Reply to Post

May 9, 2022 @ 12:25 PM

Yeah, that's an interesting one. I remember this quote this winter from Michael O'Brien of the Sun Times (obviously not someone compiling national top-100 lists, but someone who watches more Chicagoland high school ball than maybe anyone):

Been a long day and I don’t want to go too crazy off a quarter and a half but oh my goodness Morez Johnson is a special player. The St. Rita sophomore has a higher ceiling as a prospect than any local player in a long time. You have to watch it, stats don’t do it justice.

When I read a local guy saying "higher ceiling as a prospect than any local player in a long time" (and he's not talking about Sioux Falls here, he's talking about Chicago), then I expect that player to rocket up the early rankings, possibly into someone's top-20. Especially with all the other buzz.

So when he then debuts in the rankings with three very similar rankings (ESPN has him 51st, Rivals 43rd, 247 40th), I just get the feeling that one of them set a ranking and the other two just added him to their lists in similar spots. Someone somewhere said that Brown was the better prospect and everyone just goes along with it.

The old days where Clark Francis ranked Joe Bertrand 34th (while everyone else had DJ Richardson and Brandon Paul as the top two players in the state and Bertrand un-ranked) seem to be gone.

And I think you hit on the big part of that (at least the way I view it). Those little details you mentioned (all-state teams, EYBL stats so far, etc)... I'm not sure there's anyone researching players like that anymore? The "consensus" seems to happen before the composite rankings, not after, and there's really no incentive to fix it. And besides, this is just the 2024 class, so if they have something wrong, they have two years to fix it.

So I feel like if you raised this concern to one of the rankings services, you'd honestly get a "who cares?" answer. The whole thing just doesn't seem to have the intensity it had 10-15 years ago.

Post Preview