MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[cubs]

Buddy Sodemann, who got his coaching start at IWU, is/was the asst. head coach at Loras this year. Don't know if he is one of the 5 finalists. My guess is he is. His father Bill began the family basketball tradition as a long time HS coach in St. Louis area. All three sons are involved in college coaching. The Buddy Sodemann stint at IWU was the source of the St. Louis area talent Ron Rose has taken advantage of.

Nope....

http://duhawks.com/news/2016/3/31/loras-announces-head-mens-basketball-coach-finalists.aspx

[Gregory Sager]

Buddy Sodemann, who got his coaching start at IWU, is/was the asst. head coach at Loras this year. Don't know if he is one of the 5 finalists. My guess is he is.

You could've clicked on the link I provided and found it out for yourself, Lanny.

[unanimous22]

Can Bob, or anyone, put some more perspective into the Miles Curry to IWU commitment? For example, his highlight tape looks really good and Kenwood was a very good CPL team, but how does he compare in rankings out of HS to someone like Connor Raridon? 

[Titan Q]

Brian Kern ‏@bkern_12 
Blessed and honored to say I will be playing basketball at the next level at Elmhurst College next year🏀🐦🙏🏻


* Brian Kern, 6-2 PG/SG (Hinsdale South H.S.)

http://basketball.dailyherald.com/article/20160303/sports/160309546/

[Titan Q]

Can Bob, or anyone, put some more perspective into the Miles Curry to IWU commitment? For example, his highlight tape looks really good and Kenwood was a very good CPL team, but how does he compare in rankings out of HS to someone like Connor Raridon?

That's a tough one since I've never seen the kid play.  Just a few thoughts...

* In high school, Connor Raridon was considered to be a D1 prospect...D2 at the "lowest."  Looking through a CCIW lens, I heard many say Connor was the "best of the Raridons" - and this considering his brother Derek was a CCIW M.O.P. and All-American. Bottom line, he was a known commodity and big-time D3 recruit.  Miles Curry is more of an under-the-radar guy with a big upside.  That is just too much of an apples/oranges situation to even make a comparison.

* Curry played alongside three D1 recruits at Kenwood - Nick Robinson ('16), Zion Morgan ('16), and Manny Patterson ('17).  It's probably hard to assess exactly what he brings to the table until he gets out of those shadows and on a more level playing field.

* Curry seems to have a very nice skill set for a CCIW/D3 wing player - nice height (6-5), very athletic, can shoot it, good off the dribble, strong defender.

* Ron Rose and his staff spent a lot of time recruiting Miles Curry this season. Curry had a D2 offer and was recruited by many small colleges, including at least a couple CCIW schools.


So we'll see how it plays out. For now, I'd say a nice recruit for the Titans.

[AppletonRocks]

Can Bob, or anyone, put some more perspective into the Miles Curry to IWU commitment? For example, his highlight tape looks really good and Kenwood was a very good CPL team, but how does he compare in rankings out of HS to someone like Connor Raridon?

Wesleyan never had a CPL player before?  Wow. 

[unanimous22]

Thanks Q, sounds like a nice get for IWU.

[GoPerry]

Brian Kern ‏@bkern_12 
Blessed and honored to say I will be playing basketball at the next level at Elmhurst College next year🏀🐦🙏🏻


* Brian Kern, 6-2 PG/SG (Hinsdale South H.S.)

http://basketball.dailyherald.com/article/20160303/sports/160309546/

Have seen Kern play several times . . . he could be a nice player for EC especially as they rebuild.

[markerickson]

I think Coach Raridon has more upside to go D1 than his freshman son.

[all blues]

Can Bob, or anyone, put some more perspective into the Miles Curry to IWU commitment? For example, his highlight tape looks really good and Kenwood was a very good CPL team, but how does he compare in rankings out of HS to someone like Connor Raridon?

