ESPN Recruiting Grades

[The Lens]

+1000

It's happening here with UCLA to some extent.  You're not longer the pretty girl at the dance.  Stories start coming out, you're not an unknown.  That's why so many of us have said Buzz is doing a great job right now, but let's see in a few years if that holds because more often than not the bloom comes off the rose.

Which makes TC's class at IU all the more remarkable...all the PT in the world, Top 5 school, new coach with ESPN backed PR and he only lands class 3 slots higher than Buzz?  Calipari shows how it's done, getting a #1 class.  No way TC should have any less than Top 5 classes this year and next.  I'm pretty shocked he hasn't landed a Eric Gordon, John Wall type.  Blows my mind that he's just using his MU recruiting budget to complete IU classes.  He certainly hasn't blown up like that gig allows you to do.

[MR.HAYWARD]

Bilsu

Look at Crean, I am not sure why but it has been said he was having problems with his recruting connections in Chicago.

This has long been discussed.  Just as Tom Crean, the boorish jackass, pissed off hordes and hordes of people in Milwaukee and others associated with the program his personality began to have the same affects on Chicago.  His initial recruitng pipeline with the Illinois Warriors...Dwyane Wade, Blankson, etc. was completely destroyed and was simply persona non grata with that program.  By the way Vander Blue plays with the Warriors and Tony Benford and Buzz Williams have a tremendous relationship with them.  Crean intially recruited Chicago and after burning that bridge started looking elsewhere.  Eventually recruiting Texas thru Buzz Williams and 4 of his last 5 recruits came from texas or Alabama  while Chicago and Milwaukee kids went elsewhere.  Remeber Creans Inside out recruitng approach...it only works for so long when you are a huge jackass. 

[Mayor McCheese]

Which makes TC's class at IU all the more remarkable...all the PT in the world, Top 5 school, new coach with ESPN backed PR and he only lands class 3 slots higher than Buzz?  Calipari shows how it's done, getting a #1 class.  No way TC should have any less than Top 5 classes this year and next.  I'm pretty shocked he hasn't landed a Eric Gordon, John Wall type.  Blows my mind that he's just using his MU recruiting budget to complete IU classes.  He certainly hasn't blown up like that gig allows you to do.

You also have to remember he is selling a team that had 1 win in conference last year.  Sure the name recognition is nice, and so is the playing time, but a lot of players, especially one and done players (your Wall, Rose, Gordon) like to get into a situation that has a chance of advancing far into the tournament... I still don't like Indiana's chances of making the sweet 16 next year.  And the Big 10 isn't what it use to be in the 80's and early 90's... Michigan isn't what it use to be, Indiana isn't what it use to be.  Big 10 basketball isn't what it use to be.

[The Lens]

You also have to remember he is selling a team that had 1 win in conference last year.  Sure the name recognition is nice, and so is the playing time, but a lot of players, especially one and done players (your Wall, Rose, Gordon) like to get into a situation that has a chance of advancing far into the tournament... I still don't like Indiana's chances of making the sweet 16 next year.  And the Big 10 isn't what it use to be in the 80's and early 90's... Michigan isn't what it use to be, Indiana isn't what it use to be.  Big 10 basketball isn't what it use to be.

McCheese, he left b/c It's Indiana...he left b/c he feels the exact opposite of everything you said.  He left b/c the school recruits itself.

And you know what, I agree with him.  I do believe it's a top 5 gig.  I harbor no ill will for him leaving at all.  He took a much better gig.  The fact that his class is only 3 slots higher than Buzz's is an indication that tougher time lie ahead for the IU faithful.  They expected to lose this year, they'll expect and demand to be in the Elite 8 in 2-3 years.

[Pakuni]

Since you missed the point entirely in your previous point, I thought it would be easier for you to respond if I outlined it point by point for you.  

But you don't like that either!

Fine--you define the parameter and format--but please stay on topic.

OK, here is my format:

Please offer some proof of a causal - not correlative - relationship between Wright's success and his subsequent recruiting "struggles" (I chuckled a bit writing that).
I would suggest that in order to prove your theory, you must disprove that it was any of myriad other factors that caused Villanova's recruiting to take such a sudden plunge - or a combination of those factors.
I would suggest that these factors are far more likely than success, but you can tell me why I'm wrong.
So, please offer some proof that it was not the result of:

- talent level in regions Wright recruits well. The big four in his 2002 class all hailed from metro NYC, an area Wright knew from his previous tenure at Nova as well as his years at Hofstra. How strong were the classes of 2005 and 2006 in that region?
- changes to his coaching staff. In 2003, and again in 2004, Wright lost key assistants to head-coaching positions elsewhere. Why didn't that affect recruiting?
- availability of playing time. With Ray, Foye, Sumpter, Sheridan, Lowry, Nardi and Frasor all returing, where does an elite 2005 recruit see himself getting significant minutes?
- the natural cycle of recruiting. What makes Villanova otherwise impervious to the nature of recruiting that sees all programs, except for the few elites, see good years and bad years. Ohio State was Scout's #2 recruiting class in 2008. They're not in the top 30 this year. Georgetown was #8 in 2008. Not in the top 30 this year. What happened? According to you, it seems, a coach should be able to land a top 5 class every year ... barring too much success, of course.

