Recruiting Ratings for Current ACC Squads

[gw67]

With all the recent buzz about Gary Williams' recruiting, I thought that it would be interesting to look at the makeup of the current ACC squads and take note of the players who were rated in the top 100 of their class. Rather than use one recruiting guru, I used the Recruiting Services Consensus Index (RSCI) which combines the ranking of various recruiting rating services:

http://www.rscihoops.com/

Using this site, the following are the number of top 100 players on each of the current teams:

BC 1
Clemson 2
Duke 12
Fla State 6
Ga Tech 5
MD 3
Miami 4
UNC 12
NC State 3
Virginia 4
Va Tech 3
Wake 6

It is clear that Duke and UNC have recruited the most talent. In fact, four more top 100 players have either transferred or gone to the NBA from Duke in the past three years while one has transferred from UNC. The anomalies, IMO, are Clemson and Florida State/Georgia Tech. Clemson has not corraled the top high school talent yet they continue to be a top team in the ACC while the Noles and Tech have recruited well and aren't. Hamilton has actually recruited four more top 100 players who are no longer with the team while Hewett recruited two players who were 1st round picks.

As I suspected, Williams has only recruited three top 100 players on this year's team; however, that is better than BC and Clemson and is equal to NC State and Virginia Tech.

gw67

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

I really liked the stats you brought up and wanted to expand them a bit more. Formatting is being a bear, so I'm posting these stats in a slightly smushed form. Basically, I've broken the number of top players down into top 100, 50, 25, and 5. I've also noted where a top player is no longer with the program by putting the theoretical total (including all players who signed even if they they transferred or jumped to the league) in parenthesis. These numbers are cumulative across top 100/50/etc. so Kyle Singler counts as Duke's one top 5 guy as well as one of our top 25, 50, and 100 players.

BC - top 100: 1 top 50: 0 top 25: 0 top 5: 0

Clemson - top 100: 2(3) top 50: 0 top 25: 0 top 5: 0

Duke - top 100: 12(15)* top 50: 8(12) top 25 7(9) top 5: 1(2)

Fla. State - top 100: 4(8) top 50: 3 top 25: 1 top 5:0

Ga. Tech - top 100: 5(7) top 50: 3(5) top 25: 2(4) top 5: 0

MD - top 100: 3 top 50: 1 top 25: 0 top 5: 0

Miami - top 100: 4(5) top 50: 1 top 25: 1 top 5: 0

UNC - top 100: 11(13) top 50: 10(12) top 25: 6(7) top 5: 2(3)

NC State - top 100: 3(4) top 50: 2(3) top 25: 1(2) top 5: 0

Virginia - top 100: 4 top 50: 1 top 25: 0 top 5: 0

Va. Tech - top 100: 3 top 50: 0 top 25: 0 top 5: 0

Wake - top 100: 6(9) top 50: 4(5) top 25: 1 top 5: 0

* Dave McClure, ranked 71st came in 2004 but is still on the team.

The numbers are unsurprising: Duke and UNC are the only teams to have any top 5 players and dominate the top 25 with 6-7 players each. To put that in perspective, other than Ga. Tech with 2, no non-Tobacco Rd. team has more than 1 top 25 player. The closest in terms of talent is Wake, with 4 top 50 players including one in the top 25.

While having lots of talent seems to help (duh) as GW noted, several teams with little "top 100" talent (esp Clemson) are doing much better than some teams with solid talent (Ga. Tech) and this holds true even when we break down the numbers further. State and Ga. Tech both have multiple top 50 players but havn't been able to turn them into on-court results.

It's also interesting to note that four-year recruiting has been steady for almost every ACC program:

Top 100 recruiting by class (2008-2005)
BC: 0,1,0,0
Clemson: 1,1,0,1
Duke: 3,3,4,5
FSU: 2,2,2,2
Ga. Tech: 1,2,2,2
MD: 1,1,1,0
Miami: 1,1,0,3
UNC: 3,0,6,4
NC State: 0,2,0,2
UVa: 1,1,2,0
Va Tech: 0,4,1,0
Wake: 3,2,2,2

Other than UNC's blip in 2007, Miami's fall in '06, and Va. Tech's disappointing '08 after a big '07, teams have generally not increased/decreased the number of top 100 players by more than 1-2 from one season to the next. Again Duke, UNC, and Wake have been able to bring in and keep a regular supply of top 100 talent highlighted with top 25 players. So far Wake has not been able to keep up with UNC and Duke in terms of the really top-tier talent, but that may change if they can keep up this level of success. Teams that can't keep up that pace often make up for it by grabbing one-and-done talent that doesn't stick around, arguably doing more harm than good. Based on this data, it looks like second-tier teams do better building around a solid base of good talent like Wake and Clemson rather than relying on fly-by-night superstars like Ga. Tech and NC State.

