MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Skatastrophy on October 31, 2013, 08:29:41 AM
-
https://blogs.emory.edu/sportsmarketing/2013/10/30/what-schools-recruit-the-best-the-worst-and-perhaps-a-bit-too-well/
-
As Chicos said on another thread, blame Val.
-
I can kind of understand how we're considered "underachievers" in this highly subjective study. Based purely on our conference performance, tournament performance, # of NBA players, etc., the "expected" results for us was probably something similar to how Kenutcky is recruiting on a year in year out basis.
The fact we're "underachievers" indicates to me that we are doing more with less, which is pretty much how Buzz operates.
-
Something tells me there is a data problem here. How on earth can Duke be considered an over-achiever despite being coached by Coach K, winning regularly, ESPN fellating them at every opportunity, etc. Ditto UConn, Florida, Michigan State....
-
All it is saying is that we should of recruited better than we did based on:
1. Money spent
2. Affiliation with Big East conference
3. Fan support
4. Winning history
5. NBA players
6. I am not sure they considered it, but I will include having a pro team play in same arena.
All of these advantages and we have trouble recruiting a center and cannot recruit a McDonald's All-American. So looking at this way we are underachieving.
-
All it is saying is that we should of recruited better than we did based on:
1. Money spent
2. Affiliation with Big East conference
3. Fan support
4. Winning history
5. NBA players
6. I am not sure they considered it, but I will include having a pro team play in same arena.
All of these advantages and we have trouble recruiting a center and cannot recruit a McDonald's All-American. So looking at this way we are underachieving.
Garbage in...garbage out. Just because you select inputs, that doesn't mean they are the right inputs to select.
Again, any study that says that Duke, Michigan State, UConn, etc. are recruiting "over achievers" is a study that has questionable inputs.
-
The key assumption of this study is that the talent identified as "better" is, in fact, "better" than what Buzz has been able to attract to Marquette.
Of course, the actual conclusion could be that Buzz just has a better eye for talent, specifically as it relates to his system than this study couldn't possibly measure.
-
The key assumption of this study is that the talent identified as "better" is, in fact, "better" than what Buzz has been able to attract to Marquette.
Of course, the actual conclusion could be that Buzz just has a better eye for talent, specifically as it relates to his system than this study couldn't possibly measure.
welcome back!!!
-
It also looks at 2002-2011, so only 3 years of Buzz.
-
Without reading the study and being a MU fan my whole life (almost 50 yrs) my view is this:
Since Tom Crean came to MU, our recruiting is on a major up-swing. The bottom level (star rating) players we get now (the "questionable" recruits of a class) twenty years ago were our "star" recruits i.e. Jerald Posey, Brian Wardel. How many top 100 recruits under Buzz have not been able to see the floor day one? Lots
Each year the class "ranking" seems to improve.
Are we elite yet? Absolutely not.
Have we begun to regularly compete with top tier schools and win our share? Yes.
Landing a big time Center, in my mind might get us that next step up and become a top choice school. Hasn't happened yet. Amy I a bit surprised? Yes and No.
In Buzz we trust. It will happen eventually. Would I like it to have been 2 years ago? Yes. Might take a few more for it to happen. If anyone can get it done, it is Buzz.
-
welcome back!!!
Always been here, Tex... Just quietly watching the fur fly... ;)
-
The "overachievers" have had mostly steady coaching situations. The "underachievers" have for the most part had a coaching change or two. When there are coaching changes, the recruiting work done for a class or two can be lost. This doesn't account for that at all.
Like someone said, this study is trying to oversimplify a very complicated situation.
-
All it is saying is that we should of recruited better than we did based on:
1. Money spent
2. Affiliation with Big East conference
3. Fan support
4. Winning history
5. NBA players
6. I am not sure they considered it, but I will include having a pro team play in same arena.
All of these advantages and we have trouble recruiting a center and cannot recruit a McDonald's All-American. So looking at this way we are underachieving.
I would guess the main factors that put us in the underachiever category are the money we spend and the ratings of players we bring in. We have sent 4 JUCO guys to the NBA in Crowder, Butler, DJO, and Buycks. All were underrated as HS players compared to their productivity level. Buzz has similarly identified guys like Otule, Gardner, and Mayo that have been productive high-major players despite being rated as 2 and 3 star prospects.
I would look more at the trending of Buzz's recruiting. He has landed at least 1 RSCI top-100 player every year and especially in the 2013, 2014, and further out classes seems to be bringing in players on par with the money we are spending as a program.
Over the past decade, yes, we have probably underachieved when you compare what MU spends and the results. The only classes to really live up to the dollars we spend on paper were 2005 (Three Amigos), 2008 (Cadougan, Maymon, and E-Will in Buzz's first class), and 2013 (Run MKE). Going forward, I expect classes like 2013 to be more the norm than the exception.
-
I agree with this study. I'd place us somewhere between the 15th and 20th best program in college basketball. Ergo, we should haul in top recruiting classes every year and should be getting 5 star recruits every other year. Last year we got a top ten class but that was first in a while. We haven't gotten a 5 star since Doc Rivers. So yes, our recruiting isn't the best if you just look at rankings. But we get the guys who Buzz wants and we win with them. So it's a non-problem.