For the Class of 2015, in Illinois, (Prep Hoops, below) Raridon was ranked 81.  By comparison, Bonnett was 62 and Falotico 74.  2016 has Hoekstra at 107 and Curry at 135.  Oddly, Brian Kern is ranked 194 at 6'6" for 2015 and 174 at 6'2" for 2016.


http://www.prephoops.com/illinois/rankings/prospect-rankings/2016-rankings/

[Gregory Sager]

Moral of the story: Don't put too much stock in scouting-site rankings.

I say it around this time every year, and I'll say it again: The most accurate arbiter of a high-school player's college potential is what I call his Desirability Index, i.e., which (and how many) schools are recruiting him, what levels of college ball they represent (and whether or not there are scholarship offers involved), and how successful those programs have been in the recent past. It's not a perfect method of ascertaining a player's relative worth in terms of his college potential, as recruiting's not a science that lends itself to perfection -- case in point, to the best of my knowledge Juwan Henry didn't have anybody other than North Park pursuing him when he was a senior at Bogan -- but it's the best one we have. It's certainly better than scouting-site rankings like the Prep Hoops example to which you linked, which aren't nearly as comprehensively researched or thought-out as they appear (although they are, admittedly, better than nothing).

[Titan Q]

Moral of the story: Don't put too much stock in scouting-site rankings.

I say it around this time every year, and I'll say it again: The most accurate arbiter of a high-school player's college potential is what I call his Desirability Index, i.e., which (and how many) schools are recruiting him, what levels of college ball they represent (and whether or not there are scholarship offers involved), and how successful those programs have been in the recent past. It's not a perfect method of ascertaining a player's relative worth in terms of his college potential, as recruiting's not a science that lends itself to perfection -- case in point, to the best of my knowledge Juwan Henry didn't have anybody other than North Park pursuing him when he was a senior at Bogan -- but it's the best one we have. It's certainly better than scouting-site rankings like the Prep Hoops example to which you linked, which aren't nearly as comprehensively researched or thought-out as they appear (although they are, admittedly, better than nothing).

Generally, the scouting service rankings are compiled by factoring in the "Desirability Index."  The guys running the various services certainly see a ton of kids play, but their rankings end up being more based on the level of colleges pursuing the players than their evaluation of pure basketball skills observed.  What those services do well is talk to hundreds of players across the state at AAU, high school, all-star, and other games. The best services have a strong handle on which players are hearing from which schools -- and again, that becomes the biggest factor in their rankings.

When you look at a ranking of players in Illinois, generally the first 40 or so will be heading to D1, 40 to maybe 70 will have D2 or NAIA scholarships...and the kids pursued by primarily D3s end up at about 70 and below.  It doesn't perfectly end up that way, but I'd say for the most part it does.  And that is not because the evaluators' rankings align perfectly with the D1/D2/NAIA/D3 recruitment process...it's because they're using recruiting information to make the rankings.

The kid from LeRoy - Matt Chastain - is now ranked #20.  About 3 weeks ago he was ranked, I believe, lower than 100.  At the time the original ranking was done, Chastain was getting primarily recruited by D3 schools...had some D2s sniffing around.  Then he received a flood of D1 offers (15+ now) during the IHSA tournament...and all the sudden he is ranked #20.  The evaluations of the kid's game didn't change...the level of college pursuers did.  A good example of how the ranking process works.

[WUPHF]

Buddy Sodemann, who got his coaching start at IWU, is/was the asst. head coach at Loras this year. Don't know if he is one of the 5 finalists. My guess is he is.

You could've clicked on the link I provided and found it out for yourself, Lanny.

Also, I think the part about Sodemann being responsible for the St. Louis area talent may need to be amended to some of the St. Louis area talent, though I could be wrong.  I am sure someone knows.

[Gregory Sager]

Moral of the story: Don't put too much stock in scouting-site rankings.

