Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread

[Guest]

Good choice.

 

[therealmiket86]

I told you guys last year that Jaylan Mitchell and Jaxon Davis would not become ILLINI. Illinois took 2 players in the 2006 class that play his position. He hasn't shown that much improvement since his freshman year because he was bigger than kids his age. Mitchell recruitment reminds me of James Brown, who was highly recruited, Illinois passed on him and now he has left UNC and is now playing at Howard.

I heard Mitchell looked good recently . He’s also been hurt the last several years.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2066956671713190333

 

[skyIdub]

What in the carpal tunnel........

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

Well, first, I don not think the writer was talking about facilitation skills and experience he gained at Illinois. You do know that he was a very well-respected PG in whatever Euro League he was in, yes? He was even considered for the MVP award for that league. Averaged 12 points a game. And do you think that the Illinois staff evaluation did not also see those skills last year? Of course, they did. You even admit Brad has an eye for talent. Was his evaluation of MP wrong last year? It is why they recruited him, and if not for KW, he would have been Illinois’ PG last year. As we have witnessed before, it can take some time to adjust to Big Ten play. But I do not doubt he would have. Did you see the post of the schools that are interested in him? And I quote the Twitter post, "Sources indicate MASSIVE high-major interest in the former Illinois playmaker since entering the transfer portal.” Do you not think that they, too, see his potential in regard to the skills that he has acquired over his time in the Euro League? And those schools are high-major schools. So, some people, who know better than you or me, seem to think he has what it takes to play at a high major school.

As to the Wisconsin game, why is it that you don’t single out Lee as well? He only played 1 minute. You asked if anyone could explain why he did not play, and I think Emerson Bigguns posted a good analysis of why MP didn’t play (about two or three posts above this one). Could be right, could be wrong, but it is a very plausible explanation.

I don’t understand what no playing time whatsoever and his being pretty ticked and saying something during a timeout have to do with his potential, his skills, and what the writer wrote, that he was a great teammate. Which was the whole point of my original rebuttal. You moved the argument. But who knows what set that off? You don’t; I don’t. He may have had some personal problems that manifested themselves during the game. And it certainly has not been unheard of for an Illinois player to have words with a coach. And how many posts have there been over the years that someone writes that so-and-so doesn’t look happy? And it turned out to be nothing. I think it happened to Ty once, but I don’t know that for sure. And as far as where the writer got his or her information about being a great teammate, first, journalists generally have sources to back up their assertions. And why would he/she write it if it was a bald-faced lie? You know these guys, like Jeremy Werner, keep in touch with the people who have similar positions at other schools. Werner has even had writers or podcasters or whatever from other Big Ten schools on his podcasts. It’s how they can write things as this writer did. I would not doubt that the Gonzaga writer contacted someone like Werner or maybe even someone with the team to get a feel for what kind of teammate MP was. I also don’t think the Gonzaga writer would risk his reputation by writing something that was not true. I would put more credence into that than some perception about MP’s alleged being ticked off, which I did not see anyone verify when it was talked about back during the season. I mean, yes, he was ticked, but no one could explain or verify the reason.

In fact, I just don’t understand your (and PasadenaIllini) antipathy toward Petrovic, especially since I and others have provided thoughtful rebuttals to your assertions. Should I do it again? I think I have posted several times a rebuttal that you did not respond to. It seems that you just ignore anything that doesn’t jibe with your opinions. Others have pointed out, in regard to not getting much playing time, that it had more to do with just not getting enough practice time with the team and not getting enough minutes on the court in actual games, that he was injured, and probably some other things. He just had some bad luck. And here is my own rebuttal for the umpteenth time.

After the UTRGV game (I think. It’s been a while):
Dariush Takhtehchian, M.D
@takhtehchianmd
22-year-old Mihailo Petrovic. As advertised. Already has 12 pts, 3 dimes, 2 boards in 12 minutes

Someone here posted, "I need more Mihailo."

And another: I'll go out on a limb here and say we got a good one in Petrovic.
Really good, really quick.

And there were a few other similar posts.

And if I remember correctly, he played well against Southern U. It wasn’t just at garbage time. I think it was in the first half. MP took over the PG duties, and KW played wing. Worked pretty well, but then, Southern was not much competition. The point is, he has played well when he gets significant minutes.

And one other thing: MP is/was 22; he played PG in a Euro League that, I believe, is pretty on par with the Big Ten. At least, it was a pro league. Do you think the Illini staff did not have confidence that he could handle PG duties in the Big Ten?

