Big East - General Recruiting Thread

[stever20]

They didn't come there thinking that it was a BB only conference. In fact, when signing day 2013 happened, Maryland and Rutgers hadn't joined the Big Ten yet even. So Louisville was absolutely still in the fold. Maryland/Rutgers joined the Big Ten on Nov 19, 2012. Signing day that year would have been Nov 14th.

[GumbyDamnit!]

In the Rivals Composite last 4 years...
2013- ACC 16 BE 10 B10 14
2014- ACC 18 BE 13 B10 11
2015 ACC 19 BE 7 B10 15
2016 ACC 22 BE 7 B10 13

so in the 4 years- ACC 75, BE 37 B10 53. Per school per year- ACC 1.25 BE 0.93 B10 0.95...

You used Rivals b/c the numbers are slightly better for your argument. I cited ESPN. Fine, whatever.

Looking at 2 year segments makes no sense when you have 4 years of available data. That's exactly what people do when they want to cherry pick data. If you have 4 years of data and 2 years of data, you use the greater span b/c it weeds out anomalies. You use 2 years because it fits your anti-BE agenda.

So since inception we have recruited on par with the B10. Yes or no?

And I see that you didn't care to respond about where the lion's share of those ACC recruits head year after year. They don't simply "head to THE ACC" but rather to the same 4 schools they always have. I'm OK with my program not recruiting on the same level as Duke and UNC. It is unrealistic to think a new conference in its infancy can compete against HOF coaches who have historically dominated recruiting rankings.

But when I see us at 1.0 Top 100 recruits per team per year and the B10 at 1.0 recruits per team per year and the 11 "other" ACC teams at .68 recruits per year, I feel pretty good about where we are.

Add in CU's 2 top 100 already for next year, and the young, aggressive coaches that we have in conference, and I like our chances moving forward. You disagree because as we all know you look for reasons to peddle your obvious agenda.

Don't you have another board to moderate?

[stever20]

In the Rivals Composite last 4 years...
2013- ACC 16 BE 10 B10 14
2014- ACC 18 BE 13 B10 11
2015 ACC 19 BE 7 B10 15
2016 ACC 22 BE 7 B10 13

so in the 4 years- ACC 75, BE 37 B10 53. Per school per year- ACC 1.25 BE 0.93 B10 0.95...

You used Rivals b/c the numbers are slightly better for your argument. I cited ESPN. Fine, whatever.

Looking at 2 year segments makes no sense when you have 4 years of available data. That's exactly what people do when they want to cherry pick data. If you have 4 years of data and 2 years of data, you use the greater span b/c it weeds out anomalies. You use 2 years because it fits your anti-BE agenda.

So since inception we have recruited on par with the B10. Yes or no?

And I see that you didn't care to respond about where the lion's share of those ACC recruits head year after year. They don't simply "head to THE ACC" but rather to the same 4 schools they always have. I'm OK with my program not recruiting on the same level as Duke and UNC. It is unrealistic to think a new conference in its infancy can compete against HOF coaches who have historically dominated recruiting rankings.

But when I see us at 1.0 Top 100 recruits per team per year and the B10 at 1.0 recruits per team per year and the 11 "other" ACC teams at .68 recruits per year, I feel pretty good about where we are.

Add in CU's 2 top 100 already for next year, and the young, aggressive coaches that we have in conference, and I like our chances moving forward. You disagree because as we all know you look for reasons to peddle your obvious agenda.

Don't you have another board to moderate?

When the last 2 years are MUCH worse than the first 2 years- it is a statistical concern. last 2 years combined 1 player more than 2014. You might not like it but when you have 10,13,7,7- the 13 is the anomaly, not the 7's. And the ACC has gone 16,18,19,22. What is to say that the 22 is an anomaly? And you bring up the Big Ten. Their 4 years are 14,11,15,13. What looks like the anomaly? The 11.

Also you bring up about the ACC recruits and where they go. 20 of the 37 players that the Big East have gotten in the last 4 years have gone to Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette. The other 7 schools left with 17 or 0.60 per school. You say 3 schools is 30% of the league. Well 4/15 is 27% so not that big of a difference there.

And you bring up 2017. Looking- Rivals has BE 1, ACC 1, and Big Ten with 3.

