Since MU's prime targets are heading else where I'm wondering, who is left on MU's wish list?
Quote from: Marquette65 on October 19, 2010, 11:05:11 AM
Since MU's prime targets are heading else where I'm wondering, who is left on MU's wish list?
Plenty of "prime targets" remain, including Mike Shaw, Rodney Hood and Keith DeWitt.
The negativity around here is mind-boggling. The simple fact of the recruiting game, at least at a program not on the Duke/Kansas/UNC/MSU level. is that you're going to get a lot more "No" than "Yes" from targets.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 11:15:32 AM
Plenty of "prime targets" remain, including Mike Shaw, Rodney Hood and Keith DeWitt.
I think we have a decent shot of one of either Hood or Shaw. Other than those two I don't know who else we are seriously on in the top 100, with all the recent commits. Check out the thread on that JUCO named God's gift. With spots open in the Spring maybe Buzz can land him.
Here is the Scout list.
http://marquette.scout.com/a.z?s=415&p=9&cfg=bb&c=4&yr=2011
Obviously the big names at top...Faust, Hood and Shaw. It looks as though at this point we have offers out to Derrick Wilson, Kevin Thomas and Dre Henley. I have no idea where we stand with any of them.
My guess is that Buzz is working through a JUCO list pretty strongly at this point too.
I agree on the gloom on the board, even if that is not what the original post was suggesting necessarily. We already have a 4-star top 100 player: http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Three straight years with at least a four start/top 100 player is a great thing and something not every program gets. I think Anderson is better rated than McNeal or Hayward were rated as well. He is already something to be excited about.
Shaw and Dewitt would make this a home run class in my opinion. You can't pass on Hood either.
Of course you want the best players possible, but Buzz can use these last two scholarships on role players as it looks like we have a lot of fire power for the next few years.
ESPN and Rivals have us looking at Kevin Thomas: http://rivals.yahoo.com/arkansas/basketball/recruiting/player-Kevin-Thomas-76877
Still lots to be excited about.
I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing.
Having said that, the one thing I don't worry about with this staff is recruiting.
Quote from: Marquette65 on October 19, 2010, 11:05:11 AM
Since MU's prime targets are heading else where I'm wondering, who is left on MU's wish list?
How do you know who MU's prime targets are? Some recruiting service said so? I think Buzz haas his own "hot' list and we will see plenty of talent excited to become Warriors.
Furthermore the spring is bound to bring other surprises. I am not sure if this board ever mentioned Devante Gardner at this point last year, but he had attended camps here and we were in on him early enough. There could very well be someone similar that will "blow up" their senior season. Plus again...the whole JUCO season is going to be played, and those players are only in their second full season away from high school ball.
Also don't forget about Jamil Wilson. He's basically a new recruit that has a year to learn everything about Buzz's system. Would not be surprised if he starts next season.
Quote from: mikem91288 on October 19, 2010, 12:27:14 PM
Also don't forget about Jamil Wilson. He's basically a new recruit that has a year to learn everything about Buzz's system. Would not be surprised if he starts next season.
+1
Crowder and Wilson may start next year at forward with DJO as the other wing. Nice lineup to look forward to.
Quote from: Henry Sugar on October 19, 2010, 11:32:38 AM
I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing.
Having said that, the one thing I don't worry about with this staff is recruiting.
Wow, talk about stating the obvious ::) we have two open spots, apparently if we don't sign all the recruits we are in on even though we only have two spots buzz must've whiffed on them.
Quote from: Strokin 3s on October 19, 2010, 12:45:49 PM
Wow, talk about stating the obvious ::) we have two open spots, apparently if we don't sign all the recruits we are in on even though we only have two spots buzz must've whiffed on them.
Not what he said.
I thought Shaw was the key but the more I think about him not taking the ACT yet baffles me. Why would he not just take it to see how he does? You can take it again and agian. Something smells wrong with him in that sense...
Not many bigs left in the top 100.I think we get Dewitt or someone we don't know or go JUCO. I thought this was gonna be the year we could lasso in a four-star big,with all the good wings and guards we have,I'm bummed about it.
Especially with how good the rest of the Beast is doin recruiting wise.
I hope we are looking hard at Derrell Robertson 6'-9" or 6'-10", 230# +/-, a 40 inch vertical. He would appear to have all the tools to develop into a prototype "4" power forward. And evidently, the academics are in order.
Quote from: Strokin 3s on October 19, 2010, 12:45:49 PM
Wow, talk about stating the obvious ::) we have two open spots, apparently if we don't sign all the recruits we are in on even though we only have two spots buzz must've whiffed on them.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 12:49:27 PM
Not what he said.
Thank you, Hoops. To be explicit, I don't expect us to get a commitment from Faust, Shaw, or Hood. I'm still not worried even if we don't.
Quote from: Randy on October 19, 2010, 01:12:42 PM
Not many bigs left in the top 100.I think we get Dewitt or someone we don't know or go JUCO. I thought this was gonna be the year we could lasso in a four-star big,with all the good wings and guards we have,I'm bummed about it.
Especially with how good the rest of the Beast is doin recruiting wise.
Agreed. Shaw is still there though so we can be optimistic.
Dewitt might be perfect since he could ideally step in and play right away with Otule and Gardner. That would give us an adequate front line. Shaw being the fourth person up front would make us really tough. There is still hope that we can have a competitive inside presence for the next few years.
We had two great recruiting classes in a row. That is why we are not getting these guys. No guard in their right mind would want to commit. We also have 2 center's or at least people that will be playing center. It is not going to be easy with how young most of our players are. Be content with whoever we get because it's not going to kill us if we get a project and miss out on the top priorities
Forgot to mention ... I believe MU still is in the running for top 100 recruit Jarion Henry from Texas.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 11:27:50 AM
I agree on the gloom on the board, even if that is not what the original post was suggesting necessarily. We already have a 4-star top 100 player: http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Three straight years with at least a four start/top 100 player is a great thing and something not every program gets. I think Anderson is better rated than McNeal or Hayward were rated as well. He is already something to be excited about.
Shaw and Dewitt would make this a home run class in my opinion. You can't pass on Hood either.
Of course you want the best players possible, but Buzz can use these last two scholarships on role players as it looks like we have a lot of fire power for the next few years.
ESPN and Rivals have us looking at Kevin Thomas: http://rivals.yahoo.com/arkansas/basketball/recruiting/player-Kevin-Thomas-76877
Still lots to be excited about.
According to Rivals and ESPN, Anderson is not rated as high as you say
jhags15, I disagree. If you want to compete for Big East titles you have to be solid in recruiting every year. Crean got into trouble with that. Most good player's want to play with other good player's and they want to Win. That Trumps playing time more time than not. That is my opinion anyway. The only time it does not seem to apply is when a new coach takes over and he sells player's on the fact that they are going to be the face of the rebuilding. Crean at IU, Lavin at St Johns, Rice at Rutger's. Crean at MU when he got Wade, Merritt, Blankston and Sanders.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 02:07:44 PM
Forgot to mention ... I believe MU still is in the running for top 100 recruit Jarion Henry from Texas.
So why wasn't he at Marquette Madness? Seemingly at the last minute...
Change of heart by either party?
Quote from: willie warrior on October 19, 2010, 02:08:52 PM
According to Rivals and ESPN, Anderson is not rated as high as you say
Rivals? That is his best rating and it is in the exact link I gave. 4 star and #69 in the country. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Based on always calling Blue a 5-star on this board, it seems like people rely on Rivals mostly.
ESPN grades him at a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102064
Junior Cadougan was also a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/269/class/2009
Anderson is a good get.