He definitely did not play like a chicken with its head cut off.]

By the way, you don’t need to double-space between sentences. That was only if one was using a typewriter. Think of the time you will save.

You ok Mr/Mrs. Petrovich? Nobody is picking on MP, but you're feeling the need to rush to his defense and it's not needed. You just wrote a book that the vast majority of the people here won't bother reading and you're talking to me about saving time? Are you serious? Lol

Your post is WAY too long to even begin to respond to in full and it's also full of lunacy. I don't even know if you're confusing my comments with someone else's or if you didn't read my last post when I did bring up Lee? His 1 minute was the choice for Brad. Feel free to answer my question. Why did Lee get the minute? Instead of addressing the questions, you used Southern U and Rio Grande as baselines and instantly lost credibility. You're searching for data to support a meaningless argument. The opening tip against those guys is pretty much a race to when the subs get extended playing time.

What I don't understand is the personal dig? Not sure it was necessary, but hey...you do you. Hope it helped your day.

 

[Second place is 1st loser]

No kidding! . Good God.....the amount of time that must have taken is insane!

 

[mysterio2525]

I copied and pasted in an AI for a summary and the AI killed itself. take that skynet!

 

[jamarvelous31]

Well, first, I don not think the writer was talking about facilitation skills and experience he gained at Illinois. You do know that he was a very well-respected PG in whatever Euro League he was in, yes? He was even considered for the MVP award for that league. Averaged 12 points a game. And do you think that the Illinois staff evaluation did not also see those skills last year? Of course, they did. You even admit Brad has an eye for talent. Was his evaluation of MP wrong last year? It is why they recruited him, and if not for KW, he would have been Illinois’ PG last year. As we have witnessed before, it can take some time to adjust to Big Ten play. But I do not doubt he would have. Did you see the post of the schools that are interested in him? And I quote the Twitter post, "Sources indicate MASSIVE high-major interest in the former Illinois playmaker since entering the transfer portal.” Do you not think that they, too, see his potential in regard to the skills that he has acquired over his time in the Euro League? And those schools are high-major schools. So, some people, who know better than you or me, seem to think he has what it takes to play at a high major school.

As to the Wisconsin game, why is it that you don’t single out Lee as well? He only played 1 minute. You asked if anyone could explain why he did not play, and I think Emerson Bigguns posted a good analysis of why MP didn’t play (about two or three posts above this one). Could be right, could be wrong, but it is a very plausible explanation.

I don’t understand what no playing time whatsoever and his being pretty ticked and saying something during a timeout have to do with his potential, his skills, and what the writer wrote, that he was a great teammate. Which was the whole point of my original rebuttal. You moved the argument. But who knows what set that off? You don’t; I don’t. He may have had some personal problems that manifested themselves during the game. And it certainly has not been unheard of for an Illinois player to have words with a coach. And how many posts have there been over the years that someone writes that so-and-so doesn’t look happy? And it turned out to be nothing. I think it happened to Ty once, but I don’t know that for sure. And as far as where the writer got his or her information about being a great teammate, first, journalists generally have sources to back up their assertions. And why would he/she write it if it was a bald-faced lie? You know these guys, like Jeremy Werner, keep in touch with the people who have similar positions at other schools. Werner has even had writers or podcasters or whatever from other Big Ten schools on his podcasts. It’s how they can write things as this writer did. I would not doubt that the Gonzaga writer contacted someone like Werner or maybe even someone with the team to get a feel for what kind of teammate MP was. I also don’t think the Gonzaga writer would risk his reputation by writing something that was not true. I would put more credence into that than some perception about MP’s alleged being ticked off, which I did not see anyone verify when it was talked about back during the season. I mean, yes, he was ticked, but no one could explain or verify the reason.

In fact, I just don’t understand your (and PasadenaIllini) antipathy toward Petrovic, especially since I and others have provided thoughtful rebuttals to your assertions. Should I do it again? I think I have posted several times a rebuttal that you did not respond to. It seems that you just ignore anything that doesn’t jibe with your opinions. Others have pointed out, in regard to not getting much playing time, that it had more to do with just not getting enough practice time with the team and not getting enough minutes on the court in actual games, that he was injured, and probably some other things. He just had some bad luck. And here is my own rebuttal for the umpteenth time.

After the UTRGV game (I think. It’s been a while):
Dariush Takhtehchian, M.D
@takhtehchianmd
22-year-old Mihailo Petrovic. As advertised. Already has 12 pts, 3 dimes, 2 boards in 12 minutes

Someone here posted, "I need more Mihailo."

