Just found this on ESPN:
@ReggieRankin Just spoke with Nike Team Florida PF Chris Bryant who is recovering well from surgery on his left eye
@ReggieRankin Bryant is looking forward to setting up visits soon and Likes
@ReggieRankin Alabama,TCU,UNC-Wilmington,Marquette and Florida State. Chris has great length and upside.
I thought we didn't recruit 3 star players anymore? Or so Canadian Dimes stated.
A three star could be a borderline 4 star or a borderline 2 star and there probably is a hugh difference.
Since it seems like we are going to strike out on the three remaining high profile recruits, my guess is that we will start to hear about a few other guys that Buzz is in on.
Some of these 3 stars guys, could be as good as 4 star guys, or may require a year or two to develop. The only difference between some 3 star and 4 star type of guys, in some cases, is a little more development. There is more risk, but I don't mind taking a big that projects to be a solid player in a couple of years. I also wouldn't mind one glue type of guy at the 2 or 3, especially if he can shoot it. Sprinkle in a glue guy and a developmental player once in a while, if by design or by default. This would be a good year to take a deveopmental player, by default, and then keep one open for the spring.
And, I am not really big on the number of stars, since the recruiting services are not exactly spot on. I'd trust Buzz's evaluations and knowing what he wants in a player more than the number of stars.
Ya, I'd rather have Hood commit. But if that isn't going to happen, we have a solid base and can afford a glue guy or a development type of player this year with one of the scholarships. If a guy has the size, hands, and is athletic enough... and if he has the desire, even if he is a 3 star, he may project as a solid player after a couple of years.
Quote from: GOO on October 26, 2010, 10:39:20 AM
Some of these 3 stars guys, could be as good as 4 star guys, or may require a year or two to develop. The only difference between some 3 star and 4 star type of guys, in some cases, is a little more development.
Exactly. It is so hard to ever crack the top100 rankings unless you are a really top level player as a freshman or sophomore at the latest. Some kids develop, grow, hit puberty at later stages and are forever behind the 8ball in recruiting services' eyes.
I just heard of this kid for the first time, but I like the looks of him. Seems like a good fit, and seems to be pretty solidly rated by all the services.
I don't mind three star players. Lets fill needs rather than the best best available player. An interior banger or a shooter would fill roles nicely on the next two teams. JUCO or 3-star, it does not matter. Just find some role players and move on to the 2012 class.
well said ...we have rebuilt from the debacle Buzz inherited and a Freshman is now not forced into action. If the kid is a three star but the coaches like his upside there is time for development.
Sounds like he was out with an eye injury too. God only knows how that may have hurt his ranking.. being looked at by some decent schools.
http://www.floridahoopsrecruits.com/chris-bryant-is-ready-to-emerge/
Jimmy Butler and DJO were both 2 star players coming out of high school.
Recruiting rankings are fun to talk about but they get it wrong on lots of kids every year.
That article is almost a year old. It would be nice to see how his junior year and summer AAU circuit went.
In buzz I trust etc. etc.
A shooter would be a really good get. Some low who can stroke it. With a team of athletes who can get to the hole a dead eye could thrive knocking down open threes a la left and bj for Jordan's bulls.
http://breakdownmagazine.com/discus/messages/11/2187.html?1285688441
http://www.sourcehoops.com/latestnews/2010/09/20/fall-showcase-recap-part-1.php
Quote from: bilsu on October 26, 2010, 10:25:12 AM
A three star could be a borderline 4 star or a borderline 2 star and there probably is a hugh difference.
I don't disagree with you at all. It was more of a bigger point to counter what Dimes and others stated that we wouldn't be going after 3 star kids anymore, which of course was a ridiculous comment to make in the first place.
