Posted by billyho1515 on 7/6/2011 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Well if he doesn't have high potential and has low ratings to begin with.... why is he ranked in the first place?

I understand low starts but high potentials. I also understand high starts but low potentials. But low and low?

What was his rating when he was recruited? I bet it's near 500. 

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/6/2011 2:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by isack24 on 7/6/2011 2:00:00 PM (view original):
"I don't understand why you would choose to do scouting trips over scouting the state. Scouting the state, you get all the information on the recruit (except if he's high-high) and information on ALL other recruits in the state. I have only signed 1 ranked player in D2 so far and I have to say, being ranked doesn't mean the player is good."

Because he wouldn't have had enough money to pull the kid down if he had done that.  SO he could have known the kid was good, but couldn't have recruited him.

Frankly, I'm not really buying that you pulled down a 150-ranked kid with a mid-level D2 school, but maybe they changed the range again. 

And, I totally disagree that a highly-ranked (not really that high, by the way, in the grand scheme of things) kid should have great potential.  Kids ranked a lot higher than that bust all the time in real life.

He claims he pulled him down with 8 scouting reports. Something doesn't add up but w/e. If he chooses to recruit a player w/o knowing his potential, that's his fault. 

Yeah, I agree that something doesn't add up.  But if he did, then what he is saying makes sense.  But I have two A+ D2 schools and I haven't been able to pull down a 150-ranked player with less than ten evals in a while.  So yeah, I'm not totally buying the story.

Posted by tianyi7886 on 7/6/2011 2:09:00 PM (view original):

Posted by billyho1515 on 7/6/2011 2:04:00 PM (view original):
Well if he doesn't have high potential and has low ratings to begin with.... why is he ranked in the first place?

I understand low starts but high potentials. I also understand high starts but low potentials. But low and low?

What was his rating when he was recruited? I bet it's near 500. 

My guess is somewhere around there. He obviously hasn't improved very much as he has played next to none, his potentials were low in all the wrong places and his WE has gone down.

I actually still have the email from the "Player thoughts...." email as a freshman.

athleticism: limited upside
speed: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
shot blocking: limited upside
low post moves: limited upside
perimeter shooting: limited upside
ball handling: limited upside
passing: limited upside
stamina: limited upside
ft shooting: big upside


I still have the emails from evaluation notes and was able to see the following......

Defense x4
FT x6
Rebounding x3
Stamina x4
Passing x3
Athlete x4
Student x3
Blocking x3
Low Post x2


No speed, no perimeter, no ball handling in 8 scouting trips.

So what I knew was this.... he was a DI scouted SG that was ranked #158 (or close), had high potential defense, high potential free throw and while his passing was low, it would still be in the 70s, which is doable at DII.

Posted by billyho1515 on 7/6/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
I actually still have the email from the "Player thoughts...." email as a freshman.

athleticism: limited upside
speed: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
shot blocking: limited upside
low post moves: limited upside
perimeter shooting: limited upside
ball handling: limited upside
passing: limited upside
stamina: limited upside
ft shooting: big upside


I still have the emails from evaluation notes and was able to see the following......

Defense x4
FT x6
Rebounding x3
Stamina x4
Passing x3
Athlete x4
Student x3
Blocking x3
Low Post x2


No speed, no perimeter, no ball handling in 8 scouting trips.

So what I knew was this.... he was a DI scouted SG that was ranked #158 (or close), had high potential defense, high potential free throw and while his passing was low, it would still be in the 70s, which is doable at DII.

Rank is based on weight initial rating. A player rated 600 could be low across the board and still be rated at #80 at his position. You knew he was  pretty much low across the board (except for 3 categories) and chose to recruit him anyway. This is just poor recruiting. 

Once again, no one seems to care about the problems with the system, just want to be the ones to say "I told you so!"

I think those of us enjoying DII need to consider that a change has been made in recruits.  The days of finding the PG that has potential for 90+ speed, BH, and passing with solid defense and perimeter are past.  It's rare to find those guys now and most of the time DI schools are digging deeper to find them even if they aren't ranked.  We have to deal with a few more warts at DII or stop focusing so much on pulldowns. 

I don't necessarily like the changes (I had grown accustomed to a certain level of player and had a good notion of what I could get in pulldown/dropdown territory), but I think they are generally better for the game.  There should be a difference between a DI, DII, and DIII PG.  In the past, some DII backcourts were superior to the majority of DI teams (minus the big boys).

As to your particular issue, you rolled the dice on a player you didn't have all the info on.  It sucks.  There should be a change in the eval process.  But you can't be too angry that his potential is bad.  You didn't have to recruit him.  I've been on the other side of that where I didn't have the cash to scout the player or state and still get the recruit.  Took the chance and got lucky that he was playable (avg to high potential in crucial areas).

