I feel bad for Marquette84

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I wonder if he's OK. First, he honestly suggested that our previous coach should consider legally adopting recruits (or becoming a legal guardian) so he wouldn't have to waste scholarships on them. Now, he's claiming that getting to the Final Four actually hurt Marquette and Tom Crean. Apparently, the whole thing was a detriment.

The Final Four as bad for a program...that's a new one. Poor Tom Crean. Riding Wade to New Orleans actually forced him to sign guys like Blackledge, Bell, Christian, Mason, Amoroso and Berkowitz. I wonder what's forcing him to run guys back to Alabama after he's finished with them now?

I'm sure Villanova, Michigan State, UCONN and UNC will suffer similarly after this year's success.


http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=415&f=2850&t=4229965&p=1

[thatman32]

ahh yeah I read that to and I thought WTF!!

Getting the final four actually hurt Marquette - well that's the first time I have ever heard that.

He also stated that if Buzz is successful then all these rumors of where his next coaching gig is going to hamper recruiting.  This conclusion is inherintly flawed too since you can publicly deny the rumors or you cannot feed the lunatics at ESPN with information while attempting to market yourself to every school out there.  Tom Crean rarley denied interest in other programs publicly. 

There were other really bad arguements that he made up too buts its not worth the time or effort to go into it.

Don't feel bad for Marquette84 - I sure don't!!

[VegasWarrior77]

I just wasted two minutes of my life!

[4everwarriors]

Rican, I can honestly see 84's point. MU was hurt by going to the FF. By doing so, it took 5 more years to get the slimy, snakeoil salesman out of here. Had Wade not carried us to New Orleans, perhaps Cords would have seen the light and canned his heine before 2008.

[Marquette84]

Getting the final four actually hurt Marquette - well that's the first time I have ever heard that.

I didn't say it hurt Marquette. 

I said it hurt MU's ability to recruit elite level players.  Which it did. 

I base this opinion on my observing a pattern than has affected virtually every other similar level program that has had similar success. 

He also stated that if Buzz is successful then all these rumors of where his next coaching gig is going to hamper recruiting. 

It will.   You can choose not to believe me.   But I've seen enough programs that have had the same trouble recruiting after a hot young coach has some initial success and tries to stay.

I point out programs like Xavier, Gonzaga, Villanova, George Mason, Davidson, MU under O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.

You say I'm wrong, but you don't offer any counterpoints--where is the laundry list of programs you can offer as counter examples?

This conclusion is inherintly flawed too since you can publicly deny the rumors or

You mean publicly deny like Sean Miller and Mark Few? 

Miller's denial further eroded the trust in such denials, and Few has been making the same denials for years in complete futility.

Regardless of public denials, it never stops the rumors and reporting.  Mark Few has been making the same annual denial eight consecutive seasons.  What happens this year?  A ton of stories about how Few is Arizona's #1 choice.

The only thing inherently flawed is the argument that you can stop the rumors by making a public denial.



But let me ask you this--if my argument is truly flawed, why can't Mark Few land more than two top 100 recruits over the course of the last four years?   He makes the required public denials. 

you cannot feed the lunatics at ESPN with information while attempting to market yourself to every school out there. 

You mean just like Mark Few feeds the lunatics every year?   

No.  Wait.  Mark Few makes the public denials every year.  And somehow, the lunatics at ESPN managed to link Few to the Arizona job this year. And the Indiana job last year.  And the year before that.  And the Washington job before that.  And the UCLA job before that.


I'd love for you to explain this:  The lunatics at ESPN that ignore Mark Few's (and Sean Miller's) denials make the same statements about Crean, but only because Crean told them?

Or how about this one:  Do you honestly believe that Crean didn't have ways of getting the message to Kentucky or Indiana or UCLA or Kansas that he was interested in those jobs without resorting to ESPN? 

Or how about this one:  Do you honestly believe that the ADs at UK, UK, KU, or UCLA sit around listening to ESPN to figure out who might be interested in their open coaching job? 

Or how about this one:  Do you honestly believe that the lunatics at ESPN are unable to figure out who might be a candidate for a high level coaching job without that coach tipping them off?


If you're brutally honest these answers are obvious--unfortunately they get in the way of your rant.

Tom Crean rarley denied interest in other programs publicly. 

As I said, such public denials have been violated so often as to have no meaning anymore.  Again, witness how many times Few denies interest in other jobs, only to be completely ignored again this year.

And if these denials are ignored by the lunatics at ESPN, do you honestly think that a HS kid and his coaches and parents believe them?

