RealScouting;842340387 said:

---

Yahoo has more than one scout out at events. I know them both.

---

LOL. Both = 2. english is a wonderful language How many HS basketball players are there in the country? Well I guess they are two VERY busy guys ;-)

RealScouting;842340387 said:

---

.... have ever ranked a kid based on what school they committed to.
They have no incentive to do that.

---

OF COURSE THEY DO. These rankings drive eyeballs to the sites. The most eyeballs (fans) are associated with the power schools. Low rankings for the power schools players mean said fans call the scout an idiot and stop looking. That equals fewer eyeballs and thus fewer opportunities to hang with a guy like you while on the yahoo expense account.

socaltownie;842340154 said:

---

Come on...preparation makes for peak performance. You should have multiple hard drives set up to win arguments on BI ;-)

To be clear, I wouldn't argue that guys who pick Cal get DOWNGRADED but would argue that relative to their peers who commit to power schools they tread water...and thus on rankings that are numerical based (as opposed to "stars") lose ground. Again, simple economics for the scouting services as WELL AS pretty universally accepted facts in social psych and marketing about signaling and peer imitation.

---

Do you have any data (evidence) or is this just another Socaltownie conspiracy theory using conjecture as evidence?

socaltownie;842340431 said:

---

LOL. Both = 2. english is a wonderful language How many HS basketball players are there in the country? Well I guess they are two VERY busy guys ;-)



OF COURSE THEY DO. These rankings drive eyeballs to the sites. The most eyeballs (fans) are associated with the power schools. Low rankings for the power schools players mean said fans call the scout an idiot and stop looking. That equals fewer eyeballs and thus fewer opportunities to hang with a guy like you while on the yahoo expense account.

---

It is impossible to see every single kid in the country that play high school basketball. That thought process in itself is a flawed way of thinking and defies all logic. The kids worth seeing play AAU basketball and the select few that don't are seen during their high school seasons. Otto Porter is a prime example of that. He still earned a scholarship to Georgetown, despite not playing AAU. What you're talking about in terms of eyeballs to the site is pure conjecture and not factual at all, but most of us that come on this board know not to expect anything different from you. The number of people visiting these sites have nothing to do with whether or not a recruit is ranked at a certain level. I just wish you would just stop and talk about subjects you know about. Like how one becomes a conspiracy theorist and how the mind of one works, because basketball is clearly not a strong subject matter for you.

Holmoephobic;842340452 said:

---

Do you have any data (evidence) or is this just another Socaltownie conspiracy theory using conjecture as evidence?

---

It is another Socaltownie conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact

RealScouting;842340562 said:

---

It is impossible to see every single kid in the country that play high school basketball. That thought process in itself is a flawed way of thinking and defies all logic. The kids worth seeing play AAU basketball and the select few that don't are seen during their high school seasons. Otto Porter is a prime example of that. He still earned a scholarship to Georgetown, despite not playing AAU. What you're talking about in terms of eyeballs to the site is pure conjecture and not factual at all, but most of us that come on this board know not to expect anything different from you. The number of people visiting these sites have nothing to do with whether or not a recruit is ranked at a certain level. I just wish you would just stop and talk about subjects you know about. Like how one becomes a conspiracy theorist and how the mind of one works, because basketball is clearly not a strong subject matter for you.

---

English comprehension must not have been taught at Cal State East Bay. But don't worry. Coursera will be offering one soon.

EYEBALL TO Scout, Yahoo, ESPN is what matters. The 2 scouts that work for Yahoo want to drive them to their site because eyeballs=ad revenue=one more week where the wondergirl makes payroll. I have every reason to appeal to the greatest number of fans...which follow power schools.

Or did you get that degree from Kentucky since you love them so......

Holmoephobic;842340452 said:

---

Do you have any data (evidence) or is this just another Socaltownie conspiracy theory using conjecture as evidence?

---

Lets just pick ONE flame out at Random

http://ucla.scout.com/a.z?s=12&p=8&c=1&nid=2591892

Do you think that Reeves was EVER "an Outstanding young wing prospect with very high skill level and great feel for the game. Excellet leaper and a great rebounder. Can play inside and out. Nice stroke to the three-point line. Very good ball skills for a young wing. Terrific passer, with very good vision. Potentially an elite prospect."

