New Conference so far not good for recruiting

[Galway Eagle]

That's an interesting convo. The first trio was before my time, but I think this class compares favorably against the other 3 amigos. I only say that as recruits and ranking. The 3 amigos production will be a different story and very hard to match, especially without the time available right away.

If they make it to the second weekend once in four years then the production would be even better.  I loved the three amigos but they lacked what it took to get out of the first weekend. 

[Pakuni]

If they make it to the second weekend once in four years then the production would be even better.  I loved the three amigos but they lacked what it took to get out of the first weekend. 

They didn't lack anything but a big man who could occasionally score, health and a decent second-round matchup.
It would insane to think that team wouldn't have moved on to the Sweet Sixteen with second-round games against Murray State and Butler instead of Stanford (with the Lopez twins) and Mizzou.

[Silkk the Shaka]

Kansas State is almost always very good at hoops. Iowa State and West Virginia have had plenty of outstanding seasons. Texas made the tourney 14 straight years (and 17 of 18) before struggling last season. Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Baylor all have had very nice stretches. Losing Mizzou and a down year in 2012-13 makes them look worse than they really are as a basketball league.

Phine, phair enouph.  MU & Georgetown will be the KU/UT consistent cream, Villanova & Creighton will be the WVU/KSt. of the new league.

[The Equalizer]

Steve Taylor was in the 80's brah.

Yep, and he averaged 3 ppg/2.1 rpg average, as compared to a 9.9 ppg 4.1 rpg average for the eveven top 50 Small Forwards in his class. 3x the points, 2x the rebounds.  I think that's signficant.

Meanwhile, your argument is that he'll get significantly better next season.  Fine--he might.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Also keep in mind that at the same time in their respective careers, we all thought Jamail Jones, Erik Williams and Juan Anderson would get signficantly better in THEIR second seasons.  It didn't happen.

Why did I choose the top 50 instead of the top 100 in my inital post:
I'll use RSCI data so I'm not accused of using a single data point as an outlier. Since he's been at MU, Buzz has brought in 8 top 100 recruits:

--#40 Jamil Wilson
--#47 Junior Cadougan
--#48 Vander Blue
--#67 Erik Williams
--#73 Jeronne Maymon
--#74 Jamail Jones
--#81 Juan Anderson
--#82 Steve Taylor

Maybe I missed someone--if I did I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me.  And I do hope including every one of Buzz's top 100 recruits is objective enough for Pakuni.

Sorry you disagree with me on my observation that the top 50 players are genreally better than the next 50.

At best, at this point you could argue that Taylor might buck the trend.  And then 20% of Buzz's 51 to 100 will be considered successful.  Compared to 100% of the top fifty.

[martyconlonontherun]

It's not set in stone, but it's definitely better to have higher rated recruits. That said, you need Juan Anderson type guys who progress over 4-years to provide leadership and toughness. You don't want 12 top 50 guys and have a lot of resentment over playing time.

[tower912]

Yep, and he averaged 3 ppg/2.1 rpg average, as compared to a 9.9 ppg 4.1 rpg average for the eveven top 50 Small Forwards in his class. 3x the points, 2x the rebounds.  I think that's signficant.

Meanwhile, your argument is that he'll get significantly better next season.  Fine--he might.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Also keep in mind that at the same time in their respective careers, we all thought Jamail Jones, Erik Williams and Juan Anderson would get signficantly better in THEIR second seasons.  It didn't happen.

Why did I choose the top 50 instead of the top 100 in my inital post:
I'll use RSCI data so I'm not accused of using a single data point as an outlier. Since he's been at MU, Buzz has brought in 8 top 100 recruits:

--#40 Jamil Wilson
--#47 Junior Cadougan
--#48 Vander Blue
--#67 Erik Williams
--#73 Jeronne Maymon
--#74 Jamail Jones
--#81 Juan Anderson
--#82 Steve Taylor

Maybe I missed someone--if I did I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me.  And I do hope including every one of Buzz's top 100 recruits is objective enough for Pakuni.

Sorry you disagree with me on my observation that the top 50 players are genreally better than the next 50.