Quote from: jhags15 on October 19, 2010, 02:03:29 PM
We had two great recruiting classes in a row. That is why we are not getting these guys. No guard in their right mind would want to commit. We also have 2 center's or at least people that will be playing center. It is not going to be easy with how young most of our players are. Be content with whoever we get because it's not going to kill us if we get a project and miss out on the top priorities
You do realize this kind of excuse is laughable considering West Virginia -- which has been picking up talent left and right under Huggins -- just landed two top 15 Point Guards from 2011 in the span of two days.
It's lazy to suggest that somehow MU's talent is stratospheric to the point where our targets are shy to compete in the program and therefore don't commit. Not being of sound mind isn't the reason we missed on our top targets.
Anderson isn't a good get, and MacDonald is good enough to be a Buckeye, but somehow wasn't good enough for us. Our little willie is getting cranky. You always get in trouble listening to your little willie.
Quote from: chren21 on October 19, 2010, 12:58:38 PM
I thought Shaw was the key but the more I think about him not taking the ACT yet baffles me. Why would he not just take it to see how he does? You can take it again and agian. Something smells wrong with him in that sense...
If he takes it and doesn't get a qualifying number, people are going to start steering away from him in droves, even more so if he doesn't hit a number twice. If he's taking practice tests and isn't comfortable, then there's no reason to hurry.
Quote from: kmwtrucks on October 19, 2010, 02:15:15 PM
jhags15, I disagree. If you want to compete for Big East titles you have to be solid in recruiting every year. Crean got into trouble with that. Most good player's want to play with other good player's and they want to Win. That Trumps playing time more time than not. That is my opinion anyway.
Gonna disagree with you here, and say that even the BEST programs in college basketball rarely get Top 20 nationally ranked classes 4 consecutive years..maybe 3 out of 4 years. It is not uncommon to see a team ranked nationally in recruiting class rankings (in basketball) every other year..very few program can stack Top 20 class on Top 20 class year after year after year. We are not yet a UNC, Duke, Kentucky or Kansas. If you can get 2 really good classes very 4 years you will be in the Top 1/3rd of the Big East. Put 3 out of every 4 years Top 20 classess..you will be vying for Big East Titles.
I do agree that good players want to play with other good players and at programs they perceive a chance to win regularily at..but you cannot discount the pull of having playing time available right now..as we live in an immediate gratification society.
Even if MU does not sign another Top 100 kid this year..I will submit that MU is poised to contend for the Big East titl in 2011 ad 2012, and could very well follow that up with being a contender for 2012-2013 assuming no transfers or early entry candidates..
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 19, 2010, 02:56:47 PM
You do realize this kind of excuse is laughable considering West Virginia -- which has been picking up talent left and right under Huggins -- just landed two top 15 Point Guards from 2011 in the span of two days.
Just so we're dealing with facts, neither WVU's 2009 or 2010 classes were ranked in the top 25 by ESPN or Rivals. MU's were ranked 17th and 14th by ESPN and 14th and 17th by Rivals. To suggest Huggins has been picking up young talent on par with Marquette is plainly wrong.
It's also plainly wrong to suggest likely playing time doesn't factor heavily in recruiting for a school like Marquette. UNC, Duke, and programs like that might be able to land elite talent year in year out regardless of who else is on the roster, but PT is a major factor everywhere else.
I don't think we should lower our expectations (and I doubt very much Buzz has lowered the bar for himself and his staff), but I also think we need be cognizant of the fact that back-to-back-to-back top 25 classes would be an significant feat for this program, probably one never accomplished since people started tracking these things.
Quote from: Brewtown Andy on October 19, 2010, 03:01:59 PM
If he takes it and doesn't get a qualifying number, people are going to start steering away from him in droves, even more so if he doesn't hit a number twice. If he's taking practice tests and isn't comfortable, then there's no reason to hurry.
This logic is pretty absurd to me. If hes taking practice tests and believes he'll have trouble making the score, then he isn't going anywhere, so him "protecting" the interest he has right now would be of no consequence whatsoever. The interest of programs will have no value if he doesn't qualify.
Also, wouldn't he want to take it so he could improve his score if he doesn't get high enough?
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 02:28:21 PM
Rivals? That is his best rating and it is in the exact link I gave. 4 star and #69 in the country. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Based on always calling Blue a 5-star on this board, it seems like people rely on Rivals mostly.
ESPN grades him at a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102064
Junior Cadougan was also a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/269/class/2009
Anderson is a good get.
I agree that Anderson is a very highly regarded prospect. Considering he is already top 100 RSCI, his stock is only going up in recent months, and many major evaluators have either yet to evaluate him or haven't sone so in a long time, he is by any definition a very highly regarded recruit.
That being said, ESPN re-tooled their rating system, and a 92 in 2009 meant a lot more than a 92 in 2011.
According to previously mentioned lists, and of course this tends to change quite a bit, the following are players that we were after that are stiil left:
Faust in Md.
Shaw in Chicago
Antwan Space in Tx.
Rodney Hood in Miss.
Quincy Miller (Chicago/NC)
Jarion Henry in Dallas
There are probably others, but the above are all fairly high rated. I have no idea who we really have a chance at, although Shaw, Hood and Faust keep getting mentioned.
Anybody else know of any highly rated ones?
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 19, 2010, 02:56:47 PM
You do realize this kind of excuse is laughable considering West Virginia -- which has been picking up talent left and right under Huggins -- just landed two top 15 Point Guards from 2011 in the span of two days.
It's lazy to suggest that somehow MU's talent is stratospheric to the point where our targets are shy to compete in the program and therefore don't commit. Not being of sound mind isn't the reason we missed on our top targets.
Interesting that WVU signed two top 100, sub-6'0 pgs in one class, and a top 100 pg last year who is only 6'1. It will be tough to play two of them at one time. Oh well, not our concern, just caught my eye. Huggins is really doing a great job at WVU, as much as I despise him.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 02:28:21 PM
Rivals? That is his best rating and it is in the exact link I gave. 4 star and #69 in the country. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Based on always calling Blue a 5-star on this board, it seems like people rely on Rivals mostly.
ESPN grades him at a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102064
Junior Cadougan was also a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/269/class/2009
Anderson is a good get.
Sorry, the recruiting source was Scout, not Rivals--they have him unranked at his position and a two star. That shows one how these recruit ratings vary so widely.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 02:28:21 PM
Rivals? That is his best rating and it is in the exact link I gave. 4 star and #69 in the country. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Juan-Anderson-98713
Based on always calling Blue a 5-star on this board, it seems like people rely on Rivals mostly.
ESPN grades him at a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/102064
Junior Cadougan was also a 92 http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/recruiting/school/_/id/269/class/2009
Anderson is a good get.
Anderson is
great get. I know I haven't seen much of his play, but from what I saw I
really like him.
Quote from: tower912 on October 19, 2010, 02:58:39 PM
Anderson isn't a good get, and MacDonald is good enough to be a Buckeye, but somehow wasn't good enough for us. Our little willie is getting cranky. You always get in trouble listening to your little willie.
Huh? I assume that was a typo.
Quote from: willie warrior on October 19, 2010, 03:33:26 PM
According to previously mentioned lists, and of course this tends to change quite a bit, the following are players that we were after that are stiil left:
Faust in Md.
Shaw in Chicago
Antwan Space in Tx.
Rodney Hood in Miss.
Quincy Miller (Chicago/NC)
Jarion Henry in Dallas
There are probably others, but the above are all fairly high rated. I have no idea who we really have a chance at, although Shaw, Hood and Faust keep getting mentioned.
Anybody else know of any highly rated ones?