Do you think that if Reeves had signed with someone OTHER than the bruins, Carolina, or this that and the other he would have gotten the above love?

And more broadly, are you one of the very handful of modern western consumers that is not influenced by the consumption patterns of others or, as our good friend Don Draper long ago opined, your actions (as well as those of scouts) is influenced by the actions of those around you. Ergo, if UCLA thinks Reeves is good enough to offer....he must be good enough to offer.

socaltownie;842340567 said:

---

Lets just pick ONE flame out at Random

http://ucla.scout.com/a.z?s=12&p=8&c=1&nid=2591892

Do you think that Reeves was EVER "an Outstanding young wing prospect with very high skill level and great feel for the game. Excellet leaper and a great rebounder. Can play inside and out. Nice stroke to the three-point line. Very good ball skills for a young wing. Terrific passer, with very good vision. Potentially an elite prospect."

Do you think that if Reeves had signed with someone OTHER than the bruins, Carolina, or this that and the other he would have gotten the above love?

And more broadly, are you one of the very handful of modern western consumers that is not influenced by the consumption patterns of others or, as our good friend Don Draper long ago opined, your actions (as well as those of scouts) is influenced by the actions of those around you. Ergo, if UCLA thinks Reeves is good enough to offer....he must be good enough to offer.

---

I'll take this to mean that you don't have any data and that you're very desperate to win an argument on the internet.
I'd also challenge you to use the word 'random' correctly as your example is clearly not random but hand-picked by you in an attempt to prop up a losing argument.
If you can find examples of players signing with Cal and then losing stars/ratings it would be compelling. Instead, you use a sample size of one to pick a "random" player on UCLA, who by the way, was offered by the best teams in our conference as well as Florida, Duke, North Carolina, and Texas. Yes, If the coaches of those schools think Nelson was worthy of a scholarship offer than I'm sure he was worthy of those accolades at the time.

socaltownie;842340567 said:

---

Lets just pick ONE flame out at Random

http://ucla.scout.com/a.z?s=12&p=8&c=1&nid=2591892

Do you think that Reeves was EVER "an Outstanding young wing prospect with very high skill level and great feel for the game. Excellet leaper and a great rebounder. Can play inside and out. Nice stroke to the three-point line. Very good ball skills for a young wing. Terrific passer, with very good vision. Potentially an elite prospect."

Do you think that if Reeves had signed with someone OTHER than the bruins, Carolina, or this that and the other he would have gotten the above love?

And more broadly, are you one of the very handful of modern western consumers that is not influenced by the consumption patterns of others or, as our good friend Don Draper long ago opined, your actions (as well as those of scouts) is influenced by the actions of those around you. Ergo, if UCLA thinks Reeves is good enough to offer....he must be good enough to offer.

---

That report was written long before he committed to UCLA. I saw him as a freshman and he showed every bit of potential that was written in that report. He didn't grow physically much, if at all after his freshman year. He finished ranked 86th overall in the country by Rivals, the 36th best power forward by scout.com, and the 48th best power forward in the country by ESPN when he came out of high school. So obviously his UCLA status didn't help too much in his final ranking. I rest my case.

RealScouting;842340572 said:

---

That report was written long before he committed to UCLA. I saw him as a freshman and he showed every bit of potential that was written in that report. He didn't grow physically much, if at all after his freshman year. He finished ranked 86th overall in the country by Rivals, the 36th best power forward by scout.com, and the 48th best power forward in the country by ESPN when he came out of high school. So obviously his UCLA status didn't help too much in his final ranking. I rest my case.

---

You want to argue he was the 86th best player at any time in his career?

Holmoephobic;842340571 said:

---

I'll take this to mean that you don't have any data and that you're very desperate to win an argument on the internet.
I'd also challenge you to use the word 'random' correctly as your example is clearly not random but hand-picked by you in an attempt to prop up a losing argument.
If you can find examples of players signing with Cal and then losing stars/ratings it would be compelling. Instead, you use a sample size of one to pick a "random" player on UCLA, who by the way, was offered by the best teams in our conference as well as Florida, Duke, North Carolina, and Texas. Yes, If the coaches of those schools think Nelson was worthy of a scholarship offer than I'm sure he was worthy of those accolades at the time.

