It looks like Monty Bowser made the final Rivals 150 rankings @ #143, which should move him to a 4th Star when final rankings are released tomorrow. Kudos to Coach Fox and staff for recruiting unrecognized talent. It's exactly what we'll need to continue to do to compete in the conference and make the tournament.

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

A bit surprising, because I didn't get the impression, during the season, that his stock was going up. Of course, this is surprising in a good way!

Bogo said:

---

It looks like Monty Bowser made the final Rivals 150 rankings @ #143, which should move him to a 4th Star when final rankings are released tomorrow. Kudos to Coach Fox and staff for recruiting unrecognized talent. It's exactly what we'll need to continue to do to compete in the conference and make the tournament.

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

---

Apparently, he is still a 3-star, according to this Final Rivals 150:

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

It is interesting that since the first Rivals 150 in 2003 the number of 4-star players in the list has more than doubled, while the number of 5-stars has increased very little.

2003: 25 five stars, 50 four stars

2008: 25 five stars, 75 four stars

2013: 26 five stars, 87 four stars

2018: 31 five stars, 108 four stars

2020: 29 five stars, 109 four stars

I wonder if Rivals is actually sending people out to see more recruits in person, or they are assigning ratings just to satisfy demand for more recruits to be ranked higher. My feeling is that five star rankings are mostly accurate, and many four star rankings are accurate, but the accuracy really drops off after #55 or so. Three star rankings are not much more accurate than a coin flip, IMO. I've always felt that the recruit ranking services don't have the manpower to get out and see many players personally, which they need to do, especially with players ranked say #75 and above to be able to make a good prediction or ranking for that player.

SFCityBear said:

---

Bogo said:

---

It looks like Monty Bowser made the final Rivals 150 rankings @ #143, which should move him to a 4th Star when final rankings are released tomorrow. Kudos to Coach Fox and staff for recruiting unrecognized talent. It's exactly what we'll need to continue to do to compete in the conference and make the tournament.

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

---

Apparently, he is still a 3-star, according to this Final Rivals 150:

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

It is interesting that since the first Rivals 150 in 2003 the number of 4-star players in the list has more than doubled, while the number of 5-stars has increased very little.

2003: 25 five stars, 50 four stars

2008: 25 five stars, 75 four stars

2013: 26 five stars, 87 four stars

2018: 31 five stars, 108 four stars

2020: 29 five stars, 109 four stars

I wonder if Rivals is actually sending people out to see more recruits in person, or they are assigning ratings just to satisfy demand for more recruits to be ranked higher. My feeling is that five star rankings are mostly accurate, and many four star rankings are accurate, but the accuracy really drops off after #55 or so. Three star rankings are not much more accurate than a coin flip, IMO. I've always felt that the recruit ranking services don't have the manpower to get out and see many players personally, which they need to do, especially with players ranked say #75 and above to be able to make a good prediction or ranking for that player.

---

Now, there has been a lot more basketball youth development over the last couple decades, so an increasing number of 4-stars may simply mean that more players are prepared. However, like so many things, I'm sure the ratings game has changed significantly as well (maybe admins have more updated insight).

From my experiences, 20 years ago, the 'manpower' of ratings organizations were primarily coaches and parents lobbying for their kids. The shoe companies and agents were lobbying the 5-stars with lots of cash and expenses, so they got more heat and were consistently rated better. But the rest was mostly 'grass roots' - which also included parents buying cars for AAU coaches and such. The actual manpower of the rating organizations never consisted of more than a handful of dedicated basketball enthusiasts gathering all of this input and going to tournaments to watch.

It's not like they were sending knowledgeable people out to watch actual games or anything (other than regional and national tournaments). A lot of metro area players would get rated more accurately, because more of their games were watched.

The ratings themselves may have morphed to reflect an average of multiple raters. In the past . . .