And another: I'll go out on a limb here and say we got a good one in Petrovic.
Really good, really quick.

And there were a few other similar posts.

And if I remember correctly, he played well against Southern U. It wasn’t just at garbage time. I think it was in the first half. MP took over the PG duties, and KW played wing. Worked pretty well, but then, Southern was not much competition. The point is, he has played well when he gets significant minutes.

And one other thing: MP is/was 22; he played PG in a Euro League that, I believe, is pretty on par with the Big Ten. At least, it was a pro league. Do you think the Illini staff did not have confidence that he could handle PG duties in the Big Ten?

He definitely did not play like a chicken with its head cut off.]

By the way, you don’t need to double-space between sentences. That was only if one was using a typewriter. Think of the time you will save.

Just an absolutely wild amount of text here.

Anything 4+ paragraphs is a no from me dawg.

 

[The Sprouting Divot]

Well, first, I don not think the writer was talking about facilitation skills and experience he gained at Illinois. You do know that he was a very well-respected PG in whatever Euro League he was in, yes? He was even considered for the MVP award for that league. Averaged 12 points a game. And do you think that the Illinois staff evaluation did not also see those skills last year? Of course, they did. You even admit Brad has an eye for talent. Was his evaluation of MP wrong last year? It is why they recruited him, and if not for KW, he would have been Illinois’ PG last year. As we have witnessed before, it can take some time to adjust to Big Ten play. But I do not doubt he would have. Did you see the post of the schools that are interested in him? And I quote the Twitter post, "Sources indicate MASSIVE high-major interest in the former Illinois playmaker since entering the transfer portal.” Do you not think that they, too, see his potential in regard to the skills that he has acquired over his time in the Euro League? And those schools are high-major schools. So, some people, who know better than you or me, seem to think he has what it takes to play at a high major school.

As to the Wisconsin game, why is it that you don’t single out Lee as well? He only played 1 minute. You asked if anyone could explain why he did not play, and I think Emerson Bigguns posted a good analysis of why MP didn’t play (about two or three posts above this one). Could be right, could be wrong, but it is a very plausible explanation.

I don’t understand what no playing time whatsoever and his being pretty ticked and saying something during a timeout have to do with his potential, his skills, and what the writer wrote, that he was a great teammate. Which was the whole point of my original rebuttal. You moved the argument. But who knows what set that off? You don’t; I don’t. He may have had some personal problems that manifested themselves during the game. And it certainly has not been unheard of for an Illinois player to have words with a coach. And how many posts have there been over the years that someone writes that so-and-so doesn’t look happy? And it turned out to be nothing. I think it happened to Ty once, but I don’t know that for sure. And as far as where the writer got his or her information about being a great teammate, first, journalists generally have sources to back up their assertions. And why would he/she write it if it was a bald-faced lie? You know these guys, like Jeremy Werner, keep in touch with the people who have similar positions at other schools. Werner has even had writers or podcasters or whatever from other Big Ten schools on his podcasts. It’s how they can write things as this writer did. I would not doubt that the Gonzaga writer contacted someone like Werner or maybe even someone with the team to get a feel for what kind of teammate MP was. I also don’t think the Gonzaga writer would risk his reputation by writing something that was not true. I would put more credence into that than some perception about MP’s alleged being ticked off, which I did not see anyone verify when it was talked about back during the season. I mean, yes, he was ticked, but no one could explain or verify the reason.

In fact, I just don’t understand your (and PasadenaIllini) antipathy toward Petrovic, especially since I and others have provided thoughtful rebuttals to your assertions. Should I do it again? I think I have posted several times a rebuttal that you did not respond to. It seems that you just ignore anything that doesn’t jibe with your opinions. Others have pointed out, in regard to not getting much playing time, that it had more to do with just not getting enough practice time with the team and not getting enough minutes on the court in actual games, that he was injured, and probably some other things. He just had some bad luck. And here is my own rebuttal for the umpteenth time.

After the UTRGV game (I think. It’s been a while):
Dariush Takhtehchian, M.D
@takhtehchianmd
22-year-old Mihailo Petrovic. As advertised. Already has 12 pts, 3 dimes, 2 boards in 12 minutes

Someone here posted, "I need more Mihailo."

And another: I'll go out on a limb here and say we got a good one in Petrovic.
Really good, really quick.

And there were a few other similar posts.