Some people are so damn fixated on the number of stars next to their name....give me basketball players with high basketball IQ's that know how to play the game and are winners. If they are 5 hearts, great. If they are 3 hearts but have attributes that a 4 heart doesn't, then take the lowly 3 heart kid. I trust the coaches will select who they think has a ceiling to improve. Some of them they will strikeout on, that's the way it goes.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 26, 2010, 01:11:59 PM
I don't disagree with you at all. It was more of a bigger point to counter what Dimes and others stated that we wouldn't be going after 3 star kids anymore, which of course was a ridiculous comment to make in the first place.
Some people are so damn fixated on the number of stars next to their name....give me basketball players with high basketball IQ's that know how to play the game and are winners. If they are 5 hearts, great. If they are 3 hearts but have attributes that a 4 heart doesn't, then take the lowly 3 heart kid. I trust the coaches will select who they think has a ceiling to improve. Some of them they will strikeout on, that's the way it goes.
huh? hearts?
Quote from: TedBaxter on October 26, 2010, 12:23:45 PM
http://breakdownmagazine.com/discus/messages/11/2187.html?1285688441
I like the sound of this...
"His energy level was off the chart, sprinting the floor, grabbing rebounds, and throwing down dunks. He also displayed a decent handle in the open court during transition."
In general, why don't we save our collective boners for recruits who actually commit to MU.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 26, 2010, 01:35:46 PM
In general, why don't we save our collective boners for recruits who actually commit to MU.
I think future MU players would really appreciate if we kept our boners to ourselves.
Quote from: 4everwarriors on October 26, 2010, 01:35:46 PM
In general, why don't we save our collective boners for recruits who actually commit to MU.
That's like waiting til you're married to have sex...no thanks.
Besides, according to some we're never going to sign anybody else in this class...that's a long time to wait. ;D
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 26, 2010, 01:17:47 PM
huh? hearts?
LOL. I meant stars. Hearts is a scoring profile a vendor of ours uses and I must have had that on my mind.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 26, 2010, 04:08:53 PM
LOL. I meant stars. Hearts is a scoring profile a vendor of ours uses and I must have had that on my mind.
Is the vendor a woman?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 26, 2010, 10:01:11 AM
I thought we didn't recruit 3 star players anymore? Or so Canadian Dimes stated.
Three Stars have an express lane to Bloomington, IN
I really enjoyed reading ESPN's profile on Bryant. First, having him ranked as the #26 PF in the class with a grade of 92 indicates he's probably on the high side of the 3-star prospects. Sounds like he's a high-energy guy who is good both on the offensive and defensive end, but that what's holding him back is adding strength and size to improve in the low post. I imagine a year or two in the weight room would get him sorted out. They also list him at 6'8", and while it might be splitting hairs, I really see the difference between 6'7" and 6'8" as one of the differences usually between a potentially high-level small and power forward. Maybe it's just me, but I like that extra inch for the 4 position.
ESPN Chris Bryant Recruiting Profile (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102302/chris-bryant)
If we miss out on Hood, Faust, and Shaw, I think Bryant would be a really nice consolation prize.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 26, 2010, 01:45:30 PM
That's like waiting til you're married to have sex...no thanks.
And you call yourself a Catholic?
Quote from: SalsaMan on October 26, 2010, 05:11:10 PM
And you call yourself a Catholic?
No, I think he calls himself reasonable.
Quote from: SalsaMan on October 26, 2010, 05:11:10 PM
And you call yourself a Catholic?
Must ... resist ... priest .... remark.
Quote from: SalsaMan on October 26, 2010, 05:11:10 PM
And you call yourself a Catholic?
Didn't realize you had to be Catholic to go to MU...so no, I do not.
MU had a coach at one time who valued the role players and didn't want a roster full of "stars" - and he did OK.
Quote from: brewcity77 on October 26, 2010, 05:04:33 PM
ESPN Chris Bryant Recruiting Profile (http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102302/chris-bryant)
A 92 score is the same score Cadougan had and Juan Anderson has. It is higher than Reggie Smith at 90 and EWill's 91. EWill and Cadougan both made ESPNU 100, but Anderson and Bryant have not made the list with the same or higher scores.