[DevilCastDownfromDurham]

For those that are interested, here are the total top-100 players by school, year, and RSCI ranking (http://www.rscihoops.com/). There are some bad misses here (King is a top-25 player, Teague isn't in the top 50) that are fun to check out. Also, I'm a bit cross-eyed, so if anyone spots a mistake please let me know and I'll update.

x denotes a player no longer with team.

2008:
BC 0
Clemson 1 (Baciu 65)
Duke 3 (Williams 15, Czyz 65, Plumlee 81)
Fla State 2 (Singleton 14, Gibson 55)
Ga Tech 1 (Shumpert 22)
MD 1 (Mosely 50)
Miami 1 (Jones 21)
UNC 3 (Davis 9, Zeller 18, Drew 44
NC State 0
Virginia 1 (Landesberg 33)
Va Tech 0
Wake 3 (Aminu 7, Walker 37, Woods 41)

2007:
BC 1 (Sanders 69)
Clemson 1 (xDendy 87)
Duke 3 (Singler 5, Smith 19, xKing 24)
Fla State 2 (Alabi 27, xVaughn 66)
Ga Tech 2 (Lawal 18 Miller 88)
MD 1 (Dupree 73)
Miami 1 (Rios 74)
UNC 0
NC State 2 (Hickson 9, Smith 63)
Virginia 1 (Jones 68)
V. Tech 4 (Hudson 67, xGilchrist 76, Delaney 77, Allen 82)
Wake 2 (Johnson 43, Teague 58)

2006:
BC 0
Clemson 0
Duke 4 (Hendo 10, Thomas 20, Z 25, Scheyer 28)
FSU 2 (xKreft 51, xSoto 85)
Ga Tech 2 (xYoung 6, xCrittenton 12)
MD 1 (Vasquez 93)
Miami 0
UNC 6 (xWright 3 Lawson 5, Ellington 8, xStepheson 39, Thompson 43, Graves 79)
NC State 0
Virginia 2 (Tucker 66, Tat 92)
V. Tech 2 (xMunson 70)
Wake 2 (xSkeen 50, xGurley 59)

2005:
BC 0
Clemson 1 (Rivers 69)
Duke 5 (xMcRoberts 1, Paulus 13, xBoateng 39, Pocius 53, xBoykin 60)
FSU 2 (Echefu 42, XBreeden 80)
Ga Tech 2 (Clinch 25, Aminu 79)
MD 0
Miami 3 (Asbury 70, Thomas 93, xClemente 95)
UNC 4 (Hansbrough 4, Green 15, Ginyard 29, Frasor 31)
NC State 2 (Costner 19, Fells 35)
Virginia 0
V. Tech 0
Wake 2 (Weaver 73, xSwinton 76)

[gw67]

DevilCastDownfromDurham - Thanks for the breakdowns. Although they weren't recruited by Florida State, Kinchen and, I believe, Douglas, were also top 100 recruits.

I enjoy looking at the recruiting lists in perspective and finding players who have developed into top players but were not highly regarded coming out of high school, like Harangody of ND.

gw67

[whereinthehellami]

Good work guys. Interesting info. I'll be curious to see VT over the next couple of years. They seem to be on the cusp of getting better talent. I know they are upgrading facilities and other areas of their program which should help them land some Top 100 talent.

[jv001]

Good work guys. Interesting info. I'll be curious to see VT over the next couple of years. They seem to be on the cusp of getting better talent. I know they are upgrading facilities and other areas of their program which should help them land some Top 100 talent.

VT has been good even with medicore talent and I believe the talent level will increase. They are well coached and play a physical brand of bb. They could be ready to jump in there with Duke, unc, Wake and Clemson. Go Duke!

