I’d love to see the numbers, and some of the research. Not to mention that the sample size might be questionable. Still, it’s an interesting premise regarding the correlation.

Recently, national basketball recruiting analyst Dave Telep did an analysis of his evaluations from the classes of 2000-2004. He did it mostly to see how he had missed ranking two future NBA draft picks, but he also wanted to find some trends in the sport. After having a local computer whiz kid crunch the numbers, he saw some disturbing things about players attending multiple high schools.

There were 31 players in the top 100 as seniors who had gone to multiple high schools and 61% of those players failed to meet Telep’s expectations. Of course, academics are a big issue with student-athletes who transfer, but there are other less obvious issues that play into the success rates. In his analysis, 24 of those multiple-school players were identified as having academic issues. Of the seven who did not, 25% failed to achieve their expected level of success.

Telep was quick to say that evaluating high school players is hardly a science and those expectations were based on his judgment, but he also thinks that stability is a major factor in players’ development.

“The issue (of a player’s character and poise) has come up in the last year with college coaches more than in the previous 10 years I have been doing it,” Telep says. “So much of being a college basketball player is multitasking, handling classes, basketball and everything else going on. Players that have dealt with issues, who have stability, seem to be able handle it better.”

Keep in mind how small the numbers are. Only 31 of 100 went to multiple schools. Of those, (61% of 31 players is only about) 19 were disappointing in Telep’s estimation. How that compares to the other sample size of 69 is not mentioned and makes it hard to have context. Correlation does not equal causation.

This sort of thing should be looked at a little closer by coaches you would think. It might give them a better idea about players beyond simply their talent potential. Going to multiple schools is usually a red flag for academic issues, but it might also indicate other issues that could have as great an effect on the court. One more tool for evaluating.

It’s only 2 weeks into the college football season and bizarre statements are flying faster than ever. In this random statements of the uninformed, I saw this nugget.

Tyler Palko may be the best QB that nobody is paying attention to. His stats have not been great and he has been helped a lot by a stellar receiving corps, but he’s got Pitt on the verge of the Top 25 and could make the Big East very interesting.

Now, I’ll agree about the first part and the stuff after the “but.” The part in the middle has me scratching my head. Here’s why:

The poster boy for the flop that was the 2005 Tennessee season, Ainge currently leads the nation in passing efficiency with a 226.6 rating; over 12 points higher than the number two man, Pitt’s Tyler Palko…

Yes, it’s true. Palko has the #2 QB rating. I admit, the QB rating stuff confuses the hell out of me since I don’t study the formula closely. Still the stats look good. 65% completion, 6-1 TD-INT and 550 yards (it would appear that yards/completion is a big factor). Seem pretty good numbers to me.

And how the hell did the receiving corps go from question mark (at best), to stellar?  They have been great, not knocking them. It’s just a little early to remove the question marks and proclaim their greatness.