Big 10 Talent

[big red22]

I am posting this in reference to what 49'r posted on page 21 of the Starting 5 thread

 

Interesting enough according to the recruiting site ratings we do have Top 3 talent in the Big 10... if we were to go by recruit rankings that is on a current roster.

 

I am going to list all the schools players that are on their current roster that were ranked in the Top 150 or better...

 

*** NOTE: No player is listed if they were not rated in the Top 150 of a recruiting site ***

 

*** NOTE 2: This is based on active rosters so I used direct sources from the schools website to see who is still currently playing and matched it to Rivals recruit lists.  Also I included transfers that were highly rated like Copeland (NU), Doorson (Rutgers) or Matthews (Michigan). You will not see any irrelevant 5* or 4* recruits that are no longer on the team... Enjoy ***

 

Top 150 = 1pts

Top 100 = 2pts

Top 50 = 3pts

Top 25 = 4pts

Top 10 = 5pts

 

Illinois = 12pts

 

Leron Black = Top 50

Aaron Jordan = Top 100

Tejon Lucas = Top 150

Mark Smith = Top 100

Trent Frazier = Top 100

De'monte Williams = Top 100

 

Indiana = 11pts

 

Clifton Moore = Top 150

Justin smith = Top 150

De'Ron Davis = Top 50

Curtis Jones = Top 100

Robert Johnson = Top 50

Juwan Morgan = Top 150

 

Iowa = 5pts

 

Tyler Cook = Top 100

Luke Garza = Top 150

Conner McCaffery = Top 100

 

Maryland = 15pts

 

Dion Wiley = Top 100

Michal Cekovinski = Top 150

Jared Nickens = Top 150

Kevin Heurter = Top 100

Anthony Cowan = Top 50

Justin Jackson = Top 100

Daryll Marcell = Top 100

Bruno Fernando = Top 100

 

 

Michigan = 10pts

 

Moritz Wagner = Top 100

Jon Teske = Top 150

Xavier Simpson = Top 100

Isaiah Livers = Top 150

Jordan Brooks = Top 150

Charles Matthews = Top 50

 

Michigan State = 26pts

 

Tum Tum Naird = Top 100

Matt McQuaid = Top 100

Myles Bridges = Top 10

Winston Cassius = Top 50

Joshua Langford = Top 25

Nick Ward = Top 50

Jaren Jackson = Top 10

Xavier Tillman = Top 100

 

Minnesota = 8pts

 

Amir Coffee = Top 100

Dupree McBrayer = Top 150

Jordan Murphy = Top 150

Eric Curry = Top 150

Isaiah Washington = Top 100

Matz Stocksman = Top 150

 

Nebraska = 15pts

 

Glynn Watson = Top 100

James Palmer = Top 100

Isaiah Roby = Top 150

Isaac Copeland = Top 25

Anton Gill = Top 50

Thomas Allen = Top 150

Nana Akenten = Top 150

Jordy Tshimanga = Top 150

 

Northwestern = 7pts

 

Vic Law = Top 100

Aaron Falzon = Top 100

Barret Benson = Top 150

Rapolas Ivanaukas = Top 100

 

Ohio State = 11pts

 

Jae'Sean Tate = Top 100

Keita Bates'Diop = Top 50

Musa Jallow = Top 150

Kyle Young = Top 150

Kaleb Wesson = Top 100

Kam Williams = Top 100

 

Penn State = 7pts

 

Lamar Stephens = Top 100

Tony Carr = Top 50

Josh Reaves = Top 150

Mike Watkins = Top 150

 

Purdue = 9pts

 

Isaac Hass = Top 100

Vince Edwards = Top 150

Dakota Mathias = Top 150

Ryan Cline = Top 150

Carson Edwards = Top 100

Nojel Eastern = Top 100

 

Rutgers = 6pts

 

Da'Shawn Freeman = Top 100

Corey Sanders = Top 100

Mamadou Doucoure = Top 150

Shaquille Doorson = Top 150

 

Wisconsin = 8pts

 

Brad Davidson = Top 100

Nathan Reuvers = Top 100

Alex Illikainen = Top 150

Brevin Pritzl = Top 100

Ethan Happ = Top 150

 

So according to this list Nebraska sits at #2 in recruit rankings currently on a roster...