-
At least we are considered a high major program.
-
At least we are considered a high major program.
We definitely were for that time period. I assume we still are, but that is subjective.
-
All it is saying is that we should of recruited better than we did based on:
1. Money spent
2. Affiliation with Big East conference
3. Fan support
4. Winning history
5. NBA players
6. I am not sure they considered it, but I will include having a pro team play in same arena.
All of these advantages and we have trouble recruiting a center and cannot recruit a McDonald's All-American. So looking at this way we are underachieving.
How dare you blaspheme our recruiting about Centers. We only recruit players we want that are OKG. Nobody can say anything about our ability to recruit a Center, unless it is a positive statement.
-
Yeah, MU gets hammered the most in the "Money Spent" category, I'll wager. Although the article goes on to say those teams in the under achiever category must have good coaching.
-
Hey willie, when is your next hiatus?
-
One of the interesting issues with these analyses is that we expect immediate gratification. Yes, if we hired the Cheater of Lexington, Coach K or even someone like Roy Williams, maybe those expectations are realistic. But if there's anything history tells us, it is that stability, consistently winning and time drive success in recruiting and ultimately, success in National Championships.
Think about the number of people on these boards who have screamed about Buzz perhaps wanting to spend more of his life in Texas. Why are they upset about this? Simple, stability has been lacking in our program and Buzz appears to be bringing stability to us. The quality of the recruits will grow as that stability becomes even more evident.
Finally, look at Al. I know I have used Al many times as the model. Al joined us in time for the 1964-1965 season. We stank. By 1966-1967 and Al's recruits settled in, we were NIT Champions and by 1969, we were a freethrow away from the NCAA Final Four. That was five years in. Most of the Warriors whose names are honored in the Bradley Center came after 1969. The one exception was George Thompson, who started it all.
Buzz is five years in. His inherited a program in better shape than Al did and he's worked miracles. If we get stability, I'm not worried about our recruiting. We have a great university, a great program, a great place to play and a great tradition.
-
Sorry for posting this from my phone this morning, I didn't have time to add much insight.
All of this crap from Emory is a marketing analysis, not a statistical analysis. Basically they're pumping out crap and claiming it's statistics. It's a great way to easily draw sweeping conclusions and get pageviews.
I had a good laugh that we're so terrible at recruiting according to them.
I hope that we continue to be "terrible" at recruiting, because I've been loving the classes coming in :)
-
One of the interesting issues with these analyses is that we expect immediate gratification. Yes, if we hired the Cheater of Lexington, Coach K or even someone like Roy Williams, maybe those expectations are realistic. But if there's anything history tells us, it is that stability, consistently winning and time drive success in recruiting and ultimately, success in National Championships.
Think about the number of people on these boards who have screamed about Buzz perhaps wanting to spend more of his life in Texas. Why are they upset about this? Simple, stability has been lacking in our program and Buzz appears to be bringing stability to us. The quality of the recruits will grow as that stability becomes even more evident.
Finally, look at Al. I know I have used Al many times as the model. Al joined us in time for the 1964-1965 season. We stank. By 1966-1967 and Al's recruits settled in, we were NIT Champions and by 1969, we were a freethrow away from the NCAA Final Four. That was five years in. Most of the Warriors whose names are honored in the Bradley Center came after 1969. The one exception was George Thompson, who started it all.
Buzz is five years in. His inherited a program in better shape than Al did and he's worked miracles. If we get stability, I'm not worried about our recruiting. We have a great university, a great program, a great place to play and a great tradition.
Actually we were the runner-up to Southern Illinois and a guy named Walt Frasier.
-
Actually we were the runner-up to Southern Illinois and a guy named Walt Frasier.
Good catch. The Salukis also had a guy named Walt Frazier. Clyde was likely as renowned for his sartorial style as he was as a Knick.
(http://www.dailyknicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/walt-frazier.jpg)
(http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/jet/938-6.jpg)
(http://www.gq.com/images/sports/2011/03/nba-package/clyde-frazier/frazier_628x434.jpg)
-
Always been here, Tex... Just quietly watching the fur fly... ;)
Welcome back to the contributing part. :D
-
I know I'm a lowly walk- on on this site but the negative posts have convinced me that I get better discussion on the competitor site and better information from Twitter.
-
Who gives a rats a$$ about someone else's opinion of our ability to recruit.
All I know is two sweet 16's, an elite 8, and another under rated team ready to over achieve.
Send the big ones in one at a time, and the rest in pairs.
-
Actually we were the runner-up to Southern Illinois and a guy named Walt Frasier.
Oops. My memory fades. I confused 1966 with 1970.
Maybe it is because my daughter has been accepted at SIU and expects to go there in the fall.
Even though we lost, I still think that game was a turning point for us and for Al. What we know as the Al McGuire era really began that day in New York.
Walt had a pretty good career after SIU, don't you think!
-
Actually we were the runner-up to Southern Illinois and a guy named Walt Frasier.
Who was a teammate of the late Dean Meminger. RIP