He could be a "high" three star borderline four star if that is the case.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 27, 2010, 10:02:25 AM
A 92 score is the same score Cadougan had and Juan Anderson has. It is higher than Reggie Smith at 90 and EWill's 91. EWill and Cadougan both made ESPNU 100, but Anderson and Bryant have not made the list with the same or higher scores.
He could be a "high" three star borderline four star if that is the case.
This is why I leave recruiting sites quickly after I browse to them. It seems that they're mostly arbitrary BS. Too bad really. It's a market space that's really open right now. A good recruiting website would be gold in your front pocket.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 27, 2010, 10:02:25 AM
A 92 score is the same score Cadougan had and Juan Anderson has. It is higher than Reggie Smith at 90 and EWill's 91. EWill and Cadougan both made ESPNU 100, but Anderson and Bryant have not made the list with the same or higher scores.
He could be a "high" three star borderline four star if that is the case.
I would hold off on comparing the ESPN ratings between classes. They have changed the grading scale a couple of times over the last few years, and the numbers don't mean the same thing. If they were grading Anderson or Bryant on the same scale that they graded Junior, EWill or Reggie, those two guys would have significantly lower numbers.
Quote from: bma725 on October 27, 2010, 10:37:01 AM
I would hold off on comparing the ESPN ratings between classes. They have changed the grading scale a couple of times over the last few years, and the numbers don't mean the same thing. If they were grading Anderson or Bryant on the same scale that they graded Junior, EWill or Reggie, those two guys would have significantly lower numbers.
Can we get a bma rating grading scale on our recruits, former and possibilities? Clearly, you are the most knowledgeable when it come to this, and you are the man.
Of course, you would come under way too much scrunity and pissing when people think otherwise around here though.
You're our only hope, Obi-Wan.
Quote from: marqptm on October 27, 2010, 01:15:56 PM
Can we get a bma rating grading scale on our recruits, former and possibilities? Clearly, you are the most knowledgeable when it come to this, and you are the man.
Of course, you would come under way too much scrunity and pissing when people think otherwise around here though.
You're our only hope, Obi-Wan.
Although I agree BMA is insufferable with his constant "You're wrong, heres why" attitude, ESPN did change their grading scale this summer when they completely revamped their CBB recruiting section.
For comparison's sake, I would guess a 92 this year is about a 89 or 90 in years past (which is what Reggie was rated last year, somewhere in ESPN's 125-175 range)
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 27, 2010, 01:30:31 PM
Although I agree BMA is insufferable with his constant
How is it insufferable when BMA is always right?
I mean, it sucks when you're wrong, but deal with it.
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 27, 2010, 01:30:31 PM
Although I agree BMA is insufferable with his constant "You're wrong, heres why" attitude, ESPN did change their grading scale this summer when they completely revamped their CBB recruiting section.
For comparison's sake, I would guess a 92 this year is about a 89 or 90 in years past (which is what Reggie was rated last year, somewhere in ESPN's 125-175 range)
where did the OP say that he thought BMA was insufferable. That's all you.
ATL, I thought it was pretty clear from his post that marqptm is sick of BMA's attitude that I described in my post. He never specifically said the word insufferable, but it was clearly implied that hes sick of it.
And by the way skatastrophy, I didn't say anything that was wrong that BMA corrected me on. I actually defended BMA's point. And if you guys are going to pick apart my words, I never said it is insufferable that he is always right. In no way did I say that. At all. I said his attitude in doing nothing on this board but tell people they are wrong is tiresome.
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 27, 2010, 01:47:03 PM
And by the way skatastrophy, I didn't say anything that was wrong that BMA corrected me on. I actually defended BMA's point. And if you guys are going to pick apart my words, I never said it is insufferable that he is always right. In no way did I say that. At all. I said his attitude in doing nothing on this board but tell people they are wrong is tiresome.
Reading a bad attitude into BMA's recounting of facts is all in your head.
