• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

CMM and Rountree now 4 star, top 100 on Scout

Reading this thread you would think giving a star to an athlete on an internet site actually physically improves his abilities.

Of all fanbases, you would think ours would be able to downplay the damn star system by now.

The talent is either there or it's not. It's not like we recruited some 2 star guys and they have blossomed into 4 star guys. They are the exact same players we scouted. So some group is just now getting around to agreeing with the assessments of our coaches? This matters why?

It's equally dangerous to go chasing 4 and 5 star guys who play the system but are vastly overrated or or merely have "NBA frames" and jump after year 1 to develop actual skills in the League.

I'll take someone concentrating on talent over someone basing their choice on an arbitrary star ranking any day.
 
bone, your issue is with the term "sleeper", not my post.

You're counting on Battle getting it right every time. Battle was also a constant in the 4 year dry period between verbals from Paul and Johnson.

The other big difference between what we're doing now and what happened with Teague and Johnson is the timing.

We offered Teague and Johnson after they started blowing up. Teague had some strong regional tournaments and Johnson had a big national tournament. Sure we were on them but we didn't offer until they had stepped up against competition.

We offered Rountree and CMM and they verballed before they started blowing up.

Huge difference. The latter is a huge risk.




Teague verballed on Sept 1 during his senior year.

Wake offered in mid-July in the summer before his senior year. Here is the write-up dated July 21, 2006.

--------
Wake Forest was present at majority of Jeff Teague's games at the Kentucky Hoopfest, and the Demon Deacon staff must have liked what they saw as the 6-1, 170-pound PG received a scholarship offer from Wake Forest.
---------

The articles leading up to that include Teague winning MVP when Spiece won the Spiece Run 'n Slam championship.

Johnson verballed on August 27 at the beginning of his junior year.

The articles show he blew up at the Nike All-American Camp All-Star game in July. An article from Aug 2, 2006 suggest that we offered after that although we were already interested:

----------
What are the chances of finding a 6-foot-8, 215-pound combo forward in the cowboy country of Cheyenne, Wyoming, who is the son of the 1996 world champion kick-boxer and has a 21-0 record in the brutal sport himself?

Did we mention that he was also named MVP of the Nike All-American Camp All-Star Game and is rated one of the top 50 players in America? James Johnson’s breakout performance in the Nike Camp (16 points and 10 rebounds in the all-star game) sent his stock into orbit and his cell phone into overload.

One of the first calls to come through was an offer from the Vols. Also jumping into the chase were Baylor, Boston College, Bradley, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Washington State and Wichita State. (Remember the Shockers?) He is also being pursued by Cincinnati, Kansas and Gonzaga among a long list of others.
--------------
 
DCDeac said:
Reading this thread you would think giving a star to an athlete on an internet site actually physically improves his abilities.

Of all fanbases, you would think ours would be able to downplay the damn star system by now.

The talent is either there or it's not. It's not like we recruited some 2 star guys and they have blossomed into 4 star guys. They are the exact same players we scouted. So some group is just now getting around to agreeing with the assessments of our coaches? This matters why?

It's equally dangerous to go chasing 4 and 5 star guys who play the system but are vastly overrated or or merely have "NBA frames" and jump after year 1 to develop actual skills in the League.

I'll take someone concentrating on talent over someone basing their choice on an arbitrary star ranking any day.
Click to expand...

Wow. Of all fanbases, you would think ours would worship the star system by now. Just look at our recruits that have been good and compare them to the ones who haven't. The star system is a pretty strong indicator. Just go through and do the research. Come back and give me your strongest 8 2* and 3* Wake recruits and I'll counter with my strongest 4* and 5* Wake recruits.
 
PhDeac said:
Wow. Of all fanbases, you would think ours would worship the star system by now. Just look at our recruits that have been good and compare them to the ones who haven't. The star system is a pretty strong indicator. Just go through and do the research. Come back and give me your strongest 8 2* and 3* Wake recruits and I'll counter with my strongest 4* and 5* Wake recruits.
Click to expand...

CMM and Rountree are both 4 stars now remember.
 
Yea, is this about ranking when the player commits to us, or ranking when he matriculates?

If the former, I could definitely make you a list that has some odd performers on it. I'd obviously advocate the latter, in which case we never should have been worried about CMM and Rountree. Cooler heads were saying for weeks to just wait until the summer circuit was over before going nuts over the 2* rankings of our recruits.
 
Deacsfan27 said:
CMM and Rountree are both 4 stars now remember.
Click to expand...

No shit, doofus.

The argument you all are making is that it's a good recruiting strategy to offer 2* players and hope they show themselves to be 4* talents in summer tournaments. It worked with Rountree and CMM. Great. Are you assuming it's always going to work?

The argument I'm making is that it's a much safer strategy to stay on these guys and wait until they show what they can do in the summer tournaments before offering like we did with Teague and Johnson.