There were other really bad arguements that he made up too buts its not worth the time or effort to go into it.

No, let's get into them.  Its the off season.  We don't have a game to discuss.  The schedule is not out yet.   We have plenty of time to go into it.

My guess is that your real motivation is that you know I'm right, but you simply don't like the truth.

[ChicosBailBonds]

You may not agree with Marquette84, but he almost always backs up his opinions with a strong case of facts or reasoned logic.   Again, doesn't make him always right, but his remarks are usually well thought out and grounded.

[Bob "Big Daddy" Wild]

Would you consider Michigan State, Texas, Ohio State, Memphis, Syracuse, UConn, Florida, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, and Cincy (Huggy years) as similar level programs?  Those are off the top of my head in less than 5 minutes.

I do agree that negative recruiting is used against coaches after big success, however I do not necessarily agree that it outweighs the positive affects from the national exposure and respect it commands.  The programs I have listed above had all had success in the past 10 years or so, yet have still been able to bring in top recruits.

I think the impact of the trend you are seeing all depends on the coach.  We all know that Crean comes off as a salesman as soon as you meet him, so maybe the negative recruiting did impact him more than others...however, there are a lot of coaches from the schools listed who rose above.  How often has Izzo been rumored to the NBA or Arizona?  The Donovan fiasco with UK.  Does Roy Williams count when he was at Kansas?  Coach K is rumored to the NBA every once in a while.  Pitino to the NBA or back to UK?  I don't know if people were after Huggy or not, I did not pay as close attention to off the court stuff as I do now.  Everyone knows Matta will take a better gig if he can get it.  Bill Self at Illinois continuously brought in big talent, even when he was looking for a better job!  Schools have had to contact Rick Barnes on openings with the success he has had at Texas...maybe not though.

I think it all depends on the coach.  All of the coaches and schools I have listed are possibly better recruiters than Crean,  Sorry if this is slightly incoherent, it has been a long night of studying.

[bma725]

Villanova....who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.

Whoa...back up there.  Getting 5 McDonalds All Americans and 9 consensus top 100 players isn't leveraging your success?  You've got to be f'n kidding.  Villanova's recruiting after Wright's initial high level of success in the 2005-06 season was better than at any point since he took over in 2001, and probably better than any period since Rollie was the coach.

Since their Elite Eight in 2005-06, which was the high point of the Wright era until this year:

2006:  Scottie Reynolds(Top 40, McDonald's All American).  Antonio Pena(Top 75)
2007:  Corey Stokes(Top 30, McD's AA) Corey Fischer(Top 35)
2008:  Taylor King(Top 25 and McD's AA in 2007 as a transfer)
2009:  Dominic Cheek(Top 10, McD's AA), Malik Wayns(Top 20, McD's AA), Isaiah Armwood(Top 35), Mouph Yarou(Top 35), Taylor King


And that's not even counting guys like Reggie Redding and Malcolm Grant who each made 3 top 100 lists but weren't ranked highly enough to finish in the top 100 consensus rankings, or 2010 recruit James Bell who has already made Rivals top 100.  The notion that Villanova didn't leverage recruiting after their run is not only false, it is the exact opposite of what actually happened. 

[bma725]

MU under O'Neill, etc. etc. etc. who have failed to leverage their high level success with stellar recruiting over the next several years.

O'Neill left MU after his first season high level of success in 1994.  Even if you want to generously count the 1993 season when MU won a tournament game as high level success, your statement is still incorrect.  O'Neill's 1993 class had two top 100 players in Pieper and Crawford, and his 1994 class had three in Hutchins, McCall and Shaw.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

You may not agree with Marquette84, but he almost always backs up his opinions with a strong case of facts or reasoned logic.   Again, doesn't make him always right, but his remarks are usually well thought out and grounded.

What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!

[ATWizJr]

might have a precedent - Anson Dorance-Mia Hamm UNC soccer.

[Pardner]

might have a precedent - Anson Dorance-Mia Hamm UNC soccer.

Or a MU accounting professor with Dwayne Johnson at St. John's in Delafield.

[ecompt]

Tarkanian, I believe, had one of his assistants "adopt" Lloyd Daniels to get him into UNLV. I;'m sure any one of 100 NCAA coaches would have tried to adopt LeBron James had he decided to play college ball. Hell, while at Creighton Willis Reed had an affair with Benoit Benjamin's mother during the recruiting process.

[ChicosBailBonds]

What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!

That's his creative side, thinking outside the box.   

