The Cross Over Movement Blog

I visited the UCLA site today and the natives are restless because in one services new post-summer rankings, a USC recruit has overtaken a UCLA recruit, which, of course is blasphemy to a Bruin. However, without arguing for or against either player specifically, a poster makes an interesting argument:

How can a kid go from being a top 50 player to the 2nd best in the country, without growing an inch? I would take the consistent #3 ranked player vs. #2 shot in the pants.

Now, I do not put much stock in rankings. Scouting services also rank players according to college potential, not high school performance. Therefore, there is a bit of prognosticating the future involved with ranking players, meaning it is an inaccurate science at best and completely useless at worst. But, these scouts make a good living because sites charge for the rankings so people can indulge in silly arguments like this one.

In the example, Player A is an established star who has been near the top of the 2008 class since he started high school. Player B is a locally known star whose national reputation has skyrocketed since the season ended.

The argument the poster makes is that Player A, therefore, deserves his ranking because he has been there longer. While I appreciate the proven performer argument, there is a significant counterpoint to this rationale:

Judging by the rankings, Player A has plateaued, while Player B has shown marked improvement. As a college coach, do you want the player who has been a four-year star, but whose game has leveled off, or the lesser star who continues to improve and improve? If all things are basically equal talent-wise right now, wouldn’t most college coaches choose the player who has had the greatest ascension lately, hoping that his steep development curve may continue, while Player A’s development curve remains flat? If this does happen, Player B would be a better college player than Player A and the new rankings would be accurate.

The counterpoint to this argument is that Player A has had nothing to prove for a long time. He already verballed to his school of choice and has been named the #1 player in the class by one national writer. He was bored this summer. When the games matter again, he will turn it on and excel and surpass Player B who benefited from the “it” factor of being the new face in the crowd showing new skills and athleticism, while Player A simply did the same things he has been doing for years, namely dominate, which failed to impress as much this time around.

In a sense, it is the same argument I made in an article I wrote about Joakim Noah titled the Leinart Lesson. In the article, I wrote:

Joakim Noah would be the #1 pick in the 2006 NBA Draft , if he enters. Right now, all scouts remember is the scintillating performance in the Final Four as he dominated the floor and led the Florida Gators to the National Championship. NBA General Managers, Scouts and Head Coaches will watch him run and jump at the pre-draft camps, oohh and aahh, and pick him #1, thinking about his potential, overwhelmed by his athleticism and length.

Instead, Noah plans to return to college to enjoy college life and win another national championship. Now, he has zero chance of being the #1 pick in the nba draft”>2007 NBA Draft because teams are already lining up to pick uber-teen Greg Oden, who may have been drafted number one in the 2005 NBA Draft. So, already Noah starts the season at #2. However, with another season in front of the fickle NBA scouts and general managers, and one where Florida, despite its talent, likely does not repeat (it’s so hard to win 6 games in a row during March Madness), NBA scouts will find holes and weaknesses they are too excited to see right now. They’ll see his slight frame as a problem, his funky-looking shot an impediment, etc. Right now, they don’t care. The 2006 NBA Draft is one of the worst NBA Drafts in a decade; next year, in what could be one of the best drafts in a decade (after the star-studded 2003 NBA Draft, of course), NBA scouts will look for ways to pick Josh McRoberts or Julian Wright or Thaddeus Young or some other player ahead of him. He will be yesterday’s news, not the next hot thing, as he is right now.

Player A suffers from the same type of familiarity that hurt Noah’s draft stock. He has been around longer and it is hard to stay on top when scouts, GMs and coaches are paid to find the next big thing. At this point, putting Player A near the top takes no guts. It causes no controversy. However, putting Player B ahead of Player A gets people talking, which increases revenue. If Player A turns out better than Player B, everyone will remember that 95% of the people predicted it; they will not remember the one guy who dissented. However, if the one guy is right, and Player B turns out to be better, that one guy’s stock skyrockets. It’s really a win-win situation for the scout. However, a coach cannot make a mistake like a scout.

So, who deserves the higher ranking? Beats me. I would not discount Player B just because he is new to the argument, but I would not discount Player A just because he has been there longer. Both can obviously play, so the USC and UCLA coaching staffs are the real winners in the argument. At the end of the day, does it even matter who is #2 and who is #3? Both get to play close to home for good programs and good schools and have a great opportunity to play in the NBA. When that happens, will anyone remember their class ranking? It’s like SAT scores: SAT scores are the most important thing in the world to a high school senior, but once in college, nobody cares what you scored on the SAT and once you graduate from college, nobody remembers. Class ranking will only be important to these kids if they fail to make it to the NBA and live like Al Bundy from Married with Children, constantly re-living the good old days. Otherwise, it’s a fun argument, but one that will ultimately be settled on the court. And, when the argument is #2 or #3 in the entire class, there are no losers.