I've got nothing against you, I just disagree with you. Do you need me to put hearts and teddy bears after my responses to you so that you know we're still best friends?
Quote from: marqptm on October 27, 2010, 01:15:56 PM
Can we get a bma rating grading scale on our recruits, former and possibilities? Clearly, you are the most knowledgeable when it come to this, and you are the man.
Of course, you would come under way too much scrunity and pissing when people think otherwise around here though.
You're our only hope, Obi-Wan.
My gaydar scale has your post rated a 99.
MarkCharles, you're assuming that Marqptm was being sarcastic with his comments about BMA being the be all end all. Was that Marqptm's intent or did he mean it? Yes, everyone takes what BMA says as gospel and very rarely questions what he says. I don't think that's necessarily his fault as I don't read BMA's comments as being condescending at all or only telling people they're wrong. He frequently responds to posters asking for his input.
I'm one of those on this board who has no idea who BMA is. Maybe I missed that post. So I'm in no way saying this to kiss his a$$. But I'll keep reading BMA's comments and other poster's responses to determine if what he says pans out to be true. More often than not, if you check on what BMA has said, he's right about what happened or will happened.
The BMA post was in response to something I said and I didn't even think twice about it.
There are posters on here who seem to like trying to push other's buttons for some reason. They nitpick people's posts and add nothing to the conversation. There is a big difference between joking around and nitpicking what people say. The jokes and the ball-busting are a great thing about this board.
BMA never uselessly nitpicks when disagreeing, at least as far as I can recall. He just brings up counterpoints.
Being right means nothing to me, so I am happy to be corrected. Hopefully no one comes on here to try to prove something to anyone, but rather have fun discussing something that we all care about and find entertaining.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on October 27, 2010, 02:05:02 PM
Yes, everyone takes what BMA says as gospel and very rarely questions what he says. I don't think that's necessarily his fault as I don't read BMA's comments as being condescending at all or only telling people they're wrong. He frequently responds to posters asking for his input.
I'm one of those on this board who has no idea who BMA is. Maybe I missed that post. So I'm in no way saying this to kiss his a$$. But I'll keep reading BMA's comments and other poster's responses to determine if what he says pans out to be true. More often than not, if you check on what BMA has said, he's right about what happened or will happened.
If you have problems with bma's posts, you should seriously consider giving up Internet message boards for good.
Gotta love MUScoop!! Where we can pretty much bust balls, talk a little smack, compare points, diagree, argue..and for the most part not be censored.
Can someone please start a poll on BMA's intentions on Scoop? Are they to:
A) Inform
or
B) To be a know it all and correct people when they are wrong?
My vote?? A - I have no problem being corrected when my recollection/memory/knowledge base is off with regard to MU basketball history...so, I've become better informed as a result of BMA's out of this world knowledge base on MU basketball history.
BMA brings some of the best info to this board. BMA also brings almost the only inside info to this board with respect to recruiting. I wouldn't knock BMA He seems to know his stuff.
BMA is really trevor mbakwe.
Markcharles, ball's in your court on this one. Given that Marqptm didn't use teal in his "obi-wan" comments, he obviously agrees with the majority that BMA is the go to guy and not some insufferable guy with attitude as you make him out to be.
BMA - *Ching* (as in "money")
Mark Charles - not so much
How a that for poster rating?
Quote from: mu-rara on October 27, 2010, 03:16:04 PM
BMA - *Ching* (as in "money")
Mark Charles - not so much
How a that for poster rating?
That's interesting... It would be cool to have a "like" or "dislike" button next to comments and posters... it would show how reliable/interesting of info generally comes from individuals (having a high % of positive comments).
At one point, you could see how many people were ignoring a certain poster. That is usually a pretty good indication. I think they took that feature away earlier this year.
Quote from: Lighthouse 84 on October 27, 2010, 03:14:26 PM
Markcharles, ball's in your court on this one. Given that Marqptm didn't use teal in his "obi-wan" comments, he obviously agrees with the majority that BMA is the go to guy and not some insufferable guy with attitude as you make him out to be.