At best, at this point you could argue that Taylor might buck the trend.  And then 20% of Buzz's 51 to 100 will be considered successful.  Compared to 100% of the top fifty.

Victor Oladipo and Otto Porter say hi, and that life outside the top 100 is tolerable.   

[hairy worthen]

Yep, and he averaged 3 ppg/2.1 rpg average, as compared to a 9.9 ppg 4.1 rpg average for the eveven top 50 Small Forwards in his class. 3x the points, 2x the rebounds.  I think that's signficant.

Meanwhile, your argument is that he'll get significantly better next season.  Fine--he might.  But it hasn't happened yet.  Also keep in mind that at the same time in their respective careers, we all thought Jamail Jones, Erik Williams and Juan Anderson would get signficantly better in THEIR second seasons.  It didn't happen.

Why did I choose the top 50 instead of the top 100 in my inital post:
I'll use RSCI data so I'm not accused of using a single data point as an outlier. Since he's been at MU, Buzz has brought in 8 top 100 recruits:

--#40 Jamil Wilson
--#47 Junior Cadougan
--#48 Vander Blue
--#67 Erik Williams
--#73 Jeronne Maymon
--#74 Jamail Jones
--#81 Juan Anderson
--#82 Steve Taylor

Maybe I missed someone--if I did I'm sure you'll be more than happy to correct me.  And I do hope including every one of Buzz's top 100 recruits is objective enough for Pakuni.

Sorry you disagree with me on my observation that the top 50 players are genreally better than the next 50.

At best, at this point you could argue that Taylor might buck the trend.  And then 20% of Buzz's 51 to 100 will be considered successful.  Compared to 100% of the top fifty.

top 50 generally better than 50 to 100?  The hell you say.  Damn you are smart. Nice research, keep up the good work

[The Equalizer]

Victor Oladipo and Otto Porter say hi, and that life outside the top 100 is tolerable.  

Otto Porter was #34 in the RSCI. 

[tower912]

Then shame on me for believing Jay Bilas when he said they had both come from outside the top 100.   

[forgetful]

Otto Porter was #34 in the RSCI. 

You are correct about the RSCI, but even ESPN in the draft commented that he wasn't a top 100 player.

[Pakuni]

Sorry you disagree with me on my observation that the top 50 players are genreally better than the next 50.

"Top 50 players aren't generally better than the next 50," said no one here ever.

[GGGG]

You don't need to be John Wooden to see that Steve Taylor is significantly better than Erik Williams and Jamail Jones. Those two were completely lost on the floor.

[slingkong]

St. Louis, maybe.
Wichita St. and VCU don't fit the profile.

I still don't get the love for SLU. Urban-ish, yes. Bball focused, yes. But their bball team also sucks except for the rare season. And now their coach is gone, which will undoubtedly affect recruiting. And let's not get started about the horror show in its administration. Good soccer teams, though.

[The Equalizer]

"Top 50 players aren't generally better than the next 50," said no one here ever.

To be fair, you said it in this thread. Not using those exact words of course, but your response to my comment that the top 50 players were generally better was:

Could you at least pretend to be objective?

Cameron Clark, Trey Zeigler and Mychal Parker were top 50 in 2010.
Allen Crabbe, CJ Fair and Tim Hardway Jr. were top 51-100.

See ... Marquette should only recruit players outside the top 50. Three players proves it.

Boy, that sounds like you're agreeing with me, doesn't it?  Not.

Now after I show that 100% of Buzz's top 50 have been successful compared to at best 20% of 51-100, you're trying to say that nobody here has ever disgreed with me that the top 50 are bettter.

But if you really want me to believe you, perhaps you could edit your reply to this post:

Why cut it off at top 50?  Did it not fit your argument using top 100?

And politely explain to Jaminnamam that its obvious that the top 50 are  nerally alot better than 51-100.

[Galway Eagle]

To be fair, you said it in this thread. Not using those exact words of course, but your response to my comment that the top 50 players were generally better was:

Boy, that sounds like you're agreeing with me, doesn't it?  Not.

Now after I show that 100% of Buzz's top 50 have been successful compared to at best 20% of 51-100, you're trying to say that nobody here has ever disgreed with me that the top 50 are bettter.