[Marquette84]

Would you consider Michigan State, Texas, Ohio State, Memphis, Syracuse, UConn, Florida, Louisville, Georgia Tech, Wake Forest, and Cincy (Huggy years) as similar level programs?  Those are off the top of my head in less than 5 minutes.

No most of those are not similar level programs.

Most of those are football schools with larger attendance and fan bases.  Most are public and get state funding to support their athletics program via construction of venues, tuition (MU's athletic scholarships are assigned to the AD budget, not so at many state programs).   Some are their state's flagship programs and have a natural built in following among the general public.

On top of being a football school, Cincy traded basketball success for players of marginal character.   Any program could do the same if they adopted those standards.  Ditto with Memphis.

I would suggest that Wake Forest is probably the only comparable school on your list, but unfortunately when you look at them, they're another example of a coach unable to sustain early success.  After landing a slew of top 50 and top 100 recruits in 2001 through 2003, and taking Wake to a top 10 rank and #2 seed in 2003, Prosser was identified as a leading candidate for the Pitt job.  From that point the recruiting pipe dried up (zero top 100 recruits in 2004), and despite continued success getting a #2 seed in 2005 (and getting the school's first #1 ranking), Prosser was only able to land 2 RCSI top 100 players in 2005--both ranking in the 70's, and neither a concensus top 100.

So in 2005 Prosser had plenty of playing time to offer with 4 graduating seniors and Chris Paul leaving for the NBA.  This resulted in a disastrous 2006 season--just 3-13 i the ACC. 

I do agree that negative recruiting is used against coaches after big success, however I do not necessarily agree that it outweighs the positive affects from the national exposure and respect it commands. 

And yet, there are very few coaches at programs like MU who improve their recruiting after their first tournament success.

he programs I have listed above had all had success in the past 10 years or so, yet have still been able to bring in top recruits.

Except for Wake, those programs aren't like MU. 

And wake did have a pretty serious dropoff in recruiting.

I think the impact of the trend you are seeing all depends on the coach.  We all know that Crean comes off as a salesman as soon as you meet him, so maybe the negative recruiting did impact him more than others...however, there are a lot of coaches from the schools listed who rose above.  How often has Izzo been rumored to the NBA or Arizona?  The Donovan fiasco with UK.  Does Roy Williams count when he was at Kansas?  Coach K is rumored to the NBA every once in a while.  Pitino to the NBA or back to UK?

Fair question. 

I think the answer is that a HS recruit would be more willing to take a chance at a place like MSU because of the likelihood of an excellent replacement stepping in.

The fundamental questions: 
What type of coach could MSU hire if Izzo left?  What type of coach would MU if Buzz left?   
 
If Izzo left, they probably are able to replace him with a coach that has Sweet 16 or better experience.  Hell, if he had left between 2003 and 2007, it likely would have been Crean, with final four experience or Stan Heath with Sweet 16 experience. 

Ask yourself which is more conceivable:  MSU making a play to hire Buzz Willams to replace Izzo?  Or MU making a play to hire Tom Izzo to replace Buzz? 

Frankly, MU has never been able to hire a guy with that level of experience.  Deane had one NCAA win.  Mike Newell--who turned MU down, also had one.  Bob Dukiet reached the NCAA, but lost in the first round. McGuire wasn't in the tournament--NIT or NCAA--prior to MU.  Kevin O'Neill, Tom Crean, Rick Majerus, and Hank Raymonds were unproven assistants.  In MU's most recent search the most well known candidates--Sean MIller, Mark Few, Tony Bennett--turned MU down. 

In fact, Miller and Bennett helped define MU's place in the pecking order based on where they landed after turning us down.

So if you're a top recruit, your thought process is this: "If Izzo leaves, I know MSU will get a great coach to replace him.  If Buzz leaves MU, I don't know who they could get--but it will be somebody lower than Sean Miller or Tony Bennett.  He probably won't be someone as good as MSU would hire."

O'Neill left MU after his first season high level of success in 1994.  Even if you want to generously count the 1993 season when MU won a tournament game as high level success, your statement is still incorrect.  O'Neill's 1993 class had two top 100 players in Pieper and Crawford, and his 1994 class had three in Hutchins, McCall and Shaw.

As I recall, Pieper snuck in with a 94 or 96 ranking.  I don't recall Crawford being ranked.

Nonetheless, Curry, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann and Miller are significantly stronger recruits as a group as compared to Hutchins, Pieper, Crawford, Mccall and Shaw.   

