[redsoxfreak724Participant]

Hey all – Quick question

Does ESPN change their ranking system from year to year? Is a tiered system based on that year’s prospects relative to one another? Is anyone familiar with how this works?

Just wondering how Wiggins was the only 97 in 2013 (Parker, Randle, Gordon, and Andrew Harrison at 96)

and

In 2014, Okafor, Turner, Alexander, Jones, Mudiay, Lyles, Johnson, Jackson, and Towns were all 97s (96s Pinson, Oubre, Looney, and Russell)

Thanks!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Since Paul Biancardi has been in charge, it is now a lot more lenient. Having nine players in 2014 the same rating as Andrew Wiggins (and only Andrew Wiggins had) had in 2013 just makes next to no sense. So, they never announced the change, though it came with the new regime without Dave Telep’s guidance. ESPN should NOT be your only source for HS rankings. They all have their foibles at times. Think the "247 Composite" rankings at least give some balance of opinion. These guys all see a ton of players and many have different views, so a system that kind of combines them all provides some solid balance to those who have not had the same ability to follow everyone.

In terms of ESPN’s rankings, they changed them with Telep at the helm (2013 senior, 2014 junior and 2015 sophomore rankings) and kind of gave an explanation. Once he left for the Spurs, it kind of went off of the rails. Now it gives a bunch of players the same ranking (9 guys a 97 in 2014. Seems INSANELY conservative rating them all the same, yet liberal in giving them the same rating as the top ranked player from the year previous) and gave no real explanation as to why they rate players certain rankings. So, take it with a grain of salt. I do not think there are 29 five star prospects in 2014, just as I highly doubt there are 31 in 2015 and 2016 (even though 2016 looks to be one of the deepest, more talented classes in a while).

Here is a link to the supposed rationale behind the grading system. As you can see, last updated May 23, 2012:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=2639514

Wish they would say why they would maybe not have such a wide scale for 90’s, or explain why they gave the top 9 the same grade. What makes a 97 different from a 96, and why does the Class of 2014 have 9 while the Class of 2015 only have 3? Do not think either class has a lot of "star power" outside of the top 3-5 or so. 2013 was actually a REALLY solid class, so the way they were ranked seems entirely different than the way things are currently. Think there rankings could use some tweaking. Definitely have not been the same since Dave Telep took the NBA job. Plus, rankings are not the only thing that could use tweaking if they wanted to make the basketball recruiting section as interesting and informative as it used to be.

[mikeyvthedonParticipant]

Since Paul Biancardi has been in charge, it is now a lot more lenient. Having nine players in 2014 the same rating as Andrew Wiggins (and only Andrew Wiggins had) had in 2013 just makes next to no sense. So, they never announced the change, though it came with the new regime without Dave Telep’s guidance. ESPN should NOT be your only source for HS rankings. They all have their foibles at times. Think the "247 Composite" rankings at least give some balance of opinion. These guys all see a ton of players and many have different views, so a system that kind of combines them all provides some solid balance to those who have not had the same ability to follow everyone.

In terms of ESPN’s rankings, they changed them with Telep at the helm (2013 senior, 2014 junior and 2015 sophomore rankings) and kind of gave an explanation. Once he left for the Spurs, it kind of went off of the rails. Now it gives a bunch of players the same ranking (9 guys a 97 in 2014. Seems INSANELY conservative rating them all the same, yet liberal in giving them the same rating as the top ranked player from the year previous) and gave no real explanation as to why they rate players certain rankings. So, take it with a grain of salt. I do not think there are 29 five star prospects in 2014, just as I highly doubt there are 31 in 2015 and 2016 (even though 2016 looks to be one of the deepest, more talented classes in a while).

Here is a link to the supposed rationale behind the grading system. As you can see, last updated May 23, 2012:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=2639514

Wish they would say why they would maybe not have such a wide scale for 90’s, or explain why they gave the top 9 the same grade. What makes a 97 different from a 96, and why does the Class of 2014 have 9 while the Class of 2015 only have 3? Do not think either class has a lot of "star power" outside of the top 3-5 or so. 2013 was actually a REALLY solid class, so the way they were ranked seems entirely different than the way things are currently. Think there rankings could use some tweaking. Definitely have not been the same since Dave Telep took the NBA job. Plus, rankings are not the only thing that could use tweaking if they wanted to make the basketball recruiting section as interesting and informative as it used to be.

[ncballer]

 Telep was by far the best in the business at evaluating High School talent.  I miss his input.

[ncballer]

 Telep was by far the best in the business at evaluating High School talent.  I miss his input.

[Author]

Posts