And if I remember correctly, he played well against Southern U. It wasn’t just at garbage time. I think it was in the first half. MP took over the PG duties, and KW played wing. Worked pretty well, but then, Southern was not much competition. The point is, he has played well when he gets significant minutes.

And one other thing: MP is/was 22; he played PG in a Euro League that, I believe, is pretty on par with the Big Ten. At least, it was a pro league. Do you think the Illini staff did not have confidence that he could handle PG duties in the Big Ten?

He definitely did not play like a chicken with its head cut off.]

By the way, you don’t need to double-space between sentences. That was only if one was using a typewriter. Think of the time you will save.

?!

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

Just going back to the original point, if this staff is taking a top 20 reclass then we shouldn't care if some recruiting service drops them to 40.

Staff has earned the benefit of the doubt.

Why? If you're the #20 played in 2028, and fall to #40 in 2027, then the value of that player dropped significantly after the reclass.

In 2028, there were 19 better options of players to choose from.

In 2027, there are now 39.

Thats a significant discrepancy. Yes the player is the same player and person, but in the previous setting, his value was a lot greater than in the new setting.

Now, if Pettigrew is #20 and falls to #25, then the difference isn't all too worthwhile.

 

[hangdog]

Why? If you're the #20 played in 2028, and fall to #40 in 2027, then the value of that player dropped significantly after the reclass.

In 2028, there were 19 better options of players to choose from.

In 2027, there are now 39.

Thats a significant discrepancy. Yes the player is the same player and person, but in the previous setting, his value was a lot greater than in the new setting.

Now, if Pettigrew is #20 and falls to #25, then the difference isn't all too worthwhile.

Can you please explain what you mean by "value" in this context?

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

Why? If you're the #20 played in 2028, and fall to #40 in 2027, then the value of that player dropped significantly after the reclass.

In 2028, there were 19 better options of players to choose from.

In 2027, there are now 39.

Thats a significant discrepancy. Yes the player is the same player and person, but in the previous setting, his value was a lot greater than in the new setting.

Now, if Pettigrew is #20 and falls to #25, then the difference isn't all too worthwhile.

Were there? There were 19 guys perceived to be better, but scouting is pretty far from an exact science. If that wasn't one of your takeaways from last season, I'm not sure what to tell you. Players are not limited by their rankings, like in a video game... There may be a discrepancy in what they can reasonably expect in NIL compensation, but it has no real effect on their ability to impact winning.

Obviously, Wagler was the outlier among outliers, but in recent years there are routinely one and done players who were ranked outside the top 50.
Wagler wasn't even the only 1st rounder this year who was outside the top 100. Ebuka Okorie was #121 on 247's final rankings...

 

[PleaseMakeABowlGame]

Can you please explain what you mean by "value" in this context?

Absolutely.

Value means how much you are worth -- or in easier terms, how good you are compared to those around you in a particular climate.

If Pettigrew is #20 in 2028 and #40 in 2027, then absolutely his value decreases because there's 20 MORE guys who are better than him in the 2027 setting.

Were there? There were 19 guys perceived to be better, but scouting is pretty far from an exact science. If that wasn't one of your takeaways from last season, I'm not sure what to tell you. Players are not limited by their rankings, like in a video game... There may be a discrepancy in what they can reasonably expect in NIL compensation, but it has no real effect on their ability to impact winning.

Obviously, Wagler was the outlier among outliers, but in recent years there are routinely one and done players who were ranked outside the top 50.
Wagler wasn't even the only 1st rounder this year who was outside the top 100. Ebuka Okorie was #121 on 247's final rankings...

I think we're at the point in our program where we'd rather brag about being high in the rankings, than complain that the rankings are not credible. We've graduated that stage in terms of program stature.

As far as your examples, they are the exceptions, not the rule.

 

[Joel Goodson]

Just an absolutely wild amount of text here.

Anything 4+ paragraphs is a no from me dawg.

and that's the abridged version

 

[hangdog]

Absolutely.

Value means how much you are worth -- or in easier terms, how good you are compared to those around you in a particular climate.

If Pettigrew is #20 in 2028 and #40 in 2027, then absolutely his value decreases because there's 20 MORE guys who are better than him in the 2027 setting.

And who determines the "value" of the [click bait] rankings?

 

[AssemblyHallForever]

View attachment 50752
View attachment 50753

I feel old seeing Dampier’s kid on this list

 

[jamarvelous31]

Why? If you're the #20 played in 2028, and fall to #40 in 2027, then the value of that player dropped significantly after the reclass.

