I'm sure all of us visit ESPN at different times of the day, so some of you might have seen this already.
Breaking Down the 2009 Classes in the Big East
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4184147
Grade B+
Marquette Golden Eagles
Marquette commits: seven
The Golden Eagles lost their three-headed backcourt monster in Jerel McNeal, Wesley Mathews and Dominic James and will look to 6-2 PG Junior Cadougan (Toronto, Ontario/Christian Life Center), one of three ESPNU 100 recruits heading to Milwaukee, to step in and stabilize the team from the perimeter. Cadougan must continue to improve his conditioning and alleviate his tendency to over-dribble. However, he can get almost anywhere he wants on the floor using his adequate quickness and his ability to use his power to overtake smaller guards. He also has good vision and finds open teammates when he looks for them. Six-foot-6 PF Jeronne Maymon (Madison, Wis./Madison Memorial) has a rapidly improving perimeter game, but he does damage close to the bucket. He uses his strength to dominate the opposition. SF Erik Williams (Katy, Texas/Cypress Springs) has very good athleticism and upside, which should help him to become a very good wing player in the Big East. Marquette continues to build frontcourt depth with prospects such as 7-2 C Youssoupha Mbao (Simi Valley, Calif./Stoneridge Prep) and 6-10 Brett Roseboro (Quakertown, Pa./Quakertown). Mbao gives the Golden Eagles a shot-blocker who needs to continue to improve his offensive game, strength and focus for the next level. Roseboro provides Marquette with another big body who can clog the lane and play the high post due to his ability to hit free throw-line extended jumpers. The Golden Eagles will also rely on two junior college transfers, Darius Johnson-Odom (Hutchinson Community College) and Dwight Buycks (Indian Hills Community College). The pair of guards has the quickness and athleticism needed to help in the backcourt.
Nice writeup, but just like school work. What the heck does it take to get an "A"?
Quote from: nyg on May 21, 2009, 08:39:27 PM
Nice writeup, but just like school work. What the heck does it take to get an "A"?
Villanova Wildcats
Villanova commits: four
Fresh off a Final Four appearance, the Wildcats have used their great season to fuel their recruiting success, with four ESPNU 100 prospects, led by Mouphtaou Yarou (Rockville, Md./Montrose Christian), along with 6-6 SG Dominic Cheek (Jersey City, N.J./St. Anthony) and 6-0 PG Maalik Wayns (Philadelphia/Roman Catholic), both McDonald's All-Americans. Yarou's prep teammate, 6-8 PF Isaiah Armwood, rounds out this impressive group. Yarou gives the Wildcats an imposing presence in the paint with a tremendous amount of upside. As he continues to improve his post moves, Yarou should become dominant over in the paint. Wayns gives the Wildcats another point guard with good vision, and he has a penchant for making winning plays. He should help lessen the burden on Corey Fisher and Scottie Reynolds, should he decide to return to school. Cheek gives Villanova an elite talent at the shooting guard slot with prototypical height for the position. He needs to continue to work hard to improve his ability to create off the dribble. Armwood has a very good amount of upside and athleticism, but he needs to continue to improve his strength level as well as his perimeter skills.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4193991 Wisconsin with a C+
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2009, 08:58:29 PM
Villanova Wildcats
Villanova commits: four
Fresh off a Final Four appearance, the Wildcats have used their great season to fuel their recruiting success, with four ESPNU 100 prospects, led by Mouphtaou Yarou (Rockville, Md./Montrose Christian), along with 6-6 SG Dominic Cheek (Jersey City, N.J./St. Anthony) and 6-0 PG Maalik Wayns (Philadelphia/Roman Catholic), both McDonald's All-Americans. Yarou's prep teammate, 6-8 PF Isaiah Armwood, rounds out this impressive group. Yarou gives the Wildcats an imposing presence in the paint with a tremendous amount of upside. As he continues to improve his post moves, Yarou should become dominant over in the paint. Wayns gives the Wildcats another point guard with good vision, and he has a penchant for making winning plays. He should help lessen the burden on Corey Fisher and Scottie Reynolds, should he decide to return to school. Cheek gives Villanova an elite talent at the shooting guard slot with prototypical height for the position. He needs to continue to work hard to improve his ability to create off the dribble. Armwood has a very good amount of upside and athleticism, but he needs to continue to improve his strength level as well as his perimeter skills.
http://sports.espn.go.com/ncaa/recruiting/basketball/mens/news/story?id=4193991 Wisconsin with a C+
Doesn't Jay Wright understand that going to a Final Four hurts recruiting?
Maybe next year will be the year he can't land a decent class because of that Final Four curse.
I know, I know ...
(http://4and20blackbirds.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/lg-can_of_worms.jpg)
The difference is that Jay Wright is a total class act. The coach that couldn't follow his final 4 with a recruiting class or a decent season is a different story.
