Big East - General Recruiting Thread

[scoscox]

The Big East is full of very similar programs and most of them have traditionally been in the "little engine that could" range in their respective conferences. The majority of the traditional powers from the old Big East left the league and the teams that we replaced them with were fantastic, but none were exactly traditional big boys. Now that they're pulled all together, there's a bit of a vacuum at the top and the conference is competitive enough and exposed enough to really vault some programs, but collectively, these programs have to start recruiting like big boys. It's been mentioned multiple times that we don't land the high end talent, and that's true and while it's good to have program guys and I'd much rather have guys give all 4 of their years to a school, it's vital to be able to compete for the best guys if we want to consider ourselves a top league and compete against the top of other conferences.

Frankly, what X has done over the years with the kind of recruiting that we've been capable of has been absolutely remarkable in the sense that we have overachieved consistently for the past 20 years or so. Ironically, most of our highest rated recruits have turned out to be some of our least productive players, with Trevon being an exception. Still, I can't sit here and say I wouldn't trade that overachieving for a shot at Harry Giles and those type of guys consistently. That just takes your program to a different level. I think Villanova and Georgetown are already relatively capable of this, even though I wish Georgetown would be more aggressive, but I don't think it's a stretch to think a bunch of the programs in the Big East (Xavier, Marquette, Butler, Creighton) that have similarly, consistently overachieved can elevate themselves to that level, especially in this new conference. I can't wait to see it happen. I love the conference, specifically because we have a bunch of programs like this and all are deserving of taking it to the next level.

[scoscox]

If Kentucky gets the #1 player for 4 years in a row, that is better than Nova's approach. Just look at Kentucky's performances in the tourney. Missed one year due to injuries- but other 5 years elite 8 all 5 years and final 4 in 4 of those. If you give me a choice of having a top 10 NBA level player for one year for 4 straight years, or a guy who might develop into what Hart is- I take the 4 years of NBA players every single time. The upside is much higher with the NBA guys, and there is no guarantee that the #70 player develops. Yeah you might have a year like this where things don't work out for Kentucky- but those have been few and far between. I'll take my chances with 4-5 5 star players every day of the week.

But you also won't admit the obvious. Diallo and Labissierre were the two best post players in this years recruiting class. Are either better than Ochefu and Farr in 2016? Is Briscoe better than Dunn? Of course not. And the reason they are not is that Ochefu, Farr and Dunn had 3-4 years to get stronger and hone their craft. So judging that only those programs that bring in top 20 kids every year are "winning" the recruiting battles is basically dismissing the sole strategy that can defeat undeniable talent: maturity and development. And if you are unwilling to recognize that a Sr who was 45th in his class is usually a much better player in that single college BB season than the Frosh who was ranked 25th, than this debate is pointless.

I'm gonna have to agree with Stever on this one. Eventually, if all those guys you mentioned stick around, they will probably end up being better players, except for Briscoe over Dunn. If Diallo and Labissierre stick around for 4 years they'll more than likely be monsters. And the proof is really in the pudding. 4 year guy programs are consistently battling to make a splash in the tourney, 5 star programs are consistently looking to win the whole damn thing and that is the key difference. You need high end talent to win it all. This has clearly been played out almost every year.

On a systemic problem level, I do think it's ridiculous that all these guys think they're good enough to leave early. A lot of times guys leave that have no business leaving early and would do much better to stay and dominate college for a little while. I wish they would because the game would be so much more enjoyable. In my opinion, if you're anything less than the first or second option on your own team, you have no business going to the NBA. If you're leaving you better be an all-american. I hate the guys that get drafted based on hype that they've gotten from people who scout high school basketball games for a living telling them they're the next big thing.

[GumbyDamnit!]

I'm gonna have to agree with Stever on this one. Eventually, if all those guys you mentioned stick around, they will probably end up being better players, except for Briscoe over Dunn. If Diallo and Labissierre stick around for 4 years they'll more than likely be monsters. And the proof is really in the pudding. 4 year guy programs are consistently battling to make a splash in the tourney, 5 star programs are consistently looking to win the whole damn thing and that is the key difference. You need high end talent to win it all. This has clearly been played out almost every year.

On a systemic problem level, I do think it's ridiculous that all these guys think they're good enough to leave early. A lot of times guys leave that have no business leaving early and would do much better to stay and dominate college for a little while. I wish they would because the game would be so much more enjoyable. In my opinion, if you're anything less than the first or second option on your own team, you have no business going to the NBA. If you're leaving you better be an all-american. I hate the guys that get drafted based on hype that they've gotten from people who scout high school basketball games for a living telling them they're the next big thing.