 

1. Michigan State = 26

T2. Nebraska = 15 

T2. Maryland = 15

4. Illinois = 12

T 5. Indiana = 11

T 5. Ohio State = 11

7. Michigan = 10

8. Purdue = 9

T 9. Minnesota = 8

T 9. Wisconsin = 8

T 11. Northwestern = 7

T 11. Penn State = 7

13. Rutgers = 6

14. Iowa = 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2017 by big red22

[Huskerpapa]

21 minutes ago, big red22 said:

I am posting this in reference to what 49'r posted on page 21 of the Starting 5 thread

 

Interesting enough according to the recruiting site ratings we do have Top 3 talent in the Big 10... if we were to go by recruit rankings that is on a current roster.

 

I am going to list all the schools players that are on their current roster that were ranked in the Top 150 or better...

 

*** NOTE: No player is listed if they were not rated in the Top 150 of a recruiting site ***

 

*** NOTE 2: This is based on active rosters so I used direct sources from the schools website to see who is still currently playing and matched it to Rivals recruit lists.  Also I included transfers that were highly rated like Copeland (NU), Doorson (Rutgers) or Matthews (Michigan). You will not see any irrelevant 5* or 4* recruits that are no longer on the team... Enjoy ***

 

Top 150 = 1pts

Top 100 = 2pts

Top 50 = 3pts

Top 25 = 4pts

Top 10 = 5pts

 

Illinois = 10pts

 

Leron Black = Top 50

Aaron Jordan = Top 100

Tejon Lucas = Top 150

Mark Smith = Top 100

Trent Frazier = Top 100

De'monte Williams = Top 100

 

Indiana = 11pts

 

Clifton Moore = Top 150

Justin smith = Top 150

De'Ron Davis = Top 50

Curtis Jones = Top 100

Robert Johnson = Top 50

Juwan Morgan = Top 150

 

Iowa = 5pts

 

Tyler Cook = Top 100

Luke Garza = Top 150

Conner McCaffery = Top 100

 

Maryland = 15pts

 

Dion Wiley = Top 100

Michal Cekovinski = Top 150

Jared Nickens = Top 150

Kevin Heurter = Top 100

Anthony Cowan = Top 50

Justin Jackson = Top 100

Daryll Marcell = Top 100

Bruno Fernando = Top 100

 

 

Michigan = 10pts

 

Moritz Wagner = Top 100

Jon Teske = Top 150

Xavier Simpson = Top 100

Isaiah Livers = Top 150

Jordan Brooks = Top 150

Charles Matthews = Top 50

 

Michigan State = 26pts

 

Tum Tum Naird = Top 100

Matt McQuaid = Top 100

Myles Bridges = Top 10

Winston Cassius = Top 50

Joshua Langford = Top 25

Nick Ward = Top 50

Jaren Jackson = Top 10

Xavier Tillman = Top 100

 

Minnesota = 8pts

 

Amir Coffee = Top 100

Dupree McBrayer = Top 150

Jordan Murphy = Top 150

Eric Curry = Top 150

Isaiah Washington = Top 100

Matz Stocksman = Top 150

 

Nebraska = 16pts

 

Glynn Watson = Top 100

James Palmer = Top 100

Isaiah Roby = Top 150

Isaac Copeland = Top 25

Anton Gill = Top 50

Thomas Allen = Top 100

Nana Akenten = Top 150

Jordy Tshimanga = Top 150

 

Northwestern = 7pts

 

Vic Law = Top 100

Aaron Falzon = Top 100

Barret Benson = Top 150

Rapolas Ivanaukas = Top 100

 

Ohio State = 11pts

 

Jae'Sean Tate = Top 100

Keita Bates'Diop = Top 50

Musa Jallow = Top 150

Kyle Young = Top 150

Kaleb Wesson = Top 100

Kam Williams = Top 100

 

Penn State = 7pts

 

