Rivals Ranks MU's Recruiting Class #8

[jmayer1]

As has been talked about this is a heck of a class already; but if Buzz could add either Wilson, Snaer, or Murray that could vault this class into the top 5.  However, I believe Buzz will really show his recruiting merit the next year (2010 commits), when he doesn't have a ton of playing time available.

http://basketballrecruiting.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=842928

Also, it is nice to see who MU is just ahead of on this list.

[muhoosier260]

what have been other notable MU recruiting classes? anyone know how the wade or three amigo classes were "rated"?

[bma725]

Not sure about Rivals, but here's a look back at some of them based on HoopScoop's ranking:

2005:  #4.  McNeal and Jamil Lott were considered top 40 players, James and Matthews were top 70, Mortensen and Burke were top 300.

2000: #50.  Sanders was a top 40 player, Merritt top 100, Wade top 300, and Blankson was ranked outside the top 300 players.

The funny thing is, if you look at HoopScoop's rankings MU had a lot more highly rated players than you would think

2006:  Hayward top 40
2004:  Kinsella and Barro both top 40
2003:  Marcus Jackson top 40, Dameon Mason top 100
2002:  Steve Novak top 70, Karon Bradley top 100
2001:  Diener top 40, Ron Howard top 100.

[Pakuni]

Not sure about Rivals, but here's a look back at some of them based on HoopScoop's ranking:

2005:  #4.  McNeal and Jamil Lott were considered top 40 players, James and Matthews were top 70, Mortensen and Burke were top 300.

2000: #50.  Sanders was a top 40 player, Merritt top 100, Wade top 300, and Blankson was ranked outside the top 300 players.

The funny thing is, if you look at HoopScoop's rankings MU had a lot more highly rated players than you would think

2006:  Hayward top 40
2004:  Kinsella and Barro both top 40
2003:  Marcus Jackson top 40, Dameon Mason top 100
2002:  Steve Novak top 70, Karon Bradley top 100
2001:  Diener top 40, Ron Howard top 100.

You usually know your stuff, so I'm a bit hesitant to question, but who the heck considered Jamil Lott a top 40 player?

[lurch91]

I believe those are the rankings coming out of high school.  As we all know, some are on the money, and some are way off (DWade only Top 300? Merritt Top 100?  Seems that those would be reversed).

[bma725]

You usually know your stuff, so I'm a bit hesitant to question, but who the heck considered Jamil Lott a top 40 player?

Clark Francis of HoopScoop has a history of greatly over valuing JUCO players.  He's not the only one that has influence on their rankings, but for whatever reason they seem to value JUCO players very highly.  And lets remember, Lott was a very good JUCO player.  He led his team in scoring, he was a 2nd Team All-American, and his team won their region and made it all the way to the national tournament.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You usually know your stuff, so I'm a bit hesitant to question, but who the heck considered Jamil Lott a top 40 player?

Probably the same goofball that considered Krunti Hester top 100 for awhile.   

[MR.HAYWARD]

actually, if you look at the numbers a signing of snaer, wilson, or Murray probably puts us at #2. Sign 2 of the above 3 and we are not only 2 for sure but some could question whether we should be #1

[jmayer1]

actually, if you look at the numbers a signing of snaer, wilson, or Murray probably puts us at #2. Sign 2 of the above 3 and we are not only 2 for sure but some could question whether we should be #1

I thought MU was actually ranked a little low already.  If you add up the stars (giving anybody outside the top 150 just one star); MU had 13 stars compared to 11 for NC State, and 9 each for Louisville and Connecticut.  But, I'm not exactly sure how they devise their rankings. 

If MU signs any one of those guys they will have more combined stars than anybody but NC (22 stars) and if they sign Snaer (5*) and either Wilson (4*) or Murray (4*) they would be tied with NC.  Of course, doing it this way assumes all guys from 1 to 25, 26 - 99, 100 - 150, and 151+ are valued the same within the categories.

Of course, MU only has one spot open right now so signing two guys would mean overrecruiting, something many people railed on Crean for doing and which I am not a big fan of.

[MR.HAYWARD]

i agree on Mu being low, a few schools have fewr total recruits than Mu and the ones they have a re no higher rated.  By recall i think Louisville and someone else were significantly over rated.  must just come with the territory on loserville being overated.

[MR.HAYWARD]

i looked at it again and i cannot understand how some one could rationally put illinois or Nc state above us.  The top 2 recruits for the 3 schools are very close together then from there Mu has more and or better ranked players.  Unless they beleive buycks is sooo bad that he brings the entire class down...I cannot see that nor do i beleive it.

[bma725]

actually, if you look at the numbers a signing of snaer, wilson, or Murray probably puts us at #2. Sign 2 of the above 3 and we are not only 2 for sure but some could question whether we should be #1

FWIW, HoopScoop has MU as #2 right now.  It would still be #2 with either Snaer, Murray or Wilson.  It would need two of them to overtake UNC.

http://www.hoopscooponline.com/members/toprecruitingclasses-classof2009.asp

[jmayer1]

Louisville is 6 in rivals and 18 in hoopscoop, that is quite a variance. 

[MR.HAYWARD]

Mu is #5 in the Espn ranking with all the discussed schools above being lower than MU

[bamamarquettefan]

This is great - with the games in Raleigh and Nashville coming up to increase southern exposure, it looks like Buzz has mapped out his coaching staff with a gameplan to pull the best players from the entire country so he will have top recruiting classes every year.  With no one paying attention to DePaul any more, I think he will also always have a shot at any 5-stars coming out of Chicago too.