I have missed any mention of us being involved with Antwan Space--does anyone else have any info? He really fits the mold of a Buzz recruit-big, long combo forward, from Texas. It's be great if we had a chance with him, although there are plenty of major programs after him.
Quote from: willie warrior on October 19, 2010, 03:37:35 PM
Sorry, the recruiting source was Scout, not Rivals--they have him unranked at his position and a two star. That shows one how these recruit ratings vary so widely.
0 for 2...Scout actually has Anderson as a 3 star.
http://marquette.scout.com/a.z?s=415&p=8&c=1&nid=4842095 (http://marquette.scout.com/a.z?s=415&p=8&c=1&nid=4842095)
The reason he is so lowly ranked on Scout stems from the fact that only their regional evaluators have seen him play, and not their major national guys. I would bet that by the end of the year he will get a bump in his Scout ranking.
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 19, 2010, 03:40:56 PM
I have missed any mention of us being involved with Antwan Space--does anyone else have any info? He really fits the mold of a Buzz recruit-big, long combo forward, from Texas. It's be great if we had a chance with him, although there are plenty of major programs after him.
According to TexasHoops.com Space has a final five of Gonzaga, Maryland, Missouri, Florida St. and Arkansas.
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 19, 2010, 03:40:56 PM
I have missed any mention of us being involved with Antwan Space--does anyone else have any info? He really fits the mold of a Buzz recruit-big, long combo forward, from Texas. It's be great if we had a chance with him, although there are plenty of major programs after him.
Top 3 of Arkansas, FSU, MD. Kind of a bizarre recruitment a he was gushing about Arky after his visit making comments about committing there. His coaches/family want him to take his visits though. FSU doesn't seem likely and he has a visit to MD Halloween weekend. All of Arkansas' latest commitments might have him thinking twice though. As of now Arkansas lean with a chance for MD to swing him.
Quote from: dmjt4160 on October 19, 2010, 03:57:20 PM
Top 3 of Arkansas, FSU, MD. Kind of a bizarre recruitment a he was gushing about Arky after his visit making comments about committing there. His coaches/family want him to take his visits though. FSU doesn't seem likely and he has a visit to MD Halloween weekend. All of Arkansas' latest commitments might have him thinking twice though. As of now Arkansas lean with a chance for MD to swing him.
I've been very skeptical of Arkansas recruiting this season..I'm blown away by who they've signed. Considering Pelhprey hasn't exactly lit it up his first 3 years on the job..(teams record has gotten worse each of the last 3 years he's been coach), combined with the fact that Arkan$a$ hasn't really been relevant in hoops since Nolan Richardson...just seems REALLY surprising that they are in on so many kids..
I'm not As much concerned with National rankings as I am looking at each player in a class. When you are only bringing in 3 player's you are not going to be rated very highly compared to classes of 5 player's.
Quote from: Ners on October 19, 2010, 04:09:57 PM
I've been very skeptical of Arkansas recruiting this season..
we know
Quote from: kmwtrucks on October 19, 2010, 04:14:10 PM
I'm not As much concerned with National rankings as I am looking at each player in a class. When you are only bringing in 3 player's you are not going to be rated very highly compared to classes of 5 player's.
That depends on who you bring in. If you bring in Juan Anderson and fill the class out with a three-star and two-star, then no. But if Anderson is your lowest rated player and we manage to add Shaw and either Faust or Hood, I think you'd see another top 25 ranking. If by some miracle Miller came back into the picture, you could be talking top 10.
Three players, if it's three highly-ranked players, will still garner plenty of respect.
I think a way too look at this class for Buzz is to find some solid role players for the talent in place. Meaning, of course get Harrison, Miller, Shaw, etc. if you can. And that would be amazing. But, not necessary.
But this class can be effective if Buzz finds good role players to put around these guys. For example, a lights out shooter to space the floor for some sets or a solid defensive/rebounding big man. A 4 or 5 star player to fill these roles would be great, but you do not need to be a 5 star to fit into a role on this team.
I am thinking along the lines of Micheal Redd and Tayshaun Prince on the Redeem Team. Not top 12 American players, but filled roles that they needed on the team.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 03:26:09 PM
Just so we're dealing with facts, neither WVU's 2009 or 2010 classes were ranked in the top 25 by ESPN or Rivals. MU's were ranked 17th and 14th by ESPN and 14th and 17th by Rivals. To suggest Huggins has been picking up young talent on par with Marquette is plainly wrong.
It's also plainly wrong to suggest likely playing time doesn't factor heavily in recruiting for a school like Marquette. UNC, Duke, and programs like that might be able to land elite talent year in year out regardless of who else is on the roster, but PT is a major factor everywhere else.
I don't think we should lower our expectations (and I doubt very much Buzz has lowered the bar for himself and his staff), but I also think we need be cognizant of the fact that back-to-back-to-back top 25 classes would be an significant feat for this program, probably one never accomplished since people started tracking these things.
For the sake of brevity, hogwash.
Class rankings mean crap in this discussion. Especially farcical when half the 2009 class is gone. Gone. Barely registered at MU (hell, one of them didn't even make Boot Camp). Are you really going to stand on the box and trumpet our 17th and 14th ranking as reason why we missed on Dawson or Harrison or McDonald?
Huggins had Butler, Ebanks, and Jones on roster. He brought in Kilicli as well as two highly rated kids in Pepper and Jennings on the heels of that. He then follows it up with Noreen, who may have been the hottest prospect on the Spring market. That's how you stack talent at the forward position in successive years.
Not enough? How about landing well regarded PG Bryant when starter Mazzulla still has two years left and then bringing in a 4-star in Cottrill only to follow that up in the very next class with not one, but two, highly rated PGs in Boatright and Hinds. That's how you stack talent at the guard position in successive years.
I just find the excuses this summer to be lazy and without merit. Regardless of real reasons like results and talent, or fake reasons like hype and rankings, it's not impossible to land promising prospects each year rather then just in two-year cycles like MU has done over the last decade.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 19, 2010, 06:08:18 PM
Huggins had Butler, Ebanks, and Jones on roster. He brought in Kilicli as well as two highly rated kids in Pepper and Jennings on the heels of that. He then follows it up with Noreen, who may have been the hottest prospect on the Spring market. That's how you stack talent at the forward position in successive years.
Kilicli and Jennings are centers, not forwards. Pepper is a shooting guard, not a forward.
QuoteNot enough? How about landing well regarded PG Bryant when starter Mazzulla still has two years left and then bringing in a 4-star in Cottrill only to follow that up in the very next class with not one, but two, highly rated PGs in Boatright and Hinds. That's how you stack talent at the guard position in successive years.
That's a playing a bit loose with the facts...
Bryant was a 3-star prospect that made a grand total of one Top 100 list, if that's well regarded then so was Karon Bradley. Additionally, Mazzulla was not the starting PG when Bryant committed to WVU. The starter that year was Darris Nichols, a senior, and Bryant was recruited with the opportunity to win the starting job. Also, Cottrill is 2010, Bryant was 2008, that's not successive classes.
One more thing....if Huggins recruiting in consecutive years is so great, then why was he only able to pull in one consensus Top 100 recruit in each of the last two classes, and only 4 over the last three classes. That's worse than Buzz has done over the same period, and yet you're writing off this year as a failure for only bringing in one so far when Huggins had two years where he only brought in one.
The problem with class rankings (well there are many problems) is that often they are based on volume and not just quality.
As an example, in theory you could sign the consensus #1 and #15 players in the country but some school that lands 5 guys ranked 50 to 100 is ranked higher because of volume of players.
The other problem, of course, is that these rankings are just evaluations and subject to so much variability. Where was Dwyane Wade in these rankings? Brian Butch?