---

Do you really think that if Jorge had signed with UCLA and not Cal he would have stayed the the ranking he had? And do you think Howland woudn't have given his left and right nut to have a guy like Jorge playing for him?

socaltownie;842340579 said:

---

Do you really think that if Jorge had signed with UCLA and not Cal he would have stayed the the ranking he had? And do you think Howland woudn't have given his left and right nut to have a guy like Jorge playing for him?

---

How quickly you abandoned your last point. Stop using conjecture and start using evidence to make your points. "Do your really believe (insert point here)" is a terrible way to make a point. Use data, evidence, or at least a soundbite from someone who is an authority on the subject. The fact that you are attempting to use one player to make your point should be evidence enough that you don't have a very good one.

As for your question, I believe that Jorge would not have gained in rating regardless of where he signed. He was available AFTER the signing period for a reason, very few teams were interested and the only reason we offered is because of a decommitment. Fortunately for us, his hard work paid immediate dividends.

Your second question is random and has nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. We aren't discussing whether Howland would want a guy like Jorge, we are discussing whether or not players get hurt in the rankings due to signing with Cal. I'm still waiting for some sort of a list of players who fell in the rankings after signing with Cal.

Holmoephobic;842340584 said:

---

How quickly you abandoned your last point. Stop using conjecture and start using evidence to make your points. "Do your really believe (insert point here)" is a terrible way to make a point. Use data, evidence, or at least a soundbite from someone who is an authority on the subject. The fact that you are attempting to use one player to make your point should be evidence enough that you don't have a very good one.

As for your question, I believe that Jorge would not have gained in rating regardless of where he signed. He was available AFTER the signing period for a reason, very few teams were interested and the only reason we offered is because of a decommitment. Fortunately for us, his hard work paid immediate dividends.

---

Holmo - as Civil Bear pointed out - the "data" that would be required would be screen shots since the services do not provide historic information to allow one to see how the rankings move. Sadly, while I try to win ALL my arguments on BI (and usually do) I didn't foresee fighting with you and the street agent over a fairly obvious point.

Our second best alternative is, however, to think logically about this.

A) Why do these web sites put ANYTHING on them? To drive eyeballs to their site. Do you want to dispute that? What other reason could there be?
B) Who has the most eyeballs? Fans of power schools....in part because they have lots of alums and in part because non alums follow them
C) Within the realm of credibility (i.e. a 5'5" guy isn't getting 5 stars even if he signs with Kentucky) there are good reasons (those eyeballs) to grade out recruits and signees of the power schools higher, all other things being equal, than the recruits of non-power schools. Where this probably has the greatest impact is right around the level of the threads original topic - 25 to 100 or so. Higher than 25 it is likely that a LOT of people (including real journalists) have seen the kid and there is a reason for a consensus to emerge. Below 100 and it is probably near random.
D) Why these incentives?
1) in part because of well known group behavior (put 10 guys in a room to "grade" something and they usually are remarkably close if they know how each other voted....if secret much greater spread/variance. WELL known finding in social psych. And remember, these scouting rankings are NOT secret, unless you believe in unicorns and that the Yahoo guys are not reading the ESPN guys posts).
2) IN part because consistently not giving the benefit of the doubt to the schools with the most rabid fans loses you eyeballs. ( "I don't read that crap over there...they always be dissing on my Bruins!")

It really amazes me that we are even having this debate. It simply is incredible that people believe these on the cheap scouting lists, that are designed to drive internet traffic, have much weight in gold and that there isn't a bias toward power school recruits. To believe otherwise just isn't plausible.

socaltownie;842340567 said:

---

Lets just pick ONE flame out at Random

http://ucla.scout.com/a.z?s=12&p=8&c=1&nid=2591892

Do you think that Reeves was EVER "an Outstanding young wing prospect with very high skill level and great feel for the game. Excellet leaper and a great rebounder. Can play inside and out. Nice stroke to the three-point line. Very good ball skills for a young wing. Terrific passer, with very good vision. Potentially an elite prospect."

