Recruiting 3 star talent

Donate To GopherHole
BigGopherFan

BigGopherFan

Banned
Joined
Oct 17, 2009
Messages
1,425
Reaction score
1
Points
36
There has been a lot of chatter on this forum lately concerning the "star" rating system used to evaluate college basketball prospects. There seems to be two common schools of thought. Some think the number of stars a team's recruits had coming out of high school has little to no correlation between the team's current success. Others believe that the more stars, the better.
Here's my latest opinion on the matter. I believe recruiting predominantly 2/3 star recruits leaves much less room for error in judgment than those teams who annually land 4/5 star guys. Think about it, missing on a 2 star prospect leaves you with a guy that probably shouldn't even be playing Division I basketball. Missing on a 5 star guy means you have a decent role player instead of an All-American. This can work the other way too. The really good mid-major programs always seem to find the players that may be a 2/3 star recruit out of high school, but in reality, are a few years of development away from being at the level of a 4/5 star player.
 

BigGopherFan said:
There has been a lot of chatter on this forum lately concerning the "star" rating system used to evaluate college basketball prospects. There seems to be two common schools of thought. Some think the number of stars a team's recruits had coming out of high school has little to no correlation between the team's current success. Others believe that the more stars, the better.
Here's my latest opinion on the matter. I believe recruiting predominantly 2/3 star recruits leaves much less room for error in judgment than those teams who annually land 4/5 star guys. Think about it, missing on a 2 star prospect leaves you with a guy that probably shouldn't even be playing Division I basketball. Missing on a 5 star guy means you have a decent role player instead of an All-American. This can work the other way too. The really good mid-major programs always seem to find the players that may be a 2/3 star recruit out of high school, but in reality, are a few years of development away from being at the level of a 4/5 star player.
Click to expand...

Has Tubby offered a 2-star player since he's been here? 3-star recruits for the Gopher's haven't been very "hit or miss" like you might think. Damian, Hoffarber, Iverson, and Nolen were 3-stars and I'd say they turned out very well. There simply aren't enough 5-stars out there to only or mostly only recruit them. Like I and others have said before, you need a combination of 3-stars and 4-stars that fit your system with the addition of a 5-star every now and then to be the go-to guys (not that the lower stars can't be go-to players). This is exactly what the Gophers have been doing and will continue to do. We have two good 3-stars coming in with the potential for a borderline 4-star and a 5-star (two if Royce comes back). The Gophers are doing just fine and are without a doubt on the right path.
 

Getting 3-star players will almost always give you 4-year players. 4-year players provide continuity, which is important, and eventually senior leadership, which is very important. Calipari led teams have all the talent in the world, but always fall short. Why? Well besides the fact that they don't play defense or make free throws, they don't have that continuity and senior leadership. We NEED 3-stars, at least for a solid base to the team.
 


BGF, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like in that long rant what you're really trying to say is that it is better to get 4/5 star players than 2 or 3 star guys? Sounds kind of obvious to me. I think if coach Smith could have a roster full of 5 star guys he would, but that is just not realistic.
________
Lamborghini 350gt
 





GopherFan75 said:
BGF, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like in that long rant what you're really trying to say is that it is better to get 4/5 star players than 2 or 3 star guys? Sounds kind of obvious to me. I think if coach Smith could have a roster full of 5 star guys he would, but that is just not realistic.
Click to expand...

Tubby's two best teams ever (1998 and 2003 at UK) were a mix of one 5 Star, three or four 4 Star, and seven or eight 2 Star & 3 Star players.
 



GopherFan75 said:
BGF, correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like in that long rant what you're really trying to say is that it is better to get 4/5 star players than 2 or 3 star guys? Sounds kind of obvious to me. I think if coach Smith could have a roster full of 5 star guys he would, but that is just not realistic.
Click to expand...

This actually has nothing to do with Tubby's recruiting classes here at the U. Overall, I think he's done a pretty darn good job here, all things considered.
 

BigGopherFan said:
There has been a lot of chatter on this forum lately concerning the "star" rating system used to evaluate college basketball prospects. There seems to be two common schools of thought. Some think the number of stars a team's recruits had coming out of high school has little to no correlation between the team's current success. Others believe that the more stars, the better.
Here's my latest opinion on the matter. I believe recruiting predominantly 2/3 star recruits leaves much less room for error in judgment than those teams who annually land 4/5 star guys. Think about it, missing on a 2 star prospect leaves you with a guy that probably shouldn't even be playing Division I basketball. Missing on a 5 star guy means you have a decent role player instead of an All-American. This can work the other way too. The really good mid-major programs always seem to find the players that may be a 2/3 star recruit out of high school, but in reality, are a few years of development away from being at the level of a 4/5 star player.
Click to expand...

LOL
 

BigGopherFan said:
This actually has nothing to do with Tubby's recruiting classes here at the U. Overall, I think he's done a pretty darn good job here, all things considered.
Click to expand...

Ok but what exactly are you trying to say with your post? To me it just sounded like you were saying that it is better to land 5 stars. That seems fairly obvious to me.
________
GLASS BONGS
 

GopherFan75 said:
Ok but what exactly are you trying to say with your post? To me it just sounded like you were saying that it is better to land 5 stars. That seems fairly obvious to me.
Click to expand...

I don't know why this is so hard to understand. Yes, it is better to land 5 star talent on a consistent basis. Minnesota, however, simply cannot pull this out, ON A CONSISTENT BASIS. All things considered, I think Tubby has done a fantastic job recruiting at the U.
 



You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom