San Diego Classic

[winetot]

Top Bracket -

1st place game La Jolla Country Day over Clovis West
3rd place game Mission Hills over Brea
5th place game Centennial over Chaminade
7th Place game Cardinal Newman over Oakridge

Great send off event for the high school teams. AAU circuit starts now.

 

[colhenrylives]

Oak Ridge struggled in San Diego. Somewhat surprising. They have talent.

 

[GOTF]

Did Pinewood attend this year?

 

[winetot]

Oakridge has 3 girls in the top 12 of the 2018 class and they lost 46-17 to Cardinal Newman in their final game. 17 points in a 40 minute game(running clock). I would say "struggled" is an understatement.

 

[colhenrylives]

But it was not entirely clear if all of their key kids even made the trek to San Diego.

 

[northbaybbguru]

the big 3 for Oak Ridge were in San Diego and all played vs Cardinal Newman. In fact it was CN who was without their tough as nails 6th man(lacrosse tourney) who were shorthanded.

Oak Ridge bigs were a non factor vs CN. McCoy did nothing, and as the game got out of hand all 3 were benched halfway thru the 2nd half.


CN went 3-3 in the tourney with a 3 point loss to Clovis West, a 2 point loss to Centennial and "only" a 17 point loss to LCD. (if you saw the scores of all the LCD games you'd understand that comment)

LCD has to be considered a top 3 team in the state at this point.

ultimately, it was a good showing for the homegrown CN squad out of little ole Sonoma County

 

[colhenrylives]

Other than CN (an outstanding cadre of big people to be sure), NorCal's best (Mitty, SMS, Pinewood et al) were absent from Ron Burgundy's favorite venue.

 

[colhenrylives]

Also, no matter we care to slice it, summer hoops does not dictate what's necessarily coming during the 2016-17 campaign. It's a snapshot, perhaps. But it's not definitive by any means.

 

[RespectBBGame]

What is ranking in NorCal any way. It's just people putting players high then they real are then others. This makes programs look better then they real are but I have nothing to say wrong about the players just the ones that rank them. Some players will never live up to the hype the writers make them out to be!! Same on people for making the players play harder then they can. The writers sound rank a play by what they see not what they heard in other people's eyes.

 

[winetot]

Respect - I agree with you 100%.

 

[ClayK]

The writers should rank a player by what they see not what they heard.

As a media member, I have to speak up here -- I don't think that's a fair statement. Just as non-media members disagree on player rankings, so do media folks. It's not that they're lazy, or they're any smarter or dumber than anyone else, it's just that they are sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

People love rankings so that's why they're published, and writers write, for the most part, what people want to read. And rankings are inherently uncertain, and one huge reason is this: No one can predict when a player will stop improving. We've all seen players, male or female, who were as good as they were going to get at age 15 -- and then there are those who are getting better as seniors in college.

No one, media or otherwise, can tell which player falls into which category.

And finally, there's not some grand conspiracy out there to rank this girl over that girl ... it's just people doing the best they can, and they're sometimes wrong.

 

[winetot]

Clay - I respect the fact that rankings are difficult, I just think they are too subjective. Rarely do I disagree with players who are ranked(maybe their placement - but mostly only a few spots). I think rankings here are always based on college potential, I think there are great high school players who get overlooked because there are circumstances that may prevent them from having "college potential".

 

[colhenrylives]

In today's world, there are so many opportunities for kids to be seen by college scouts and coaches, it's rare for a player to be overlooked by them. The one big factor that can have a negative impact on recruiting: Injuries. If a kid can't play, she can't be seen.

 

[ClayK]

In today's world, there are so many opportunities for kids to be seen by college scouts and coaches, it's rare for a player to be overlooked by them. The one big factor that can have a negative impact on recruiting: Injuries. If a kid can't play, she can't be seen.

Great point ... if parents really understood that there are more D1 scholarships than D1 players, they would be much less concerned with the process. On the girls' side, unlike the boys', if you are good enough, they will find you. The number of deserving girls who have not gotten D1 scholarships (assuming grades, etc.) is very close to zero. "Exposure" is pretty much irrelevant. A girl could spend her entire high school and club career in Northern California, and if she was good enough, she would get her scholarship. The time and money spent traveling are really an extravagance -- but if it's fun for the family, then go for it. Just don't think it will make any difference when it comes time to field scholarship offers.