Posted by billyho1515 on 7/6/2011 3:56:00 PM (view original):
I actually still have the email from the "Player thoughts...." email as a freshman.

athleticism: limited upside
speed: limited upside
rebounding: limited upside
defensive fundamentals: big upside
shot blocking: limited upside
low post moves: limited upside
perimeter shooting: limited upside
ball handling: limited upside
passing: limited upside
stamina: limited upside
ft shooting: big upside


I still have the emails from evaluation notes and was able to see the following......

Defense x4
FT x6
Rebounding x3
Stamina x4
Passing x3
Athlete x4
Student x3
Blocking x3
Low Post x2


No speed, no perimeter, no ball handling in 8 scouting trips.

So what I knew was this.... he was a DI scouted SG that was ranked #158 (or close), had high potential defense, high potential free throw and while his passing was low, it would still be in the 70s, which is doable at DII.

  Wouldn't you have also known that he had low potential in six categories?

I think everyone is acknowledging that there is a problem with the system.  It's been talked about ad nauseam.  I think the problem is that you're using your failed recruiting as an example of this.  You took a chance (one with really low odds given the circumstances), and lost.  

We can acknowledge the main problem and still point out what you did wrong at the same time.

I'm just an up and coming coach, I'd give myself a good to pretty decent, rating but not Veteran or Hall of Famer status just yet, but even from my linited experience, (I only have one team and 17 seasons with them worth of experience in D111 & D11) you're missing 2 KEY Elements that I've figured out without ever doing FSS. All I've ever done is the asst. coach scouting trip because I've always been in a conference that's OK, but not great (as in 2 NT teams/2nd round and 2 PIT teams/2nd round per season average and with that you don't get alot of recruiting money).

1. I've never done more than 2 scouting trips per player (money issue again) and the way I've always have taken it is, if the asst coach doesn't mention it, he sucks in that catergory, and with 8 scouting trips you should have known better. Hell, even with the money I would have had some kind of idea after 4 trips, but 8.

2. After 8 trips and to not get info in CORE areas, you should have known better.

3. Ranked Players are where they start, not where they finish. It ranks their abilities now. That's why you need the FSS.

4. To answer that other guy, I pulled the 150th something PG a few seasons ago with only a B or B+ Prestige. It was day 3 of the recruiting cycle, all the guys I was going after had already signed with a better D11 or D1 team, or were considering one or two other teams, so for the hell of it I went back into the D1 list found a guy everyone had forgotten about, passed over, or had fallen through the cracks, went after him and got him. Than to put the cherry on the sundea, I Redshirted him and he took it with no loss in WE.

5. The one thing I do agree with though is your point on the 8 trips. After that many trips you should have known everything including which way his "junk" hanged. That  is the one thing I do think Seble and the WIS guru's should look into.

For the record, I don't think billy's trying to make any points regarding how smart/dumb he was to sign the kid.  His only argument is that after paying for 8 trips for his asst. coach to go watch a guard play, he should know how he dribbles.  That's all.

My first reaction is: hell yeah.  It's ridiculous you can't get that information after that many trips.

But my second reaction is a more metaphysical question: how does a person judge potential?  Is it possible from watching a kid in several game situations to know that he *could* one day be a 20% better dribbler?  Maybe in this particular kid's case, the only way to know is to get him on the court, at your school, and work closely with him for a couple weeks before determining how much he can improve?  Maybe he had obvious technical flaws in his free throw shot and his defense, but watching him dribble, it was just too hard to tell?  

My third reaction is that none of the above ever actually went through anyone at WIS's head at all.

My fourth reaction is: hell yeah.  It's ridiculous you can't get that information after that many trips.

Posted by jeffdrayer on 7/7/2011 2:12:00 AM (view original):
For the record, I don't think billy's trying to make any points regarding how smart/dumb he was to sign the kid.  His only argument is that after paying for 8 trips for his asst. coach to go watch a guard play, he should know how he dribbles.  That's all.

My first reaction is: hell yeah.  It's ridiculous you can't get that information after that many trips.

But my second reaction is a more metaphysical question: how does a person judge potential?  Is it possible from watching a kid in several game situations to know that he *could* one day be a 20% better dribbler?  Maybe in this particular kid's case, the only way to know is to get him on the court, at your school, and work closely with him for a couple weeks before determining how much he can improve?  Maybe he had obvious technical flaws in his free throw shot and his defense, but watching him dribble, it was just too hard to tell?  

My third reaction is that none of the above ever actually went through anyone at WIS's head at all.

My fourth reaction is: hell yeah.  It's ridiculous you can't get that information after that many trips.

I disagree with the first sentence.  Would he have made this post if the player had turned out to be high/high in all of those categories?  Doubtful.  So the question becomes what initiated the post?  The answer is that he's ****** both because the guy sucks and because of the process.

So I think it's fair to comment on everything involved, from the stupidity of the process to recruiting the actual player.

@ OP, I have made similar mistakes in recruiting early in my career. In my experience, I think this particular issue has been thoroughly debated and pointed out several times. In other words, the techs already know it exists and have chosen to leave it as is at least for now. My advice is simply this: Forget about the past and in the future Improvise, Adapt and Overcome. Good luck in the future.