5-stars meant can't miss
4-stars meant highly likely to start at high major level during college career
3-stars meant likely to contribute at high major or start at mid major
2-stars meant project

BeachedBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bogo said:

---

It looks like Monty Bowser made the final Rivals 150 rankings @ #143, which should move him to a 4th Star when final rankings are released tomorrow. Kudos to Coach Fox and staff for recruiting unrecognized talent. It's exactly what we'll need to continue to do to compete in the conference and make the tournament.

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

---

Apparently, he is still a 3-star, according to this Final Rivals 150:

https://n.rivals.com/prospect_rankings/rivals150/2020

It is interesting that since the first Rivals 150 in 2003 the number of 4-star players in the list has more than doubled, while the number of 5-stars has increased very little.

2003: 25 five stars, 50 four stars

2008: 25 five stars, 75 four stars

2013: 26 five stars, 87 four stars

2018: 31 five stars, 108 four stars

2020: 29 five stars, 109 four stars

I wonder if Rivals is actually sending people out to see more recruits in person, or they are assigning ratings just to satisfy demand for more recruits to be ranked higher. My feeling is that five star rankings are mostly accurate, and many four star rankings are accurate, but the accuracy really drops off after #55 or so. Three star rankings are not much more accurate than a coin flip, IMO. I've always felt that the recruit ranking services don't have the manpower to get out and see many players personally, which they need to do, especially with players ranked say #75 and above to be able to make a good prediction or ranking for that player.

---

Now, there has been a lot more basketball youth development over the last couple decades, so an increasing number of 4-stars may simply mean that more players are prepared. However, like so many things, I'm sure the ratings game has changed significantly as well (maybe admins have more updated insight).

From my experiences, 20 years ago, the 'manpower' of ratings organizations were primarily coaches and parents lobbying for their kids. The shoe companies and agents were lobbying the 5-stars with lots of cash and expenses, so they got more heat and were consistently rated better. But the rest was mostly 'grass roots' - which also included parents buying cars for AAU coaches and such. The actual manpower of the rating organizations never consisted of more than a handful of dedicated basketball enthusiasts gathering all of this input and going to tournaments to watch.

It's not like they were sending knowledgeable people out to watch actual games or anything (other than regional and national tournaments). A lot of metro area players would get rated more accurately, because more of their games were watched.

The ratings themselves may have morphed to reflect an average of multiple raters. In the past . . .

5-stars meant can't miss
4-stars meant highly likely to start at high major level during college career
3-stars meant likely to contribute at high major or start at mid major
2-stars meant project

---

Very interesting. Thanks for posting this.

I don't think the stars mean much in this situation. Bowser is ranked #143. Every player ranked 137 or higher is four stars, so Bowser just missed the arbitrary cut-off. Cal did well to get Bowser. He had multiple scholarship offers at the time he committed, but Cal was the only offer from a college in a power conference. By contrast, the player ranked just ahead of him had five offers from power conference schools. I don't know if our good fortune is due to the skill of our coaching staff in finding talent or just plain luck, but I will take it!

mdbear said:

---

I don't think the stars mean much in this situation. Bowser is ranked #143. Every player ranked 137 or higher is four stars, so Bowser just missed the arbitrary cut-off. Cal did well to get Bowser. He had multiple scholarship offers at the time he committed, but Cal was the only offer from a college in a power conference. By contrast, the player ranked just ahead of him had five offers from power conference schools. I don't know if our good fortune is due to the skill of our coaching staff in finding talent or just plain luck, but I will take it!

---

I only saw Bowser twice in high school....I sincerely hope you are right but I have my doubts....

Wowsers!

mdbear said:

---

I don't think the stars mean much in this situation. Bowser is ranked #143. Every player ranked 137 or higher is four stars, so Bowser just missed the arbitrary cut-off. Cal did well to get Bowser. He had multiple scholarship offers at the time he committed, but Cal was the only offer from a college in a power conference. By contrast, the player ranked just ahead of him had five offers from power conference schools. I don't know if our good fortune is due to the skill of our coaching staff in finding talent or just plain luck, but I will take it!

---

You left out another possibility, but I hope you are right.