I say it around this time every year, and I'll say it again: The most accurate arbiter of a high-school player's college potential is what I call his Desirability Index, i.e., which (and how many) schools are recruiting him, what levels of college ball they represent (and whether or not there are scholarship offers involved), and how successful those programs have been in the recent past. It's not a perfect method of ascertaining a player's relative worth in terms of his college potential, as recruiting's not a science that lends itself to perfection -- case in point, to the best of my knowledge Juwan Henry didn't have anybody other than North Park pursuing him when he was a senior at Bogan -- but it's the best one we have. It's certainly better than scouting-site rankings like the Prep Hoops example to which you linked, which aren't nearly as comprehensively researched or thought-out as they appear (although they are, admittedly, better than nothing).

Generally, the scouting service rankings are compiled by factoring in the "Desirability Index."  The guys running the various services certainly see a ton of kids play, but their rankings end up being more based on the level of colleges pursuing the players than their evaluation of pure basketball skills observed.  What those services do well is talk to hundreds of players across the state at AAU, high school, all-star, and other games. The best services have a strong handle on which players are hearing from which schools -- and again, that becomes the biggest factor in their rankings.

This is only true up to the moment when the list is published, though, Bob, and that's my point. There's no fluidity to the majority of these rankings -- and there is fluidity, constant fluidity, in terms of recruiting. Schools can and will make contact with prospects for the first time well after these rankings get published online. Even rankings like that of Prep Hoops that are periodically updated are each really only snapshots of a single moment within the recruiting cycle, as you pointed out in the case of the kid from LeRoy.

When you look at a ranking of players in Illinois, generally the first 40 or so will be heading to D1, 40 to maybe 70 will have D2 or NAIA scholarships...and the kids pursued by primarily D3s end up at about 70 and below.  It doesn't perfectly end up that way, but I'd say for the most part it does.  And that is not because the evaluators' rankings align perfectly with the D1/D2/NAIA/D3 recruitment process...it's because they're using recruiting information to make the rankings.

Yes, which is why I didn't say that scouting-service rankings should be dismissed out of hand. As I said, they're better than nothing. But the Desirability Index isn't really fixed until the recruiting cycle comes to an end. That's really the point when you can get a good read on how college coaches viewed the state's senior class, although your observation about the various percentiles within the rankings published while the recruiting cycle is in progress is generally true.

The kid from LeRoy - Matt Chastain - is now ranked #20.  About 3 weeks ago he was ranked, I believe, lower than 100.  At the time the original ranking was done, Chastain was getting primarily recruited by D3 schools...had some D2s sniffing around.  Then he received a flood of D1 offers (15+ now) during the IHSA tournament...and all the sudden he is ranked #20.  The evaluations of the kid's game didn't change...the level of college pursuers did.  A good example of how the ranking process works.

Right. And, as I said, it might be an accurate snapshot of where he ranks today. It might not be an accurate snapshot of where he's ranked a week from now, or a month from now.

[AndOne]

Can Bob, or anyone, put some more perspective into the Miles Curry to IWU commitment? For example, his highlight tape looks really good and Kenwood was a very good CPL team, but how does he compare in rankings out of HS to someone like Connor Raridon?

For the Class of 2015, in Illinois, (Prep Hoops, below) Raridon was ranked 81.  By comparison, Bonnett was 62 and Falotico 74.  2016 has Hoekstra at 107 and Curry at 135. Oddly, Brian Kern is ranked 194 at 6'6" for 2015 and 174 at 6'2" for 2016.

http://www.prephoops.com/illinois/rankings/prospect-rankings/2016-rankings/

Moral of the story: Don't put too much stock in scouting-site rankings.

I say it around this time every year, and I'll say it again: The most accurate arbiter of a high-school player's college potential is what I call his Desirability Index, i.e., which (and how many) schools are recruiting him, what levels of college ball they represent (and whether or not there are scholarship offers involved), and how successful those programs have been in the recent past. It's not a perfect method of ascertaining a player's relative worth in terms of his college potential, as recruiting's not a science that lends itself to perfection -- case in point, to the best of my knowledge Juwan Henry didn't have anybody other than North Park pursuing him when he was a senior at Bogan -- but it's the best one we have. It's certainly better than scouting-site rankings like the Prep Hoops example to which you linked, which aren't nearly as comprehensively researched or thought-out as they appear (although they are, admittedly, better than nothing).