Lamar Stephens = Top 100

Tony Carr = Top 50

Josh Reaves = Top 150

Mike Watkins = Top 150

 

Purdue = 9pts

 

Isaac Hass = Top 100

Vince Edwards = Top 150

Dakota Mathias = Top 150

Ryan Cline = Top 150

Carson Edwards = Top 100

Nojel Eastern = Top 100

 

Rutgers = 6pts

 

Da'Shawn Freeman = Top 100

Corey Sanders = Top 100

Mamadou Doucoure = Top 150

Shaquille Doorson = Top 150

 

Wisconsin = 8pts

 

Brad Davidson = Top 100

Nathan Reuvers = Top 100

Alex Illikainen = Top 150

Brevin Pritzl = Top 100

Ethan Happ = Top 150

 

So according to this list Nebraska sits at #2 in recruit rankings currently on a roster...

 

1. Michigan State = 26

2. Nebraska = 16 

3. Maryland = 15

T 4. Indiana = 11

T 4. Ohio State = 11

T 6. Illinois = 10

T 6. Michigan = 10

8. Purdue = 9

T 9. Minnesota = 8

T 9. Wisconsin = 8

T 11. Northwestern = 7

T 11. Penn State = 7

13. Rutgers = 6

14. Iowa = 5

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I would be pretty happy if that were the final standings this upcoming season

 

[big red22]

I see I got Illinois total points wrong, but I think you all get the picture.  Illinois actually has 12 points not 10

[AuroranHusker]

1 hour ago, big red22 said:

I see I got Illinois total points wrong, but I think you all get the picture.  Illinois actually has 12 points not 10

 

You could edit the original post to correct that info, 22.

 

Interesting perspective, by the way.

 

 

Edited September 19, 2017 by AuroranHusker

[aphilso1]

Very interesting data.  Thanks for researching it, BR22.  

 

I think I would make one adjustment if I was going to use a weighting system, and that would be to decrease the points slightly for players that transferred to the school rather than signing right out of high school.  My reasoning is that a kid, generally speaking, has not lived up to his high school rating if he chooses to transfer.  Now obviously there are exceptions (such as kids that transfer for academic reasons), but the most common transfer reason is lack of playing time.  

 

My hunch is that Nebraska looks good in these rankings because we're propped up by a few guys who didn't live up to their ranking at their original school.  Admittedly, I don't know enough about our conference counterparts to know if anyone else has recruited the transfer wire as heavily as us.

[Norm Peterson]

24 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

Very interesting data.  Thanks for researching it, BR22.  

 

I think I would make one adjustment if I was going to use a weighting system, and that would be to decrease the points slightly for players that transferred to the school rather than signing right out of high school.  My reasoning is that a kid, generally speaking, has not lived up to his high school rating if he chooses to transfer.  Now obviously there are exceptions (such as kids that transfer for academic reasons), but the most common transfer reason is lack of playing time.  

 

My hunch is that Nebraska looks good in these rankings because we're propped up by a few guys who didn't live up to their ranking at their original school.  Admittedly, I don't know enough about our conference counterparts to know if anyone else has recruited the transfer wire as heavily as us.

 

Reasonable point, but some kids transfer up and some kids transfer down.  So, the kid who transferred from UNI or Drake or one of those Mo Valley schools in Iowa and went to Illinois, he transferred up. He was pretty good.  

 

And then some guys just transfer.  Isaac Copeland would be an example of this latter type of transfer.  He's already proven himself at the high major level.

[Norm Peterson]

You also have to consider the fact that some kids who weren't top 150 clearly ended up belonging there.  Dererk Pardon, for one.  Shavon Shields for another, just by way of example.

 

But the system is arbitrary enough that it isn't going to be weighted in a way designed to favor the Huskers and, applied consistently as a sort of objective measure, does really give you an idea of what we're looking at.

[ajb5856]

1 hour ago, aphilso1 said:

Very interesting data.  Thanks for researching it, BR22.  