[Jet915]

In the Rivals Composite last 4 years...
2013- ACC 16 BE 10 B10 14
2014- ACC 18 BE 13 B10 11
2015 ACC 19 BE 7 B10 15
2016 ACC 22 BE 7 B10 13

so in the 4 years- ACC 75, BE 37 B10 53. Per school per year- ACC 1.25 BE 0.93 B10 0.95...

You used Rivals b/c the numbers are slightly better for your argument. I cited ESPN. Fine, whatever.

Looking at 2 year segments makes no sense when you have 4 years of available data. That's exactly what people do when they want to cherry pick data. If you have 4 years of data and 2 years of data, you use the greater span b/c it weeds out anomalies. You use 2 years because it fits your anti-BE agenda.

So since inception we have recruited on par with the B10. Yes or no?

And I see that you didn't care to respond about where the lion's share of those ACC recruits head year after year. They don't simply "head to THE ACC" but rather to the same 4 schools they always have. I'm OK with my program not recruiting on the same level as Duke and UNC. It is unrealistic to think a new conference in its infancy can compete against HOF coaches who have historically dominated recruiting rankings.

But when I see us at 1.0 Top 100 recruits per team per year and the B10 at 1.0 recruits per team per year and the 11 "other" ACC teams at .68 recruits per year, I feel pretty good about where we are.

Add in CU's 2 top 100 already for next year, and the young, aggressive coaches that we have in conference, and I like our chances moving forward. You disagree because as we all know you look for reasons to peddle your obvious agenda.

Don't you have another board to moderate?

When the last 2 years are MUCH worse than the first 2 years- it is a statistical concern. last 2 years combined 1 player more than 2014. You might not like it but when you have 10,13,7,7- the 13 is the anomaly, not the 7's. And the ACC has gone 16,18,19,22. What is to say that the 22 is an anomaly? And you bring up the Big Ten. Their 4 years are 14,11,15,13. What looks like the anomaly? The 11.

Also you bring up about the ACC recruits and where they go. 20 of the 37 players that the Big East have gotten in the last 4 years have gone to Georgetown, Villanova, and Marquette. The other 7 schools left with 17 or 0.60 per school. You say 3 schools is 30% of the league. Well 4/15 is 27% so not that big of a difference there.

And you bring up 2017. Looking- Rivals has BE 1, ACC 1, and Big Ten with 3.

Big East has 2 for 2017, #37 and #86.

[jfan]

Reading the use of metrics in this thread is painful (Not you Gumby, the other person). There are so many recruiting variables that can be used to make a point, it becomes mind-numbing. The league hasn't been in existence long enough in its current form for someone to make sweeping generalizations about the status of recruiting ( Such as stating Big East recruiting has dropped). For the C-7 teams, I will leave it to them to say how things are with recruiting. They were already in a major conference before the split. As to the other three, There is no question that being in the BE has helped and will help recruiting. I will take the team I know best---- Creighton. Last year we got two recruits from Omaha. One of them is starting as a freshman and one is redshirting and is a top-50 recruit. Would they have come if Creighton was still in the Valley, maybe, but being in the BE certainly helped. We have obtained three transfer recruits since joining the BE. This year, Mo Watson and Cole Huff are both starting and averaging double figures. Both were playing in mid-majors and wanted to play on the bigger stage of a high major (the Big East). Neither player would be at Creighton if we were still in the Valley. Next year Marcus Foster joins and will start and be one of the top players on the team. He was second team All Big 12 as a freshman. He was one of the top transfers in the country last year and there is no way he is at Creighton without the BE. As has been pointed out, we already have commitments from two ESPN top 50 players for 2017. One of them chose Creighton over Kansas, Indiana and others. The other had offers from Clemson, VATech and others. I highly doubt they would have chosen CU without the BE. We are recruiting players that would not have looked at us three years ago and we would not have wasted time recruiting because they would not have come to Creighton. These are the facts of how being a member of the Big East has helped us so far. I'm sure that Butler and X can tell similar stories (Trevon Bluiett has been mentioned). As the image of the conference continues to solidify as a Power Conference, I am very optimistic that recruiting will only get better for the league!!