In 2028, there were 19 better options of players to choose from.

In 2027, there are now 39.

Thats a significant discrepancy. Yes the player is the same player and person, but in the previous setting, his value was a lot greater than in the new setting.

Now, if Pettigrew is #20 and falls to #25, then the difference isn't all too worthwhile.

This is an Olympic level effort of intentionally trying to miss the point. Truly herculean concern trolling. 10/10. Bravo.

The idea that you would need an explanation why the staff has earned the benefit of the doubt is just a massive waste of everyone's time.

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

Absolutely.

Value means how much you are worth -- or in easier terms, how good you are compared to those around you in a particular climate.

If Pettigrew is #20 in 2028 and #40 in 2027, then absolutely his value decreases because there's 20 MORE guys who are better than him in the 2027 setting.

I think we're at the point in our program where we'd rather brag about being high in the rankings, than complain that the rankings are not credible. We've graduated that stage in terms of program stature.

As far as your examples, they are the exceptions, not the rule.

No, the point is a guy can either play at a high level or he can't. Rankings may be an indicator of ability, but it's far from gospel. Rankings are based solely on projection. If a guy re-classifies and is determined by scouts to be 20 spots lower, it does not mean those scouts are correct. A coach has to trust his own eyes, ears, and experience. Rankings are also GREATLY affected by the amount of talent in a respective class.

If you have conviction that a guy can affect winning, it doesn't matter what his ranking says. You take the guy.

If he isn't ready to compete at this level the first year, you have to consider that in your evaluation, but you also have to consider how much more ready he will be in year 2 to impact winning having a year at the college level, than he would be if he simply stayed in his HS class.

You see it at every level. (HS, college, NBA) You bet on talent, you bet on personality, you bet on competitiveness. If a kid has all 3 of those elements, who cares about how he ranks respective to the rest of his freshman class? The kid is going to be a player.

 

[Joel Goodson]

I feel old seeing Dampier’s kid on this list

get used to it

 

[NarrowJ]

Sheesh I felt old several years ago when Frank Williams had a son commit to us

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

No, the point is a guy can either play at a high level or he can't. Rankings may be an indicator of ability, but it's far from gospel. Rankings are based solely on projection. If a guy re-classifies and is determined by scouts to be 20 spots lower, it does not mean those scouts are correct. A coach has to trust his own eyes, ears, and experience. Rankings are also GREATLY affected by the amount of talent in a respective class.

If you have conviction that a guy can affect winning, it doesn't matter what his ranking says. You take the guy.

If he isn't ready to compete at this level the first year, you have to consider that in your evaluation, but you also have to consider how much more ready he will be in year 2 to impact winning having a year at the college level, than he would be if he simply stayed in his HS class.

You see it at every level. (HS, college, NBA) You bet on talent, you bet on personality, you bet on competitiveness. If a kid has all 3 of those elements, who cares about how he ranks respective to the rest of his freshman class? The kid is going to be a player.

I don't think anyone suggested we shouldn't "take the guy."

The point is there's a difference in what we expect the player's role/impact to be -- between the events of them being ranked 40th instead of 20th.

Quentin Coleman is the 17th ranked composite prospect, while Lucas Morillo is 47th. (prototypical 20 spot difference we're talking about)

Yes both will play, but there's a difference in what we project each of their impacts to be.

Coleman is very likely a starter, while Morillo is likely our 6th / 7th / 8th man. One's expected to be 25-30 minutes, while the other is likely in the 13-20 range. One's projected as a first round pick, while the other isn't on any draft boards.

Obviously this can all change once the season starts, but you get the point about expected impact between a 20 spot window.

.....

I do think this is somewhat moot because it's unlikely Pettigrew drops 20 spots. Most cases, it's around 10. And depending on when he announces the re-class, he'll have the opportunity to make up that ranking senior year.

IIRC, Will Riley was #9 and dropped to #19, and then in the final update finished at #14.

 

[BretMyBeachHouse]

I get what the poster is saying regarding value, although I'd look at it differently. On average, one would expect a 20th ranked player in 2028 to contribute more in 2028 than a 40th ranked player in 2027 would contribute in 2027. That seems pretty obvious. Of course, the player can play in either scenario, but I think we all agree that a year of experience matters, even for the worlds best players.

But really, who cares? That's why it doesn't matter. You take great players when you can grab great players. If he reclasses, you can reasonably expect less in his first year than if he didn't. At the same time, if you get him early and hold him for two years, the 2028 sophomore year is probably better than the original 2028 freshman year.