Or look at what they have done on the court. Florida has had the following recruiting classes in the last six years per Scout
#21 2005
#22 2006
#3 2007
#9 2008
#17 2009
#14 2010
Yet this is a school that has struggled the last few years to get into the NCAA tournament when you see what kind of classes they supposedly have.
NC State has had 4 top 25 classes in the last 6 years.....they haven't gone to the NCAAs in quite some time.
Maybe because of the recent MU recruiting classes and the depth of the roster, the 2011 potential recruits may be looking at the roster and saying where's the playing time for me. The top ranked recruits have been told since the seventh grade that they are good enough for the NBA, are on national level AAU circuit teams and some have "advisors or mentors" guiding them. If a recruit is considering MU, here's the 2011 playing time scenario.
Yes, I realize there will be potential transfers and injuries, but the top ranked recruit will probably not be looking in that direction. They are 17 and 18 year olds and they believe and have been told to believe they are the best. The top ranked kids want to play. The BE conference and national television exposure helps and Buzz would also explain the hardest workers get the playing time and some positions are interchangeable, but MU is a young team and maybe is having some PT issues with these recruits.
PG: Junior two years left
Smith three years left
SG: DJO one year left
Blue three years left
Jones three years left
SF: Wilson three years left
Anderson four years left
PF: Crowder one year left
Center : Otule two years left
Gardner three years left
Bench: Williams two years left at either SF or PF
A recruit like Shaw or another big SF/PF should see that MU will be looking for a bigger forward subsequent to Crowder and a center because of a project like Otule and the uncertainty of Gardner.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 03:26:09 PM
Just so we're dealing with facts, neither WVU's 2009 or 2010 classes were ranked in the top 25 by ESPN or Rivals. MU's were ranked 17th and 14th by ESPN and 14th and 17th by Rivals. To suggest Huggins has been picking up young talent on par with Marquette is plainly wrong.
. . .
I also think we need be cognizant of the fact that back-to-back-to-back top 25 classes would be an significant feat for this program, probably one never accomplished since people started tracking these things.
Imagine my surprise to see
you of all people claim that Buzz is outrecruiting Huggins based on a comparison of
rankings!!!
Did you forget that just 11 days ago you wrote that you considered judging recruiting classes on the basis of rankings to be "silly" and "quite foolish"?
Did you forget that you agreed with Chico's argument of "Results, not rankings"?
Quote from: Pakuni on October 08, 2010, 10:41:09 AM
... to add to the discussion, I think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked on the RSCI, how many stars they get from Rivals and Scout, etc. Isn't identifying and evaluating players - irrelgardless of what Dave Telep and Bob Gibbons think - an essential part of being a good recruiter? How many here think Jeronne Maymon (RSCI 73, four stars) was a better recruit for Marquette than one-star recruit Jimmy Butler? Or for that matter, RSCI 71 Dameon Mason better than Lazar Hayward? It's really a silly way to judge one's recruiting ability.
and
Quote from: Pakuni on October 08, 2010, 12:31:27 PM
When did I ever state or even imply my comments on recruiting were based rankings? In fact, prior to 2002, when did anyone else say that was the basis of the discussion? The only one who ever differentiated was Chico's, and he said results, not rankings, and when he did, I responded with the same argument based on results.
Looks like it will be hard for you to pull your usual argument that you never stated or implied that you think it's really quite foolish to judge a coach's recruiting success based on where his players ranked.
I'm sure you'll give it a good college try, though.
Awesome. I have a stalker.
Quote from: nyg on October 19, 2010, 07:03:18 PM
Maybe because of the recent MU recruiting classes and the depth of the roster, the 2011 potential recruits may be looking at the roster and saying where's the playing time for me. The top ranked recruits have been told since the seventh grade that they are good enough for the NBA, are on national level AAU circuit teams and some have "advisors or mentors" guiding them. If a recruit is considering MU, here's the 2011 playing time scenario.
Yes, I realize there will be potential transfers and injuries, but the top ranked recruit will probably not be looking in that direction. They are 17 and 18 year olds and they believe and have been told to believe they are the best. The top ranked kids want to play. The BE conference and national television exposure helps and Buzz would also explain the hardest workers get the playing time and some positions are interchangeable, but MU is a young team and maybe is having some PT issues with these recruits.
PG: Junior two years left
Smith three years left
SG: DJO one year left
Blue three years left
Jones three years left
SF: Wilson three years left
Anderson four years left
PF: Crowder one year left
Center : Otule two years left
Gardner three years left
Bench: Williams two years left at either SF or PF
A recruit like Shaw or another big SF/PF should see that MU will be looking for a bigger forward subsequent to Crowder and a center because of a project like Otule and the uncertainty of Gardner.
Your argument is based on two conflicting premises:
- The players being recruited have been told they are "the best" at every level they've ever competed.
The players being recruited are afraid that they won't get playing time.
The players we're considering actually have been the best on whatever team they've played, probably since the 4th or 5th grade. And at every level, they've sought out the highest levels of competition.
At the AAU and prep levels, you don't see a top ranked players choosing a school based on the ease of earning minutes. They pick St. Anthony or Whitney Young. They pick the top AAU teams. Their families even go so far as to move to get into a better basketball district (Dameon Mason's family moving into the West Aurora district).
Top players don't normally seek out less talented teams because there's an easier path to playing time. They seek out the best teams because then earning minutes or winning a starting slot actually means something.
I can't see that attitude changing to such an extent that they'd fear the #71 or #94 or 100+ ranked players. They want to play at the next level, and they know that they're going to have to beat out players better than Gardner or Smith or Otule to have a shot at the league.
Anderson's a great get.
He WANTS to be here; he is highly regarded; he WANTS to do the hard work; and he hails from a region MU can tap into each year: CA/West Coast.
Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...
If they question their need to work hard and bring it every day, they don't belong at MU.
Anderson's made his commitment and Tweeted if anyone else wants to join him...
We'll see who wants to be coached rather than being told what to do.
'Nuff said.
WE WANT WARRIORS!
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on October 19, 2010, 10:20:57 PM
Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...
The only logical explanation
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 20, 2010, 12:50:51 AM
The only logical explanation
Maybe they just don't want to go to Marquette. There are so many factors that affect a college decision other than basketball and you just don't know which thing will be the reason they go to or don't go to Marquette.
Marquette, with Anderson's verbal, now have 11 kids who are slated to be back next year who could be rotation players, so there's a lot of experience returning and let's not overlook the current 5 man freshman class of Vander Blue, Davante Gardner, Jamail Jones, Reggie Smith and Jamil Wilson (redshirt). I think that has factored in with some kids as well.
Quote from: 77ncaachamps on October 19, 2010, 10:20:57 PM
Anderson's a great get.
He WANTS to be here; he is highly regarded; he WANTS to do the hard work; and he hails from a region MU can tap into each year: CA/West Coast.
Those other kids who don't want to commit want the easy road...
No challenges...
Spoonfed...
If they question their need to work hard and bring it every day, they don't belong at MU.
Anderson's made his commitment and Tweeted if anyone else wants to join him...
We'll see who wants to be coached rather than being told what to do.
'Nuff said.
Are you chanelling your inner willie warrior here or something? This is the lamest thing I have ever heard
hermit
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 09:16:07 PM
Awesome. I have a stalker.
Nice redirect.
Well played.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on October 20, 2010, 09:18:12 AM
Nice redirect.
Well played.
You'd prefer a futile, peripheral and sure to get unpleasant semantical debate over whether there are differences between player and class rankings, the value of rankings for classes that played 10 years ago versus those who have yet to play a game, what I meant, what he meant, what Chico's meant, etc.?
Does that add a lot of value to the site?
