For those of you that are interested....updated today
http://scouthoops.scout.com/a.z?s=75&p=9&c=4&cfg=bb&pid=88&yr=2011
Couple of thoughts:
--St. John's looks like they are on a ton of people. Lavin really hit the ground running. Let's see what they bring in though.
--Paul Jesperson of Merrill, headed to Virginia, is now #88.
I still think St. John's gets into the NCAAs THIS year and that will catapult them even more years down the road.
He's an infectious guy, always had great great talent. Question will be whether he can instill discipline and respect from the players, something he had trouble doing in Westwood.
If we can sign 2 of the players off of this Top 100 List I'd be thrilled. Add Juan Anderson as the 3rd signee, and I'd be estatic.
I feel this class will be the litmus test of just how strong the program can come under Buzz. Will he be able to recruit Top 100 talent to MU this signing period, with so much Top 100 talent already at the program? In my opinion, if he lands two, 4-star players this class..we will have reached talent heights NEVER before seen at MU. Next question becomes..can he coach it and keep everyone in harmony?
You can tell the different levels of teams through this list. Kentucky has 3 top 10 guys committed, Marquette has there named involved in 8 guys, UW has two guys.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 24, 2010, 08:46:49 PM
You can tell the different levels of teams through this list. Kentucky has 3 top 10 guys committed, Marquette has there named involved in 8 guys, UW has two guys.
I think it has more to do with the dirty coach at Kentucky who not only has playing time to offer with four-five guys leaving early last year for the NBA but also uses bags full of dead presidents as commitment incentives to player's relatives and handlers. Granted Kentucky has a lot to sell too but so does Marquette and we are handicapped this year by too much talent where promises of early playing time shouldn't be offered if Buzz is honest as he seems. I think only a super dynamic freshman would see maybe 20 minutes a game in 2011-12 unless that person is a stud big man where promises of early playing time are legitimate.
another school that pops up all over this list is arkansas. 3 mentions and a commitment in the top 50. certainly not bad given the programs recent history. plus in the SEC, that kind of recruiting can go a long way.
Good for Lavin and St. Johns. It would be nice to see that program come back, this way the Big East can be even bigger on the national stage with an NYC team that's competitive. I definitely would understand why a top notch prospect would want to go to St. Johns. Top-notch conference, playing time right away. Lance Stephenson anyone? That's what he did going to Cincy.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 24, 2010, 08:46:49 PM
You can tell the different levels of teams through this list. Kentucky has 3 top 10 guys committed, Marquette has there named involved in 8 guys, UW has two guys.
Other than Syracuse, no team in the last 10 years has won a championship relying on one and done guys. Every team that has won has had a pack of 5 solid starters who were upper classmen with experience under their belt. Kentucky will make it to the sweet 16 eery year, but they'll never get over the hump by consistently recruiting top 10 guys. The way to win championships is to get guys a knotch below that level, guys who are still very talented, but will stay around 3 plus years and develop chemistry compiled with experience. While you can look at Kentucky and say "wow there stacked" it is really the wrong way to recruit if you want to win a championship.
I do not see us in there with any centers. We need that!
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 24, 2010, 08:46:49 PM
You can tell the different levels of teams through this list. Kentucky has 3 top 10 guys committed, Marquette has there named involved in 8 guys, UW has two guys.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see Uthoff on this list for UW. Where is the 2nd guy?
They are filled up for 2011 so I can't imagine they would be considered by anyone
Quote from: MarkCharles on August 24, 2010, 11:57:38 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I only see Uthoff on this list for UW. Where is the 2nd guy?
They are filled up for 2011 so I can't imagine they would be considered by anyone
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that Mike Shaw has Wisconsin listed as a school of interest.
Call me prejudiced if you will, but of the eight mentions I'd like to see the 6'8" and 6'7" guys as opposed to the little guys.
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on August 24, 2010, 10:27:11 PM
Other than Syracuse, no team in the last 10 years has won a championship relying on one and done guys.
Well, one and done *guy.* It was a young team, but Anthony was the only one to turn pro after one year. McNamara was a feshman starter, but he stayed four years. Warrick was a sophomore and stayed three or four.
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on August 25, 2010, 07:52:51 AM
Call me prejudiced if you will, but of the eight mentions I'd like to see the 6'8" and 6'7" guys as opposed to the little guys.
I understand your desire for some bigger guys, but by the time that class rolls around, we will be on the verge of needing a guard or 2. Our only true point guard is Junior Cadougan who will be an upperclassmen (junior) and has a bit of an injury history. DJO will be a senior at the 2 guard. That leaves Vander at the 1/2....but if he is good as advertised may not last 4 years, and Reggie Smith who looks to be more like a Jerel McNeal.....ie a shooting guard in a point guards body. I know that was a rough explanation, but I think we need to get a solid guard in that class that can come in and not HAVE to play due to a thin roster. Rather he can come in, get comfortable, and get a year+ of practice and limited game play before he begins to receive loads of minutes.
Quote from: willie warrior on August 24, 2010, 10:33:33 PM
I do not see us in there with any centers. We need that!