Quote from: PJDunn on May 21, 2009, 10:17:00 PM
The difference is that Jay Wright is a total class act. The coach that couldn't follow his final 4 with a recruiting class or a decent season is a different story.
If you're referencing the IU coach, I believe they were given an A-.
Quote from: PJDunn on May 21, 2009, 10:17:00 PM
The difference is that Jay Wright is a total class act. The coach that couldn't follow his final 4 with a recruiting class or a decent season is a different story.
Not to give merit to the Final Four argument, but....
Wasn't the Nova class set before their run to the Final Four?
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2009, 10:56:14 PM
If you're referencing the IU coach, I believe they were given an A-.
But Chicos...it's easy to recruit when you have playing time to sell...and it's Indiana.
Quote from: TJ on May 22, 2009, 12:10:47 AM
Not to give merit to the Final Four argument, but....
Wasn't the Nova class set before their run to the Final Four?
Yeah during their sweet sixteen year. Moral of the story: lose once you get to the SS otherwise your recruiting will suffer once you get to the elite eight or beyond.
It's ESPN! It's ESPN!
How can they even give grades out? This talent can't be judged until they play in college for 4 years.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 21, 2009, 09:15:10 PM
Doesn't Jay Wright understand that going to a Final Four hurts recruiting?
Maybe next year will be the year he can't land a decent class because of that Final Four curse.
One more time for those who are slow to grasp the concept: The final four doesn't hurt recruiting. The "Coach to . . " rumors do.
Here's the argument--and seriously I want you tell me how this doesn't apply to Jay Wright and Villanova. I've even provided you the spaces to point out EXACTLY where you think I'm wrong.
And while I'm calling on Pakuni to address this--since he is the one who opened this can of worms, anyone else is free to jump in as well. Tell me on which point I'm wrong.
1. A once proud but now struggling program below the level college basketball's elites hires a hot young (and unproven) coach in an attempt to regain lost glory. --My argument: Jay Wright, who's highest level coaching experience was at low-major Hofstra-- hired in 2001 to coach at Villanova. Villanova had clearly declined under Steve Lappas--the one-time national champion had not played past the first weekend in the NCAA tournament since 1988:
--Pakuni's rubuttal:
2. That hot, young (and unproven) coach has blockbuster recruiting his first year or two.
--My argument: Wright lands six top 65 recruits his first two recruiting classes.
--Pakuini's rebuttal:
3. Within 3 or 4 seasons, that team improves significantly over the preceding coach's performance (Sweet 16, elite eight, final four--the specifics aren't as important as the fact that his success is obvious, measurable, and noticed by the media). 3a. Most people think that this success will help recruiting.--My argument: In 2005, following five straight NIT appearances, Villanova returns to the Sweet 16. He take the team to the elite eight in 2006. These two seasons mark the first time since 1988 Villanova was playing on the 2nd weekend--and 20 years following their national championship.
--Pakuni's rebuttal:
4. That hot, young (and now proven) coach finds his name floated as a candidate for higher level programs. 4a. My central theory is that this hurts recruiting as recruits believe the coach will leave.
--84's argument: Jay Wright's name begins to appear as candidate for high profile openings.
--Pakuni's rebuttal:
5. The recruiting classes immediately following the success in #3 above are generally not as good as those cited in point #2. In my opinion, this tends to validate point 4a and tends to dismiss point 3a.--My argument: Checking the RSCI, Villanova doesn't land a single top 100 recruit from the 2005 graduating class. Just two more in 2007. This is after Wright had six combined top 100 in his first two classes.
Note the contrast:
- As an unproven coach from Hofstra: 6 top 100 recruits (#5, #39, #42, #45, #56 and #65).
- As a proven BE coach with a S16 and E8 under his belt: 2 top 100 recruits (#37 and #75).
Now, some people will attempt to say that clearly I'm wrong because the 2006 class was still pretty good. Sure--I'll agree. Pretty good.
But what I simply cannot fathom is why people can't agree that it was a decline from the first two years. To me, it is blatantly obvious--#5, #39, #42, #45, #56 and #65 is clearly and demonstrably better than #37 and #75.
--Pakuni's rebuttal:
6. The coach either leaves, or if he sticks around after several years, the hot, young coach is finally able to land a recruiting class that equals or exceeds the quality cited in point #2. --My argument: Wright sticks around.
Three years after his first sweet 16, he
finally matches the blockbuster class of his first season's recruiting.
--Pakuni's rebuttal:
6a. Some people use this later success to argue that I was wrong and point #4 had no impact on recruiting.--My argument--Right as rain, Pakuni is attempting to use
2009 to rebut my argument that Vilanova's recruting suffered in 2005 and 2006 immediately following their first Sweet 16 in 18 years.
