I guess it’s the competitive nature in all of us that says it’s not enough to simply keep score and determine who the best is out on the floor. We have to have the All Conference, All City, All County, All District, All Region, All State, All American and All Galaxy teams to rationalize any opinions that might not happen to go hand in hand with final scores and results. The moment a young prospect shows promise that may mean competing at the next level we have to sort them out. It’s not enough to just look forward to seeing how well their game might translate to the colligate level. We have to rank them and their perceived potential within their class based on performances in scholastic and club basketball. Adding to the circus is the fact that we seem to keep ranking them younger and younger. That approach has worked really well in men’s basketball, don’t you think?
That’s still not enough. Let’s go a step further and embrace the concept of ranking recruiting classes. With this week’s start of the NCAA Fall Signing Period all the “experts” will begin dissecting, analyzing, critiquing and pontificating about the recruiting successes or failures of college coaches and their recruiting efforts. Mind you some of these opinions come from sources that derive their expertise from the bleachers or press row rather than the bench but stir up plenty of debate none the less. That being the case, let’s go ahead and talk about the process of evaluating signing classes.
This one isn’t quite as black and white as some folks want to make it. There will be those out there who look at things simply as a numbers game. School X signed more top 100 players than School Y therefore…better signing class. Never mind that there are multiple rankings from recruiting or media entities and a top tier player for one may be a middle of the road prospect for another. And let’s not ignore the fact that some players are not ranked at all or have never been observed in person. Well, all due respect to former President Clinton and his Democratic convention claim regarding arithmetic, it’s just not quite that simple. Evaluating signing classes is more history and chemistry that it is math.
History comes in with the reality that the single truly accurate way to assess a signing class is to look back on their production and success following the full completion of their eligibility. Only at that point will anyone be able to evaluate if each individual in the class lived up to their projected potential and whether or not the group as a whole integrated and maximized their capabilities with the classes before and after them. Sure it looks good to promote and market a highly ranked recruiting class (especially when cultivating prospects in the next couple of classes who might consider joining them!) but the reality is that a lot of college benches are occupied by underachieving high profile signs and many stat sheets highlight players that make you go “who?”. Even with individual success a highly regarded signing class carries no guarantee of titles and trophies. Just ask the original “can’t miss” class (the Fab Five) to see their National Championship rings.
Since athletes, parents and coaches are an impatient bunch (imagine that!) who need to quantify the most recent additions much sooner than later, it’s important to take measure of a signing class with the aforementioned “chemistry” in mind. I’m not talking about a specific class’s ability to play nice among themselves and avoid committing bodily harm to one another over the course of their careers. Good chemistry is a formula and as such you have to view a signing class as a whole and, in turn, its impact on the other elements in each college program’s periodic table for success.
I’ll set aside the scientific metaphors before it becomes even more obvious that I know absolutely nothing about Chemistry. However, what I do know is that a signing class has to fit in with and fulfill the needs of a program in many different ways. There’s no arguing that the core of any good class is talent but any recruiter will tell you that, in the bigger picture, for a class to be a winner it has to address so much more.
Advancement – The key question regarding any individual or class of players is the obvious…Do they make a program better? However, when asking, it’s important to keep in mind that “better” is a relevant term. When we began rebuilding at one of the schools I worked at we often got the “she’s better than what you’ve got” promotional push from self-serving high school and club coaches. Nice thought, but the reality is that we don’t play against ourselves. Getting better has to do with competing with the folks on the other bench. Winning less than 10 games with a better roster is…well…still just winning less than 10 games.
Position – The question you have to ask virtually from the outset is “Did the coaches bring in the players they needed to satisfy their on court needs in the post, on the perimeter or at the point?” Additionally, it’s important to appraise each member of the class in terms of the coach and if that player happens to be his or her “kind of point guard, post player, etc…”
Weaknesses – You have to critically look at whether or not a class will be able to shore up skill areas currently lacking in performance, graduating from the current team or showing little promise among the returning roster. There are a lot of recruiters who bring in the same elements with each class and do little to remove an ongoing Achilles heel that no doubt is a constant on opposing scouting reports year after year. You know the ones. Programs with labels like “They’re never a good perimeter shooting team” or “They’ve never been able to spell defense let alone play it”
Style – Recruiting can sometimes evolve like a bad trip to Wal-Mart that ends with a cart full of things that weren’t on your shopping list to begin with. Occasionally coaches find themselves collecting commitments from athletes because they happen to be willing to say yes or as a result of the fear that if they pass on a prospect or two they could be left holding the bag in the end. That mentality often leads to a class that seemingly does not fit together or one that does not mesh with the coaching or basketball style already in place. That kind of class can even look deceptively good piece by piece but the sum of the parts carries a big red flag under closer examination.
Depth – Often a component that a strong signing class brings to the table is depth. A deeper roster provides coaches with valuable flexibility. It affords needed rest for those 35 minute a game players who are fatigued and not at their best in crunch time. Depth lessens the impact of foul trouble or a cold shooting night in the short term and in the long term minimizes the ramifications of an injury and missed games. Most underrated is the contribution of depth to the competitive culture and environment of a program. The more that players are challenged day in and day out in practice the more likely it is that their best is going to be on display come game time. Depth may well be one of the key cornerstones for a building program to move to the next level.
Compliment – Any incoming class has to complement those players that will already be on campus when they arrive. Do they bring size to a team currently playing “small ball’? Do they offer the ballhandling and passing to help exploit the bigs that came in the class before them? Do they add athleticism to a team that needs another gear or does the class bring the skills to take advantage of the strength, speed and quickness already in place? It has happened but it’s rare for one class to carry the entire load for a program by themselves.
Admittedly, I’m cynical about rankings but that cynicism stems not from the rankings themselves. It comes from the misplaced perception and emphasis on them from fans, parents, families and even the athletes. College coaches pay for and use the individual player rankings of recruiting services in their work. They don’t take them as gospel nor do they make any decisions solely based on the information. They’re utilized more as a recruiting GPS offering direction and suggestions. Rankings created by media exist solely as entertainment and the genesis of debate. Rightfully so considering the credentials of those often producing them. One media representative once referred to them as a necessary evil for creating interest and traffic. Too bad it creates so much more.
This brings us back to the ranking of signing classes. Within the recruiting process itself they serve no functional purpose. Some coaches have clauses in their contracts offering bonuses for ranked classes while Sports Information and Marketing departments drool over the promotional possibilities of a high profile incoming group. Beyond that we’re back to ego, bragging rights and the previously mentioned entertainment regardless of the source.
Four years from now we’ll accurately know which college programs put together the best classes among the 2013 prospects. At that time we’ll have much more to go on than just perceptions, projections and opinion. The debate we can have now is which program got commitments from the best players. Keep in mind that alone doesn’t come with a guarantee of improving a program or allow for arena staff to begin making room for new banners in the rafters. The math of the rankings may look good up front but just like the old algebra textbooks, the answers are in the back…at the end.