 

I think I would make one adjustment if I was going to use a weighting system, and that would be to decrease the points slightly for players that transferred to the school rather than signing right out of high school.  My reasoning is that a kid, generally speaking, has not lived up to his high school rating if he chooses to transfer.  Now obviously there are exceptions (such as kids that transfer for academic reasons), but the most common transfer reason is lack of playing time.  

 

My hunch is that Nebraska looks good in these rankings because we're propped up by a few guys who didn't live up to their ranking at their original school.  Admittedly, I don't know enough about our conference counterparts to know if anyone else has recruited the transfer wire as heavily as us.

Good points. Our standing is slightly propped up by a guy like Gill who was top 50, but transferred, has been injured, and hasn't lived up to what he was supposed to be. I think most are simply hoping he can come back to make a positive impact in some capacity for his last season.

[aphilso1]

1 hour ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

Reasonable point, but some kids transfer up and some kids transfer down.  So, the kid who transferred from UNI or Drake or one of those Mo Valley schools in Iowa and went to Illinois, he transferred up. He was pretty good.  

 

And then some guys just transfer.  Isaac Copeland would be an example of this latter type of transfer.  He's already proven himself at the high major level.

 

He wasn't a top 150 recruit coming out of high school, so he wouldn't be reflected in this thread's analysis.  Neither would most kids that "transfer up."  But those top 150 kids that don't pan out at their initial school of choice and "transfer down" -- those kids are absolutely impacting these rankings.  But hey, ratings and rankings are subjective and open to differing opinions.  

[Norm Peterson]

21 minutes ago, aphilso1 said:

 

He wasn't a top 150 recruit coming out of high school, so he wouldn't be reflected in this thread's analysis.  Neither would most kids that "transfer up."  But those top 150 kids that don't pan out at their initial school of choice and "transfer down" -- those kids are absolutely impacting these rankings.  But hey, ratings and rankings are subjective and open to differing opinions.  

 

Yeah, I kinda made that point ...

 

2 hours ago, Norm Peterson said:

You also have to consider the fact that some kids who weren't top 150 clearly ended up belonging there.  Dererk Pardon, for one.  Shavon Shields for another, just by way of example.

 

But the system is arbitrary enough that it isn't going to be weighted in a way designed to favor the Huskers and, applied consistently as a sort of objective measure, does really give you an idea of what we're looking at.

 

[FredsSlacks]

this is why miles has to win some games this year. more than enough talent to at least have a winning season. 2 deep at every position.

[khoock]

A little off but what were the other players rated?

 

Jack was probably a 3*

Duby im guessing was a 2* or 3*

And i gotta guess Evan and Thor would both be 2*

 

[Jacob Padilla]

Quote

 

Nebraska = 16pts

 

Glynn Watson = Top 100

James Palmer = Top 100

Isaiah Roby = Top 150

Isaac Copeland = Top 25

Anton Gill = Top 50

Thomas Allen = Top 100

Nana Akenten = Top 150

Jordy Tshimanga = Top 150

 

 

The stars are nice, but how many of these players have actually lived up to their star ranking?

 

Take out freshmen who haven't played a second yet. Also, where exactly was Allen a top 100 recruit? He's not in there for Rivals, ESPN, Scout or 247.

 

It's a little early to rank Jordy and Isaiah; Isaiah certainly didn't because of injury but Jody showed some signs while being pretty raw coming in. I guess you can count him since he was just a 150 kid and not any higher than that.

 

Watson has certainly lived up to top-100 status I'd say, so that's two.

 

None of Palmer, Gill and Copeland have lived up to their rankings. That is the risk of taking chances on former highly-rated recruits who haven't panned out compared to under-recruited studs from lower levels who are looking to move up. Are they truly what they showed themselves to be in high school, or were they just misevaluated? Will a new home help them to thrive like it did for Andrew White?

 

We could certainly do this same exercise for the rest of the teams as well but I don't have that kind of time or patience.

[Chuck Taylor]

5 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

The stars are nice, but how many of these players have actually lived up to their star ranking?

 

Take out freshmen who haven't played a second yet. Also, where exactly was Allen a top 100 recruit? He's not in there for Rivals, ESPN, Scout or 247.