Tough for me not to see sarcasm here....
"Clearly, you are the most knowledgeable when it come to this, and you are the man.
You're our only hope, Obi-Wan."
If I am wrong, then I apologize, but not using teal is hardly conclusive.
I definitely appreciate BMA's info, which I have never questioned the validity of, and concede that it seems like he remembers MU basketball history like it just happened. He is certainly of value here, and boards like this need people who have their facts straight.
Maybe I am reading too much into his posts, and maybe this is because I haven't been here all that long, but I have rarely seen him say anything except to tell people they are wrong, usually with a hint of condescension. And its not usually people soliciting his knowledge as some are saying. Judging by the reaction to my comment, not many people share my view and I very well could be completely off base. If so, my bad.
I think you should defend your point or give a good reason against some else's point. Having a like or dislike button is an easy way out.
The more reasoning/information the better. I don't know if we want to promote arbitrary judging.
We don't want popularity contests. If there was a like or dislike button, I would also suggest the option to ignore it. I would ignore the like/dislike feature for sure.
I would like to state that I was not being sarcastic at all.
My recruiting information starts and ends with BMA, since I gave up my subscription to the Premium Board after I was banned from posting.
I was merely asking if BMA could take the 5 kids we were heavily involved in and say "He's the best, he's the worst, in my opinion."
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 27, 2010, 03:46:56 PM
And its not usually people soliciting his knowledge as some are saying. Judging by the reaction to my comment, not many people share my view and I very well could be completely off base. If so, my bad.
On multiple occassions in the past, when a thread has been about recruits, I have directly solicited BMA's opinion...
I live for posts from BMA, Mark Miller, and Ganzer. Otherwise, (including my posts) its all pretty "blah, blah, blah".
Sometimes the blah, blah can be pretty funny, so its worth reading, but I hang my hat on the stuff from the 3 I mentioned.
MU-blah,blah
Quote from: marqptm on October 28, 2010, 09:47:58 AM
since I gave up my subscription to the Premium Board after I was banned from posting.
No that's funny. We'll still let you pay and read, but you're not allowed to post anymore.
Who on here isn't banned from posting on the other board?
Quote from: marqptm on October 28, 2010, 09:47:58 AM
I would like to state that I was not being sarcastic at all.
My recruiting information starts and ends with BMA, since I gave up my subscription to the Premium Board after I was banned from posting.
I was merely asking if BMA could take the 5 kids we were heavily involved in and say "He's the best, he's the worst, in my opinion."
Many within the program truly believe that Juan Anderson was the best out of Faust and Harrison. Hood shoots it better than Anderson, but Anderson has Hood on many of the intangibles/fundamental aspects of the game. You could perhaps rank the guys as far as staff preference: Hood and Anderson, 1 and 1a. Faust and Harrison 2 and 2a. Shaw is in his own category.
Quote from: Ners on October 28, 2010, 12:19:30 PM
Many within the program truly believe that Juan Anderson was the best out of Faust and Harrison. Hood shoots it better than Anderson, but Anderson has Hood on many of the intangibles/fundamental aspects of the game. You could perhaps rank the guys as far as staff preference: Hood and Anderson, 1 and 1a. Faust and Harrison 2 and 2a. Shaw is in his own category.
I have to ask: what is the source of this comment? My guess is simply because Anderson is the one who chose MU (whereas the others didn't), that's why he'd be placed higher.
If we're ranking, MU's top five targets this season were Dawson, Shaw, Faust, Hood, and Harrison.
That's the first I've heard of that, as well. Sounds like a rationalization.
Quote from: rocky_warrior on October 28, 2010, 11:47:33 AM
No that's funny. We'll still let you pay and read, but you're not allowed to post anymore.
Exactly. Why was I banned? For starting a NASCAR thread.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 28, 2010, 12:26:48 PM
I have to ask: what is the source of this comment? My guess is simply because Anderson is the one who chose MU (whereas the others didn't), that's why he'd be placed higher.
