioned in another post, he was operating with a blank slate of a program. Basically every starting spot was up for grabs (whether or not he had to say it or not, it was pretty clear we were starting from scratch pretty much).
It's rather rare to have a 5 person recruiting class, let alone one where you could have nearly 4 of those guys be starting from day 1, and all of them be playing out of the gate.
It absolutely doesn't mean it was easy to get -- obviously we ran into some PT issues immediately with Martin. But again, comparing recruiting classes in basketball is simply not apples to apples.
If we had that same recruiting class today, it'd be great on paper but probably disruptive - it'd also mean a guaranteed 3-4 transfers out of the program eventually (look at Martin, he was mopey midway through his freshman year). All of the pieces fit with that class (and even then, Martin didn't quite). Recruiting a good basketball class is filling precisely what you need, making sure team chemistry is good, and keeping balance.
I'd also argue that while that class was certainly great - I think it also hurt us as a "resurgent" program given you had several 4 year starters. And I think it's a tremendous compliment to Painter that even after we lost 4 starters from the year before this past year, Painter basically had the next team lined up ready to take over. That is NO easy feat in college basketball these days.
A more succinct answer is simply: Of course it was his best, but ideally you don't have 5 person recruiting classes with players needed the next year. That's not great balance.
Another thing to consider was the talent of that class nationally. That year was loaded with talent all over the country, and if the baby boilers were in any other year, they may have been ranked higher.
Also, One thing people forget is that as amazing the baby boilers were in their career, Painter didnt have time to work in solid depth in the roster. That hurt toward the end of games and reared its ugly head when injuries occurred.
Also, One thing people forget is that as amazing the baby boilers were in their career, Painter didnt have time to work in solid depth in the roster. That hurt toward the end of games and reared its ugly head when injuries occurred.
I think this is where Painter and the Blue Blood coaches deviate. Painter respects veteran players and gives them priority for positions whereas a Cal or K opens as a blank slate every year for meshing of best lineups.
Not knocking Painter but that is what I see as the difference.
I mean, let's be honest....it is not a regular occurrance at most programs that people who are multi-year starters are then getting benched because of a better freshman. And I'm not talking about people who start because at the time there's not really a better option - but do you really think Hummel would have been benched by Coach K? That's simply not a normal thing that you should apply to 99% of programs.
They also "open as a blank slate" year after year because they have extreme turnover. Again, that comes down to a small handful of programs and really I wouldn't say any Big Ten programs are really on that level.
Coach K benched Greg Paulus after starting 3 years for Nolan Smith.
That's one important area where they deviate. When it comes to Coach Cal and others, there is also a deviation in recruiting violations.
Just curious, what recruiting violations has Cal been hit with?
Let me step into this a bit. Maybe he has not been formally hit with any violations per se, but he is the only coach I am aware of to have had national championships vacated at two different schools- UMass and Memphis. Someone with a better memory than mine- are those facts not correct?
In both cases, of course, he was "totally ignorant" of any violations but as a head coach of some stature I find it hard to believe these things happened at two places with two different staffs and without his knowledge. The best I would give him was that his staff understood this type of thing would be tolerated but had to be done without any direct involvement by Cal so that he would have plausible deniability when the issues arose, as they usually do at some point.
This kind of history is dependent on a program 's culture being such that violations are not unthinkable. I would credit CMP for creating a culture where his coaches know that you do not mess around with anything that would be a violation. They don't have to worry about keeping Matt out of the loop- there is no loop there which will entangle anyone, ever. So Cal may not have any violations to his "credit" but anyone who does not think he created the culture that made those violations inevitable is being very naive, in my opinion.
So is he on record with any violations? As far as I know, he is "clean" but to my way of thinking he is dirty but smart.
Cal has plausible designability in all cases. However...
To me, it is like the captain of the ship blaming its sinking on a one of his seaman. Sorry, but the captain is responsible in all cases. If one of your employees or recruits screws up so bad that you have to vacate a national championship, it is the coach's fault, period. He hired/recruited these people and should be responsible for their actions as the head of the program. The buck stops at his desk.
To me, it is like the captain of the ship blaming its sinking on a one of his seaman. Sorry, but the captain is responsible in all cases. If one of your employees or recruits screws up so bad that you have to vacate a national championship, it is the coach's fault, period. He hired/recruited these people and should be responsible for their actions as the head of the program. The buck stops at his desk.
He's been cleared of guilt by the NCAA in both cases. Marcus Camby took money under the table from an agent days prior to the start of 1996 NCAA tournament. Camby had been at UMass for three years prior. How is Cal supposed to control that?
Derrick Rose was not only cleared by the Memphis compliance department, he passed the NCAA clearinghouse who deemed him eligible to play. Derrick Rose was retroactively ruled ineligible two years after the fact, two years after both Rose and Calipari had moved on from Memphis. How do any of these two incidents deviate from "recruiting violations"?
And you speak of culture, nothing in either incident indicts or implicates any of his assistant coaches or his team as a whole. These were isolated incidents done by individuals. Marcus Camby accepted his guilt and later paid back UMass the restitution money they owed the NCAA because he genuinely knew he was solely responsible for the sanctions imposed on UMass. Rose's issues opened the door for a widespread investigation into the Chicago Public Schools for widespread corruption. How in the world does that fall on Calipari or the Memphis basketball program?
I understand why people think Cal is dirty, but none of these incidents are correlated with "recruiting violations" or anything remotely close with the current landscape that is corrupting college basketball today.
Wow where to start.
1. He never won a national title at UMASS or Memphis so no title was vacated.
2. The Marcus Camby situation was him taking money and gifts his last year of school before he went pro. Didn’t happen when he was a recruit.
3. D Rose issue was related to his SAT scores and needing to retake the test. The NCAA brought up the score issue during the tourney. Cal told him to skip it if he wasn’t going to come back to school, so he did. Not sure that constitutes a recruiting violation.
Wrong. Since when did the head coach of a college basketball team have any say, let alone in on the hiring process of a university's academic compliance office? Rose was cleared by Memphis' compliance department on top of being cleared by the NCAA. He was only deemed ineligible retroactively once an investigation into the school corporation in which Rose attended was found to be in grave corruption.
I mean think about it? You take your SATs when? The spring of your junior year of high school into the fall of your senior year? Rose didn't commit to Memphis until winter of his junior year? Are you suggesting that Cal or Memphis assistants or Memphis university officials should be sitting in the classroom at a high school in Chicago making sure a prospective recruit is really the one taking his SATs? Nonsense.
To be fair, Cal recruited both of these players. I really don’t care much about any of it but, to act like these events happened in a vacuum and Cal didn’t know the character of these individuals is a stretch.
Similar threads
