2023 Men's Basketball Recruiting

[UrinalCake]

He wouldn't even be the first top-10 player named Kyle to stay multiple years at Duke.

[MarkD83]

To give a broader perspective to the "highly regarded players going early" discussion...I believe the calculus has changed with NIL.

1. Many years ago one hoped that staying for 4 years to get a Duke degree kept highly ranked players at Duke.
2. Then the money of the NBA became the driving force along with not risking injury and a loss of that NBA money.
3. Now with NIL money, the money from the first NBA contract might not be as much of a factor but a) developing skills so that a player gets a large second NBA contract and b) being on various media platforms in college to build an endorsement portfolio may be driving forces to keep players in college for a few years. It might have been Shane Battier that pointed out that more money could be earned from endorsements than from contracts (that might not be true anymore).

[scottdude8]

To give a broader perspective to the "highly regarded players going early" discussion...I believe the calculus has changed with NIL.

1. Many years ago one hoped that staying for 4 years to get a Duke degree kept highly ranked players at Duke.
2. Then the money of the NBA became the driving force along with not risking injury and a loss of that NBA money.
3. Now with NIL money, the money from the first NBA contract might not be as much of a factor but a) developing skills so that a player gets a large second NBA contract and b) being on various media platforms in college to build an endorsement portfolio may be driving forces to keep players in college for a few years. It might have been Shane Battier that pointed out that more money could be earned from endorsements than from contracts (that might not be true anymore).

How this factors into the calculus moving forward will be the key, IMHO. Unless you're a lottery pick or develop into a perennial all-star, the pattern of late seems to be that the second contract is the big money maker for the average NBA player. So, if you can make the argument that a player's development would be better suited to playing in college than sitting on an NBA bench or being in the G-League (an argument which would yield vigorous debate), while making significant (i.e., six figures) money from NIL, there's also an argument for staying in college longer. The impetus may no longer be to make sure you get at least one guaranteed NBA contract by being a first (or early second) rounder, but rather to find the path that maximizes your lifetime earnings (since NIL means there's no longer the risk for things bottoming out to near zero).

We're living through this in real time, so who knows in what direction it will go. But I continue to maintain that, sooner or later (I think sooner), our preconceived notions about who stays and who goes are going to be subject to radical upheaval.

[sagegrouse]

I think you guys are way, way too focused on the wonders of the RSCI rating. Not all #4s are created equal, they actually have different characteristics which may determine how long they'll be in college. But I've been lectured on how wrong I am, so carry on.

I agree with your first statement. Lessee... The total reliance on RSCI means that one accepts an ordinal scalar as the main predictor of a college basketball career that has a jillion variables. Maybe there could be a basketball version of baseball's five tools?

[roywhite]

I think you guys are way, way too focused on the wonders of the RSCI rating. Not all #4s are created equal, they actually have different characteristics which may determine how long they'll be in college. But I've been lectured on how wrong I am, so carry on.

I get the quantsplaining, I really do I just don’t agree.

I agree with your first statement. Lessee... The total reliance on RSCI means that one accepts an ordinal scalar as the main predictor of a college basketball career that has a jillion variables. Maybe there could be a basketball version of baseball's five tools?

Another vote for the "RSCI focus has gotten carried away" position. Is an RSCI ranking some kind of doctrine of pre-destination?

[budwom]

Another vote for the "RSCI focus has gotten carried away" position. Is an RSCI ranking some kind of doctrine of pre-destination?

evidently, especially when, if one looks closely enough, there is other information to be considered. Then again, maybe John Calvin was right all along.

[Kedsy]

Another vote for the "RSCI focus has gotten carried away" position. Is an RSCI ranking some kind of doctrine of pre-destination?

Well, let's see. On the one hand, we have 25 years of composite opinions by the industry's biggest experts. On the other hand, we have a few fans' eye tests after watching a couple exhibition games and an edited pre-season scrimmage or two. Yeah, I'd say the reliability of those two evaluations are roughly the same.

[DukieTiger]

Well, let's see. On the one hand, we have 25 years of composite opinions by the industry's biggest experts. On the other hand, we have a few fans' eye tests after watching a couple exhibition games and an edited pre-season scrimmage or two. Yeah, I'd say the reliability of those two evaluations are roughly the same.

Bit of a straw-man there as no fan is claiming to be equally as reliable as the RSCI. They’re reacting to the way RSCI is used as a bit of a hammer to shut down speculation that does not match the narrative.