Quote from: mileskishnish72 on August 25, 2010, 07:52:51 AM
Call me prejudiced if you will, but of the eight mentions I'd like to see the 6'8" and 6'7" guys as opposed to the little guys.
The annual rite of recruiting paranoia over recruiting bigs continues. Like everyone here, I'd love to see Mike Shaw come to MU. Having said that, I have a fairly strong belief that Buzz will do quite well with featuring a line-up with a lot of 6'4" to 6'7" players that are very versatile and interchangeable. There are very few DOMINANT big men, that have the skill set to dominate the post. Did Samardo Samuels kill MU last year? What big man destroyed MU last year - a year where we were almost the smallest team in D-1 basketball? The reality is that MU, like most teams, don't go up against a DeMarcus Cousins night in, night out. 4-star wings that can pass, dribble and shoot..who get toughened up by Buzz wil make MU hard to beat...even without a traditional "big."
Quote from: KipsBayEagle on August 24, 2010, 10:27:11 PM
Other than Syracuse, no team in the last 10 years has won a championship relying on one and done guys. Every team that has won has had a pack of 5 solid starters who were upper classmen with experience under their belt. Kentucky will make it to the sweet 16 eery year, but they'll never get over the hump by consistently recruiting top 10 guys. The way to win championships is to get guys a knotch below that level, guys who are still very talented, but will stay around 3 plus years and develop chemistry compiled with experience. While you can look at Kentucky and say "wow there stacked" it is really the wrong way to recruit if you want to win a championship.
I never said that it was the best way of winning a championship. I just said they are at a whole another level than MU. Of course, the UNC and Duke's of the world that get 3 to 4 years guys have the best chance of winning a championship, but that doesn't mean that Kentucky isn't an instant contender because of their team. With the big man transfer and the recruiting class they had, sweet 16 would be a disappointment. For us, sweet 16 would be amazing. I would rather take Kentuckys approach then ours. Of course, I would rather have Duke's but that is a whole different level.
Quote from: whodem on August 25, 2010, 12:40:19 AM
I'm pretty sure he's referring to the fact that Mike Shaw has Wisconsin listed as a school of interest.
Yeah, I included him because I included all 8 for MU even though we aren't in contention for all of them.
According to many, the 2011 class is not very strong or deep overall...especially when it comes to bigs. 2012 is much stronger in that regard. If we get a "big," my guess it that it will be one that is nowhere near any Top 100 list.
Shaw has not been mentioned with UW in a pretty long time.
With Otule being a JR and Davante being a Soph when the 2011 classs arrives and the only postion they can play is the 5. A true center is not a pressing need in 2011 but would be in 2012. I'm hoping for a tall 4, like Shaw who is all of 6-8 and could play some 5 at times.
teague' dad, gearge played for the packers. he was pretty decent. defensive backfield, good athlete. i guess not enough love for mu to send his kid our way...
Quote from: wyzgy on August 25, 2010, 11:51:04 AM
teague' dad, gearge played for the packers. he was pretty decent. defensive backfield, good athlete. i guess not enough love for mu to send his kid our way...
George Teague was awful. That's why Ron Wolf dropped him for Eugene Robinson right before the 1996 season.
Quote from: martyconlonontherun on August 25, 2010, 08:59:08 AM
I would rather take Kentuckys approach then ours.
I'd rather have Bill Gate's job than mine. I'm not sure that is relevant. Kentucky is one of the top 5 programs in College Basketball. It doesn't matter who the coach is there the level of recruit that he can draw in is completely different. Put Cal, as sleazy as he is, at MU and we doesn't sign 3 of the top 10 kids. For a whole bunch of reasons it doesn't happen. MU and Buzz has a hurtle to clear. We have to get a decent power player and make him successful. Once we do that we'll be able to appeal to more highly ranked power players. With respect to guards particularly PGs we already have the rep that allows us to recruit very near the top of the barrel. Certainly high enough to reach our goals.
Quote from: mikem91288 on August 24, 2010, 10:18:50 PM
Good for Lavin and St. Johns. It would be nice to see that program come back, this way the Big East can be even bigger on the national stage with an NYC team that's competitive. I definitely would understand why a top notch prospect would want to go to St. Johns. Top-notch conference, playing time right away. Lance Stephenson anyone? That's what he did going to Cincy.
Would be great for the conference if they improved. But let's not get overly excited, they have 10 seniors this year (one or two are walk-ons). New coach and an entire roster to fill should attract interest from top recruits.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on August 25, 2010, 11:55:32 AM
George Teague was awful. That's why Ron Wolf dropped him for Eugene Robinson right before the 1996 season.
anyone worthy of playing for a premier college(alabama), being a #1 nfl draft choice and playing/starting in the league for a few years is a good athlete. i didn't say he was pro bowl caliber, but not awful. with that being said, i believe his kid has a good chance of being the benificiary of good genes and therefore have a good work ethic and better than average chance to succeed. young teague being ranked #6 by this poll, looked like it could have been a decent recruit and with dads ties to the state...