Compare player for player.  Maybe--just maybe--the only argument is that Pieper was as good as Logtermann.  Otherwise, there is a decline in quality.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that O'Neill couldn't equal his early recruiting after he started to demonstrate his ability to win?  What possible factor (other than fear of departure) would have kept O'Neill from matching the proven quality of his early recruiting? 

Whoa...back up there.  Getting 5 McDonalds All Americans and 9 consensus top 100 players isn't leveraging your success?  You've got to be f'n kidding.  Villanova's recruiting after Wright's initial high level of success in the 2005-06 season was better than at any point since he took over in 2001, and probably better than any period since Rollie was the coach.

Since their Elite Eight in 2005-06, which was the high point of the Wright era until this year:

2006:  Scottie Reynolds(Top 40, McDonald's All American).  Antonio Pena(Top 75)
2007:  Corey Stokes(Top 30, McD's AA) Corey Fischer(Top 35)
2008:  Taylor King(Top 25 and McD's AA in 2007 as a transfer)
2009:  Dominic Cheek(Top 10, McD's AA), Malik Wayns(Top 20, McD's AA), Isaiah Armwood(Top 35), Mouph Yarou(Top 35), Taylor King

The notion that Villanova didn't leverage recruiting after their run is not only false, it is the exact opposite of what actually happened. 

What actually happened is that Jay Wright landed 4 top 100 players in 2002 and two more in 2003, and took them to the Sweet 16 in 2005.  He leveraged that 2005 success by landing . . . nobody of note in the 2005 recruiting class. 

So Villanova, having been to five straight NITs, then gets to a Sweet 16, and Wright winds up striking out that year recruiting.   

And a year after that--in 2006--he did two top 100 players--but really only one of them was on par with the four in his 2002 class.  Let's be honest.  Top 75 Pena is not quite equal to top 5 Jason Fraser, is he? 

As I said, it took Wright until 2009 to match his 2002 recruting success, and recruiting hit bottom immediately after the first big tournament success.

[Marquette84]

Quote from: PuertoRicanNightmare on Today at 06:05:15 AM
What about the notion that a coach might become the legal guardian of a player, thereby avoding the need to provide the player a scholarship? I don't think that's well thought out or grounded!

That's his creative side, thinking outside the box.   

I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.

But in the interest of putting all the facts on the table, I raised this as part of a laundry list of ideas to refute PRN's idiotic notion that there was no way to address an overcommitment of scholarships.  I asked the question because Barro actually did have his HS coach to serve as his US guardian.  As others have pointed out, it's not without precedent.  BTW, no thanks to PRN, someone researched the question, and the answer is yes a coach can become the legal guardian of a player.  However, if the player is not on athletic scholarship Barro would not have been eligible for any extras offered to scholarship athletes--like summer workouts or athletic housing.

What most don't realize is that PRN was equally unhinged that I suggested an MU player might pay his own way and walk on.  He had forgotten that John Mueller walked on at MU rather than take a scholarship at NIU, and Andy Freund walked on rather than take a scholrship to Butler.  

Of course, he then modified his argument to say that nobody would pay after receiving a scholarship for a year.  Within days, Taylor Roschtie announced he was doing just that at WSU to give Tony Bennett an extra scholarship at WSU.  

We don't hear much about this one anymore.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.

But in the interest of putting all the facts on the table, I raised this as part of a laundry list of ideas to refute PRN's idiotic notion that there was no way to address an overcommitment of scholarships.  

Right...I said there is "no way" to address an overcommitment of scholarships. Exactly. That definitely sounds like something I would say.

Well thought out, indeed.

[Murffieus]

New head coaches who come from a successful program either as an assistant or HC often are able to recruit a real good class that first full year------e.g. Ed Hickey, O'Neil, TC, and Buzz are MU coaching ezamples-----but in each case that first class was the best one they ever had (school still out on Buzz).

[Big Papi]

No most of those are not similar level programs.

Most of those are football schools with larger attendance and fan bases.  Most are public and get state funding to support their athletics program via construction of venues, tuition (MU's athletic scholarships are assigned to the AD budget, not so at many state programs).   Some are their state's flagship programs and have a natural built in following among the general public.

Definitely not on the same level.  Unfortunately MU is not a destination school while a majority on that list are closer to that designation.  When was the last time Boeheim or Calhoun were reported by the media as coaches who might be interested in another job?  Fact of the matter is, both made their programs as destination programs due to the number of years they stayed at their respective schools so negative recruiting has not been a factor.  They are able to reload on a yearly basis while programs like Marquette have to over pay coaches who are successful at MU so that they don't bolt and even that has not been enough. 