As I suggested in a previous response to you - it’s also not 25 years of expert opinions that is getting the push back. It’s the idea that 40-100 data points in the one and done era are generalizable to the extent that it’s being used. You yourself mentioned that there has been 1 top-4 recruit to return to college since 2012. Well that means it’s happened 2.5 percent of the time. But those of us who are suggesting it *could* happen are being told we must be imagining an alternate universe.

No one is suggesting that it’s even likely (unless I missed it), but rather that it’s possible.I think the push back is fair, even if it feels unwarranted.

[sagegrouse]

Well, let's see. On the one hand, we have 25 years of composite opinions by the industry's biggest experts. On the other hand, we have a few fans' eye tests after watching a couple exhibition games and an edited pre-season scrimmage or two. Yeah, I'd say the reliability of those two evaluations are roughly the same.

Kedsy, the RSCI is an "ordinal scalar." It contains little to no information that would predict the many facets of a player's performance in college? One would be laughed out of a graduate seminar in any social science I am familiar with if one makes such sweeping claims for a single measure -- and it's an ordinal one..

[Steven43]

Now with NIL money, the money from the first NBA contract might not be as much of a factor but a) developing skills so that a player gets a large second NBA contract and b) being on various media platforms in college to build an endorsement portfolio may be driving forces to keep players in college for a few years. It might have been Shane Battier that pointed out that more money could be earned from endorsements than from contracts (that might not be true anymore).

I wonder if in the near future businesses are going to continue giving millions and millions of dollars to freshmen entering college without even having much name recognition. I’m sure they’re going to conduct studies to try and determine how much it actually paid off to have these relatively unknown athletes representing them.

I’m guessing that the results will show that it was not money particularly well spent from a bottom-line business perspective.

[tommy]

Bit of a straw-man there as no fan is claiming to be equally as reliable as the RSCI. They’re reacting to the way RSCI is used as a bit of a hammer to shut down speculation that does not match the narrative.

As I suggested in a previous response to you - it’s also not 25 years of expert opinions that is getting the push back. It’s the idea that 40-100 data points in the one and done era are generalizable to the extent that it’s being used. You yourself mentioned that there has been 1 top-4 recruit to return to college since 2012. Well that means it’s happened 2.5 percent of the time. But those of us who are suggesting it *could* happen are being told we must be imagining an alternate universe.

No one is suggesting that it’s even likely (unless I missed it), but rather that it’s possible.I think the push back is fair, even if it feels unwarranted.

Come on. Nobody has ever said it's impossible. What Kedsy and others have stated in different ways is that, based upon the history of decisionmaking by recruits of a certain final RSCI ranking, it is highly unlikely that this guy or that will return for a second college season.

Nobody has said that RSCI ranking is determinative. What's been said is that it is a predictive tool. How much power you or anyone else assigns to that tool is up to you, of course, depending on how you value the data. You may think 25 years of this type of data is highly significant in making predictions of future behavior by other players. You may think it is relatively insignificant in that regard. But the data is real.

[Kedsy]

Bit of a straw-man there as no fan is claiming to be equally as reliable as the RSCI. They’re reacting to the way RSCI is used as a bit of a hammer to shut down speculation that does not match the narrative.

As I suggested in a previous response to you - it’s also not 25 years of expert opinions that is getting the push back. It’s the idea that 40-100 data points in the one and done era are generalizable to the extent that it’s being used. You yourself mentioned that there has been 1 top-4 recruit to return to college since 2012. Well that means it’s happened 2.5 percent of the time. But those of us who are suggesting it *could* happen are being told we must be imagining an alternate universe.

No one is suggesting that it’s even likely (unless I missed it), but rather that it’s possible.I think the push back is fair, even if it feels unwarranted.

Well, it has been 0% since the high school class of 2013, is what I was attempting to say. Does that mean it’s impossible? Of course not. But there’s a difference between a Jim Carrey “So you’re telling me there’s a chance” possible and something that’s worth discussing possible.

And I’m not using anything as a hammer. I’m simply pushing against the idea that Kyle Filipowski is significantly more likely to return than any other top 5 recruit, especially when the “evidence” for his likelihood of returning is a couple of exhibition games, in which he shot poorly but didn’t necessarily play poorly.