 

It's a little early to rank Jordy and Isaiah; Isaiah certainly didn't because of injury but Jody showed some signs while being pretty raw coming in. I guess you can count him since he was just a 150 kid and not any higher than that.

 

Watson has certainly lived up to top-100 status I'd say, so that's two.

 

None of Palmer, Gill and Copeland have lived up to their rankings. That is the risk of taking chances on former highly-rated recruits who haven't panned out compared to under-recruited studs from lower levels who are looking to move up. Are they truly what they showed themselves to be in high school, or were they just misevaluated? Will a new home help them to thrive like it did for Andrew White?

 

We could certainly do this same exercise for the rest of the teams as well but I don't have that kind of time or patience.

Careful, we're not looking for logic here.  

[jdw]

Allen's final Rivals ranking ended up at 103.

Edited September 21, 2017 by jdw

[big red22]

7 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

The stars are nice, but how many of these players have actually lived up to their star ranking?

 

Take out freshmen who haven't played a second yet. Also, where exactly was Allen a top 100 recruit? He's not in there for Rivals, ESPN, Scout or 247.

 

It's a little early to rank Jordy and Isaiah; Isaiah certainly didn't because of injury but Jody showed some signs while being pretty raw coming in. I guess you can count him since he was just a 150 kid and not any higher than that.

 

Watson has certainly lived up to top-100 status I'd say, so that's two.

 

None of Palmer, Gill and Copeland have lived up to their rankings. That is the risk of taking chances on former highly-rated recruits who haven't panned out compared to under-recruited studs from lower levels who are looking to move up. Are they truly what they showed themselves to be in high school, or were they just misevaluated? Will a new home help them to thrive like it did for Andrew White?

 

We could certainly do this same exercise for the rest of the teams as well but I don't have that kind of time or patience.

I know you're just trying to make an argument for argument's sake here. The fact is is you can say that for each and every one of these teams except for maybe a few. Look at Illinois three of their top 100 recruits are three freshmen. The way I see it is is we have talent here, that matches up to everybody in the league.

 

This post wasn't meant to State logic or how people played on the Court. This post was made to Simply show we have as much talent or more than everybody in the freaking League

 

Also in reference to Allen being top 100 I am going off of he was number 99 in ESPN top 100 when we got him, and also and Rivals.  Make him top 150 and we're still right there, so it's irrelevant

 

Not our fault he dropped <<< Link

Edited September 21, 2017 by big red22

[hhcmatt]

26 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Also in reference to Allen being top 100 I am going off of he was number 99 in ESPN top 100 when we got him, and also and Rivals.  Make him top 150 and we're still right there, so it's irrelevant

 

It's relevant if you don't want to make it seem like you're holding different schools to different standards.

[big red22]

6 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

It's relevant if you don't want to make it seem like you're holding different schools to different standards.

Fair enough... just don't want to take the time to read articles on every school when it does so little to the main objective of the post.  I will make him Top 150 if it makes you feel better about it.  

[hhcmatt]

3 minutes ago, big red22 said:

Fair enough... just don't want to take the time to read articles on every school when it does so little to the main objective of the post.  I will make him Top 150 if it makes you feel better about it.  

 

If your main objective is to lay out data in a consistent way for the purpose of comparison I was pointing out that it should be consistent.

It's not like I'm pointing this out because I want the results to be different.  I'm pointing it out because I believe in methodology. 

[big red22]

9 minutes ago, hhcdimes said:

 

If your main objective is to lay out data in a consistent way for the purpose of comparison I was pointing out that it should be consistent.

It's not like I'm pointing this out because I want the results to be different.  I'm pointing it out because I believe in methodology. 

I didn't look up any of the Nebraska players, because I already knew their rankings before I made this list.  I looked up every other team, because I did not know what they had.  So making Allen Top 100 was not intentional and was not done to give us an edge. If I do something like this again I will make sure to see if our recruits ranking dropped after they signed.