Incidently, Gonzaga and Few might finally be over that hump.  If Few hasn't left for any of the plum vacancies by now, he might never leave and his recruiting might get a whole lot better.

[bma725]

As I recall, Pieper snuck in with a 94 or 96 ranking.  I don't recall Crawford being ranked.

Nonetheless, Curry, Key, McIlvaine, Logtermann and Miller are significantly stronger recruits as a group as compared to Hutchins, Pieper, Crawford, Mccall and Shaw.   

Compare player for player.  Maybe--just maybe--the only argument is that Pieper was as good as Logtermann.  Otherwise, there is a decline in quality.

Pieper was #89 by Bob Gibbons, Crawford was #98. 

Significantly stronger in terms of results, sure.  But not in terms of rankings, and that's what was being discussed.  Miller was not a top 100 recruit that year.  He had been when he was a sophomore, but by the time his senior year came around he'd fallen off the lists.  Hutch was the highest ranked, followed by Key and McCall then Will Gates.  Then came McIlvaine.  Shaw and Logterman were ranked in the same range, the end of the top 100.  I'd be happy to provide the data, but I'm saving it for a CS post next week.

Doesn't it seem strange to you that O'Neill couldn't equal his early recruiting after he started to demonstrate his ability to win?  What possible factor (other than fear of departure) would have kept O'Neill from matching the proven quality of his early recruiting?

What seems strange is defining 11-18 and 16-13 records as demonstrating his ability to win or using your previous definition, "high level of success".  His first NCAA appearance was 1993, and following that he signed 5 top 100 recruits in two classes.  In fact his recruiting actually improved following his first success, since he'd only signed 4 top 100 recruits prior to that.  In fact, given that his high level of success was the 1994 Sweet Sixteen and he left after that, using him as an example at all doesn't hold any water.

What actually happened is that Jay Wright landed 4 top 100 players in 2002 and two more in 2003, and took them to the Sweet 16 in 2005.  He leveraged that 2005 success by landing . . . nobody of note in the 2005 recruiting class. 

So Villanova, having been to five straight NITs, then gets to a Sweet 16, and Wright winds up striking out that year recruiting.   

And a year after that--in 2006--he did two top 100 players--but really only one of them was on par with the four in his 2002 class.  Let's be honest.  Top 75 Pena is not quite equal to top 5 Jason Fraser, is he? 

As I said, it took Wright until 2009 to match his 2002 recruting success, and recruiting hit bottom immediately after the first big tournament success.

You didn't say first success, you said high level of success, now you're changing your argument.  Wright's high level was the Elite 8 in 2006, just like Crean's high level was the 2003 Final Four, not the first round loss in 2002.  Since the Elite Eight, he's signed 9 consensus top 100 players, two other players that were near consensus.

[PuertoRicanNightmare]

I didn't see this before, because I'm ignoring PRN.

I would never ignore you!

Friendly piece of advice...that other board is full of unbalanced oddballs. I'm talking about the kind of people who post thoughts on religion and family and turn right around and use foul language to attack you personally when you don't agree with their opinions. You cannot win with these people because they're delusional about not just their opinions, but about themselves. These are the people you should be ignoring.

I'm just a guy who thinks your Crean worship is over the top.

[New Era Warriors]

edited.  This post has no value other than one long personal attack.

[Marquette84]

You didn't say first success, you said high level of success, now you're changing your argument.  Wright's high level was the Elite 8 in 2006, just like Crean's high level was the 2003 Final Four, not the first round loss in 2002.  Since the Elite Eight, he's signed 9 consensus top 100 players, two other players that were near consensus.

I'm not changing anything in my argument.

I'm not sure you fully understand it.  Let me repeat it for you:


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.

2.  That hot, young (and unproven) coach has blockbuster recruiting his first year or two. 

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.

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.


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.

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. 
6a.  Some people use this later success to argue that I was wrong and point #4 had no impact on recruiting.