[NovaBall]

jfan,

Recruiting for Villanova is better than ever since the split. We landed the #1 PG in the nation last year, we have this kid Bridges who is a great fit, we have the best class in the Big East next year with a top 20 overall player in Spellman (at a position we need), we have eric Paschall coming in. We will see how Delany and Devenzenzo fit into the long term plans.

Recruiting has not dropped a bit. Very good for us these days.

[Xudash]

Reading the use of metrics in this thread is painful (Not you Gumby, the other person). There are so many recruiting variables that can be used to make a point, it becomes mind-numbing. The league hasn't been in existence long enough in its current form for someone to make sweeping generalizations about the status of recruiting ( Such as stating Big East recruiting has dropped). For the C-7 teams, I will leave it to them to say how things are with recruiting. They were already in a major conference before the split. As to the other three, There is no question that being in the BE has helped and will help recruiting. I will take the team I know best---- Creighton. Last year we got two recruits from Omaha. One of them is starting as a freshman and one is redshirting and is a top-50 recruit. Would they have come if Creighton was still in the Valley, maybe, but being in the BE certainly helped. We have obtained three transfer recruits since joining the BE. This year, Mo Watson and Cole Huff are both starting and averaging double figures. Both were playing in mid-majors and wanted to play on the bigger stage of a high major (the Big East). Neither player would be at Creighton if we were still in the Valley. Next year Marcus Foster joins and will start and be one of the top players on the team. He was second team All Big 12 as a freshman. He was one of the top transfers in the country last year and there is no way he is at Creighton without the BE. As has been pointed out, we already have commitments from two ESPN top 50 players for 2017. One of them chose Creighton over Kansas, Indiana and others. The other had offers from Clemson, VATech and others. I highly doubt they would have chosen CU without the BE. We are recruiting players that would not have looked at us three years ago and we would not have wasted time recruiting because they would not have come to Creighton. These are the facts of how being a member of the Big East has helped us so far. I'm sure that Butler and X can tell similar stories (Trevon Bluiett has been mentioned). As the image of the conference continues to solidify as a Power Conference, I am very optimistic that recruiting will only get better for the league!!

+1

Xavier would simply not have gotten Trevon if we were still in the A10. His father is on the record on that, as was mentioned in that article.

I doubt we would have gotten Sumner, Macura, and O'Mara, either.

We also wouldn't have pulled Gates out of Georgia, and the incoming class would not have materialized as well.

This new advantage in recruiting is a not so subtle thing that will over time lead to further separation between the Big East and, in this case, the A10. The A10 fans just don't get it. I could see the first year into this new deal what a difference in athletes the C7 had versus what Xavier was accustomed to facing A10 competition.

It's in the abstract and it's an anomaly, but I channel surfed my way into the end of the VCU/UMass game last night. It was terrible. Two decades ago, UMass was the bomb under Calipari; it was THE main program within the A10. It looked like a shell of itself last night. Worse yet, the Mullins Center was dead and very empty. And the game was just a mess, with the A10's #2 team going down on the road to that terrible UMass squad. The difference in talent was striking.

[stever20]

Reading the use of metrics in this thread is painful (Not you Gumby, the other person). There are so many recruiting variables that can be used to make a point, it becomes mind-numbing. The league hasn't been in existence long enough in its current form for someone to make sweeping generalizations about the status of recruiting ( Such as stating Big East recruiting has dropped). For the C-7 teams, I will leave it to them to say how things are with recruiting. They were already in a major conference before the split. As to the other three, There is no question that being in the BE has helped and will help recruiting. I will take the team I know best---- Creighton. Last year we got two recruits from Omaha. One of them is starting as a freshman and one is redshirting and is a top-50 recruit. Would they have come if Creighton was still in the Valley, maybe, but being in the BE certainly helped. We have obtained three transfer recruits since joining the BE. This year, Mo Watson and Cole Huff are both starting and averaging double figures. Both were playing in mid-majors and wanted to play on the bigger stage of a high major (the Big East). Neither player would be at Creighton if we were still in the Valley. Next year Marcus Foster joins and will start and be one of the top players on the team. He was second team All Big 12 as a freshman. He was one of the top transfers in the country last year and there is no way he is at Creighton without the BE. As has been pointed out, we already have commitments from two ESPN top 50 players for 2017. One of them chose Creighton over Kansas, Indiana and others. The other had offers from Clemson, VATech and others. I highly doubt they would have chosen CU without the BE. We are recruiting players that would not have looked at us three years ago and we would not have wasted time recruiting because they would not have come to Creighton. These are the facts of how being a member of the Big East has helped us so far. I'm sure that Butler and X can tell similar stories (Trevon Bluiett has been mentioned). As the image of the conference continues to solidify as a Power Conference, I am very optimistic that recruiting will only get better for the league!!