Do you think that if Reeves had signed with someone OTHER than the bruins, Carolina, or this that and the other he would have gotten the above love?

And more broadly, are you one of the very handful of modern western consumers that is not influenced by the consumption patterns of others or, as our good friend Don Draper long ago opined, your actions (as well as those of scouts) is influenced by the actions of those around you. Ergo, if UCLA thinks Reeves is good enough to offer....he must be good enough to offer.

---

Really bad example sct. Reeves' stock actually dropped his senior year. He was a 5 star wing prospect at one point, but later gained a lot of mass and lost some mobility by his senior year in hs.

Civil Bear;842340591 said:

---

Really bad example sct. Reeves' stock actually dropped his senior year. He was a 5 star wing prospect at one point, but later gained a lot of mass and lost some mobility by his senior year in hs.

---

Civil - can you show me (remember those screen shots - they come in handy!!) where he lost a star/fell? Not just the "buzz" -

cause that "he is blowing up, not in a good way" is not reflected from the writings of the Scout scots Who wrote the quote provided.

These same scouts who, according to RS, spend HUNDREDS of hours carefully weighing things, their repuations on the line and with 1000s of metrics in hand, to make SURE that they have correctly graded the Mr. Reeves of the world so that all us obsessed college hoops fan have the most objective, most scientific, and most thought out FREE scouting report available in the history of mankind. I mean if they took their job seriously would not they have revised their glowing reviews of this "elite" guy?

Civil Bear;842340591 said:

---

Really bad example sct. Reeves' stock actually dropped his senior year. He was a 5 star wing prospect at one point, but later gained a lot of mass and lost some mobility by his senior year in hs.

---

And this was his "random" example! Hilarious.

socaltownie;842340589 said:

---

Holmo - as Civil Bear pointed out - the "data" that would be required would be screen shots since the services do not provide historic information to allow one to see how the rankings move. Sadly, while I try to win ALL my arguments on BI (and usually do) I didn't foresee fighting with you and the street agent over a fairly obvious point.

Our second best alternative is, however, to think logically about this.

A) Why do these web sites put ANYTHING on them? To drive eyeballs to their site. Do you want to dispute that? What other reason could there be?
B) Who has the most eyeballs? Fans of power schools....in part because they have lots of alums and in part because non alums follow them
C) Within the realm of credibility (i.e. a 5'5" guy isn't getting 5 stars even if he signs with Kentucky) there are good reasons (those eyeballs) to grade out recruits and signees of the power schools higher, all other things being equal, than the recruits of non-power schools. Where this probably has the greatest impact is right around the level of the threads original topic - 25 to 100 or so. Higher than 25 it is likely that a LOT of people (including real journalists) have seen the kid and there is a reason for a consensus to emerge. Below 100 and it is probably near random.
D) Why these incentives?
1) in part because of well known group behavior (put 10 guys in a room to "grade" something and they usually are remarkably close if they know how each other voted....if secret much greater spread/variance. WELL known finding in social psych. And remember, these scouting rankings are NOT secret, unless you believe in unicorns and that the Yahoo guys are not reading the ESPN guys posts).
2) IN part because consistently not giving the benefit of the doubt to the schools with the most rabid fans loses you eyeballs. ( "I don't read that crap over there...they always be dissing on my Bruins!")

It really amazes me that we are even having this debate. It simply is incredible that people believe these on the cheap scouting lists, that are designed to drive internet traffic, have much weight in gold and that there isn't a bias toward power school recruits. To believe otherwise just isn't plausible.

---

The reason people go to recruiting websites is for authenticity. Why would people visit the site if they knew the data was flawed? According to your logic, someone could create a website that only ranks the most popular teams players and that site would get the most "eyeballs." Oddly enough, it hasn't happened yet. One can only wonder why.

Each year, recruiting lists are compiled of recruits so young, they have yet to sign with any of the power conferences. Use that data and if there is a correlation between who a player signed with, and where they ended up being ranked as a Senior, you could have a compelling point. These lists are public and go back several years. You seem very confident in your theory, the data to prove your theory right is available but you would rather rely on conjecture.

socaltownie;842340599 said:

---

Civil - can you show me (remember those screen shots - they come in handy!!) where he lost a star/fell? Not just the "buzz" -

cause that "he is blowing up, not in a good way" is not reflected from the writings of the Scout scots Who wrote the quote provided.

