Final Scout Basketball Rankings
The final Scout basketball rankings came out today. Trey Burke went from unranked to #94 and he will be a four-star. Carlton Brundidge checked in at #98. And Max Biefeldt didn't crack the top 100...he is a 3 star. Glad to see future Michigan hoopers getting some love!
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2011
April 26th, 2011 at 12:11 PM ^
How is Burke a 3-star but rated higher than Brundidge, who is a 4-star? That makes no sense.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:13 PM ^
Yeah someone asked one of the scouts on Scout.com about that and he said that is just a technical error right now and he isn't sure how long it takes to update the stars on the players. But he said Trey Burke is definitely a four-star.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
I see. Thanks for the clarification.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:15 PM ^
It has been quite sometime for MBB to have two 4* recruits coming into the same recruiting class
April 26th, 2011 at 12:18 PM ^
2003 was the last time it appears. Courtney Sims, Dion Harris, and Brent Petway were all 4 stars.
It depends if you count 4*s from different sites. Morris and Vogrich were each given 4* by 1 site and 3* by the other. 2003 was the last time we had 2+ consensus 4* recruits and since Burke is still a 3* on Rivals, this year's class does not have 2 consensus 4*s.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:17 PM ^
Holy Kentucky!
That's all I can say...3 in the top 5???
April 26th, 2011 at 12:35 PM ^
Oddly, I think that you and I count to three differently. Three of the top seven is still pretty crazy, though.
Yeah...dumb goof...but "top 5" sounds much more dramatic. I shall edit
April 26th, 2011 at 12:38 PM ^
Cheaters always prosper...for short periods of time.
April 26th, 2011 at 12:46 PM ^
And then leave town before the posse can git 'em.
For another example, see Holtz, Lou.
Yeah but this year after year of taking three or four guys who are essentially one year rentals has gotten them what? Yes they're considered a power, ranked all year and I assume filling their building. All are important, but they still haven't managed to rent a team good enough to get them the banner.
Also, all 4 of their commits are 5 stars (including the #22 rated center)
What can you say? They pay well.
Someone please explain to me how OSU loses 4 scholarship players to graduation and are accepting 5 incoming scholarship players with apparently no one leaving the team early for the NBA draft? If my math is correct, that will be 14 players on the team with a scholarship.
Kecman is leaving
It's possible they played this past season with 12 scholarship players, not 13. Or that one of their 13 this year was a former walk-on who was given a one year scholarship because they had one available for one season only.
Actually I think they only played with 10 scholarship players last year, so they really had a lot of scholarships to give out. They probably still aren't up to 13 scholarship players.
MIchigan 2 Michigan State 1.
That is all.
Their "1" is a 5 star.
What is your formula for comparing their 5 star to our two borderline* 4 stars?
I don't think you presented a very strong argument as to why our 3 > than their 4; your "That is all" conclusion doesn't really seem appropriate and makes us look like "Little Brother."
*borderline as in per Scout's ranking.
I think his formula was "how many players in Scout 100?"
He did not present any argument that our 3 is better than their 4, so it is correct that he did not present a strong one.
April 26th, 2011 at 10:00 PM ^
that there was an inference that us having two of the top 100 is more impressive than MSU having one.
But feel free to to tell me how we weren't supposed to read more into what he wrote than what was in black and white, as if it somehow makes his post better if the underlying point was nothing more than 2 is greater than 1.
There are 100 four-star players? That seems like a lot.
There are 25 5 stars, and roughly 75 4 stars.
Rivals has 25 5* and 80 4* players.
that didn't make the top 100.
there are generally slightly more than 100 4+ star players each year
It seems a little odd. If say, players 1-30 get five stars and 31-105 get four stars, are we supposed to believe that there is an abrupt dropoff at #106? Is the gap between player #31 and #105 actually smaller than the gap between #105 and #106, since the former two have the same star rating?
That seems a little sillly though to make that argument.especially when you don't see the same argument when there are ~225 4* recruits in football.
Well, football has 22 positions (not counting STs) to basketball's five.
I guess it seems odd to me that everyone in the top 100 gets four stars when at the next level, in the NBA Draft, only 60 can be picked (it's really more like 50 U.S. guys, since a lot of international guys get picked). If you're the 100th best U.S. prospect in a draft class, you have basically zero chance of ever making a team. But the recruiting rankings make it sound like there's not much difference between the #40 college prospect and the #90 guy.
IMO it seems like there should only be about 50 guys that get four stars or more.
Good point. Let's just call 1-30 five stars and 31-60 four stars - assign them to the NBA draft in that order and skip college ball altogether. Since no one outside of that has much of a chance at making a team.