I've decided it doesn't and therefore chosen not to engage in his gamemenship. If that disappoints you, sorry.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 20, 2010, 09:36:20 AM
You'd prefer a futile, peripheral and sure to get unpleasant semantical debate over whether there are differences between player and class rankings, the value of rankings for classes that played 10 years ago versus those who have yet to play a game, what I meant, what he meant, what Chico's meant, etc.?
Does that add a lot of value to the site?
I've decided it doesn't and therefore chosen not to engage in his gamemenship. If that disappoints you, sorry.
I wholeheartedly agree that those types of discussions are pointless.
However, I believe you can have an opinion and a debate/discussion without it being futile, and unpleasant. If it does start to get chippy, then agree to disagree and leave it alone.
In this case, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree, and I can live with that.
Quote from: 2002MUalum on October 20, 2010, 09:45:25 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that those types of discussions are pointless.
However, I believe you can have an opinion and a debate/discussion without it being futile, and unpleasant. If it does start to get chippy, then agree to disagree and leave it alone.
In this case, you and I will probably have to agree to disagree, and I can live with that.
Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 20, 2010, 10:25:58 AM
Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.
Singed. +1. I've been doing my best to avoid the bait of 84. It really is an exercise in futility...
Quote from: Pakuni on October 20, 2010, 10:25:58 AM
Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.
+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).
Quote from: Pakuni on October 20, 2010, 10:25:58 AM
Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.
Quote from: Ners on October 20, 2010, 11:08:12 AM
Singed. +1. I've been doing my best to avoid the bait of 84. It really is an exercise in futility...
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 20, 2010, 12:12:48 PM
+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).
Might I suggest:
(http://www.muscoop.com/Themes/MUScoop/images/english/ignore.gif)
Sometimes I'm convinced I'd click even if it brought me to a screen that made me put in my credit card info and charged $9.95.
Quote from: HoopsMalone on October 19, 2010, 12:49:27 PM
Not what he said.
Actually it was what he said. Reading comprehension here. "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".
So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot? We have heard a lot of names. Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players. But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.
Quote from: Strokin 3s on October 20, 2010, 12:44:31 PM
Actually it was what he said. Reading comprehension here. "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".
So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot? We have heard a lot of names. Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players. But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.
He just isn't confident in the names talked about frequently on the board like Faust, Shaw, Miller. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish by picking apart what he said and giving it some meaning that isn't there.
Quote from: Strokin 3s on October 20, 2010, 12:44:31 PM
Actually it was what he said. Reading comprehension here. "I think Buzz will probably whiff on a lot of the names we are hearing".
So if Buzz signs one of the players we are hearing of did he by definition then miss on a lot? We have heard a lot of names. Buzz recruits many more that we haven't heard of I am sure they will be quality players. But to say he will whiff on a lot that we are hearing of is to have your head buried in the sand.
Are you trying to pick a fight about semantics? I already clarified this yesterday.
"To be explicit, I don't expect us to get a commitment from Faust, Shaw, or Hood. I'm still not worried even if we don't."
Quote from: bma725 on October 19, 2010, 06:34:37 PM
Kilicli and Jennings are centers, not forwards. Pepper is a shooting guard, not a forward.
That's a playing a bit loose with the facts...
Bryant was a 3-star prospect that made a grand total of one Top 100 list, if that's well regarded then so was Karon Bradley. Additionally, Mazzulla was not the starting PG when Bryant committed to WVU. The starter that year was Darris Nichols, a senior, and Bryant was recruited with the opportunity to win the starting job. Also, Cottrill is 2010, Bryant was 2008, that's not successive classes.
Jennings is a forward. Pepper is as much a guard as Hayward was a center. This will just be semantics since the 2/3 have become blurred over the last decade but Pepper will line up
along the backcourt, not in the backcourt. You call him a wing guard, I'll call him a wing forward. Same deal.
Bryant was well regarded out here. From St. Ray's in the city, most anyone with a brain who follows NYC hoops knew he was one of the best prospects in the northeast. Again, these rankings are notorious for their irrelevance. Sorry for stating Mazzulla was the starter. I should have just left it that he had two years left. I didn't write Cottrill came back to back with Bryant. I wrote that Cottrill was brought in only to be followed by two highly regarded PGs.
This is a language discussion that bypasses the main point: Huggins is an elite recruiter who can stack talent regardless of what was brought in previously. That's the excuse that is bullshit for MU. And today, Huggy Bear adds another forward/wing forward/wing guard (whatever the hell you want to term him) in Keaton Miles. Huggins' week blows away anything we've seen since McNeal/James.
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 20, 2010, 07:49:11 PM
This is a language discussion that bypasses the main point: Huggins is an elite recruiter who can stack talent regardless of what was brought in previously. That's the excuse that is bullcrap for MU. And today, Huggy Bear adds another forward/wing forward/wing guard (whatever the hell you want to term him) in Keaton Miles. Huggins' week blows away anything we've seen since McNeal/James.
Gonna have to disagree with you here Lanche - Huggins landed the 4th rated class in 2008 per ESPN with Ebanks, Jones and Dar Tucker..but WVU was not rated in the top 25 in 2009 or 2010. Now for the 2011 class he has them rated 10th. As you say he is an elite recruiter..this just points to the fact it IS very hard to string together back to back to back classes when your jersey doesn't say UNC, Duke, Kentucky or Kansas.
Huggins also has his name, and long career going for him..plus he generally doesn't worry about the academic progress of his recruits, and thereby every recruit is in play for him, whereas Buzz does do a little bit of weeding out. I have no qualms about MU's recruiting under Buzz..best its been since the days of Al..2009 class rated 14th, 2010 class rated 17th, and he's at least landed us one Top 100 kid this year in Juan Anderson.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 20, 2010, 10:25:58 AM
Fair enough.
Let's just say I'm not sure I've had a discussion with this one particular poster that hasn't gotten chippy, personal and, ultimately, futile. I'm clearly not blameless for that. Try as I might, I'll probably get involved with that sort of thing again, but for now I'm doing my best to avoid it.
And considering this has nothing to do with "who is left" or anything else Marquette basketball related, I'll stop now.
And I'm not blameless either, but let's not ignore what happened in this case.
My first post pointed out that regardless of whether we use Chico's measure (on court performance) or 2002's argument (HS rankings), recruiting was arguably better in the 2006-2008 period than the years immedeaetly preceding:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758
(http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758)
There was nothing in my post that particularly "chippy" or "personal." I don't even think there was anything taken out of context. I cited two posters--both of whom agreed (with different basis) our later recruiting was better than earlier. I questioned you for using one of those two to refute the other, given that they both had the same conclusion.
The same cannot be said for your reply. Virtually every paragraph of your response included some sort of personal insult. If your only argument is sarcasm and insults, no wonder you think the debate is futile.
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234767#msg234767 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234767#msg234767)
I believe that you
knew that your initial posts weren't written clearly enough because you went back and edited one of them to clarify. I hadn't seen that edit when I was writing my post. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that if you had included that clarity in your initial post, I wouldn't have even made my initial post.
And then, even when I did try and bring the argument back to a fact-based argument that countered several of your logical flaws, straw men, and errors in your argument (and, more importantly, didn't attack you personally), you completely ignored it:
http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926)
Given the sarcastic, personal, snide, and even "chippy" manner in which you informed me that you believed using rankings to judge recruiting was silly and foolish, you bet I was going to call you out when you the exact opposite argument.
But here's my offer--and I'm completely sincere on this:
I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. I'd love to go back and engage on a fact-based and non-personal basis to both this thread and the one from earlier this month.
