Tarris Reed: Bball target named AAU peach jam top performer by Paul Biancardi (ESPN)
https://twitter.com/paulbiancardi/status/1420191946455277568?s=21
Tarris Reed was named one of 12 top performers at a major Nike EYBL AAU tournament, Peach Jam, by Paul Biancardi (ESPN recruiting director). Others mentioned are composite 5* players such as Jalen Duren, Jaden Bradley, Nick Smith jr., Dariq Whitehead, Shaedon Sharpe, Brandon Miller, Cason Wallace. He is in line for nice ratings bump that should appease some of the folks who had expressed concern on the other thread. He plays on the same team as recent OSU center commit (okpara) and looked much better than him. I’m guessing future rankings for him will be in the 40-50 range with his main limitation being pure athleticism.
The thing is, if your ranked 40 to 50, that really is 30 to 40 because it seems about 10 recruits forego college for the G.
I mean, not really. Whether they go pro, doesn't change your ranking, or your ability. Rankings also project your ability to get on the floor early. If you are ranked 50 and 15 kids go pro, that doesn't increase your chance of contributing early.
True, it does not make you any better, but it does provide less competition for you to compete with in college and correspondingly Michigan is getting the 30 to 40th best recruit going to college.
If you are ranked 50 and 15 kids go pro, that doesn't increase your chance of contributing early.
Um... yes it does. OP is right in saying that whatever kids go directly to the pros are not really part of this "class" because they are entering the professional ranks directly. This is especially true at the elite programs (UK, Duke, and increasingly UM), because instead of a top 50 player having to sit behind / split minutes with a top 5 prospect, they now absorb the majority of the minutes and thus make a greater and earlier impact
This is the most ridiculous logic I've ever heard. If the top 10 kids go to Kentucky, Duke, UNC and Kansas, that has no affect on the what the #50 kid does at OSU. Same if those kids all go play in the "G" league. All top 50 kids aren't created equally, and kids develop at a different pace.
What’s the second most ridiculous logic you’ve ever heard? Asking for a logic guru I know.
But it does.
When/If Michigan plays against those teams, Michigan's 30 to 40 ranked guy is now playing against UK/Dukes 10 to 20 ranked guy instead of 1 to 10 ranked guy. This actually gets much deeper than this (year 2/3) but i dont have the time to type this out.
It is reduced competition, not only at Michgian, but more-so that Michigan's opponents are watered down. If the number 1 through 10 guy is going to the G or international, then that means the #11 guy is now the number 1 player in college coming in. It will actually help out every single player recruited into college, vs having to compete with those 10.
Exactly
To sum it up: players who go to other college teams impact Michigan because they are competition; players who play professionally are irrelevant to college basketball.
That's not what he said. He said if 10 players leave and you are ranked 50 that means we are getting the #40 ranked player.
When people tell you they will see you in a minute, do you count to 60 in your head?
One Mississippi.....
I know you believe you understand what you think i read, but i'm not sure you realize that what you read is not what i meant. Quit while your still losing.
You would be getting the 40th ranked collegiate player in that class.
Do you guys realize you're having the dumbest argument in America right now?
What are you talking about? So now you assume that #50 kid could not also find himself at UK, Duke, etc. sitting behind one of those top 10 kids?
It's really not that hard to follow. Let's take a more extreme example. There are 150 top prospects and of those, the top 100 all decide to go pro --- do you think those prospects #101 - #150 have a greater chance of having an impact at the college level earlier?
Maddy Sissoko was the #41 ranked player in the 2020 class 6 guys rated higher went pro. It had no effect on Maddy Sissoko at MSU. He still sucked. So according to your logic, Maddy Sissoko was now a top 35 player and because of that, he would be more likely to contribute, than if his #41 ranking. None of that made any difference on his performance. Same with Hunter Dickinson. You guys aren't taking position into consideration, need, development, depth chart. It's flawed logic. Just because you are top 10 doesn't mean you will contribute, and just because you are #99 doesn't mean you won't.
You're missing the point. The underlying trend will prove to be true. On average (which is different than being true in every instance, which seems to be your argument), you should expect that for every HS player who foregoes college, it essentially moves up the ranking (let's call it a 'college impact' score) for the players who do go to college. No, this doesn't make any individual player better or worse, but it makes them better or worse compared to the competition. To change your example, if all of the top 1000 players went pro except for Mady Sissoko, he probably would have looked much better. And the 1001st player would have had a much higher likelihood of having an impact in college, right?
If he does not understand at this point, i do not think he ever will.
Raise the man’s hand.
Having the main limitation being "pure athleticism" usually means that the player is less likely to be one-and-done. Nice.
Yeah, Reed balled out.
He would be in my top 40 and probably closer to 30 (which would put him within striking distance of 5 star status). Under Coach Juwan Howard's tutelage, I would bet on Reed outperforming many of the players ranked ahead of him.
Similarly, it's funny to look back and see where Dickinson was ranked. If his class was re-ranked, Hunter would very easily be top 20 and a 5 star.
https://247sports.com/Season/2020-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings/?InstitutionGroup=HighSchool
247 put out an explainer at the time, but they basically viewed Dickinson as a top 15ish player for impact in college but very low in terms of pro potential. I think they underrated his pro potential, especially with what he's shown defensively, but they probably wouldn't rank him much higher if they re-ranked.
I don't think they're underrating his pro potential. He would still have athleticism issue on defending in space. Juwan did a nice job of hiding his defensive limitation plus college rule helped him out as well. Not so much in the NBA where spacing is wide open and he would get exposed one on one against more athletic players.
It is a nice problem to have when the types of things we debate about is whether a likely commit is merely ranked in the top 75 or is actually a top 50 player.
To be fair, I’m not worried (others were) and am hopeful we add him to the squad!
Did not mean to be pointing a finger at you. Was just celebrating what a great place Michigan basketball is in. Edited out the accusatory “you”.
Go Blue.
Come to Poppa, Tarris!
Note: that sounded creepier than I intended. Let’s try:
Oh, Please, Please, Please, Please commit!
Buy a $100 Cameo shout out with him saying “I came to poppa”
Nope - that sounded pretty creepy too, Grampy.
How about: "Great job, Tarris! You'd be a terrific fit at Michigan. Go Blue!"
Go ahead and send your tweet to him. I'm sure it would be well-received by the young man!
It’s a username thing.
So 50 is the new 40 and 40 is the new 30? I'm confused
Why are you confused? You just explained the variability of numbers perfectly.
Do we trust the opinion of the ESPN National Recruiting Director, or is he just layoff/termination fodder?
To be honest I trust Matt on this here website and Tim McCormick on TMI far more than ESPN or Rivals. I do think 247 is solid and I appreciate the composite system.
Looking forward to watching this kid play for Michigan. He is going to be a star.
BigTarris Reed.
Would love to know why Juwan hadnt gone after Okpara, just for curiosity...
Don’t know anyone who can speak for Juwan, but Matt seemed to imply (in the front page post yesterday) that he feels Reed is a better prospect for M - particularly under Juwan. Supposedly Reed is a better offensive prospect that has room to grow on defense where as Okpara is the opposite.
Given Juwan’s preference to run offense through the post and the strong possibility that M will have no returning Centers next year - I see the fit with Reed.
Would love to know why Juwan hadnt gone after Okpara, just for curiosity...
I guess it's old school to be doubly curious.