So far, you've ignored all these factors because it doesn't fit into your laughable position that success is bad for recruiting. Please address them and show us how they did not negatively impact recruiting efforts - certainly not as much as winning did.

By the way, Wright landed his top 2009 class despite persistent rumors since 2007 that he would eventually fly to coop to coach the 76ers. How is that possible?

[ChicosBailBonds]

McCheese, he left b/c It's Indiana...he left b/c he feels the exact opposite of everything you said.  He left b/c the school recruits itself.

And you know what, I agree with him.  I do believe it's a top 5 gig.  I harbor no ill will for him leaving at all.  He took a much better gig.  The fact that his class is only 3 slots higher than Buzz's is an indication that tougher time lie ahead for the IU faithful.  They expected to lose this year, they'll expect and demand to be in the Elite 8 in 2-3 years.

Well, as an IU alum I disagree.  Most IU fans don't expect that.  It's a long horizon.  The Kentucky program and the IU program were in much different straits.  Cal can get a certain kid into UK and that Crean more than likely can't.  UK was also a NIT team last year with a few very good pieces to the puzzle, IU is a NCAA ravaged program that returned 1 kid that scored like 2 points per game.  To compare the two is not appropriate.

IU fans expect to be Sweet 16 type of program in two more years and a top 10 program in about 5 years. At least the rational ones, but the Big Ten has become better.

Nevertheless, Crean will be able to get better recruiting classes year in and year out then he did at MU because....It's Indiana, it's Indiana.  I know many of you don't want to hear that, but it's the way it will happen. 

[Skatastrophy]

[...] but the Big Ten has become better.

What time frame are you looking at?  In the past 5 years?  The past 20 years?

I could be a jerk about it, but I won't be.  It's just that being a Big-East centric basketball fan I only see Michigan St. and Purdue as being decent last year (and Purdue having ups and downs like UW@Madison) with Minnesota threatening to catch up to MSU since they grabbed Tubby.

I'm genuinely curious because I don't spend (waste) my time watching B10 hoops.

[lurch91]

... IU is a NCAA ravaged program that returned 1 kid that scored like 2 points per game. 

I dont' think the NCAA ravaged the IU team.  The team was exposed for what it truely was after Sampson negoitated his release.  The NCAA didn't suspend any players from the IU team.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What time frame are you looking at?  In the past 5 years?  The past 20 years?

I could be a jerk about it, but I won't be.  It's just that being a Big-East centric basketball fan I only see Michigan St. and Purdue as being decent last year (and Purdue having ups and downs like UW@Madison) with Minnesota threatening to catch up to MSU since they grabbed Tubby.

I'm genuinely curious because I don't spend (waste) my time watching B10 hoops.

I thought this past year, the Big Ten was pretty good.  This upcoming year, they will be one of the top 2 conferences as a lot of talent returns.   With Tubby, Crean, Painter, Illinois coming back, OSU of course up there and Michigan finally making it back to the NCAAs after a long time away.  Even Northwestern showed life last year.

In my opinion, the Big Ten is better this past year and will be in the coming 5 to 10 years compared to the previous decade.  That doesn't bode well for UW-madison by the way.

[Marquette84]

".. barring too much success, of course."

"position that success is bad for recruiting."

" negatively impact recruiting efforts - certainly not as much as winning did.

"I would suggest that these factors are far more likely than success, but you can tell me why I'm wrong.

First off, I'm curious as to why you feel compelled to continue to misstate my premise?

I've been pretty clear that I'm describing a limited situation which entails the combination of a) initial success by b) a new coach in his first major job which c) is at a school that is not considered a destination. 

In almost every case, coaches that fit all three factors will have a down recruiting year or two immediately following their initial success. 

I know this is the old politician's trick of not answering the question that was asked, but rephrasing it to answer the one you want to answer.  But I called you on it, and twice since you're repeated the same false premise.

It's not that success harms recruiting.

It's INITIAL success by a NEW COACH IN HIS FIRST MAJOR JOB who is at a school that IS NOT CONSIDERED A DESTINATION.

Now, that is admittedly a pretty small set of programs.  But Wright at Villanova definitely fits.

but you can tell me why I'm wrong.

I can't tell you anything.  I'll lay out the facts.

- talent level in regions Wright recruits well. The big four in his 2002 class all hailed from metro NYC, an area Wright knew from his previous tenure at Nova as well as his years at Hofstra. How strong were the classes of 2005 and 2006 in that region?

About equal, according to the RSCI.

21 top 100 recruits from the Northeast in 2002.
19 in 2005.
23 in 2006.

The talent pool was not significantly weaker in 2005 or 2006.