Generally, the scouting service rankings are compiled by factoring in the "Desirability Index."  The guys running the various services certainly see a ton of kids play, but their rankings end up being more based on the level of colleges pursuing the players than their evaluation of pure basketball skills observed.  What those services do well is talk to hundreds of players across the state at AAU, high school, all-star, and other games. The best services have a strong handle on which players are hearing from which schools -- and again, that becomes the biggest factor in their rankings.

This is only true up to the moment when the list is published, though, Bob, and that's my point. There's no fluidity to the majority of these rankings -- and there is fluidity, constant fluidity, in terms of recruiting. Schools can and will make contact with prospects for the first time well after these rankings get published online. Even rankings like that of Prep Hoops that are periodically updated are each really only snapshots of a single moment within the recruiting cycle, as you pointed out in the case of the kid from LeRoy.

When you look at a ranking of players in Illinois, generally the first 40 or so will be heading to D1, 40 to maybe 70 will have D2 or NAIA scholarships...and the kids pursued by primarily D3s end up at about 70 and below.  It doesn't perfectly end up that way, but I'd say for the most part it does.  And that is not because the evaluators' rankings align perfectly with the D1/D2/NAIA/D3 recruitment process...it's because they're using recruiting information to make the rankings.

Yes, which is why I didn't say that scouting-service rankings should be dismissed out of hand. As I said, they're better than nothing. But the Desirability Index isn't really fixed until the recruiting cycle comes to an end. That's really the point when you can get a good read on how college coaches viewed the state's senior class, although your observation about the various percentiles within the rankings published while the recruiting cycle is in progress is generally true.

The kid from LeRoy - Matt Chastain - is now ranked #20.  About 3 weeks ago he was ranked, I believe, lower than 100.  At the time the original ranking was done, Chastain was getting primarily recruited by D3 schools...had some D2s sniffing around.  Then he received a flood of D1 offers (15+ now) during the IHSA tournament...and all the sudden he is ranked #20.  The evaluations of the kid's game didn't change...the level of college pursuers did.  A good example of how the ranking process works.

Right. And, as I said, it might be an accurate snapshot of where he ranks today. It might not be an accurate snapshot of where he's ranked a week from now, or a month from now.

But the question that can't be ignored is just how much better than nothing some of the scouting service rankings are when you have one of the most well known of such services serving up a huge portion of folly by ranking Colin Bonnett, and especially Mark Falotico, ahead of Connor Raridon. Bonnett is a good enough player who I think has a pretty high degree of potential, but a ranking of 62 was probably a little high. And Ziggy and the other Spidermen from Mars must have been on spacedust to rank Falotico within 100 spots of Raridon who had the ability to play at least at a low D1 level coming out of high school.
I suspect a major reason for Raridon's ranking was that it was pretty much of a given that he would likely be playing for his dad at North Central, and that his "recruitment" was pretty much of a done deal.

Another consideration with regard to scouting service rankings is what degree of association does the service owner/manager have with various area AAU coaches who they are in touch with on a regular basis throughout the season, and upon whom they depend heavily for much of the information that goes into their rankings. The problem of course is that AAU coaches have a built in conflict of interest because they all promise their players, and especially their parents who are forking over considerable dinero for them to play, that they will secure either a scholarship or a high D3 school spot for their players. Naturally then, when they are asked about one of their players, their analysis and corresponding opinion is often sometimes inflated. An AAU coach is always gonna claim that every car in his garage is a Porsche when, in reality, some may more closely perform like a Yugo.
Lastly, while the services see a lot of players, they can't see them all. And, how often do they even see many kids? Maybe its once, and if the kid has his best or worst game of the year, his ranking might be heavily dependent on that one game.