These same scouts who, according to RS, spend HUNDREDS of hours carefully weighing things, their repuations on the line and with 1000s of metrics in hand, to make SURE that they have correctly graded the Mr. Reeves of the world so that all us obsessed college hoops fan have the most objective, most scientific, and most thought out FREE scouting report available in the history of mankind. I mean if they took their job seriously would not they have revised their glowing reviews of this "elite" guy?

---

There are entirely too many kids to rewrite every single scouting report in their database. Most sites rarely even update a kids height and weight. There are other things that are higher up the priority list than minute stuff like that. I need to understand who is this street agent you keep talking about. I assume you were referring to me when you said " you and the street agent" to Holmoe. I don't know if you have a mental illness or something, and I mean that not as a dig at you but as a serious statement because it seems like you just come out of left field with stuff.

Holmoephobic;842340606 said:

---

The reason people go to recruiting websites is for authenticity. Why would people visit the site if they knew the data was flawed? According to your logic, someone could create a website that only ranks the most popular teams players and that site would get the most "eyeballs." Oddly enough, it hasn't happened yet. One can only wonder why.

Each year, recruiting lists are compiled of recruits so young, they have yet to sign with any of the power conferences. Use that data and if there is a correlation between who a player signed with, and where they ended up being ranked as a Senior, you could have a compelling point. These lists are public and go back several years. You seem very confident in your theory, the data to prove your theory right is available but you would rather rely on conjecture.

---

Holmoe - I wmust clear. It sin't the CURRENT rankings...it is how they change, and especially the delta pre and post signing with a power school (and proabably as well pre and post offer). They don't provide historic data. I GUESS you could try to do it from one of the internet archive sites but that would be very hit and miss and goes beyond my understanding of how something like www.waybackmachine.com works in respect to archiving the internet.

Holmoephobic;842340606 said:

---

The reason people go to recruiting websites is for authenticity. Why would people visit the site if they knew the data was flawed? According to your logic, someone could create a website that only ranks the most popular teams players and that site would get the most "eyeballs." Oddly enough, it hasn't happened yet. One can only wonder why.

---

Authenticity? Really? You must believe everything you read in the paper and have, upon finding one too many fact checks and corrections, cancelled your subscription to your fish rag of choice and pulled the plug on cable.

That isn't how media is consumed and there is about 100 years of research to show it.

socaltownie;842340579 said:

---

Do you really think that if Jorge had signed with UCLA and not Cal he would have stayed the the ranking he had? And do you think Howland woudn't have given his left and right nut to have a guy like Jorge playing for him?

---

Dude, who in the hell knows where Jorge would have been ranked had he committed to UCLA. That's neither here nor there. Every argument that you have ever made has been based on stuff like that. If my aunt was a man she would be my uncle and if the sky were red what color would the sun be. Hell if President Kennedy hadn't had the top down on his car in Dallas, he might still be alive today. Point is that it didn't happen that way and what you're doing is pure speculation and a theory. The fact of the matter is Jorge didn't go to UCLA and he was a very late signee that ended up at Cal only because of a decommitment and the sky is blue and not red.

socaltownie;842340617 said:

---

Holmoe - I wmust clear. It sin't the CURRENT rankings...it is how they change, and especially the delta pre and post signing with a power school (and proabably as well pre and post offer). They don't provide historic data. I GUESS you could try to do it from one of the internet archive sites but that would be very hit and miss and goes beyond my understanding of how something like www.waybackmachine.com works in respect to archiving the internet.

---

The rankings don't change based on where a kid goes to school. I just showed you where it didn't help Reeves Nelson (the example you presented by the way) and instead of you being a man and saying maybe RS is right and you're wrong you keep arguing about it like a child.

socaltownie;842340617 said:

---

Holmoe - I wmust clear. It sin't the CURRENT rankings...it is how they change, and especially the delta pre and post signing with a power school (and proabably as well pre and post offer). They don't provide historic data. I GUESS you could try to do it from one of the internet archive sites but that would be very hit and miss and goes beyond my understanding of how something like www.waybackmachine.com works in respect to archiving the internet.

