Big 12 Basketball Recruiting

[trajanJ]

Have you guys looked at the Rivals 150. The Big 12 is now a national basketball and football conference. The media can no longer say the Big 12 doesn't have a National Champion and now the conference is recruiting better then ever. Here's a look at the schools that have signed top 150. Colorado and Texas Tech are the only schools that don't have one. Pretty good for our conference.

Texas - 5,8,64
Kansas - 18,27
K-State - 23,91,114
Oklahoma - 31,66,100,136,145
Baylor - 33,132,142
Oklahoma State - 45,54,90,135
Texas A&M - 88,122,144,150
Iowa State - 92
Nebraska - 115
Missouri - 130

 

[Aclone]

The sad thing is that you've just shown us how far we still have to go. On the other hand, from the video of Colvin, I have a hard time believing he's only #92, and think that we have a real steal. Perhaps he's so low partly because he has so many talented teammates.

 

[cybsball20]

Just goes to show how far we still need to go... Hopefully Colvin is just the first step...

 

[markshir]

One thing to keep in mind though is that we only filled 2 scholarships in the early signing period. Getting a top 150 player is great and I think we all are excited about Colvin. Hopefully in a few years we're fretting about whether or not he will go pro.

Gilstrap is a bit of an unknown but seems to be a scorer. His situation is unique I would say and there's really no way to rate him accurately. He could be a monster for 1 year or he could be a holdover - only time will tell.

 

[mplscyclone]

I'm not too worried... How many stars was Stephen Curry? No one wanted to sign him and he's going to be in the running for college basketball player of the year.. WJ was a 2 star recruit but ended up being better than that.

I do think those rankings are important and it would be nice to be more on the National Recruiting front. I won't panic though either..

 

[cybsball20]

I'm not too worried... How many stars was Stephen Curry? No one wanted to sign him and he's going to be in the running for college basketball player of the year.. WJ was a 2 star recruit but ended up being better than that.

Curry was #36 point guard and a three star... He had some decent offers too...

 

[BryceC]

I love when people throw out the Curry and Wesley Johnson examples. Those guys are diamonds in the rough. Point being there is a lot of rough and few diamonds.

 

[trajanJ]

In football you can find those hidden gems, but it's tougher in basketball. Mangino has turned 5 two-stars into NFL players, but that's a lot harder to do in basketball. In basketball these guys play against each other all summer, so the star rankings are pretty good with the exception of a few players. There's still players left to be signed. The number one player in the class is down to Baylor and KU so it looks like the conference will get stronger. Baylor hired his AAU coach so I like their chances, I guess we could always trump them and hire his dad.

 

[CyinCo]

Not concerned. In the top 150, only the top 10 are really special players. The rest are probably on par with each other. And, if you break it down by position, things will look different as well. All I care is we continue to land guys in the top 100. And hopefully, we land a guy in that top 10 range.

 

[mplscyclone]

Curry was #36 point guard and a three star... He had some decent offers too...

What were these offers: Virginia Commenwealth, William and Mary?

He wanted to go to Va Tech and didn't get offered. He then wanted to play somewhere in the ACC and didn't get offered by any of them either.

My point is that he's probably the best scorer in College Basketball, yet he could only get signed by a mid-major.

What I was trying to say is that rankings aren't 100% accurate. Yes it's nice to get the best guys you can, but there are many cases of 4 and 5 star guys dissapointing and 2 and 3 start guys playing with the best.

It's all about the system you run, and your ability to develop players. We're never going to outrecruit Kansas and Texas, but how did we beat them in the past? We got lucky with some good recruits, but I don't think we had the #1 class in the Big XII or anything.

You can compete in college basketball without having a roster of all 4 star and 5 star guys. It all just depends on what you're doing.

 

[Clones85']

Yes we know rankings are not 100% accurate. But they are 90% or higher. For every Curry you name, I have 100 that were great players and were 5 star players

 

[trajanJ]

There are some 4 and 5 star disappointments but there are very few 2 and 3 star guys that end up in the NBA. The rankings in basketball are pretty accurate. You will always see some exceptions, but they play against each other so much that the people doing the rankings have a pretty good idea how good these guys are. Sure the top 10 are special players but 11-150 don't fit in the same category. If you look back at the past rankings you will find a lot of NBA players in the top 50 and as you go up from 1-150 the players seem to have less ability. Just look back at the past rankings, it's amazing how good they really are at it. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole the basketball rating system is tons more accurate than football.