- availability of playing time. With Ray, Foye, Sumpter, Sheridan, Lowry, Nardi and Frasor all returing, where does an elite 2005 recruit see himself getting significant minutes?

When the 2002 class signed, Villanova had only one projected starting position open.  Four starters were projected to return.  Nonetheless, Wright signed 4 top 60 players signed that year.

The situation wasn't much different for 2005, but for 2006, significant playing time was open--far more than would have been open for the 2002 recruits.

- the natural cycle of recruiting. What makes Villanova otherwise impervious to the nature of recruiting that sees all programs, except for the few elites, see good years and bad years. Ohio State was Scout's #2 recruiting class in 2008. They're not in the top 30 this year. Georgetown was #8 in 2008. Not in the top 30 this year. What happened?

As I said, I'm describing one specific recruiting cycle that seems to affect most programs that a) hire an unproven coach who b) has initial success and c) sees recruiting suffer (relatively speaking) in the immediate aftermath. 

According to you, it seems, a coach should be able to land a top 5 class every year ... barring too much success, of course.

Never said this. 

- changes to his coaching staff. In 2003, and again in 2004, Wright lost key assistants to head-coaching positions elsewhere. Why didn't that affect recruiting?

Just to clarify, it seems your argument is that the loss of an assistant affects the class two years later.

2003 lose an assistant--down recruiting class for 2005
2004 lose an assistant--down recruiting class for 2006
2007 lose an assistant--stellar recruiting class for 2009

Doesn't appear your "loss of an assistant" rule holds up over time.

By the way, Wright landed his top 2009 class despite persistent rumors since 2007 that he would eventually fly to coop to coach the 76ers. How is that possible?

2009 was four years following his first success.   I'm only arguing that only the first year or are affected.

[avid1010]

I thought this past year, the Big Ten was pretty good.  This upcoming year, they will be one of the top 2 conferences as a lot of talent returns.   With Tubby, Crean, Painter, Illinois coming back, OSU of course up there and Michigan finally making it back to the NCAAs after a long time away.  Even Northwestern showed life last year.

In my opinion, the Big Ten is better this past year and will be in the coming 5 to 10 years compared to the previous decade.  That doesn't bode well for UW-madison by the way.

I'm 100% bias with no proof other than my biased observations, but I just don't see the Big Ten being able to produce championship teams.  The Big Ten does have tradition and some top coaches, but I don't see any program capable of winning a championship.  We saw that with Izzo this year.  A perfect situation for him to succeed and motivate with the location of the Final Four, he did a heck of a coaching job to get to the Final Four, but they never stood a chance of winning it all.  The talent level in the Big Ten just isn't there.  Good coaching, yes, but talent no.  When you're going up against BEAST, PAC 10 and ACC teams you better have a great coach and great talent.  I just don't see it right now.  Izzo had talent when Flint produced top talent.  Even their football talent is down.  Top talent wants to play in the BEAST or ACC with some west coast talent wanting to play in the PAC 10.   

[Ellenson Guerrero]

Wow, must be tough out in LALA land. UCLA makes it to three straight Final Fours, continues to recruit top name prospects like Kevin Love and Jrue Holiday, then they miss a Final Four and the program is falling apart.

[jficke13]

UCLA has one sell point that we don't have, and truthfully, almost no one can match: their cheerleaders are out of this world hot.

[ChicosBailBonds]

UCLA has one sell point that we don't have, and truthfully, almost no one can match: their cheerleaders are out of this world hot.

USC's are better, Oregon's the best in the Pac Ten.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Wow, must be tough out in LALA land. UCLA makes it to three straight Final Fours, continues to recruit top name prospects like Kevin Love and Jrue Holiday, then they miss a Final Four and the program is falling apart.

Don't think anyone said the program is falling apart, but as many of the local sports writers will tell you, they're having a tougher time now then they did when Howland first got here.  Most new coaches start to wear thin eventually and Howland has some demands that some of the stud kids out here don't want to deal with, mainly playing defense for 40 minutes.  I think Howland is an outstanding coach, but he's lost some kids in the last 2 years that he would not have in his first 3 years.  As coaches stay awhile, they get a reputation one way or another and kids start to factor that in.  Just like Bo's rep. is hitting him now and eventually Buzz will have a rep.

[BrewCity83]

Howland has had trouble recruiting since UCLA started making the Final Four.

[GGGG]

I'm 100% bias with no proof other than my biased observations, but I just don't see the Big Ten being able to produce championship teams.  The Big Ten does have tradition and some top coaches, but I don't see any program capable of winning a championship.  We saw that with Izzo this year.  A perfect situation for him to succeed and motivate with the location of the Final Four, he did a heck of a coaching job to get to the Final Four, but they never stood a chance of winning it all. 

A Big Ten team got to the championship game this year.  They did so by beating two Big East teams consecutively.  They didn't stand a chance in the final because they played a North Carolina team that was loaded.  It happens.

However to say that they "aren't capable of winning a championship," especially since three Big Ten teams have played for the championship since the last time a Big East team has played for the championship, well that's just silly.