Number 3 class for 2015, according to ESPN

[JoeSmith1721]

http://insider.espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/classrankings/_/class/2015/date/20141009

Granted it's going to change but still awesome to see!

[Groin_pull]

Agree. MU will slide a bit, but should still stay in the top 10 when it's all over.

Congrats to Wojo and MU.

[BrewCity83]

Maybe slide, maybe rise.  With Gabe Levin gone, there's room for another...

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

Agree. MU will slide a bit, but should still stay in the top 10 when it's all over.

Congrats to Wojo and MU.

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44817.0

At this point, we are projecting to have the number 11 class. Of course a lot of pieces need to fall into place before that happens. I will also say that this model discriminates against large classes of similarly ranked recruits IMHO. Everytime you add a recruit to a class, it drops the value of every recruit ranked below the added player. The assumption is that if you have higher ranked players, they will take time away from the lower ranked players making them use valuable to your class.

For example, right now, Marquette has a four man recruiting class:
Ellenson (.9958 rating)
Cheatham (.9723)
Noskowiak (.9677)
Heldt (.9425)

Because Ellenson is the highest ranked player he adds 29.58 points of value to the class. Haanif as the second best adds 16.52. Noskowiak, who's only a few slots below Haanif only adds 3.62. And Heldt, who is only a dozen slots below Noskowiak adds .27. If you add Davon Dillard (who I think is the last piece of this puzzle) he gives you .01 points of value.

Because our 2-4 (and maybe 5) are so close together in rank, the model puts us at a disadvantage. So I think we may be better than 11th.

[Dawson Rental]

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44817.0

At this point, we are projecting to have the number 11 class. Of course a lot of pieces need to fall into place before that happens. I will also say that this model discriminates against large classes of similarly ranked recruits IMHO. Everytime you add a recruit to a class, it drops the value of every recruit ranked below the added player. The assumption is that if you have higher ranked players, they will take time away from the lower ranked players making them use valuable to your class.

For example, right now, Marquette has a four man recruiting class:
Ellenson (.9958 rating)
Cheatham (.9723)
Noskowiak (.9677)
Heldt (.9425)

Because Ellenson is the highest ranked player he adds 29.58 points of value to the class. Haanif as the second best adds 16.52. Noskowiak, who's only a few slots below Haanif only adds 3.62. And Heldt, who is only a dozen slots below Noskowiak adds .27. If you add Davon Dillard (who I think is the last piece of this puzzle) he gives you .01 points of value.

Because our 2-4 (and maybe 5) are so close together in rank, the model puts us at a disadvantage. So I think we may be better than 11th.

So, what you're saying is that Noskowiak should start ahead of Heldt at center.



I've stopped taking chances with not using teal, someone won't get it.

[Silkk the Shaka]

http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=44817.0

At this point, we are projecting to have the number 11 class. Of course a lot of pieces need to fall into place before that happens. I will also say that this model discriminates against large classes of similarly ranked recruits IMHO. Everytime you add a recruit to a class, it drops the value of every recruit ranked below the added player. The assumption is that if you have higher ranked players, they will take time away from the lower ranked players making them use valuable to your class.

For example, right now, Marquette has a four man recruiting class:
Ellenson (.9958 rating)
Cheatham (.9723)
Noskowiak (.9677)
Heldt (.9425)

Because Ellenson is the highest ranked player he adds 29.58 points of value to the class. Haanif as the second best adds 16.52. Noskowiak, who's only a few slots below Haanif only adds 3.62. And Heldt, who is only a dozen slots below Noskowiak adds .27. If you add Davon Dillard (who I think is the last piece of this puzzle) he gives you .01 points of value.

Because our 2-4 (and maybe 5) are so close together in rank, the model puts us at a disadvantage. So I think we may be better than 11th.

Final RSCI class rankings will likely be more favorable to our class, I don't think they punish volume.

Regardless, I still can't believe this is real. Massive day in program history.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Remember when one service gave us the #1 class not that long ago?

Let's see how they play on the court gents.

[wadesworld]

Remember when one service gave us the #1 class not that long ago?

Let's see how they play on the court gents.

Just because your guy Tommy Crean can't get highly ranked recruiting classes to perform well on the court doesn't mean no coached can. But you're right, let's not celebrate 3 top 100 players plus a top 5 recruit in 1 recruiting class.

[Wojo'sMojo]

Remember when one service gave us the #1 class not that long ago?

Let's see how they play on the court gents.

What recruiting class was that?

[ChicosBailBonds]

Just because your guy Tommy Crean can't get highly ranked recruiting classes to perform well on the court doesn't mean no coached can. But you're right, let's not celebrate 3 top 100 players plus a top 5 recruit in 1 recruiting class.

We can celebrate all we want.  Free country.  Have no idea why you brought up any particular coach....I could easily have said UCLA's #1 classes 4 straight years under Steve Lavin, or Kentucky's #1 class that got them to the NIT, etc.  My point was correct, let's see how they play.

I'm sorry some of you are upset with that rationale, but at the end of the day let's see how they play on the court before scheduling your walk down Wisconsin Ave to the lake.  To each their own. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

What recruiting class was that?

Buzz's 2009 class

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/recruiting/2009/07/06/marquette-tops-hoop-scoop-rankings/

Don't tell Wade's World it was Buzz's class, it ruins his agenda against the other coach.  At any rate, one service had MU at #1....linked above.

[🏀]

Buzz's 2009 class

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/recruiting/2009/07/06/marquette-tops-hoop-scoop-rankings/

Don't tell Wade's World it was Buzz's class, it ruins his agenda against the other coach.  At any rate, one service had MU at #1....linked above.

Holy crapvags, Francis was way off, per usual.

[Wojo'sMojo]

Buzz's 2009 class

http://blogs.courier-journal.com/recruiting/2009/07/06/marquette-tops-hoop-scoop-rankings/

Don't tell Wade's World it was Buzz's class, it ruins his agenda against the other coach.  At any rate, one service had MU at #1....linked above.

Wow, they had our class rated ahead of Kentuckys lol. They had John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, and Eric Bledsoe headlining that class.

[Lennys Tap]

Wow, they had our class rated ahead of Kentuckys lol. They had John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, and Eric Bledsoe headlining that class.

They used a horribly flawed method which rewarded quantity over quality.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow, they had our class rated ahead of Kentuckys lol. They had John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, and Eric Bledsoe headlining that class.

Qty was part of their equation, they also rate JUCOs and prep players, which other services don't always do.  Point is, ratings systems are fun for fans, but plenty of poor results of kids or overall classes by program.  Put stock in them at your own risk.  Ask any UCLA fan of Lavin's 4 straight #1 classes for a primer.

[River rat]

Well we did go to the elite 8 in Juniors senior year

[Silkk the Shaka]

Well we did go to the elite 8 in Juniors senior year

And the S16 twice before that. Never mind the actual results.