[basketballjones]

On 9/19/2017 at 8:12 PM, aphilso1 said:

I think I would make one adjustment if I was going to use a weighting system, and that would be to decrease the points slightly for players that transferred to the school rather than signing right out of high school.  My reasoning is that a kid, generally speaking, has not lived up to his high school rating if he chooses to transfer.  Now obviously there are exceptions (such as kids that transfer for academic reasons), but the most common transfer reason is lack of playing time.  

 

My hunch is that Nebraska looks good in these rankings because we're propped up by a few guys who didn't live up to their ranking at their original school.  Admittedly, I don't know enough about our conference counterparts to know if anyone else has recruited the transfer wire as heavily as us.

That's fine and all - but when you do it every school, I doubt it changes much. We're not the only one who has benefited from/been hurt by transfers. And after you do that I imagine that the rankings wouldn't change much more than a couple spots. 

[Norm Peterson]

1 hour ago, big red22 said:

Fair enough... just don't want to take the time to read articles on every school when it does so little to the main objective of the post.  I will make him Top 150 if it makes you feel better about it.  

 

I agree with you it's irrelevant in the sense you were talking about rather than what other people have tried to spin it to.

 

Make him a 150 guy rather than top 100 and it only lowers our total points by 1 and still leaves us in the top 3 teams in conference.

 

It doesn't change the original point whatsoever and therefore it IS irrelevant to the original point the support for which remains unchanged.

Edited September 21, 2017 by Norm Peterson

[TourneyBound]

1 hour ago, big red22 said:

I didn't look up any of the Nebraska players, because I already knew their rankings before I made this list.  I looked up every other team, because I did not know what they had.  So making Allen Top 100 was not intentional and was not done to give us an edge. If I do something like this again I will make sure to see if our recruits ranking dropped after they signed.

not sure y you would want to take the time to do it again if everyone is going to nit pick at it.....  calm down people  its 1 damn point..

[hhcmatt]

29 minutes ago, Norm Peterson said:

 

I agree with you it's irrelevant in the sense you were talking about rather than what other people have tried to spin it to.

 

Make him a 150 guy rather than top 100 and it only lowers our total points by 1 and still leaves us in the top 3 teams in conference.

 

It doesn't change the original point whatsoever and therefore it IS irrelevant to the original point the support for which remains unchanged.

 

I'm pulling the W-L records for the last 10 seasons to break something down. I tell everyone we  went 13-19 last year instead of 12-19 because I missed that the Chadron St game was an exhibition when pulling the numbers from Huskers.com. I didn't didn't come to 13-19 because I wanted us to appear to be better but because the script I used pulled the wrong info. It doesn't change our finish in the conference, whether we made the tournament, what sort of year, we had, etc.  Someone points it out.  I should stick with 13-19 because of my intent?

 

Given the feedback I would personally wonder if I got the other 9 season right, not the motivation of whomever pointed out the flaw in my methodology.

[Norm Peterson]

9 hours ago, Jacob Padilla said:

 

The stars are nice, but how many of these players have actually lived up to their star ranking?

 

Take out freshmen who haven't played a second yet. Also, where exactly was Allen a top 100 recruit? He's not in there for Rivals, ESPN, Scout or 247.

 

It's a little early to rank Jordy and Isaiah; Isaiah certainly didn't because of injury but Jody showed some signs while being pretty raw coming in. I guess you can count him since he was just a 150 kid and not any higher than that.

 

Watson has certainly lived up to top-100 status I'd say, so that's two.

 

None of Palmer, Gill and Copeland have lived up to their rankings. That is the risk of taking chances on former highly-rated recruits who haven't panned out compared to under-recruited studs from lower levels who are looking to move up. Are they truly what they showed themselves to be in high school, or were they just misevaluated? Will a new home help them to thrive like it did for Andrew White?

 

We could certainly do this same exercise for the rest of the teams as well but I don't have that kind of time or patience.

 

Jacob, it's not a perfect metric, but it is rational and objective.  You can apply it equally to all teams. Maybe some guys ended up better than their recruiting rankings; others worse.  But there's virtually no metric you could have applied that would be totally fool proof.

 

So, you either don't compare at all or you use some sort of flawed metric like the above.