If we're ranking, MU's top five targets this season were Dawson, Shaw, Faust, Hood, and Harrison.
A very credible source. The reality is that Anderson performed extremely well against current MU players on his visit and it gave pause to the notion than Faust or Harrison were better players. The staff wanted Hood, and that's why I called him 1a..out of the Faust, Harrison and Anderson. Dawson and Shaw could be viewed as "similar" players, though Jamil Wilson is pretty much a Dawson type of player, with possibly more upside/athleticism. I'm not saying the staff wouldn't have welcomed commits from Faust, Harrison, or Dawson...but Anderson was a revelation once he got on campus and competed with the guys on the current team.
Ners gets all of his info from the Premium Board.
Quote from: Ners on October 28, 2010, 01:01:27 PM
A very credible source. The reality is that Anderson performed extremely well against current MU players on his visit and it gave pause to the notion than Faust or Harrison were better players. The staff wanted Hood, and that's why I called him 1a..out of the Faust, Harrison and Anderson. Dawson and Shaw could be viewed as "similar" players, though Jamil Wilson is pretty much a Dawson type of player, with possibly more upside/athleticism. I'm not saying the staff wouldn't have welcomed commits from Faust, Harrison, or Dawson...but Anderson was a revelation once he got on campus and competed with the guys on the current team.
Sounds a lot like the guy who wanted us is better then the guys who didn't want us.
No denying Anderson played well on his visit. Lots of recruits do that. But it means squat when comparing the players. Faust and Harrison are elite national prospects. They were wanted badly.
I don't see Dawson and Shaw as similar players. One is a 6'5'' rebounding banger who's game stops at the mid-range. The other one is a 6'8'' athlete who will drift outside and likely play the 3. Also, I don't think Wilson is pretty much a Dawson type player as that's not his game at all. He's more similar to Shaw but not the same.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 28, 2010, 03:40:08 PM
No denying Anderson played well on his visit. Lots of recruits do that. But it means squat when comparing the players. Faust and Harrison are elite national prospects. They were wanted badly.
One possible reassurance is bearing in mind that Buzz has done a good job of casting a wide net. Georgia, Florida, Wisconsin, California, North Carolina, Texas, high school, junior college, high-major D1 transfer, he is scouring everywhere to find players. However, many of the recruiting services do not cast as wide a net when they rate players. Faust is an East Coast player, and Texas is very well-scouted when it comes to high school athletes. It's entirely possible that had Anderson played on the East Coast or in another higher-profile location that he would be seen universally as a four-star, possibly regarded as a top-30 or top-40 player instead of a top-80 or so where he seems to be slotted. He might be just as badly wanted if that were the case.
And of course, our two best players are DJO and Butler, neither of whom were rated that highly coming out of high school but would likely walk in and be able to earn a starting spot on most any team in the country.
Quote from: marqptm on October 28, 2010, 12:42:47 PM
Exactly. Why was I banned? For starting a NASCAR thread.
Hell, not only would I have banned you for that, I would have found you and beat you with a stick.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 28, 2010, 04:44:00 PM
Hell, not only would I have banned you for that, I would have found you and beat you with a stick.
I was proving a point!
Quote from: marqptm on October 28, 2010, 06:09:43 PM
I was proving a point!
What the crap was your point? Turning left for 3 hours is a sport??
Quote from: reinko on October 28, 2010, 07:19:59 PM
What the crap was your point? Turning left for 3 hours is a sport??
John Dodds is a nazi.
PTM made a post that was off-topic but labeled OT. I forgot what it was, but it wasn't anything that further off topic than other OT threads on the board.
Dodds deleted the thread so PTM went as far off-topic as he could: NASCAR.
I heard from a very good source that BMA was more respected within the program than Anderson, Hood, Shaw or Faust.
Not sure who bma is but he has high credibility and seems to know the inner workings at MU BB. Who is that masked man?