+1

Xavier would simply not have gotten Trevon if we were still in the A10. His father is on the record on that, as was mentioned in that article.

I doubt we would have gotten Sumner, Macura, and O'Mara, either.

We also wouldn't have pulled Gates out of Georgia, and the incoming class would not have materialized as well.

This new advantage in recruiting is a not so subtle thing that will over time lead to further separation between the Big East and, in this case, the A10. The A10 fans just don't get it. I could see the first year into this new deal what a difference in athletes the C7 had versus what Xavier was accustomed to facing A10 competition.

It's in the abstract and it's an anomaly, but I channel surfed my way into the end of the VCU/UMass game last night. It was terrible. Two decades ago, UMass was the bomb under Calipari; it was THE main program within the A10. It looked like a shell of itself last night. Worse yet, the Mullins Center was dead and very empty. And the game was just a mess, with the A10's #2 team going down on the road to that terrible UMass squad. The difference in talent was striking.

I don't disagree. I think if we looked at things- you would find a huge uptick in guys 101-200.... Top 100 is a pretty arbitrary number...

And I would say look at the top 40 class ratings. That number is constant in the 4-5 range. My position is that recruiting for the league as a whole is about equal to what it was 3-4 years ago. I don't think you can say it's trending up as a league because the numbers just don't support that. But, I think when you look overall, it's not trending down either.

[sciencejay]

I think what this conversation is missing is a discussion of how certain players fit better into certain coaches' schemes. When Greg McD was at ISU, he recruited several players that went on to the NBA (Wesley Johnson, who transferred to Syracuse, comes to mind). He was able to recruit high level talent. But the teams were terrible. The talent didn't want to fit his system, and he apparently didn't want to adjust his system (one might argue values) to fit the kids once they were on campus.

Jay Wright is doing very well with his recruits whether they are top 10/50/2000/whatever. As is Chris Mack. And one could argue that McD and other coaches in the league are doing well with what they get. Gregg Marshall at WSU made it to the FF two years in a row(check me on that) without any top recruits and actually with a bunch of juco transfers. But he got them to buy in to his system and play together as a team. It really comes down to coaches understanding what kinds of kids they need (regardless of ranking) and going out and getting those kids.

Kentucky doesn't win every year (even though they seem to have the most talent) because Cal can't always get them to buy in, play defense, share the ball and play together. When he is successful in that regard, they win. Thankfully, they don't win every year.

[stever20]

I think what this conversation is missing is a discussion of how certain players fit better into certain coaches' schemes. When Greg McD was at ISU, he recruited several players that went on to the NBA (Wesley Johnson, who transferred to Syracuse, comes to mind). He was able to recruit high level talent. But the teams were terrible. The talent didn't want to fit his system, and he apparently didn't want to adjust his system (one might argue values) to fit the kids once they were on campus.

Jay Wright is doing very well with his recruits whether they are top 10/50/2000/whatever. As is Chris Mack. And one could argue that McD and other coaches in the league are doing well with what they get. Gregg Marshall at WSU made it to the FF two years in a row(check me on that) without any top recruits and actually with a bunch of juco transfers. But he got them to buy in to his system and play together as a team. It really comes down to coaches understanding what kinds of kids they need (regardless of ranking) and going out and getting those kids.

Kentucky doesn't win every year (even though they seem to have the most talent) because Cal can't always get them to buy in, play defense, share the ball and play together. When he is successful in that regard, they win. Thankfully, they don't win every year.

A great post. Only thing wrong with the post- WSU made it only once to the FF. then next year they were undefeated before losing to Kentucky at the rd of 32. Then next year(last year) they lost round of 16.