 

[nj829]

Was Wesley Johnson just the best player on crappy teams, or is he really better than the 2 star ranking he had?

 

[trajanJ]

Wesley is one of those exceptions but he still has a long ways to go if he wants to end up in the League. Here's an article I found on the net, "Wesley Johnson is a rarity in college basketball, a true under-the-radar guy who the recruiting gurus somehow missed. Rivals had Johnson ranked as only a 2-star coming out of high school, but Johnson decided to prep a year and wound up at the Patterson School in North Carolina, the school of former UK fan infatuation Marshall Mosess. From there, he finished out the 2006 season at Eldon Academy and ultimately wound up at ISU."
I think it's BS that he transfered when it was ISU's staff that discovered him.

 

[BryceC]

Was Wesley Johnson just the best player on crappy teams, or is he really better than the 2 star ranking he had?

He wasn't the best player either year. But he was on the Big 12 All freshman team if I remember correctly and there aren't a whole lot of guys that make that who are 2 star prospects.

 

[cycloneryan]

I would say Texas did pretty well for themselves.

 

[trajanJ]

Texas has benefitted the most from joining the Big 12. Actually all the Texas schools have benefitted in basketball from joining the Big 12, but for Texas it was a home run. Texas is and will continue to be a top basketball program, or sports program in general.

 

[cybsball20]

Texas has benefitted the most from joining the Big 12. Actually all the Texas schools have benefitted in basketball from joining the Big 12, but for Texas it was a home run. Texas is and will continue to be a top basketball program, or sports program in general.

The biggest impact might have been on Texas HS basketball as a whole. Before the Big XII, basketball wasn't that big of a sport in Texas high schools and good talent was very rare. I remember reading about the Fab Five and they were talking about Jackson and how rare it was to find a decent player in Texas, even in the bigger cities.

 

[mplscyclone]

There are some 4 and 5 star disappointments but there are very few 2 and 3 star guys that end up in the NBA. The rankings in basketball are pretty accurate. You will always see some exceptions, but they play against each other so much that the people doing the rankings have a pretty good idea how good these guys are. Sure the top 10 are special players but 11-150 don't fit in the same category. If you look back at the past rankings you will find a lot of NBA players in the top 50 and as you go up from 1-150 the players seem to have less ability. Just look back at the past rankings, it's amazing how good they really are at it. Yes there are exceptions but as a whole the basketball rating system is tons more accurate than football.

Answer me this then: How do teams like Gonzaga, George Mason, VCU get far in a NCAA tournament and teams like Texas always fizzle. You can't say their 1 year wonders because Gonzaga is a program now, and George Mason and VCU have done well for themselves on a yearly basis as well.

I have a couple of friends living in Texas for a while, and they are pretty critical of the coach. You can bring in great players but you still have to coach the team.

I guess I'm trying to be optomisitc that we can develop talent and compete in the conference. I realize we have to get good players, but ISU is a damn hard place to recruit to so we'll always be disadvantaged compared to a Kansas or a Texas, or most Big XII South schools.

It's funny because I get railed by many on here because I was dissapointed with our teams play this past weekend and for being negative. Now, I'm trying to be positive on the future and am getting railed for that.... lol

 

[trajanJ]

Gonzaga has lost first round in the last 2 years, Texas advanced to the Elite 8. Yes once in a while an unknown makes a run, but if you look at who makes the Final Four they are usually the better basketball programs. And if you look at who wins the tourney it's almost always a big basketball school. The midwest is a tough place to recruit to in general. Even KU had to agree to build a new practice facility next to Allen and re-do Allen with new offices and stuff for the athletes plus new living facilities in order to keep Self. Most of the players come from both coasts and that makes it tough for the midwest. But if you only need a few really good players in basketball and that gives everybody a better chance than football does.