Webber and Teague what happened?

And thats what really matters. Outsides of kids bet this non conference schedule means nothing. I will be judging on how much we have improved based on how we play in the MAC. If we get some wins, how many games we are truely in etc. The MAC has turned into a 1 bid conference the only way we are ever getting back to the tournament is by winning the MAC. If we go out and get blown up by middle of the pack/upper mac teams numbers of wins are not going to make me optimistic for the future

Just for reference I went back and pulled the player rankings of all our recruits since 2011 to see how they stacked up. The star rankings come from Scout.com and Rivals.com. I have averaged the two rankings for the list below.

3 Star - Jeremiah Davis, Tahjai Teague - (Scout 3, Rivals 3)

2.5 Star - Mading Thok (Scout 3, Rivals 2) Quinten Payne, Sean Sellers (Scout 2, Rivals 3)

1.5 Star - Mark Alstork, Jeremie Tyler (Scout 3, Rivals 0)

1 Star - Aaron Adeoye, Michael Ramey, Marcus Posley, Franko House, Zavier Turner, Francis Kiapway, Rashaun Richardson (Scout 2, Rivals 0) Chase Brogna (Scout 0, Rivals 2) Bo Calhoun (Scout 2, Rivals NR)

0 Stars - Zeke Chapman, Bik Gill, Trey Moses (Scout 0, Rivals 0) Nate Wells (Scout 0, Rivals NR), Majok Majok, Naiel Smith (Scout NR, Rivals 0)

Not Rated - Rocco Belcaster, Kaleb Mallory, Tayler Persons, Josh Thompson, Kyle Mallers (2016)

You are essentially correct, however you had no problem using them when you wanted to pump recent recruiting classes in your zeal to defend Whitford.  

Surprised Thok was that high.  He was notably unproductive in HS.  As I remember certain people, who are currently so pleased with themselves over their predictions, were very high on Thok when he signed.

Not sure how Payne was rated that high.  He showed me nothing here and he's not playing much at Dartmouth so far.

Score one for Rivals over Scout on Richardson.
Score one for Scout over Rivals on Brogna.

I don't know, but I wonder if these scouting services don't spend most of their time on 3 stars and above and just quicky sort out the 1's 2's and zeros based on a quick look or hearsay or whatever.

Anyway that collection of ratings is really little better than you could do by throwing darts at a board blindfolded.  Are the 3 and 2.5 stars any better on average than the 1.5, 1 and zero stars?  It's questionable. 

Right now all any of us can do is to project.

There is no certainty that we can not win 50% or more of our games in the MAC.

As long as we stay 50% of our games or above we win at least 15.

Since everybody seems to agree that the star system is somewhat sketchy (although the BSU athletics site is quick to promote Teague as a 4-star recruit ranked as high as 103 in his class), let's try this:

Some on these boards like to point to Indiana All-Star status as the end-all, be-all of recruiting success, and Teague certainly was an Indiana All-Star last year. Not only that but he was a successful all-star, meaning that he played significant minutes, made some significant plays, etc.

So how does he compare this year to players who were his peers last year?

First, let's just throw out Caleb Swanigan. It's probably unfair to compare anybody on the all-stars to him. Other than that, among players who might play the 3-4 positions in college:

Ryan Fazekas, 6-8. At Providence this year. Played 36 minutes and scored 10 points in first game for a team that won 22 games last year.

Ryan Welage, 6-9. At San Jose State. Played 28 minutes, scored 15 points and had 10 rebounds in first game for a team that, recordwise, was worse than BSU last year at 2-28 and is projected to be worse than them this year.

Matt Holba, 6.7. Hasn't played yet for Lehigh, which was 16-14 last year. sounds like a  a redshirt.

If you want to stretch some positionwise, you could throw in Smits at Valpo and McDermott at Butler, both likely redshirts, and Cline at Purdue, who's playing about 17 minutes and game and averaging in double figures.

The thing that strikes me about this is that, sure, it's not uncommon for players of Teague's supposed caliber to redshirt, but typically only if they're going to a team that is at least decent already.

Look, I'm disappointed that we won't see Teague this year because I was led to believe (by none other than our own BSU athletics department) that this was a player who would make an impact immediately. OK, so he won't and I'll downgrade my expectations accordingly.

But, don't try to come back and tell me what a great job of recruiting has been done when our star recruit isn't able to complete for playing time on a bad team.

It is not at all that simple. 

First off, overall evaluation of recruiting in the program does not hinge on one player who might or might not compete for playing time.  We have a number of very good recruits, transfers count,  and even if Teague is not quite as good right away as we hoped, he is still a good recruit.  I see some good players out there on the court in practice and in games, and don't judge everything by one player who is after all still a very good prospect.

Your conclusion above is good rhetoric, but goes too far, and you also miss several other points.

That "failure" you identify is now for that one player anyway.  I think he would be good by the end of the season and would compete, but just not get so many minutes or contribute nearly as much as everyone hoped.  That is something some of us said at the time.  Many of us who had seen him play predicted that he would not be an instant contributor.   Which doesn't mean he isn't a good recruit at all. 

Third, although we don't know about how well he would compete by the end of the season, and we do know that now he isn't, there are some reasons, not total lack of talent!  He's very good.  That competition is partly the result of his position and that the players he is competing with are probably better than we expected.  You argue that while not every high caliber recruit will play, they have to play for a very good team for that to be true.  It's more accurate to say they have to be with a team that has good players at his position.  We do happen to be pretty good at his position, so that is a factor.  He's not a center, not a guard.  You want him to play there? 

Finally on top of all that, if the injury is a factor, and it at the least slowed his development, it occurred after the signing and recruitment and you can hardly judge the signing as poor if that is a factor.

Not liking the short term results of a single recruiting decision does not make it a bad one and does not mean overall recruiting is poor.