- Explain to me--with out getting chippy--how you reconcile using rankings in this thread after saying you thought they were foolish and silly in the last thread. Its not a futile argument to ask you about this seemingly opposite argument
- Go back to my last post in the other thread and find a flaw in each the four points that rebutted your argument on Wade. Do you concede any of them? All of them?
- Go back to the other thread and either agree that you were incorrect on the 2003 recruiting class being influenced by the Big East announcement, or come up with a logical explanation as to how players who signed LOIs in Nov 2002 or May 2003 would be influenced by our Big East announcement made in November of 2003.
- Instead of accusing me of twisting your words, how about considering the notion that you weren't clear enough in your initial communications? Obviously you felt that you needed to post a clarification. Why do you insist I knew what you meant before you wrote it.
I am absolutely sincere on this--I think we can disagree without the nastiness. Chicos and I disagree on issues ranging from the nickname to whether or not we should have hired Buzz--and yet we never get into the same sort of name calling or sarcasm or "chippiness" that you inserted into that thread back on October 8th.
So how about it? I'm extending the olive branch here--do you think you can stop with the personal attacks?
Balls in your court.
Quote from: Marquette84 on October 20, 2010, 10:27:09 PMAnd I'm not blameless either, but let's not ignore what happened in this case.My first post pointed out that regardless of whether we use Chico's measure (on court performance) or 2002's argument (HS rankings), recruiting was arguably better in the 2006-2008 period than the years immedeaetly preceding:http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234758#msg234758)There was nothing in my post that particularly "chippy" or "personal." I don't even think there was anything taken out of context. I cited two posters--both of whom agreed (with different basis) our later recruiting was better than earlier. I questioned you for using one of those two to refute the other, given that they both had the same conclusion.The same cannot be said for your reply. Virtually every paragraph of your response included some sort of personal insult. If your only argument is sarcasm and insults, no wonder you think the debate isfutile. I believe that you knew that your initial posts weren't written clearly enough because you went back and edited one of them to clarify. I hadn't seen that edit when I was writing my post. It doesn't seem to have occurred to you that if you had included that clarity in your initial post, I wouldn't have even made my initial post. And then, even when I did try and bring the argument back to a fact-based argument that countered several of your logical flaws, straw men, and errors in your argument (and, more importantly, didn't attack you personally), you completely ignored it:[url=http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926]http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234926#msg234926 (http://www.muscoop.com/index.phptopic=21605.msg234767#msg234767http://www.muscoop.com/index.php?topic=21605.msg234767#msg234767%5B/url)Given the sarcastic, personal, snide, and even "chippy" manner in which you informed me that you believed using rankings to judge recruiting was silly and foolish, you bet I was going to call you out when you the exact opposite argument.But here's my offer--and I'm completely sincere on this:I'm willing to let bygones be bygones. I'd love to go back and engage on a fact-based and non-personal basis to both this thread and the one from earlier this month.- Explain to me--with out getting chippy--how you reconcile using rankings in this thread after saying you thought they were foolish and silly in the last thread. Its not a futile argument to ask you about this seemingly opposite argument
- Go back to my last post in the other thread and find a flaw in each the four points that rebutted your argument on Wade. Do you concede any of them? All of them?
- Go back to the other thread and either agree that you were incorrect on the 2003 recruiting class being influenced by the Big East announcement, or come up with a logical explanation as to how players who signed LOIs in Nov 2002 or May 2003 would be influenced by our Big East announcement made in November of 2003.
- Instead of accusing me of twisting your words, how about considering the notion that you weren't clear enough in your initial communications? Obviously you felt that you needed to post a clarification. Why do you insist I knew what you meant before you wrote it.
I am absolutely sincere on this--I think we can disagree without the nastiness. Chicos and I disagree on issues ranging from the nickname to whether or not we should have hired Buzz--and yet we never get into the same sort of name calling or sarcasm or "chippiness" that you inserted into that thread back on October 8th.
So how about it? I'm extending the olive branch here--do you think you can stop with the personal attacks?
Balls in your court.
Unbelieveable
Quote from: Lennys Tap on October 20, 2010, 12:12:48 PM
+1. It's hard to "agree to disagree" with someone who doesn't fight fair (takes things out of context, twists or misrepresents your opinions, etc.).
The problem with you, Lenny, is you think its unfair or misrepresenting your opinion if I merely point out an inconsistency between two of your statements, or one of your statements and a known fact.
Meanwhile, virtually every one of your posts to me includes some sort of personal attack. Accusations of conspiratorial agendas. Straw man arguments. Changes of subject. And the very misrepresentations and unfair arguments you accuse me of making.
Let's take, for example, your vehement opposition to my statement that we had more talent this past season than we had in 2004. As part of my justification, I cited Butler's Juco AA status and performance his first year at MU, where he was one of the best rated offensive players in the Big East and in Division 1. You countered by citing Butler's
high school ranking.
And you get equally mad when I cite what appear to be your completely inconsistent statements. You claim that Buzz is a much better recruiter than Crean. Then you turn around and claim that Crean's least talented team in 2004 had more talent than any of Buzz's teams. Pointing out this obvious inconsistency is not an agenda, not unfair, not taking anything out of context, or not misrepresenting anything.
Meanwhile, I get called for some "agenda" for pointing out that Buzz hasn't surpassed 5th place in the Big East or gotten past the first weekend of the NCAA--therefore, I don't see that he has
surpassed Crean's performance yet. And I question how you can claim that he
has. 5th place in the Big Easts was where Crean brought us. 1st and 2nd round NCAA exits are what Crean gave us.
For some reason, you think its an insult if I say that Buzz has done a great job to continue the level of success we enjoyed under Crean.
Nonetheless, Lenny, I'll extend the same olive branch to you. If you can avoid the wild accusations of agendas, and keep the debates fact-based, I'd be happy to engage with you. I won't promise to agree with you, and I will continue to call you on any inconsistencies.
Quote from: Marquette84 on October 20, 2010, 11:02:41 PMThe problem with you, Lenny, is you think its unfair or misrepresenting your opinion if I merely point out an inconsistency between two of your statements, or one of your statements and a known fact.Meanwhile, virtually every one of your posts to me includes some sort of personal attack. Accusations of conspiratorial agendas. Straw man arguments. Changes of subject. And the very misrepresentations and unfair arguments you accuse me of making.Let's take, for example, your vehement opposition to my statement that we had more talent this past season than we had in 2004. As part of my justification, I cited Butler's Juco AA status and performance his first year at MU, where he was one of the best rated offensive players in the Big East and in Division 1. You countered by citing Butler's high school ranking. And you get equally mad when I cite what appear to be your completely inconsistent statements. You claim that Buzz is a much better recruiter than Crean. Then you turn around and claim that Crean's least talented team in 2004 had more talent than any of Buzz's teams. Pointing out this obvious inconsistency is not an agenda, not unfair, not taking anything out of context, or not misrepresenting anything. Meanwhile, I get called for some "agenda" for pointing out that Buzz hasn't surpassed 5th place in the Big East or gotten past the first weekend of the NCAA--therefore, I don't see that he has surpassed Crean's performance yet. And I question how you can claim that he has. 5th place in the Big Easts was where Crean brought us. 1st and 2nd round NCAA exits are what Crean gave us. For some reason, you think its an insult if I say that Buzz has done a great job to continue the level of success we enjoyed under Crean. Nonetheless, Lenny, I'll extend the same olive branch to you. If you can avoid the wild accusations of agendas, and keep the debates fact-based, I'd be happy to engage with you. I won't promise to agree with you, and I will continue to call you on any inconsistencies.
Joanie tells it like it is, all the while extending the olive branch to her sworn enemies. Joanie 84 - the Le Duc Tho of MU Scoop!