You take great players when they want to come. With the way we're recruiting, it will work out for the team regardless of how it plays out for the player.

 

[tatupu70]

No, the point is a guy can either play at a high level or he can't. Rankings may be an indicator of ability, but it's far from gospel. Rankings are based solely on projection. If a guy re-classifies and is determined by scouts to be 20 spots lower, it does not mean those scouts are correct. A coach has to trust his own eyes, ears, and experience. Rankings are also GREATLY affected by the amount of talent in a respective class.

If you have conviction that a guy can affect winning, it doesn't matter what his ranking says. You take the guy.

If he isn't ready to compete at this level the first year, you have to consider that in your evaluation, but you also have to consider how much more ready he will be in year 2 to impact winning having a year at the college level, than he would be if he simply stayed in his HS class.

You see it at every level. (HS, college, NBA) You bet on talent, you bet on personality, you bet on competitiveness. If a kid has all 3 of those elements, who cares about how he ranks respective to the rest of his freshman class? The kid is going to be a player.

I think the point is that if a kid has personality, competitiveness, and talent, he will obviously be ranked higher. Those traits are part of the rankings. Composite recruiting rankings are generally pretty good. Maybe Underwood is better, maybe not. He's had misses along with his hits just like every coach.

 

[hangdog]

I don't think anyone suggested we shouldn't "take the guy."

The point is there's a difference in what we expect the player's role/impact to be -- between the events of them being ranked 40th instead of 20th.

Quentin Coleman is the 17th ranked composite prospect, while Lucas Morillo is 47th. (prototypical 20 spot difference we're talking about)

Yes both will play, but there's a difference in what we project each of their impacts to be.

Coleman is very likely a starter, while Morillo is likely our 6th / 7th / 8th man. One's expected to be 25-30 minutes, while the other is likely in the 13-20 range. One's projected as a first round pick, while the other isn't on any draft boards.

Obviously this can all change once the season starts, but you get the point about expected impact between a 20 spot window.

.....

I do think this is somewhat moot because it's unlikely Pettigrew drops 20 spots. Most cases, it's around 10. And depending on when he announces the re-class, he'll have the opportunity to make up that ranking senior year.

IIRC, Will Riley was #9 and dropped to #19, and then in the final update finished at #14.

And what's important is what we, the loyal fans, expect. After all, that's what the sport is really about.

 

[Fly Illini Fly!]

And what's important is what we, the loyal fans, expect. After all, that's what the sport is really about.

"We" can include all of fans / analysts / beat writers / perhaps even coaches.

It's the general, consensus overview of the player that I'm referring. (obviously this can change throughout a season if the guy outperforms their expected value/production)

 

[Emerson Bigguns]

I think the point is that if a kid has personality, competitiveness, and talent, he will obviously be ranked higher. Those traits are part of the rankings. Composite recruiting rankings are generally pretty good. Maybe Underwood is better, maybe not. He's had misses along with his hits just like every coach.

I tend to think the rankings reflect more athletic traits and stats against high level competition. I don't think most prep scouts can get a lot of insight on a kid's attitude or work ethic. They simply have too many guys to evaluate. Sure, you can ask the coaches, but how honest will an AAU coach be when a BIG part of his gig is to get guys into HM programs? When coaches zero in on recruits, these are the things they are evaluating. They know the stats, they've seen the tape. They want to know the kid.

The top 10-20 prospects usually have traits that simply can't be ignored. Most of your one and done types are coming from this range. Usually, pretty accurate. These are also the guys that get seen by the most scouts and are seen more often.

20-50 there is a lot more variance in how guys initially perform at the next level, and 50-100 you are really basing off very slight differences or preferences. They all have something missing... size, skill development, strength, etc... The extent to which, and the timeframe in which those gaps close will ultimately tell the tale of the player they become. Saying that the number 40 guy is objectively worse than guys 39-20, is shortsighted and frankly a little foolish. The difference in the rankings at that point are a matter of nuance, preference, and sometimes familiarity.

If you peruse some of these lists 4 years later, you'll recognize the names of nearly all the guys at the top, and probably be able to say where they went and where they are playing now. Between 20-100 there is a lot of, "who?", or "oh yeah, I remember that guy", and an occasional "How did they miss HIM." sprinkled in.

A drop from 20-40 doesn't really say much, even if you highly regard the rankings. A re-classed guy probably drops simply because he isn't as physically strong as the other guys in the class. Might be a significant problem for some programs, but not ours.