It's much more likely a 2* player is going to stay a 2* than a 4* player moving down to a 2*.

Regardless, DCDeac's post was about the star system as an effective way to evaluate talent. This whole thread is a pretty clear validation of the system, so I'm not sure where DCDeac's argument is coming from. Rountree and CMM were evaluated and they were bumped up to 4*. You can criticize the system, but any Wake should be happy to get 4* and 5* players and wary of anything less.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
bone, your issue is with the term "sleeper", not my post.

You're counting on Battle getting it right every time. Battle was also a constant in the 4 year dry period between verbals from Paul and Johnson.

The other big difference between what we're doing now and what happened with Teague and Johnson is the timing.

We offered Teague and Johnson after they started blowing up. Teague had some strong regional tournaments and Johnson had a big national tournament. Sure we were on them but we didn't offer until they had stepped up against competition.

We offered Rountree and CMM and they verballed before they started blowing up.

Huge difference. The latter is a huge risk.

--------------
Click to expand...


And during the "dry period" we offered and received commitments from extremely highly recruited guys -- Cam Stanley, Kevin Swinton and Jamie Skeen. Each of them dropped in the rankings after committing.

Neither Rountree or CMM became better players when they "blew up." They simply received more exposure. The fact that our staff was able to recognize their true talents before that is undeniably a good thing.
 
PhDeac said:
No shit, doofus.

The argument you all are making is that it's a good recruiting strategy to offer 2* players and hope they show themselves to be 4* talents in summer tournaments. It worked with Rountree and CMM. Great. Are you assuming it's always going to work?

The argument I'm making is that it's a much safer strategy to stay on these guys and wait until they show what they can do in the summer tournaments before offering like we did with Teague and Johnson.
Click to expand...

No, the argument that we are making is that as Wake Forest we have to trust our own talent evaluation and offer early because that is how we get most of our big guys, save for a couple of aberrations here and there.

IMO it is best to offer early on.
 
ColdHardFactsDeac said:
It's also not the same as recruiting guys that were rated 2-stars at one point, raised the level of their games, and then were recruited prior to their star-rating being updated. It's not like they suddenly became much better players today when their rankings were updated. Today just validated the fact that they had raised their level of play.
Click to expand...

Just in response to those on this page that didn't read this from way back about 10 posts ago. DCDeac, you are on the same page as me until the very end of your post. I think the one difference between us is that I believe that those with 4 and 5 star talent cannot go completely unnoticed in this era, and the evaluation of their talent will eventually catch up to their actual ability. As a result, I am a huge believer in the ranking system, with the caveat that later rankings are almost always more accurate than earlier versions of the same rankings.

Edit: After rereading, I think you pretty much agree with me that talent is talent. Good post.
 
Last edited:
PhDeac said:
No shit, doofus.

The argument you all are making is that it's a good recruiting strategy to offer 2* players and hope they show themselves to be 4* talents in summer tournaments. It worked with Rountree and CMM. Great. Are you assuming it's always going to work?

The argument I'm making is that it's a much safer strategy to stay on these guys and wait until they show what they can do in the summer tournaments before offering like we did with Teague and Johnson.

It's much more likely a 2* player is going to stay a 2* than a 4* player moving down to a 2*.

Regardless, DCDeac's post was about the star system as an effective way to evaluate talent. This whole thread is a pretty clear validation of the system, so I'm not sure where DCDeac's argument is coming from. Rountree and CMM were evaluated and they were bumped up to 4*. You can criticize the system, but any Wake should be happy to get 4* and 5* players and wary of anything less.
Click to expand...

That's moronic. Great straw man, dude.

The argument we are making is that you should offer good players. Go out, watch lots of tournaments, watch high school games, attend practices, and then offer the players that you think are good. A good player is a good player, regardless of his ranking. All we're saying is that the staff's evaluations should be completely independent of the current star rankings out there. You seem to think otherwise.
 
PhDeac said:
The argument you all are making is that it's a good recruiting strategy to offer 2* players and hope they show themselves to be 4* talents in summer tournaments. It worked with Rountree and CMM. Great. Are you assuming it's always going to work?
Click to expand...

Show me one post or poster who has said that verbatim.
 
TexasDeac10 said:
The argument we are making is that you should offer good players. Go out, watch lots of tournaments, watch high school games, attend practices, and then offer the players that you think are good. A good player is a good player, regardless of his ranking. All we're saying is that the staff's evaluations should be completely independent of the current star rankings out there. You seem to think otherwise.
Click to expand...

yup.
 
PhDeac said:
bone, your issue is with the term "sleeper", not my post.

You're counting on Battle getting it right every time. Battle was also a constant in the 4 year dry period between verbals from Paul and Johnson.

The other big difference between what we're doing now and what happened with Teague and Johnson is the timing.