Quote from: SalsaMan on October 20, 2010, 10:49:56 PM
Unbelieveable
Seriously. I didn't read it, but that looks like it took a lot of effort.
I thought this was a basketball board, not a pissing match!
Quote from: The Golden Avalanche on October 20, 2010, 07:49:11 PM
Bryant was well regarded out here. From St. Ray's in the city, most anyone with a brain who follows NYC hoops knew he was one of the best prospects in the northeast. Again, these rankings are notorious for their irrelevance. Sorry for stating Mazzulla was the starter. I should have just left it that he had two years left. I didn't write Cottrill came back to back with Bryant. I wrote that Cottrill was brought in only to be followed by two highly regarded PGs.
I see, now we're using the mythical Golden Avalanche scale to determine when some one is well regarded and when they aren't. That makes things a lot more clear. Glad to see the rankings are irrelevant when they don't fit your argument, but when they do, you continue to use them. And FYI, they didn't get two PGs this week. They got a PG and SG. They consider Boatright to be a 2 guard in a PG body, and he'll be playing next to Hinds/Cottrill, not behind them.
QuoteThis is a language discussion that bypasses the main point: Huggins is an elite recruiter who can stack talent regardless of what was brought in previously. That's the excuse that is bullcrap for MU. And today, Huggy Bear adds another forward/wing forward/wing guard (whatever the hell you want to term him) in Keaton Miles. Huggins' week blows away anything we've seen since McNeal/James.
You still haven't shown that. All that you've shown so far is that Huggins can bring in lots of players at similar positions in consecutive classes. Any coach in the country can do that. Elite recruiters bring in highly regarded kids at the same position class after class....and Huggins hasn't done that until this year. Bringing in 3-star after 3-star and occassionally pulling in a Top 100 kid does not make someone an elite recruiter.
Quote from: BCHoopster on October 20, 2010, 11:21:44 PM
I thought this was a basketball board, not a pissing match!
Obviously, you are new around here. ;D
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 20, 2010, 11:10:52 PM
Seriously. I didn't read it, but that looks like it took a lot of effort.
Anytime you use bullet points in a message board post, it automatically devalues your point.
Quote from: bma725 on October 21, 2010, 07:43:01 AM
I see, now we're using the mythical Golden Avalanche scale to determine when some one is well regarded and when they aren't. That makes things a lot more clear. Glad to see the rankings are irrelevant when they don't fit your argument, but when they do, you continue to use them. And FYI, they didn't get two PGs this week. They got a PG and SG. They consider Boatright to be a 2 guard in a PG body, and he'll be playing next to Hinds/Cottrill, not behind them.
You still haven't shown that. All that you've shown so far is that Huggins can bring in lots of players at similar positions in consecutive classes. Any coach in the country can do that. Elite recruiters bring in highly regarded kids at the same position class after class....and Huggins hasn't done that until this year. Bringing in 3-star after 3-star and occassionally pulling in a Top 100 kid does not make someone an elite recruiter.
Fair enough. I agree we disagree on relevancy of class rankings and Huggy being an elite recruiter. I have no interest in this as my main point has been sidetracked repeatedly as nerves have been struck.
Quote from: BCHoopster on October 20, 2010, 11:21:44 PM
I thought this was a basketball board, not a pissing match!
Obviously you haven't been paying attention the last couple of days.
Quote from: Pakuni on October 19, 2010, 11:15:32 AM
Plenty of "prime targets" remain, including Mike Shaw, Rodney Hood and Keith DeWitt.
JUCO forward Keith DeWitt picks Southern Miss
6-foot-11 power forward Keith DeWitt verbally committed to Southern Miss on Wednesday, according to the Jackson (Miss.) Clarion Ledger.
DeWitt originally signed with Missouri out of Charis Prep (N.C.) in 2009 but eventually ended up at Chipola College. He made is decision while on an official visit to Hattiesburg, Miss. last weekend.
Another one bites the dust. Hoping for Miller and Shaw.
Obviously this is payback for Buzz cutting that dude from Philly who probably got in his head during the visit to USM.
How seriously were we even recruiting DeWitt?
I don't know but running a search for his name makes it look like Buzz has tried to get him for a couple of years and just can't land him.
He couldn't qualify to get into Missouri...realistically, what were the chances he was going to come to Marquette?
Just sayin'
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:08:45 PM
He couldn't qualify to get into Missouri...realistically, what were the chances he was going to come to Marquette?
Just sayin'
Isn't that the reason he spent two years at a JUCO? Similarly pissy statements could be made about all our JUCO players.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:08:45 PM
He couldn't qualify to get into Missouri...realistically, what were the chances he was going to come to Marquette?
God I absolutely hate this. He went JUCO because he couldn't qualify right out of school. (Like Buycks and Crowder) In order to qualify, he has to complete his two year degree. Are you under the impression that if he chose MU and met that criteria, that MU wouldn't admit him??? Please...
Quote from: MarkCharles on October 21, 2010, 03:14:30 PM
Isn't that the reason he spent two years at a JUCO? Similarly pissy statements could be made about all our JUCO players.
I'm not trying to be pissy or disrespect our JUCO players. The fact of the matter is that all of our JUCO players didn't fail to qualify academically and require two years at their respective JUCOs, did they? Let's see...Fulce (no), JFB (no), DJO (no), Crowder (I believe his first school lost its accreditation, so no).
Quote from: SalsaMan on October 20, 2010, 11:05:23 PM
Joanie tells it like it is, all the while extending the olive branch to her sworn enemies. Joanie 84 - the Le Duc Tho of MU Scoop!
So nice to have you back in your latest incarnation.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:23:18 PM
I'm not trying to be pissy or disrespect our JUCO players. The fact of the matter is that all of our JUCO players didn't fail to qualify academically and require two years at their respective JUCOs, did they? Let's see...Fulce (no), JFB (no), DJO (no), Crowder (I believe his first school lost its accreditation, so no).
Buycks and Crowder were non-qualifiers coming out of high school and needed to complete a JUCO degree to get two years of eligibility. Fulce, JFB and DJO all qualified, but went the JUCO route for various reasons, and had three years of eligibility left.
The problem I had with your post is the idea that somehow MU wouldn't allow DeWitt in, even though we already have players that fit that exact same profile. Why would DeWitt be any different???
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:23:18 PM
I'm not trying to be pissy or disrespect our JUCO players. The fact of the matter is that all of our JUCO players didn't fail to qualify academically and require two years at their respective JUCOs, did they? Let's see...Fulce (no), JFB (no), DJO (no), Crowder (I believe his first school lost its accreditation, so no).
Crowder didn't qualify out of high school and had to spend two years in JUCO, his school losing accreditation had nothing to do with that.
Fulce and DJO were both non-qualifiers out of high school, they just chose to do a Prep School year first, where they became qualifiers, and then they went the JUCO route. If Fulce had been a qualifier in the beginning, we would never have heard of him, because he would have gone straight to Texas A&M and used up his eligibility by now.
The only one of our JUCO players that was actually a qualifier straight out of high school was Butler. The others either did 2 years of JUCO ball, or one year of Prep and one year of JUCO.
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:23:18 PM
I'm not trying to be pissy or disrespect our JUCO players. The fact of the matter is that all of our JUCO players didn't fail to qualify academically and require two years at their respective JUCOs, did they? Let's see...Fulce (no), JFB (no), DJO (no), Crowder (I believe his first school lost its accreditation, so no).
I know DJO failed to qualify because of grades, its just that he didn't need 2 years at a JUCO. I'd bet that the others have similar stories. Thats why people go to JUCO. Don't give me the "they went to improve their stock" argument. I'm not convinced that is the case except in extremely rare circumstances.