Pakuni's rebuttal:
A lot of players are not 4 yrear players. Some transfer out, some go pro, some get injured or some are JC players. How do you compare Kentucky's Wall to MU's Cadougan. Wall is probably one and done and Cadougan is problably a 4 year player. How do you value imediate impact vs long-term impact?
Instead of bellyaching about the pain the Final Four caused Marquette, maybe we can compare the handling of "Coach to...." rumors.
How did Jamie Dixon handle rumors he was going to Arizona?
http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162009/sports/college/dixon_has_big_plans_for_pitt_169573.htm (http://www.nypost.com/seven/05162009/sports/college/dixon_has_big_plans_for_pitt_169573.htm)
My rebuttal:
While Wright only landed two top 100's immediately after success with his first blockbuster classes, he didn't recruit total scrubs to surround them with, and there wasn't a giant drop-off. Crean landed the triplets and Hayward after a giant drop-off, and surrounded them with marginal talent at best. What was the class that Crean recruited during the Final Four season (before the Crean to X rumors were flying rampantly)? James Matthews, Carlton Christian, & Brandon Bell.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 22, 2009, 09:02:51 AM
One more time for those who are slow to grasp the concept: The final four doesn't hurt recruiting. The "Coach to . . " rumors do.
Here's the argument--and seriously I want you tell me how this doesn't apply to Jay Wright and Villanova. I've even provided you the spaces to point out EXACTLY where you think I'm wrong.
Oh my God, lighten the f--- up, Francis.
What's it like going through life taking yourself this seriously?
I won't play your silly game and argue the merits of your silly argument under your silly predetermined parameters and format.
I do, however, find it precious that you claim Villanova's recruiting "suffered" in 2005 and 2006.
Hmmm ...
Dwayne Anderson (4-star recruit)
Dante Cunningham (Washington Metro area player of the year, offers from Maryland, Pitt, Georgetown)
Scottie Reynolds (McDonald's All-American)
Antonio Pena (4-star recruit)
Malcom Grant (4-star recruit)
Oh, the humanity.
Your theory seems to rest on a bizarre premise that because Wright's subsequent classes were not the equal of his initial classes - the 2002 class was viewed by many as among the best in the nation - the decline was therefore the result of success.
Talk about confusing coincidence with causality.
How about it being the result of the fact Villanova isn't going to have a top 5 class every year?
Or that Wright had less playing time to sell to potential recruits?
You may want to look into this, but rumor has it that elite recruits sometimes want to go to places they can play immediately.
Sorry, but there simply is no factual basis by which you can support your theory.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 21, 2009, 10:56:14 PM
If you're referencing the IU coach, I believe they were given an A-.
I thought he could not recruit??????
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 10:24:15 AM
I won't play your silly game and argue the merits of your silly argument under your silly predetermined parameters and format.
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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 10:24:15 AM
I do, however, find it precious that you claim Villanova's recruiting "suffered" in 2005 and 2006.
Hmmm ...
Dwayne Anderson (4-star recruit)
Dante Cunningham (Washington Metro area player of the year, offers from Maryland, Pitt, Georgetown)
Scottie Reynolds (McDonald's All-American)
Antonio Pena (4-star recruit)
Malcom Grant (4-star recruit)
Oh, the humanity.
Precious? What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Stars nothwithstanding, Anderson, Cunningham, and Grant were not top 100 in the RSCI.
If I understand your argument, you believe using RSCI as the basis of comparison is "silly" because some other service gave these recruits "4 stars."
Fine. Can our common ground be that these are "4-star/101+" recruits?
Can we find common ground that a "4-star/101+" recruit is not quite as good as a
consensus top 65 recruit?
AFTER landing six top 65 players and taking them to a Sweet 16 and Elite Eight, Wright replaced them with Pena and Reynolds (#37 and #75) and three "4-star/101+" recruits.
It is only in your bizzare world that there wasn't a decline in recruiting.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 10:24:15 AM
Or that Wright had less playing time to sell to potential recruits?
You may want to look into this, but rumor has it that elite recruits sometimes want to go to places they can play immediately.
That's an excellent point. Wright had plenty of minutes to offer.
When the minutes of Fraser, Ray, Foye, Sumpter, Nardi, and Sheridan (all top 65 recruits) come available, I would think that Wright should have been able to replace like with like.
It should have been pretty obvious that the minutes for all six of those players would be opening up pretty soon.
He did land TWO top 100 (#37 and #75), and THREE more "4 star/101+" recruits. That's a pretty good haul
but . . . not as good as six top 65 players, is it?
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 10:24:15 AM
Sorry, but there simply is no factual basis by which you can support your theory.
Sorry, but there is.
Quote from: muarmy81 on May 22, 2009, 07:34:47 AM
But Chicos...it's easy to recruit when you have playing time to sell...and it's Indiana.