But contrary to what you’re saying, it does seem to me that some people on this board are suggesting we should pay little heed to the RSCI, just like some people suggest we should pay little heed to advanced statistics. To them, I ask if a weatherman who is right 85% of the time says a thunderstorm is coming, do you say (a) he was wrong once, last week, so let’s plan a picnic; or (b) pack an umbrella?

[DukieTiger]

Come on. Nobody has ever said it's impossible. What Kedsy and others have stated in different ways is that, based upon the history of decisionmaking by recruits of a certain final RSCI ranking, it is highly unlikely that this guy or that will return for a second college season.

Nobody has said that RSCI ranking is determinative. What's been said is that it is a predictive tool. How much power you or anyone else assigns to that tool is up to you, of course, depending on how you value the data. You may think 25 years of this type of data is highly significant in making predictions of future behavior by other players. You may think it is relatively insignificant in that regard. But the data is real.

I never claimed that someone said it was impossible.

I’m also not the one who was reacting to the RSCI’s alleged overemphasis originally.

Yet there is some reason people are making jokes about the RSCI and predestination, right?

Maybe it’s because there is a perception that these composite rankings get favored and thrown in the face (a bit) of those who would mention other variables.

Variables like Covid, which limited expert evaluations in a way unlike any of the last 25 years. (There’s also not 25 years of data on this subject and this is the 3rd and final time I’ll mentioned that, with apologies for being repetitive.)

[rsvman]

... To them, I ask if a weatherman who is right 85% of the time says a thunderstorm is coming, do you say (a) he was wrong once, last week, so let’s plan a picnic; or (b) pack an umbrella?

Where on earth are you finding a weatherman who is right 85% of the time? I need to move to wherever you are.

[DukieTiger]

Where on earth are you finding a weatherman who is right 85% of the time? I need to move to wherever you are.

San Diego perhaps?

The problem with the weatherman analogy is that none of us, to my knowledge, are making plans based on whether a player is OAD or not. And I say that as a proud participant of the long-standing tradition of getting our hopes up - est. 2002 with Dunleavy.

[TruBlu]

Where on earth are you finding a weatherman who is right 85% of the time? I need to move to wherever you are.

Could be San Diego calling for perfect weather, could be Seattle calling for rain, or could be Orlando calling for a thunderstorm to start at exactly 3:30 every day.

[Kedsy]

Kedsy, the RSCI is an "ordinal scalar." It contains little to no information that would predict the many facets of a player's performance in college? One would be laughed out of a graduate seminar in any social science I am familiar with if one makes such sweeping claims for a single measure -- and it's an ordinal one..

And if I was using this ordinal scalar to suggest, e.g., that the #4 player is necessarily better than the #5 or #6 player, then I would deserve to be laughed out of the room. But even an ordinal ranking system has some value, especially when it is literally the only evaluative data we have available to us.

Also, in this particular discussion, nobody was using the RSCI to predict the "many facets of a player's performance in college." People (myself included) were using the RSCI to predict the player's behavior in deciding whether he would spend more than one year in college. And if every single player in a certain ordinal value range over a period of nine years made the exact same decision, I'd say (absent reliable evidence to the contrary) that predictive value should carry a fair bit of weight.

[gam7]

Could be San Diego calling for perfect weather, could be Seattle calling for rain, or could be Orlando calling for a thunderstorm to start at exactly 3:30 every day.

In San Diahgo, 85% of the time, they are right every time.

[53n206]

Where on earth are you finding a weatherman who is right 85% of the time? I need to move to wherever you are.

Not in Oklahoma City. I had to pull my car over one time because of a blinding rainstorm, while listening to a radio weatherman state that OKC had a 75% chance of rain. The guy was broadcasting from a station about 3 miles away.

[Steven43]

In San Diahgo, 85% of the time, they are right every time.

Ron: “Ahh, San Diego. Discovered by the Germans in 1904, they named it San Diego, which of course in German means a whale's vagina.”

Veronica: “No, there's no way that's correct.”

Ron: “I'm sorry, I was trying to impress you. I don't know what it means. I'll be honest, I don't think anyone knows what it means anymore. Scholars maintain that the translation was lost hundreds of years ago.”

Veronica: “Doesn't it mean Saint Diego?”

Ron: “No. No.”

Veronica: “No, that's - that's what it means. Really.”

Ron: “Well, agree to disagree.”

*Apologies for the thread digression. I expect this to be deleted within minutes, anyway.