 

[colhenrylives]

Yes. There are very few surprises in the recruiting game these days. In fact, there are probably more mistakes made on the granting of free, or partially free, rides than not. As Clay notes, it's supply and demand. With demand the big winner.

 

[colhenrylives]

Here's an example of a kid who does not play on a high-profile prep team but is simply terrific. Brittney Cedeno of South San Francisco HS is a junior point guard with wonderful offensive skills (she might even be too selfless). If she played at Sacred Heart Cathedral (where she played her frosh year) or Salesian or Mitty, she would be touted by rating outfits. However, it doesn't matter. College people are well aware of her. She will receive her just reward at some point, barring something unforeseen. And she's just one young player who isn't demanding attention on the media's radar screen. At least not yet.

 

[Streak One]

Curious on Cedeno, what level do you think she ends up at? I like her game and she is coming off a good high school season.

 

[ClayK]

I like Cedeno too. She showed very well at the Lamorinda Shootout last year ... but I only saw her once so I don't have any strong opinions.

 

[colhenrylives]

Not sure. But she is so smooth, so aware and so selfless she would be much more effective on a really strong team where she can facilitate other talented players. She makes good players better. And that's the mark of a prospect.

 

[RespectBBGame]

Clay
All I was trying to say to the writers judge players where they think the player should be rank. See with their own eyes not what people say what that player is about and interview the player when they can!!!!!!!!!

 

[ClayK]

Some writers are more influenced by the opinions of others than other writers ... but sometimes you see a girl once (Cedeno, say) and someone else you respect has seen her six times, so you ask.

As for interviews, that's a tough one. Some girls are just not comfortable in an interview situation; others know what they're supposed to say and say it, even though they may not really believe it; and some are open and honest.

But as any parent knows, and anyone who was a teen, it's not that hard for an adolescent to fool an adult in a brief conversation, especially one as artificial as a media interview.

 

[letsski]

Clay - I respect the fact that rankings are difficult, I just think they are too subjective. Rarely do I disagree with players who are ranked(maybe their placement - but mostly only a few spots). I think rankings here are always based on college potential, I think there are great high school players who get overlooked because there are circumstances that may prevent them from having "college potential".

How can rankings not be subjective? This isn't swimming where the time is the time.

Great point ... if parents really understood that there are more D1 scholarships than D1 players, they would be much less concerned with the process. On the girls' side, unlike the boys', if you are good enough, they will find you. The number of deserving girls who have not gotten D1 scholarships (assuming grades, etc.) is very close to zero. "Exposure" is pretty much irrelevant. A girl could spend her entire high school and club career in Northern California, and if she was good enough, she would get her scholarship. The time and money spent traveling are really an extravagance -- but if it's fun for the family, then go for it. Just don't think it will make any difference when it comes time to field scholarship offers.

Clay, I agree with you that there are probably more D1 spots available then D1 players, but it needs to be looked at realistically. In the western states (Calif., Ore., Wash., Nev. and Utah) there are 41 D1 programs. 24 of those are in Calif. If we make an assumption that each program has 2-3 spots available each year, that is 82-123 positions that need to be filled.

Of those 41 programs, only 8 are considered BCS levels programs, meaning that the NorCal top 10 player may be a candidate to play there. The rest are low-mid majors with smaller recruiting budgets, less reach and less resources. Now, a low major in Utah may stumble upon a player such as Cedeno somehow, but if she attends some AAU viewing tournaments she greatly increases her chances of being seen. Southern Utah most likely isn't sending an assistant coach to go watch SSF girls play Hillsdale. How else is she going to get seen? Making the PAL All League team?

Sure, Sabrina Ionescu is known by every program in the county, but the truth is most D1 players will play at a low major school, with a smaller % playing at a mid-major. One greatly improves their chances of being seen by more schools if they play in front of more college coaches.

Please note: I'm not making an argument that if a player isn't a D1 caliber player that she'll get discovered playing in viewing tournament, but simply that if you are good enough to play at the next level, you need to get seen.

