Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
#101      
what's the deal here?
can only assume that we see something here, that, by and large, others don't. 3 D1 offers previously. BYU legacy
Going ton continue to see more and more offers like this.

HS recruiting is now for blue chippers or developmental pieces who are content with being the 12-15th guy on the roster. At least for Brad and company.
 
#102      
Going ton continue to see more and more offers like this.

HS recruiting is now for blue chippers or developmental pieces who are content with being the 12-15th guy on the roster. At least for Brad and company.
Seems like we are shunning away from recruits ranked between ~ 30-70. I think a lot has to do with NIL asks, too. Why spending money on players who want ticks but won't get them in the 1st year? They are likely to transfer anyway.
 
Last edited:
#104      
Seems like we are shunning away from recruits ranked between ~ 30-70. I think a lot has to do with NIL asks, too. Why spending money on players who want ticks but won't get them in the 1st year? They are likely to transfer anyway.

Look at Chuck Love. It makes sense for those guys to play down a level so they can put up numbers. Then transfer for a big pay day
 
#105      
Going ton continue to see more and more offers like this.

HS recruiting is now for blue chippers or developmental pieces who are content with being the 12-15th guy on the roster. At least for Brad and company.
You also can't teach height. If you are going to take up a roster spot for development, you are better off taking a big. (See: Jakstys) There is never a shortage of perimeter players.
 
#109      
I love it. I was a contemporary of Kiwane Garris. Don't call me old. Baller.

(Please excuse the wrinkles. It's pretty much only kept for sentimental value.)
1000000154.jpg
 
#110      
Going ton continue to see more and more offers like this.

HS recruiting is now for blue chippers or developmental pieces who are content with being the 12-15th guy on the roster. At least for Brad and company.

How does the Wagler OV fit this then? He isn't a blue chip and a top 150 player isnt cool with being 12-15 I cant imagine
 
#111      
How does the Wagler OV fit this then? He isn't a blue chip and a top 150 player isnt cool with being 12-15 I cant imagine
He falls pretty clearly in the Jason Jaksty range of recruiting rankings which might lead to him being willing to take a developmental role.

Wagler is current 150 on 247 and unranked on Rivals and On3(has a composite of 221 on On3). Also he was 291 on 247 until Illinois showed interest.

For comparison Jaksty is 131 on 247(195 composite), and unranked on On3(169 composite) and rivals.

Honestly I think people make too big of a deal about rankings especially after the top 20-30. Youre going to see clear talent differences at points among the top recruits but at some point it's going to be pretty marginal and I think these recruiting services end up ranking kids simply based on their offers. Only 150 recruits get nationally ranked and at that point there is probably another 150 recruits(maybe more)that have pretty similar talent to the guy being ranked 150.
 
#113      
He falls pretty clearly in the Jason Jaksty range of recruiting rankings which might lead to him being willing to take a developmental role.

Wagler is current 150 on 247 and unranked on Rivals and On3(has a composite of 221 on On3). Also he was 291 on 247 until Illinois showed interest.

For comparison Jaksty is 131 on 247(195 composite), and unranked on On3(169 composite) and rivals.

Honestly I think people make too big of a deal about rankings especially after the top 20-30. Youre going to see clear talent differences at points among the top recruits but at some point it's going to be pretty marginal and I think these recruiting services end up ranking kids simply based on their offers. Only 150 recruits get nationally ranked and at that point there is probably another 150 recruits(maybe more)that have pretty similar talent to the guy being ranked 150.
Rankings hold true far more times than they don't, you just can't get literal with them, #68 is not always better than #69. Lining up 100-300 kids in exact order is an impossible task. It also can't take into account factors no one knows like who will get injured, who will go to a system that is a good/bad fit for them, who will work hard, etc.

However, if you look at rankings at a macro level, top 25 vs top 50 vs top 100 vs top 200, now you will see very high levels of accuracy. Still not 100%, but closer. I think they need to stop saying 100 kids are a 4 star and align more to top 25, 25-75, 75-150, 151+. I think if you did 5 star, 4, 3, 2 along those lines and then just use the star level to gauge expectations, you'd see pretty high accuracy in star ratings.
 
#114      
Rankings hold true far more times than they don't, you just can't get literal with them, #68 is not always better than #69. Lining up 100-300 kids in exact order is an impossible task. It also can't take into account factors no one knows like who will get injured, who will go to a system that is a good/bad fit for them, who will work hard, etc.

However, if you look at rankings at a macro level, top 25 vs top 50 vs top 100 vs top 200, now you will see very high levels of accuracy. Still not 100%, but closer. I think they need to stop saying 100 kids are a 4 star and align more to top 25, 25-75, 75-150, 151+. I think if you did 5 star, 4, 3, 2 along those lines and then just use the star level to gauge expectations, you'd see pretty high accuracy in star ratings.
I agree with that. Just that that talent gap in "tiers" gets smaller and smaller with each successive tier. There is only so much scouting and analysis that these services can do and guys are playing a variety of different competition.

Kind of like baseball top prospect rankings. There is a huge difference between the #1 and #50 prospect but the #100 and #150 prospect are probably pretty similar talents.
 
#123      
Not comparing their talent,solely talking about the mission trip.Don’t know where the 5 star comparison came from.
is it really that hard to see? You can't say well this 5 star, 2nd overall pick in the NBA draft kid said he may take a mission trip too, and he didn't so you never know. The situations are not remotely comparable, thus bringing up Parker is a bad comparison.
 
#124      
Not comparing their talent,solely talking about the mission trip.Don’t know where the 5 star comparison came from.
The five star comparison came from their earning potential. When Parker was playing, it was more important to get tape down for draft stock and money purposes, so him not taking his mission isn't surprising.

Burgess doesn't seem to be at that level, so it's likely less of a factor in his decision to take a mission trip. Now, with NIL being such a dominant force, that could be an intriguing wrinkle, but who knows how much he'll be offered?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back