But if you really want me to believe you, perhaps you could edit your reply to this post:
And politely explain to Jaminnamam that its obvious that the top 50 are  nerally alot better than 51-100.

I'd say Jeronne Maymonn has been pretty successful at Tennessee so if you look at Buzz's bottom 50 I'd say 40% and fine that's Buzz's recruits but once again tons of recruits in the bottom 50 for other teams become successful they aren't 1 and done players, if they were they'd be ranked higher that's a given.  And seeing as Juan and Williams got injured you can't really use their stats Jamail Jones was a flop ill give you that. 

[tower912]

Maybe Buzz should just stick to JUCO's.   His percentage is pretty good there.    Buycks, Butler, Crowder, DJO, vs. Fulce, and Fulce's lack of success was attributable to injuries, not lack of talent.  Of course, some would argue that gives MU a negative reputation, but that is a different can of worms. 

[GGGG]

Maybe Buzz should just stick to JUCO's.   His percentage is pretty good there.    Buycks, Butler, Crowder, DJO, vs. Fulce, and Fulce's lack of success was attributable to injuries, not lack of talent.  Of course, some would argue that gives MU a negative reputation, but that is a different can of worms. 

I have a feeling that we aren't going to be seeing too many more non-qualifying Jucos a la Buycks or Crowder.  APR takes a hit.  Since McKay committed early, he stands a reasonable chance at graduating in two years.

[tower912]

Agreed.   Going forward, Buzz has made enough of an impression that he will probably only take the occasional JUCO.  In '14,  for example, if he fails to land a prep 5, I can see him going the JUCO route for a big.   But IMO, that will become more of the exception, versus what he did during his first years at MU. 

[Galway Eagle]

Agreed.   Going forward, Buzz has made enough of an impression that he will probably only take the occasional JUCO.  In '14,  for example, if he fails to land a prep 5, I can see him going the JUCO route for a big.   But IMO, that will become more of the exception, versus what he did during his first years at MU. 

I think jucos will be Buzz's way of avoiding rebuilding years like I think we'll have a big Juco year after jujuan, Duane and Deonte graduate or leave

[GGGG]

Agreed.   Going forward, Buzz has made enough of an impression that he will probably only take the occasional JUCO.  In '14,  for example, if he fails to land a prep 5, I can see him going the JUCO route for a big.   But IMO, that will become more of the exception, versus what he did during his first years at MU.  

And it makes a big difference if he takes a qualifying Juco, who can play 3 years at MU and likely graduate (like JFB and DJO).  The two year Jucos simply have trouble geting enough credits to graduate in two years.  McKay might be the exception.

I think jucos will be Buzz's way of avoiding rebuilding years like I think we'll have a big Juco year after jujuan, Duane and Deonte graduate or leave

With the roster turnover MU has had, that seems like a lifetime away.

[bilsu]

You are correct about the RSCI, but even ESPN in the draft commented that he wasn't a top 100 player.

Yes, but that was before his senior year in high school. He was realitively unknown when Georgetown signed him before the start of his senior year, because he did not play AAU ball.

[Aughnanure]

Then shame on me for believing Jay Bilas when he said they had both come from outside the top 100.   

Yeah, what? Otto Porter was very highly considered, like Ben Mclemore (both from Missouri). It was a huge disappointment to Mizzou fans to lose out on both of them.

[Aughnanure]

Kansas State is almost always very good at hoops. Iowa State and West Virginia have had plenty of outstanding seasons. Texas made the tourney 14 straight years (and 17 of 18) before struggling last season. Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Baylor all have had very nice stretches. Losing Mizzou and a down year in 2012-13 makes them look worse than they really are as a basketball league.

I love how perceptions can change so much. 5 years ago, everyone would be talking about how KState is never good at hoops.

[bilsu]

I love how perceptions can change so much. 5 years ago, everyone would be talking about how KState is never good at hoops.

Kansas St is the 38th all-time winningest program and MU is  the 43rd.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Steve Taylor was in the 80's brah.

So was Erik Williams, brah.  Jamail Jones, etc.  Plenty of hits and misses with player rankings in recruiting.  Examples on both sides.