---

Why can't you compare the rankings of the Sophomore super 60 and compare that with the final rankings of players during their senior year? Very few players in the Super 60 have committed so it would meet your criteria. Your logic is not compelling and I'm far from the only person who thinks so. Your Reeves Nelson "random" example is just one of many logical fallacies that illustrate this point.

Holmoephobic;842340624 said:

---

Why can't you compare the rankings of the Sophomore super 60 and compare that with the final rankings of players during their senior year? Very few players in the Super 60 have committed so it would meet your criteria. Your logic is not compelling and I'm far from the only person who thinks so. Your Reeves Nelson "random" example is just one of many logical fallacies that illustrate this point.

---

That would take too much work for him to do that. What happens when a kid may be lower ranked early in his career is that the more they develop the better they get. As a result of the kid developing, he sees an uptick in his ranking and the blue blood programs get involved. Prime example in this year's class would be Henry Ellenson out of Wisconsin. Prior to this AAU season, he was ranked in the 40's and 50's on most people's boards. I had him there too. When I saw him in the Spring, he was a much better player. He lost weight and was quicker and more explosive. He already had a high skill level and when you put that together, you get a kid who is now considered a top 10 player in the country. What happens when a kid improves like that ? His ranking goes up and the blue blood programs start taking notice and get involved. It's not the other way around. Since he is now a top 10 player in the class, the Dukes and Kansas' of the world have now offered him. In April he didn't have those offers. As a matter of fact, I told an assistant at Kansas about the kid at an EYBL event and now they're actively recruiting him. The recruiting services are ahead of the schools because college coaches, as you know have limited opportunities to see kids because of the NCAA rules with regard to live and closed periods. Recruiting services have no such restrictions and are often used as a resource for most division 1 programs in the country. In other words, the offers come as a result of the bump in the rankings. I get calls all the time from a school wanting more info on a kid they haven't seen yet and only read about it. Socaltownie, who has never scouted a kid a day in his life want to stick to this theory that the schools trigger the rankings increase without having any clue how it really works. My problem with people like him is that no matter what evidence somebody shows them, they stick to whatever they believe and are not stand up enough to consider other possibilities or even admit they were flat out wrong.

RealScouting;842340635 said:

---

That would take too much work for him to do that. What happens when a kid may be lower ranked early in his career is that the more they develop the better they get. As a result of the kid developing, he sees an uptick in his ranking and the blue blood programs get involved. Prime example in this year's class would be Henry Ellenson out of Wisconsin. Prior to this AAU season, he was ranked in the 40's and 50's on most people's boards. I had him there too. When I saw him in the Spring, he was a much better player. He lost weight and was quicker and more explosive. He already had a high skill level and when you put that together, you get a kid who is now considered a top 10 player in the country. What happens when a kid improves like that ? His ranking goes up and the blue blood programs start taking notice and get involved. It's not the other way around. Since he is now a top 10 player in the class, the Dukes and Kansas' of the world have now offered him. In April he didn't have those offers. As a matter of fact, I told an assistant at Kansas about the kid at an EYBL event and now they're actively recruiting him. The recruiting services are ahead of the schools because college coaches, as you know have limited opportunities to see kids because of the NCAA rules with regard to live and closed periods. Recruiting services have no such restrictions and are often used as a resource for most division 1 programs in the country. In other words, the offers come as a result of the bump in the rankings. I get calls all the time from a school wanting more info on a kid they haven't seen yet and only read about it. Socaltownie, who has never scouted a kid a day in his life want to stick to this theory that the schools trigger the rankings increase without having any clue how it really works. My problem with people like him is that no matter what evidence somebody shows them, they stick to whatever they believe and are not stand up enough to consider other possibilities or even admit they were flat out wrong.

---

Awesome Post. I agree that the method I suggested was massively flawed as well but I was attempting to encourage him to use any kind of data other than, "it's obvious that Reeves Nelson is a prime example of what I'm talking about, why can't you guys see it?"

It takes an arrogant SOB to argue with a professional scout about scouting.