 

[ClayK]

I think we're talking around the same point ...

At a certain level, yes, you need to be seen, but that mainly just increases your options. I don't think many D1 level players never play in a club tournament or never get to their postseason playoffs or never get first team all-region (or whatever). In general, a D1 talent is going to get noticed at some point by someone, and the word will get out. (If a family reaches out to schools that their daughter wants to go to rather than waiting to be discovered, the odds of getting noticed go up significantly.)

My point, really, is that club coaches and event organizers who say that a girl has to get out on the road or go to exposure camps or both, or she won't get a ride are at best misleading the family and at worst cynically taking their money. Minimal effort by a family will result in college coaches seeing their daughter enough to make a decision, and it doesn't take much time to decide. (One coach told me, and there's a lot of truth in this, that he could tell if a girl could help his program by watching her in the layup line. He did say watching at least a half of a game would make it easier to be sure ...)

Another point: There's no need to get seen early, especially if a girl's game is still developing. One trip around the circuit in the summer before the senior year is more than enough, though to play it safe, getting out some as a junior is a good idea in case of injury. Any coach who tells a family a girl needs to get on the radar screen in middle school is either completely uninformed or trying to sell something.

Finally, some math. I would also argue that each school has 3-4 scholarships available each year (15 scholarships divided by four years is 3.75, but many schools don't give out 15 rides and some kids have scholarships for more than four years). There are 330+ total Division I schools, and it would seem reasonable to me to say there are about 1,000 scholarships offered each year, not including NAIA D1 and NCAA D2. Since California has about 12% of the population, that would be about 120 scholarships each year.

I am not convinced there are 120 D1 level seniors in California that have everything in place to play D1 basketball, which means that those who do have the talent and all the other pieces in place do not need to do much more than make sure the schools they are interested in know who they are.

 

[Paytc]

Curious on Cedeno, what level do you think she ends up at? I like her game and she is coming off a good high school season.

Streak One, Clay, and colhenrylives,

Brittney Cedeno is a very talented player. I have watched her dominate games on a regular basis before entering high school. I would expect her to get even better in her last two seasons of high school. I believe she will be a major steal to whatever college program ends up getting her. Like most players under 6'8, she's better playing with a good supporting cast than without one. I would think a scout would have to be blind not to see the obvious talent. She also appears to have a good attitude and temperament which most likely makes her easy to coach. But that doesn't mean all coaches will know how to get the best out of her. I love seeing good players finding the best fit for them to develop to their full potential. Many players lose out by ending up with coaches who deserve a (c-f) grade in player development and/or coaching. I have always been quick to say not all coaches are good, and coaches are not always right. I think Brittney has been slowly rounding back into shape after an injury slowed her down a bit before entering high school. She is a baller. I wish her much continued success.


Paytc

 

[colhenrylives]

Evaluating talent is not an exact science at all. Some of it is subjective. Some of it is based on a school's needs at the time. Some of it is predicated on a school simply having a package available and a need to find someone adequate for it. Often, high school players are recruited based on projections. That's especially true when it comes to big kids. Unfortunately, there is a huge caveat in play here: Other than a team's offensive leader (point guard, point forward, etc.), it's fair to say that, during a typical ballgame, a player is playing without the ball at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Which means defense, positioning, blocking out, hustle, toughness, footwork, spacing, movement, etc. are critical. In other words, the thankless jobs that few kids (male or female) excel at today. Scouting those traits is a lost art. Most of us can spot a great shooter, a 6-2 kid, a super-quick player, a great ball-handler/passer. But the rest of it, not so much. Scouting can be a real crap shoot. Scholarships are handed out to mistakes on a regular basis. And, by the way, any number of kids can't even qualify academically for colleges with reasonably high standards. So, hello JC's. And that's an entirely different story.

