Yes, this is exactly how composite rankings work. Especially when you consider that he’s two spots out of four star range on Rivals and nine spots out of four-star range on 247, it makes sense that Livers would be a relatively low four star on the composite rankings.
It is funny that somehow the most vocal anti-JB people on here have now become anti-rankings proponents, as it used to be quite the opposite.
You have to be kidding me, seriously. As someone that isn’t privy to recruiting evaluators/services though, I understand your lack of knowledge. Cory Evans (Hoopseen) is BY FAR the most respected evaluator out there by college coaches, and it isn’t even close. He attends more events and scouts more players than ESPN, Rivals, Scout, 247 combined. And that is no exaggeration. He’s literally at EVERY event, and coaches overtly seek him out frequently.
What is severely flawed is your lack of knowledge on pretty much anything recruiting related to be perfectly blunt. I’m not advocating for any one player here (Hardy, Brooks, etc.), I’m simply saying the 247 composite is SEVERELY flawed, which it is. The truth is, a true composite rankings has Brooks and Hardy more or less equals in terms of ranking.
No, that isn’t how a true composite ranking works. You don’t compose a composite ranking by omitting 2 mainstream services and somehow purport that to be accurate. The troublesome thing is that folks like you actually accept it. How does that make sense in any loose definition of the word?
Don’t know if you’re referencing me, but I’ve NEVER been an advocate of rankings. I’ve always said film and live evaluation are the most important tools in terms of getting a feel for a player.
Why do you think that 247 omits those two services? I’m legitimately curious, because I would also prefer that “composite” rankings encompassed as many resources as possible.
That’s the million dollar question…have no idea. I do know that it makes the 247 composite a complete joke.
If you’re not an advocate of rankings, then why are you making such a big deal about rankings and advocating certain rankings services over others. To be perfectly blunt, it makes no sense.
My ENTIRE point was to essentially point out to those people (John Miller in particular) that rankings without live/film evaluation are pointless, because they change so often and are so fluid that its pointless to proclaim ‘we need legit talent’ based on rankings, which is exactly what he does. Hence my initial post being sarcastic, inquiring whether Hardy is better than Brooks because of ranking. If Hardy were a 5 star, John Miller would love him lol
I like Hardy more, but the difference is marginal, and both guys are relatively equal in my opinion in terms of overall value on the court.
Most people don’t have time to pour over hours of film of each prospect to come up with an evaluation. That’s where rankings and offer lists are instructive.
No one on here has ever claimed that rankings are infallible. A rankings aggregator is just another source. And since the rankings aggregator combines the rankings of the 4 most popular ranking organizations, it is useful. Like all rankings systems, it has certain flaws and needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I don’t think rankings are the final deciding factor. If they are, our team could be in trouble in future years. I use rankings to an extent, mainly the players that I haven’t seen play in person. To only use rankings is pretty foolish. It’s also very foolish to bash the rankings you don’t agree with only because they don’t feel Jamal Cain is the next Lebron James. Your evaluation of players is not valued at all due to you worshiping Cain on a daily basis. It’s not worth arguing about. No one only looks at rankings. Bashing ranking services shouldn’t happen though, everyone has their opinion.
I don’t bash internal rankings at all, I simply bash the 247 composite as opposed to the 247 internal rankings. All rankings are subjective, and none 100% accurate, so heavily criticizing any internal ranking is pointless. But for an internal site to proclaim a ‘composite’ ranking based on only 4 services is foolish at best.
In terms of my own evaluations, they are VERY valued (by pretty much everyone but you), which is why college coaches compensate me for such things.
I did not bring up Jamal Cain, but since you did. How’s this:
ESPN - NR
247 - #163
Scout - #138
Future 150 - #93
Rivals - #74
Hoopseen - #65
And since my evaluations are not valued at all, Let’s take a look at my history, much of which you have disagreed with in terms of my evaluations. Players that I first brought to the board
Zak Irvin (2013) - said he was WAY overrated as a 5star by Rivals and Scout was correct in having him 60ish: EVERYONE in the world other than you agrees with this
DJ Wilson (2014) - ahhh…who can forget the origin of some folks hating me lol. Said he was WAY overrated at #67 by Rivals; and that ESPN was the most accurate of the services who had him as a generic 3 star at the time…safe to say I was probably right on that one
Damien Jefferson (2016) - was unranked at the time I brought him up and said he was a top 100-150 type; finished his senior year in a few top 150 lists
Devon Daniels (2016) - was unranked at the time I brought him up and said he was a top 100-150 type; finished his senior year in a few top 150 lists
Isaiah Livers (2017 - how ironic) - was unranked by all services other than Rivals when I brought him up, said he was a 100-125 type and that is almost spot on by most services other than ESPN
Jamal Cain (2017) - was unranked by every service at the time I brought him, said he was definitely a top 100 type; now sits at a 65-160 on every site save ESPN
Darius Bazley (2018) - was unranked by every service at the time I brought him up to the board, said he was borderline elite; now top 80 on every site, with some sites top 40
Trevion Williams (2018) was unranked by every service at the time I brought him up to the board; said he was top 100 type talent; now top 100 on most sites
My track record looks pretty credible to me. How’s your resume looking these days?
I’m not quite as much of a recruiting junkie as some, but here I am on a Michigan hoops board and I never hear about either of those sites except from you about your favorite guys. For a sanity check, the RSCI includes the list of 25 “experts” – and not the ones you mentioned. Leaving out those particular two is not a disqualifying characteristic.
Also, are you really going to start with the “I’m such a great evaluator” deal again? Is work that slow?
It is a disqualifying characteristic in my opinion, especially when we can all admit that rankings are subjective. To limit it to only 4 of the 6 services is just silly.
I’m not the one questioning evaluation competency. I’m simply responding to such critique, which is a bit foolish in my opinion considering the source.
“Composite” simply means that something is made up of various parts. Nowhere in the definition of composite (or in 247’s description of its system) does it state that is must include every available element.
So to say that an internal site can’t claim composite rankings based off of 4 sites evidences a complete misunderstanding of the word composite.
Yay! Another argument about rankings…
Well, let me ask you, in the ordinary, every day sense of the word - would you generally think composite would include more or less internal rankings?
There are 4 mainstream sites and the composite includes all of those rankings. It definitely fits the definition of composite.
I feel like you’re confusing composite and comprehensive. Composite decking material, for instance, is made of wood fibers and plastic. 2 materials. No one disputes that it is a composite.
Whether or not the 247 composite could be more comprehensive is another story.
You said it doesn’t make sense how a guy could be ranked as a four star on a composite when three out of four sites had him as a three star. But that’s just basic math bud. You said a composite rankings system is broken because it doesn’t include your favorites. But 247 is very up front about what it’s doing, weighing what it considers to be the four major rankings, essentially the undisputed three most known ones and itself. No need to get all worked up.
For me, it’s not about rankings of individual players, its about the fact that a ‘composite’ ranking isn’t really a composite at all. Arguing about rankings of individual players is basically pointless because 1) its very subjective and 2) no site save Hoopseen has evaluated even HALF the players in their database live
No, there are not 4 mainstream sites, there are 6.
I really don’t have a favorite to be honest, I’m just telling you that its a VERY flawed metric to rely on.