Thank you for the clarification bma.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 21, 2010, 03:43:46 PM
Thank you for the clarification bma.
We've got questions, bma has answers
Quote from: ATL MU Warrior on October 21, 2010, 03:08:45 PM
He couldn't qualify to get into Missouri...realistically, what were the chances he was going to come to Marquette?
Let me clarify this.
He could get into Missouri. He could have gotten into MU. He didn't meet the NCAA standards for qualification, that is why he went JUCO.
The idea that somehow we wouldn't take a fully qualified player is silly. When is the last time we have ever denied entry to such a player...if ever???
Damian Saunders was "conveniently" denied admission. What a crock. I don't care that we oversigned, but there was no way he would have been denied admission had we only signed 3 that year. It was probably just a procedural thing to get him out of his NLI.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 21, 2010, 03:49:05 PM
The idea that somehow we wouldn't take a fully qualified player is silly. When is the last time we have ever denied entry to such a player...if ever???
Supposedly Damian Saunders, but I don't think that was the real reason he didn't make it on the court for MU.
Quote from: The Sultan of South Wayne on October 21, 2010, 03:49:05 PM
The idea that somehow we wouldn't take a fully qualified player is silly. When is the last time we have ever denied entry to such a player...if ever???
I'm getting old, and my memory is bad. I have a vague recollection that there was some sort of problem late in Dukiet's tenure. The reason I remember this is that on the one and only time I met O'Neil I referred to this fact and asked if his recruits for that year were going to be admitted. Let's just say that he answered forcefully.
Anyone remember what might have happened late in Dukiet's tenure?
Quote from: bma725 on October 21, 2010, 03:42:21 PM
Crowder didn't qualify out of high school and had to spend two years in JUCO, his school losing accreditation had nothing to do with that.
Fulce and DJO were both non-qualifiers out of high school, they just chose to do a Prep School year first, where they became qualifiers, and then they went the JUCO route. If Fulce had been a qualifier in the beginning, we would never have heard of him, because he would have gone straight to Texas A&M and used up his eligibility by now.
The only one of our JUCO players that was actually a qualifier straight out of high school was Butler. The others either did 2 years of JUCO ball, or one year of Prep and one year of JUCO.
Thank you for correcting my incredibly faulty memory.
As stated earlier, intent of my original post was not to denigrate our JUCOs (or any JUCOs for that matter). I love the reasons given by our coach as to why he likes them. I think those same qualities make us a better team.
Just a flippant reaction to another apparent target of ours deciding to go elsewhere.
Quote from: StillAWarrior on October 21, 2010, 04:08:49 PM
I'm getting old, and my memory is bad. I have a vague recollection that there was some sort of problem late in Dukiet's tenure. The reason I remember this is that on the one and only time I met O'Neil I referred to this fact and asked if his recruits for that year were going to be admitted. Let's just say that he answered forcefully.
Anyone remember what might have happened late in Dukiet's tenure?
Pete Sears if I recall. Kid from Ohio. Wasn't he denied admission to MU during the KO era at the last minute? Can't recall, just asking.
We had a few others that were admitted and shouldn't have been...Alton Mason was one during the Deane era.
Under Dukiet...good grief. Hard to keep track anymore and I'm feeling your age as well. We had the Gerald Posey nightmare. He was a prop 48 and sat out a year then the next year transferred to Trenton State. Keith Stewart....he must have played for MU for about 8 nanoseconds before transferring to UC Irvine. Pop Sims was off punching someone he shouldn't and we had Tony Reeder on academic probation.
Good times.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 21, 2010, 05:18:05 PM
Pete Sears if I recall. Kid from Ohio. Wasn't he denied admission to MU during the KO era at the last minute? Can't recall, just asking.
We had a few others that were admitted and shouldn't have been...Alton Mason was one during the Deane era.
Under Dukiet...good grief. Hard to keep track anymore and I'm feeling your age as well. We had the Gerald Posey nightmare. He was a prop 48 and sat out a year then the next year transferred to Trenton State. Keith Stewart....he must have played for MU for about 8 nanoseconds before transferring to UC Irvine. Pop Sims was off punching someone he shouldn't and we had Tony Reeder on academic probation. Good times.
Sears is correct. He was Tony Miller's high school teammate that eventually had a good career at Xavier after he couldn't get in here.
As for Dukiet, his biggest problems were Corey Floyd and Shawn Kelly. Both were denied at the last minute, Floyd eventually ending up at Providence, no idea what happened to Kelly. Stewart was a KO guy, not Dukiet.
Quote from: bma725 on October 21, 2010, 07:20:15 PM
Sears is correct. He was Tony Miller's high school teammate that eventually had a good career at Xavier after he couldn't get in here.
As for Dukiet, his biggest problems were Corey Floyd and Shawn Kelly. Both were denied at the last minute, Floyd eventually ending up at Providence, no idea what happened to Kelly. Stewart was a KO guy, not Dukiet.
Thanks...you're right...I was thinking of Floyd, too, but couldn't remember his name. Shawn Kelly, honestly a name I never remember ever coming up. Thanks for the Stewart clarification.
Quote from: bma725 on October 21, 2010, 07:20:15 PM
Sears is correct. He was Tony Miller's high school teammate that eventually had a good career at Xavier after he couldn't get in here.
As for Dukiet, his biggest problems were Corey Floyd and Shawn Kelly. Both were denied at the last minute, Floyd eventually ending up at Providence, no idea what happened to Kelly. Stewart was a KO guy, not Dukiet.
Same thing happened with Kendrick Hamilton (or something like that) with Dukiet....he landed up at UMass, I believe
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on October 21, 2010, 05:18:05 PM
Under Dukiet...good grief. Hard to keep track anymore and I'm feeling your age as well. We had the Gerald Posey nightmare. He was a prop 48 and sat out a year then the next year transferred to Trenton State. Keith Stewart....he must have played for MU for about 8 nanoseconds before transferring to UC Irvine. Pop Sims was off punching someone he shouldn't and we had Tony Reeder on academic probation. Good times.
Keith Stewart was a Kevin O'Neill recruit....Stew transferred to MU from Purdue.
Kenrick Hamilton was a 6-7 kid from Florida by way of Maine Central Institute. He ended up at St. Bonaventure after being denied by Marquette.
Shawn Kelly played his high school basketball at Roman Catholic in Philadelphia and spent two years at Northeastern A&M (OK) Community College and went to Duquesne after signing with Marquette.
Don't recall much about Kelly either, other than he was a JUCO. I'd say that year probably killed Dukiet's career here. His top three recruits were Kelly, Floyd, and Kendrick Hamilton. All three were denied admittance right before the start of the school year essentially ending any chance of a successful season.
Of course, that sort of thing may have been more common back then. Majerus had the same sort of thing with Mel Irvin and David Everett a few years before. Both signed, neither one actually admitted.
Quote from: bma725 on October 21, 2010, 07:53:33 PM
Don't recall much about Kelly either, other than he was a JUCO. I'd say that year probably killed Dukiet's career here. His top three recruits were Kelly, Floyd, and Kendrick Hamilton. All three were denied admittance right before the start of the school year essentially ending any chance of a successful season.
Of course, that sort of thing may have been more common back then. Majerus had the same sort of thing with Mel Irvin and David Everett a few years before. Both signed, neither one actually admitted.
Its an interesting "what if" had Kelly, Floyd and Hamilton been admitted and Posey not left school. They were all D1 players--which is more than O'Neill said about the replacements that Dukiet landed.
With Posey and the 3 non-admitted players, we may well have been competitive with Xavier and Butler--both of whom used the late 80's/early 90's MCC to start their long run of relative success. We actually beat Xavier for one of the 10 wins in Dukiet's final season.