We offered Teague and Johnson after they started blowing up. Teague had some strong regional tournaments and Johnson had a big national tournament. Sure we were on them but we didn't offer until they had stepped up against competition.

We offered Rountree and CMM and they verballed before they started blowing up.

Huge difference. The latter is a huge risk.




Teague verballed on Sept 1 during his senior year.

Wake offered in mid-July in the summer before his senior year. Here is the write-up dated July 21, 2006.

--------
Wake Forest was present at majority of Jeff Teague's games at the Kentucky Hoopfest, and the Demon Deacon staff must have liked what they saw as the 6-1, 170-pound PG received a scholarship offer from Wake Forest.
---------

The articles leading up to that include Teague winning MVP when Spiece won the Spiece Run 'n Slam championship.

Johnson verballed on August 27 at the beginning of his junior year.

The articles show he blew up at the Nike All-American Camp All-Star game in July. An article from Aug 2, 2006 suggest that we offered after that although we were already interested:

----------
What are the chances of finding a 6-foot-8, 215-pound combo forward in the cowboy country of Cheyenne, Wyoming, who is the son of the 1996 world champion kick-boxer and has a 21-0 record in the brutal sport himself?

Did we mention that he was also named MVP of the Nike All-American Camp All-Star Game and is rated one of the top 50 players in America? James Johnson’s breakout performance in the Nike Camp (16 points and 10 rebounds in the all-star game) sent his stock into orbit and his cell phone into overload.

One of the first calls to come through was an offer from the Vols. Also jumping into the chase were Baylor, Boston College, Bradley, Virginia Tech, Wake Forest, Washington State and Wichita State. (Remember the Shockers?) He is also being pursued by Cincinnati, Kansas and Gonzaga among a long list of others.
--------------
Click to expand...

Technically, you are incorrect. I hear what you are saying though.

But we didn't offer Rountree and Miller hyphen and only THEN did they start blowing up. They were already BLOWING UP, they just hadn't done it at a national tourney weekend yet. We saw them blow up, offered them, they mulled it over a bit, accepted, and then continued to blow up at a national tourney.
 
Texas, you criticized what I posted in bold and then basically said the same thing. I got your perspective right.

You believe we shouldn't worry about the rankings and offer early. I believe we should wait and evaluate until they get exposure to get the rankings to offer.

My synopsis of those two perspectives is pretty accurate. You're fine when Bz offers 2* players before the summer tournaments. I'm wary of that strategy and would rather he wait. That's what I said.

And the idea that any coach offers players he doesn't think are good is comical.
 
PhDeac said:
Texas, you criticized what I posted in bold and then basically said the same thing. I got your perspective right.

You believe we shouldn't worry about the rankings and offer early. I believe we should wait and evaluate until they get exposure to get the rankings to offer.

My synopsis of those two perspectives is pretty accurate. You're fine when Bz offers 2* players like crazy before the summer tournaments. That's what I said.
Click to expand...

Why would we wait to offer if we know that they are good players before the big tournaments? A good player is a good player. If we trust our staff to make talent evaluations (which time will tell us, but so far I do, especially Coach Battle), then I want us to offer ASAP because kids remember who is on them first.

Every kid that I have interviewed for BSD has liked our staff because we were on them early and have stuck with them. This is the biggest reason that we can get big time players. We will very rarely take on the big boys and win because we are at several disadvantages. Of course I would like to consistently do that, but it is not the best way to go about if for a school in our position.

We are not saying the same thing, because you think we are just offering shitty players left and right, when that is not the case.
 
I'm not saying we're offering shitty players left and right. That's a ridiculous assertion.

I'm saying we're offering players who haven't established themselves on a regional or national stage and that's a major risk.
 
PhDeac said:
I'm not saying we're offering shitty players left and right. That's a ridiculous assertion.

I'm saying we're offering players who haven't established themselves on a regional or national stage and that's a major risk.
Click to expand...

It's not a risk if we trust our coaching staff to make accurate talent evaluations.
 
Ph, the problem with your idea is that, in the case where you have a good talent scout, you are handicapping yourself.

The other problem with your argument is that your are grossly misrepresenting the other side of the argument in a transparent effort to strengthen your own.

You have to admit that, if a team has a recruiter who has a comparative advantage in spotting talent that will pan out, that they give up that advantage by waiting until the consensus reaches the same conclusion and dozens of other schools with strong recruiting draw are in the mix.
 
IAppreciateIt said:
And during the "dry period" we offered and received commitments from extremely highly recruited guys -- Cam Stanley, Kevin Swinton and Jamie Skeen. Each of them dropped in the rankings after committing.

Neither Rountree or CMM became better players when they "blew up." They simply received more exposure. The fact that our staff was able to recognize their true talents before that is undeniably a good thing.
Click to expand...


Pretty sure we secured verbals from each of those players before the summer tournaments as well. I remember seeing Cam and Swinton play after they verballed and I wasn't impressed at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top