Absolutely, totally, 100% agree. What Crean will need to do there is get classes year after year. Of course, the benefit he has is that he's not leaving IU where the perception at MU was that he was going to leave after the Final Four.
No coach is going to be able to straight face argue to a recruit that Crean is going to leave for another gig, where they could use that line continuously against Crean while at MU.
Quote from: 79Warrior on May 22, 2009, 11:35:15 AM
I thought he could not recruit??????
Actually I heard he couldn't recruit nor could he coach, but he was a really good preparer apparently. ;)
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 22, 2009, 12:02:05 PM
Fine--you define the parameter and format--but please stay on topic.
You're joking, right?
Marquette84....Here is a little advice...simply be quiet.
Normally when you stick your foot in your mouth, especially as deeply as you did that is the best thing to do. To continue to come on the board and defend something that is so widely ridiculed and laughed at only makes you look more laughable.
yesterday or the day before I was on the Scout website where I rarely go and popped open a number of posts that routinely mocked your hypothesis.
When you propose something that is mocked internet wide you need to realize that it was a truly dumb proposition and only silence nad loss of memory can hopefully for you allow it to fade away. continuing to defend the indefensible will only further associate MArquette84 as a tom crean apologist who has lost touch with reality
The more I read of ESPN's recruitng stuff the more I lose any shred of respect for them. How can they give MU a B+ and also give them the 14th rated class. If you go thru the conferences there are alot of A's and B+'s. there has to be some correlation when both grades come from the same people, or not.
For whatever reason new coaches seem to be able to recruit. Maybe it is their enthusiasm and they can sell what they plan to accomplish. After a few years their novalty to recruits seems to wear off. I think this happen to Crean. It really was time for him to move on. I think you can see this happening to Bo Ryan. It seems that the ratings of the players he is recruiting is falling. His swing offense is no longer a novelty. Maybe new coaches can tell recruits how they will develope them for the NBA. A few years in recruits can see that his recruits are not making the NBA (they probably never had the talent anyways) and they begin to question the wisdom of choosing your program. Also the longer you coach the easier it is for other coaches to negatively recruit against you. Just look at the poential long-term effect the perception UW throwing Vander Blue under the bus will have. The fiasco about Vander Blue decommitting will hurt more than the fact they actually lost Vander Blue. Look at Crean, I am not sure why but it has been said he was having problems with his recruting connections in Chicago. I believe Mike Deane at the end was not liked by Wisconsinhigh school coaches. You have to have a big ego to be a division one head coach and eventually this will work against you as you irritate people arround you.
Quote from: bilsu on May 22, 2009, 01:10:50 PM
For whatever reason new coaches seem to be able to recruit. Maybe it is their enthusiasm and they can sell what they plan to accomplish. After a few years their novalty to recruits seems to wear off. I think this happen to Crean. It really was time for him to move on. I think you can see this happening to Bo Ryan. It seems that the ratings of the players he is recruiting is falling. His swing offense is no longer a novelty. Maybe new coaches can tell recruits how they will develope them for the NBA. A few years in recruits can see that his recruits are not making the NBA (they probably never had the talent anyways) and they begin to question the wisdom of choosing your program. Also the longer you coach the easier it is for other coaches to negatively recruit against you. Just look at the poential long-term effect the perception UW throwing Vander Blue under the bus will have. The fiasco about Vander Blue decommitting will hurt more than the fact they actually lost Vander Blue. Look at Crean, I am not sure why but it has been said he was having problems with his recruting connections in Chicago. I believe Mike Deane at the end was not liked by Wisconsinhigh school coaches. You have to have a big ego to be a division one head coach and eventually this will work against you as you irritate people arround you.
+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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 22, 2009, 02:23:04 PM
+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.
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.
Quote from: The Lens on May 22, 2009, 02:29:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Mayor McCheese on May 22, 2009, 02:59:22 PM
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.
Quote from: Marquette84 on May 22, 2009, 12:02:05 PM
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?
Quote from: The Lens on May 22, 2009, 03:16:41 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 22, 2009, 03:50:15 PM
[...] 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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 22, 2009, 03:50:15 PM
... 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.
Quote from: Skatastrophy on May 22, 2009, 03:54:15 PM
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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
".. 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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
but you can tell me why I'm wrong.
I can't tell you anything. I'll lay out the facts.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
- 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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
- 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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
- 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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
- 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.
Quote from: Pakuni on May 22, 2009, 03:27:07 PM
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.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on May 22, 2009, 04:04:26 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: jficke13 on May 23, 2009, 09:42:14 AM
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.
Quote from: AWegrzyn17 on May 23, 2009, 07:33:11 AM
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.
Howland has had trouble recruiting since UCLA started making the Final Four.
Quote from: avid1010 on May 23, 2009, 07:02:17 AM
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.