Holmoephobic;842340638 said:

---

Awesome Post. I agree that the method I suggested was massively flawed as well but I was attempting to encourage him to use any kind of data other than, "it's obvious that Reeves Nelson is a prime example of what I'm talking about, why can't you guys see it?"

It takes an arrogant SOB to argue with a professional scout about scouting.

---

It's pointless talking to some people because they have all the answers. Like I said, the rankings bump precedes the offers from the bigger schools. People like Socaltowine, who causally pay attention think that a kid moves up because Duke offered and that's not the case. They offered because the kid got better and moved up.

No, no screen shots. But if you look at the quote you provided you will see it was made when he was an underclassman. I remember reading it and getting excited back then because Cal was in the mix at the time. Elite national prospects, which Scout described him as his soph year, do not get just three stars.

Civil Bear;842340687 said:

---

No, no screen shots. But if you look at the quote you provided you will see it was made when he was an underclassman. I remember reading it and getting excited back then because Cal was in the mix at the time. Elite national prospects, which Scout described him as his soph year, do not get just three stars.

---

It isn't time stamped.

It is funny that apparently the sites peddle "accuracy" but can't be bothered to go back and take the 2 minutes to rewrite the quote. Hmmm......

RS - what is YOUR evidence? You hide behind your screen name and come on the board really only to do TWO things - Defend Lee's decision to Sign with Kentucky to ride the bench and now to defend Oscar' F's "downgrade". Hmmmm.......Maybe it is YOU we need to wonder about - how is your advice working out for Mr. Lee?

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/9095/20140426/kentuckys-depth-chart-and-projected-starting-line-up-for-the-2014-15-season-updated-for-return-of-harrison-twins.htm

socaltownie;842340804 said:

---

It isn't time stamped.

It is funny that apparently the sites peddle "accuracy" but can't be bothered to go back and take the 2 minutes to rewrite the quote. Hmmm......

RS - what is YOUR evidence? You hide behind your screen name and come on the board really only to do TWO things - Defend Lee's decision to Sign with Kentucky to ride the bench and now to defend Oscar' F's "downgrade". Hmmmm.......Maybe it is YOU we need to wonder about - how is your advice working out for Mr. Lee?

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/9095/20140426/kentuckys-depth-chart-and-projected-starting-line-up-for-the-2014-15-season-updated-for-return-of-harrison-twins.htm

---

Wow. You just don't know when to stop. It's over, move on.
Your attempt to attack RS is embarrassing and without merit.

Holmoephobic;842340863 said:

---

Wow. You just don't know when to stop. It's over, move on.
Your attempt to attack RS is embarrassing and without merit.

---

Ya still responding.....Hmmm.....

socaltownie;842340804 said:

---

It isn't time stamped.

It is funny that apparently the sites peddle "accuracy" but can't be bothered to go back and take the 2 minutes to rewrite the quote. Hmmm......

RS - what is YOUR evidence? You hide behind your screen name and come on the board really only to do TWO things - Defend Lee's decision to Sign with Kentucky to ride the bench and now to defend Oscar' F's "downgrade". Hmmmm.......Maybe it is YOU we need to wonder about - how is your advice working out for Mr. Lee?

http://www.universityherald.com/articles/9095/20140426/kentuckys-depth-chart-and-projected-starting-line-up-for-the-2014-15-season-updated-for-return-of-harrison-twins.htm

---

I haven't defended anything. What I have done is tell you that his decision to go to another school is none of your business and you have no idea what goes into making a decision like that, because A) You were never talented enough to be recruited at a high level and B) You don't have any children talented enough to be recruited at such a high level. I haven't defended Oscar's downgrade. His game has not improved much over his first 2 high school seasons. He was considered a top 25 player in his class about a year or so ago, but his reliance on his athleticism and lack of a skill level has gotten him dropped in the rankings. It has nothing to do with him committing to Cal. He just did that a few days ago. You think somebody went and updated his ranking when he committed the other day ? Oh he committed to Cal, let me go on the site and drop his ranking. That's the most idiotic thing I have heard in a while and trust me, the last idiotic thing I heard came from you as well. You're batting .1000. Spare me your article posting. You posted some outdated scouting report on Reeves Nelson to make whatever case you were trying to make and now you're posting an article from somebody not on the Kentucky coaching staff about what their depth chart will look like. If you want to play that game, I can do the same thing. Here's a tweet from Jon Rothstein of CBS sports who sat in on practice last week.