Applied to Wright:
1.  Hiring Jay Wright from Hofstra--consistent with point #1
2.  2002 recruiting class ranked top 5 consistent with point #2.
3.  Getting Villanova to a Sweet 16 in 2005 after five straight NITs is fully consistent with point #3
4.  Wright starts to be cited as a candidate for top jobs after the sweet sixteen consistent with point 4.
5.  No top 100 recruits in 2005, and only 2 each in 2006 and 2006 consistent with point #5
6.  2009 Villanova has another top 5 class--consistent with point #6


Applied to Crean:
1.  Hiring Tom Crean with no head coaching experience.
2.  Early recruiting includes Scott Merrit, Travis Diener, Dwyane Wade, Odartey Blankson,
3.  Returned MU to tournament in 2002, and final four in 2003
4.  Crean identified as a candidate at Illinois
5.  2003 and 2004 recruiting classes are not considered as good as early recruiting.
6.  2005 lands the 3 amigos.

Applied to O'Neill
1.  Hired Kevin O'Neill w/no head coaching experience.
2.  Lands Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, Curry, Miller, Stewart, etc.
3.  Returned MU to tournament w/in 4 years, sweet 16 the next year.
4.  O'Neill identified as a possible candidate at Vanderbilt in 1993, takes Tennessee job in 2005
5.  2003 and 2004 recruiting classes filled with undersized or risky recruits not coveted by major programs.
6.  N/A--O'Neill didn't stick around.


We could do this all day.  My narrative almost always fits.   

This was a simple observation of mine:  Wright proved himself as a good coach by 2005, yet none of Wright's recruiting classes from the years from 2005 through 2008 were as good as 2002.   

Your counter to that is that collectively from 2005 through 2009, Wright brought in more top 100 recruits.  You are essentially making an argument under point 6a.

Well, that may be true. 

But what is also true is that the 2005 class was not as good as 2002. 
The 2006 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2007 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2008 class was not as good as 2002.
It took until 2009 for Jay Wright to land a class that equalled the quality of his early recruiting.

[rugbydrummer]

I'm not changing anything in my argument.

I'm not sure you fully understand it.  Let me repeat it for you:


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.

2.  That hot, young (and unproven) coach has blockbuster recruiting his first year or two. 

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.

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.


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.

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. 
6a.  Some people use this later success to argue that I was wrong and point #4 had no impact on recruiting.


Applied to Wright:
1.  Hiring Jay Wright from Hofstra--consistent with point #1
2.  2002 recruiting class ranked top 5 consistent with point #2.
3.  Getting Villanova to a Sweet 16 in 2005 after five straight NITs is fully consistent with point #3
4.  Wright starts to be cited as a candidate for top jobs after the sweet sixteen consistent with point 4.
5.  No top 100 recruits in 2005, and only 2 each in 2006 and 2006 consistent with point #5
6.  2009 Villanova has another top 5 class--consistent with point #6


Applied to Crean:
1.  Hiring Tom Crean with no head coaching experience.
2.  Early recruiting includes Scott Merrit, Travis Diener, Dwyane Wade, Odartey Blankson,
3.  Returned MU to tournament in 2002, and final four in 2003
4.  Crean identified as a candidate at Illinois
5.  2003 and 2004 recruiting classes are not considered as good as early recruiting.
6.  2005 lands the 3 amigos.

Applied to O'Neill
1.  Hired Kevin O'Neill w/no head coaching experience.
2.  Lands Key, McIlvaine, Logterman, Curry, Miller, Stewart, etc.
3.  Returned MU to tournament w/in 4 years, sweet 16 the next year.
4.  O'Neill identified as a possible candidate at Vanderbilt in 1993, takes Tennessee job in 2005
5.  2003 and 2004 recruiting classes filled with undersized or risky recruits not coveted by major programs.
6.  N/A--O'Neill didn't stick around.


We could do this all day.  My narrative almost always fits.   

This was a simple observation of mine:  Wright proved himself as a good coach by 2005, yet none of Wright's recruiting classes from the years from 2005 through 2008 were as good as 2002.   

Your counter to that is that collectively from 2005 through 2009, Wright brought in more top 100 recruits.  You are essentially making an argument under point 6a.

Well, that may be true. 

But what is also true is that the 2005 class was not as good as 2002. 
The 2006 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2007 class was not as good as 2002.
The 2008 class was not as good as 2002.
It took until 2009 for Jay Wright to land a class that equalled the quality of his early recruiting.

Dude.  if people just don't get it, stop wasting your time trying to make them understand.  for me i'd rather focus on the future than our past (good things & bad).

[mugrad99]

You are referencing Villanova's 2005 success in the tournament, then reference their 2005 class as not very good.  Wouldn't that class have been signed prior to the tournament run?

Also, IMHO, the reason Crean's recruiting went downhill right after the Final Four is that he spent too much time trying to land the big name recruits and therefore lost out on the recruits in the 50-100 range.