 

[mkbgdns]

n/m

 

[hoopwilla]

Evaluating talent is not an exact science at all. Some of it is subjective. Some of it is based on a school's needs at the time. Some of it is predicated on a school simply having a package available and a need to find someone adequate for it. Often, high school players are recruited based on projections. That's especially true when it comes to big kids. Unfortunately, there is a huge caveat in play here: Other than a team's offensive leader (point guard, point forward, etc.), it's fair to say that, during a typical ballgame, a player is playing without the ball at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Which means defense, positioning, blocking out, hustle, toughness, footwork, spacing, movement, etc. are critical. In other words, the thankless jobs that few kids (male or female) excel at today. Scouting those traits is a lost art. Most of us can spot a great shooter, a 6-2 kid, a super-quick player, a great ball-handler/passer. But the rest of it, not so much. Scouting can be a real crap shoot. Scholarships are handed out to mistakes on a regular basis. And, by the way, any number of kids can't even qualify academically for colleges with reasonably high standards. So, hello JC's. And that's an entirely different story.

Great post, and batting cleanup on the previous posts to set this up. What I really like is where I see this going-analytics. Not popular with purists yet, and while it isn't a replacement, analytics does a good job of 1. getting info like touches 2. letting you add in a subjective variable and decide how valuable it is (over simplifying). Seems like alot of times the fantasy plyrs with no playing experience win more often. And we all know the bookmakers for the house always win over time.

 

[Paytc]

Evaluating talent is not an exact science at all. Some of it is subjective. Some of it is based on a school's needs at the time. Some of it is predicated on a school simply having a package available and a need to find someone adequate for it. Often, high school players are recruited based on projections. That's especially true when it comes to big kids. Unfortunately, there is a huge caveat in play here: Other than a team's offensive leader (point guard, point forward, etc.), it's fair to say that, during a typical ballgame, a player is playing without the ball at least 90 to 95 percent of the time. Which means defense, positioning, blocking out, hustle, toughness, footwork, spacing, movement, etc. are critical. In other words, the thankless jobs that few kids (male or female) excel at today. Scouting those traits is a lost art. Most of us can spot a great shooter, a 6-2 kid, a super-quick player, a great ball-handler/passer. But the rest of it, not so much. Scouting can be a real crap shoot. Scholarships are handed out to mistakes on a regular basis. And, by the way, any number of kids can't even qualify academically for colleges with reasonably high standards. So, hello JC's. And that's an entirely different story.

colhenrylives,

I can think of a number of families and players who would benefit from reading what you just posted. Too many folks think the best player on the court is the player scoring the most points. They forget to notice that player usually takes 3 times more shots than anyone else and/ or is hogging the ball. Others read the stat sheet without noticing that player may have shot 5 of 30 from the field and 7 of 14 from the foul line. And yes most schools will quickly recruit a 6 foot player because the number of quality 6 footers are fewer than there are quality under 6 foot players. I recall several comments about how too many are exclusively focused on making it onto a division 1 college when a lower division might be a better fit. At the end of the day getting a quality education paid for and playing the sport you may or may not love should be all that matters.

And remember... the higher the level, the tougher the challenge and a higher demand load.

I love how Gary Payton breaks it down for you by saying...." All kids want an offer. Not all kids want 6am weights, 8:00 - 12:00 class, 2pm practice, 4pm film study, and 6pm mandatory study hall."

Here is proof that scoring is not the only thing that gets noticed.....http://www.buildingthedam.com/2016/...ton-ii-solid-in-houstons-summer-league-defeat

 

[colhenrylives]

And there's a bit more, albeit somewhat under the recruiting radar screen. Here's the issue: What kind of kid is she (or he)? Does she get along well with her teammates? Does her coach give her high marks for accepting her role, her minutes, her responsibilities? Is she affable or is she a personality problem? Is she selfish or selfless? Is she willing to be a backup at the college level? Does she come with a pile of personal issues? And, of course, what about her academics? Again, recruiting is not a science. In fact, it's a walk in the wilderness much of the time.

 

[Paytc]

And there's a bit more, albeit somewhat under the recruiting radar screen. Here's the issue: What kind of kid is she (or he)? Does she get along well with her teammates? Does her coach give her high marks for accepting her role, her minutes, her responsibilities? Is she affable or is she a personality problem? Is she selfish or selfless? Is she willing to be a backup at the college level? Does she come with a pile of personal issues? And, of course, what about her academics? Again, recruiting is not a science. In fact, it's a walk in the wilderness much of the time.