Jon Rothstein @JonRothstein Jul 28
Early prediction on Kentucky starting five --- Andrew Harrison, Aaron Harrison, Alex Poythress, Marcus Lee, Willie Cauley-Stein….

And I know coaches on the Kentucky staff and Cal is playing Lee with the twins, Poythress and Towns. Last I checked last season, the twins were starters and Poyhtress is a projected starter. Cauley-Stein is still out rehabbing from his injury, so the only guy not in Rothstein's predicted lineup in that group is Cauley-Stein and that's due to injury. You can't win this fight with me man or any other for that matter. You have to know what you're talking about and you don't. Furthermore, I don't even know how this conversation got turned around to Marcus Lee. It's typical when a person can't win one argument that try to deflect and change the subject to something else. You are an immature joke man.

RealScouting;842340916 said:

---

I haven't defended anything. What I have done is tell you that his decision to go to another school is none of your business and you have no idea what goes into making a decision like that, because A) You were never talented enough to be recruited at a high level and B) You don't have any children talented enough to be recruited at such a high level. I haven't defended Oscar's downgrade. His game has not improved much over his first 2 high school seasons. He was considered a top 25 player in his class about a year or so ago, but his reliance on his athleticism and lack of a skill level has gotten him dropped in the rankings. It has nothing to do with him committing to Cal. He just did that a few days ago. You think somebody went and updated his ranking when he committed the other day ? Oh he committed to Cal, let me go on the site and drop his ranking. That's the most idiotic thing I have heard in a while and trust me, the last idiotic thing I heard came from you as well. You're batting .1000. Spare me your article posting. You posted some outdated scouting report on Reeves Nelson to make whatever case you were trying to make and now you're posting an article from somebody not on the Kentucky coaching staff about what their depth chart will look like. If you want to play that game, I can do the same thing. Here's a tweet from Jon Rothstein of CBS sports who sat in on practice last week.

Jon Rothstein @JonRothstein Jul 28
Early prediction on Kentucky starting five --- Andrew Harrison, Aaron Harrison, Alex Poythress, Marcus Lee, Willie Cauley-Stein.

And I know coaches on the Kentucky staff and Cal is playing Lee with the twins, Poythress and Towns. Last I checked last season, the twins were starters and Poyhtress is a projected starter. Cauley-Stein is still out rehabbing from his injury, so the only guy not in Rothstein's predicted lineup in that group is Cauley-Stein and that's due to injury. You can't win this fight with me man or any other for that matter. You have to know what you're talking about and you don't. Furthermore, I don't even know how this conversation got turned around to Marcus Lee. It's typical when a person can't win one argument that try to deflect and change the subject to something else. You are an immature joke man.

---

Personal attacks and pissing matches are better played out in private messages. I couldn't care less about whatever private vendetta is developing here. When a recruit goes elsewhere, like Marcus Lee, I also don't care whether they are going to start or not. While we're at it, I don't even care where exactly Oscar Frayer is currently rated in the top 100. Oscar is a Cal Bear to be, so I'm enthused about him regardless of ranking. Go bears!

stivo;842340996 said:

---

Personal attacks and pissing matches are better played out in private messages. I couldn't care less about whatever private vendetta is developing here. When a recruit goes elsewhere, like Marcus Lee, I also don't care whether they are going to start or not. While we're at it, I don't even care where exactly Oscar Frayer is currently rated in the top 100. Oscar is a Cal Bear to be, so I'm enthused about him regardless of ranking. Go bears!

---

My sentiments exactly. I believe in meeting people at their level sometimes which is why I even entertained the Marcus Lee thing. Him going to Kentucky has no relevance to the topic at hand.

socaltownie;842340804 said:

---

It isn't time stamped.

---

Doesn't need to be. Check out the bold letters at the top of each paragraph. "FR" = Freshman, "SO" = Sophomore.