[sagegrouse]

I hope I don't come across as a curmudgeon with this post. I guess, as sagegrouse, I can say the accent is definitely on the second syllable.

While I don't have a totally jaded attitude toward recruit rankings and the folks who some up with them, I am pretty skeptical that they are a reliable indicator of talent -- except maybe for the top 10-20 players in the class.

First, no one knows who the top 100 players are outside of the very cream of the crop. There are literally thousands of HS stars, and few get seen by very many of the evaluators. Moreover, what evaluators do see is affected by competition, coaching, the offensive and defensive systems used, etc. Then there is skill level and basketball knowledge versus just plain physical ability.

Second, the folks doing the evaluation aren't nearly as good as the college coaches. Even posters on this board thought that JJ would take at least a year to get significant playing time and might be no more than a role player. After his freshman year the Duke staff said that is was clear from the beginning that JJ was ahead of the other players in a very strong class.

Third and more troubling for this thread is that evaluators use all sources of information (as they should) in coming up with rankings. One clear source is the degree of interest in a high school player from the top college programs. I would go so far to say that if Duke or UNC sign a recruit (or even offer a scholarship), that kid is destined to be ranked in the top 100. And, of course, K believes anyone he signs to be a very good player. This is fine, and a very legitimate way of using all the information available. But it causes problems of bias in comparing recruiting across different programs, when the Duke and UNC recruits are given higher rankings just by being recruited.

Clemson today, for example, and Maryland at other times did a good job of finding talent in the backwoods or in the JC system that weren't highly ranked. But they were very good players. They may not have had the national platform that AAU or the all-star camps affords. These and other schools go more for pure talent, absent the polish, and some of these players are outstanding after two years with a great college coach.

Just my two cents. Change freely given.

sagegrouse

[Slackerb]

Very good points. When considering recruiting rankings, you have to consider the source and how those recruits are evaluated.

Are UNC, Duke, Memphis, USC, etc. good because they have so many more top 100 players, or do they have so many top 100 players because they signed with those programs.

As Grouse advises, recruiting rankings are quite hit or miss, especially outside of the top 25 or so.

[whereinthehellami]

I hope I don't come across as a curmudgeon with this post. I guess, as sagegrouse, I can say the accent is definitely on the second syllable.

While I don't have a totally jaded attitude toward recruit rankings and the folks who some up with them, I am pretty skeptical that they are a reliable indicator of talent -- except maybe for the top 10-20 players in the class.

First, no one knows who the top 100 players are outside of the very cream of the crop. There are literally thousands of HS stars, and few get seen by very many of the evaluators. Moreover, what evaluators do see is affected by competition, coaching, the offensive and defensive systems used, etc. Then there is skill level and basketball knowledge versus just plain physical ability.

Second, the folks doing the evaluation aren't nearly as good as the college coaches. Even posters on this board thought that JJ would take at least a year to get significant playing time and might be no more than a role player. After his freshman year the Duke staff said that is was clear from the beginning that JJ was ahead of the other players in a very strong class.

Third and more troubling for this thread is that evaluators use all sources of information (as they should) in coming up with rankings. One clear source is the degree of interest in a high school player from the top college programs. I would go so far to say that if Duke or UNC sign a recruit (or even offer a scholarship), that kid is destined to be ranked in the top 100. And, of course, K believes anyone he signs to be a very good player. This is fine, and a very legitimate way of using all the information available. But it causes problems of bias in comparing recruiting across different programs, when the Duke and UNC recruits are given higher rankings just by being recruited.

Clemson today, for example, and Maryland at other times did a good job of finding talent in the backwoods or in the JC system that weren't highly ranked. But they were very good players. They may not have had the national platform that AAU or the all-star camps affords. These and other schools go more for pure talent, absent the polish, and some of these players are outstanding after two years with a great college coach.

Just my two cents. Change freely given.

sagegrouse

While some prospects will always slip thru the cracks, I think for the most part the talent is being uncovered earlier and earlier nowadays. So for a snapshot of talent at the time the rankings are made, I think they are pretty spot on. What they don't account for is heart, effort, and growth and the impact those have on the players as they develop. And some coaches are better at identyfying those traits than most of the overweight, middle aged hacks who assign values to teenage boys.