You got that right !

The problem many times is high school politics and selfishness. There are too many coaches and parents who spoil certain players into becoming selfish brats or bullies. And that is usually nipped in the butt immediately at the next level leaving the spoiled brat uncoachable or with a bad attitude when they all of a sudden have to earn things.

I hope your getting offers from colleges or pros to recruit for them. (Smile)

 

[colhenrylives]

I like to say, "Observing, analyzing, recommending, cautioning." My theory on this stuff goes like this: If there's a kid out there who may be somewhat unknown to many but has some skills, make a recommendation to a college program that it send someone it trusts to see the kid in person at least twice. Once is not enough. Then go from there. But do the research. Don't take one person's word as gospel on a kid. The eyeball test is a must.

 

[ClayK]

All great points, and I have to add my usual: Parents need to take control of the process -- do not wait to be discovered. At the start of the summer before their daughter's junior year, make a list of 10 schools she is thinking about. Send each of those 10 schools a schedule, and the parents follow up with a phone call to gauge interest. If someone says no, cross them off the list and add another school.

With all the energy and effort and money parents put into club and high school basketball, too many don't put any energy and effort into reaching out to colleges. Instead of spending a weekend at yet another club tournament, stay at home, force the daughter to sit down and make a list, find the contact info, and either write letters or send e-mails with the pertinent information.

The system is designed for the colleges and coaches, and the players and families are just replaceable parts in the industry's process. The more families take charge, the better for all concerned.

 

[colhenrylives]

That is great advice.

 

[RespectBBGame]

Clay
What happened to coaches putting in the work to get these players into college???? I taught when a person takes the responsibility of being a coach was to help the player get into college just not collecting a check??? There are some coaches are do right by their program that's why some players want to transfer. That brings me to the point where players of any sport should be able to go where every they want. When coaches take the responsibility and help their players get to college then put transfer rule back in play.

 

[ClayK]

Of course coaches should do what they can, but a club coach may have 50 or more players in his or her organization, and the coach of that particular team may not have the expertise. High school coaches often lack connections or the understanding of how the system works.

Regardless, if there is an outside chance of a scholarship -- and a full ride is worth $200,000 or so -- it doesn't make sense to me to trust someone else to take care of business. Even if we're just talking $5,000 a year at a D2, that's still $20,000, and for that amount of money, it certainly seems worth it to do the work yourself instead of relying on someone else who isn't as motivated as you are.

 

[mkbgdns]

the responsibility of being a coach was to help the player get into college just not collecting a check???

no check, coaches are too busy counting the pennies and putting them in rolls so that they can take them to the bank

 

[colhenrylives]

That would be the International Bank of Woeful Lack of Income and Chronically Persistent Late Fees and Overdraft Charges, LLC.

 

[letsski]

All great points, and I have to add my usual: Parents need to take control of the process -- do not wait to be discovered. At the start of the summer before their daughter's junior year, make a list of 10 schools she is thinking about. Send each of those 10 schools a schedule, and the parents follow up with a phone call to gauge interest. If someone says no, cross them off the list and add another school.

With all the energy and effort and money parents put into club and high school basketball, too many don't put any energy and effort into reaching out to colleges. Instead of spending a weekend at yet another club tournament, stay at home, force the daughter to sit down and make a list, find the contact info, and either write letters or send e-mails with the pertinent information.

The system is designed for the colleges and coaches, and the players and families are just replaceable parts in the industry's process. The more families take charge, the better for all concerned.

All great advice - I would disagree with one point. While parents should help with daughters make a list, outline an intro letter and basketball resume, the player should be the one contacting the coaches directly, either by email or phone. Every college coach I have ever talked with said they would much rather hear from the player themselves.

While it is difficult for these students to reach out to those in power, especially when sometimes they end up hearing unwelcome news, it is great life training. The sooner a player creates a personal relationship with one of the coaches, the better their chances are of landing a spot on a roster.

 

[ClayK]

My understanding is that coaches can't talk to players up to a certain point, and during certain time periods, but they can always talk to parents.

But the rules are constantly changing, and I'm not sure what the contact rule is if the player reaches out.