But isn't that the point?... most of the the UK kids don't "stick around" to develop and "dominate" as you say. They bolt based on their potential. Diallo and Labissiere will be gone before their Jr years so we'll never get the chance to see them as fully matured college players like Ochefu and Farr are now. And even if Top 10 guys don't pan out in year 1 or 2 guys like Cal are quick to replace them with the next Anthony Davis or John Wall if given the opportunity.

Also, go back and look at the teams the last 10 years that have been in the FF. For every UK, Duke or Kansas, there are Butlers (2x), UConn (2x, each time led by a 4th year star PG), Wisc, Mich State (always has a bevy of 4 year players), VCU, Wich State, G'town, Geo Mason, Nova. Even UNC in 2009 was mostly 4 year players. All of these programs do not take the same approach as Duke, UK and KU. So just to say that success is predicated on the # of Top 25 players recruited in is very short-sighted. Butler surely couldn't compete with Calipari on the recruiting trail but they figured out a way to get to back-to-back FF's with the Butler way (development of players and hard work). If you know you can't match the big boys in recruiting top 10 kids you need to find another way to compete. And sorry but in your response above you didn't answer my question. In 2016 would you rather have Ochefu or Farr in the middle or Labissierre & Diallo? I don't care who will be better as Sr's. That debate is not germane to this discussion. If the X front line in 2016 is better than the UK front line in 2016 b/c of physical maturity and development, there is no way to state that in 2016 UK's recruiting of big men is better than X's. Really not that complicated regardless of what the #'s say.

[GumbyDamnit!]

The issue with the Big East is that they don't get the elite recruits. Ironically, the league has as many elite PLAYERS as any team in the league with Dunn, Ellenson, Hart, Bentil, Bluiett, but most aren't elite recruits. In 2015 and 2016, the only top-25 recruits (looking at ESPN) are Ellenson, Spellman and Brunson. It would be nice for the league to get more top-end guys. And even those guys aren't the top-10 types.

I recognize that the programs in this league probably aren't going to be signing too many top-10 kids, but it would be nice to get more.

Mack, I agree...maybe not Top 10 kids who clearly expect to be in the NBA in a year or two max, but consistent success in that 20-50 range would be nice. I get the sense that Jay has very little interest in guys that are looking for a one year stay before bolting for the NBA (it will be very interesting to see what happens with Spellman if he is the real deal). At one point Nova was recruiting both Briscoe and Brunson. Brunson looks to be a 3-4 year guy. Briscoe seemed to expect a short college stay. I think Brunson fits Nova and Briscoe fits UK in student athlete approach. I think Jay tells kids: "You come to Nova, you go to class and develop into a young man." I think Cal un-apologetically says: "Look at how many guys I send to the NBA. Come to UK and make the NBA." Two totally different focuses. We'll never be UK so Jay looks for kids that respond to his message, and I'm sure UK will continue to look for kids who respond to his message.

Also in larger terms I believe the recruiting messaging that the BE can offer that is completely different from the FB P5 is working. "Come to the BE, play in places like MSG and Hinkle against historically great programs like Georgetown and Villanova, and be the top dog on campus without having to defer to what these P5 schools care most about: football." We only care about BB. That is differentiated advantage that is helping our recruiting improve IMO. If we can parlay that into some March success, look the f' out.

[stever20]

The issue with the Big East is that they don't get the elite recruits. Ironically, the league has as many elite PLAYERS as any team in the league with Dunn, Ellenson, Hart, Bentil, Bluiett, but most aren't elite recruits. In 2015 and 2016, the only top-25 recruits (looking at ESPN) are Ellenson, Spellman and Brunson. It would be nice for the league to get more top-end guys. And even those guys aren't the top-10 types.

I recognize that the programs in this league probably aren't going to be signing too many top-10 kids, but it would be nice to get more.

Mack, I agree...maybe not Top 10 kids who clearly expect to be in the NBA in a year or two max, but consistent success in that 20-50 range would be nice. I get the sense that Jay has very little interest in guys that are looking for a one year stay before bolting for the NBA (it will be very interesting to see what happens with Spellman if he is the real deal). At one point Nova was recruiting both Briscoe and Brunson. Brunson looks to be a 3-4 year guy. Briscoe seemed to expect a short college stay. I think Brunson fits Nova and Briscoe fits UK in student athlete approach. I think Jay tells kids: "You come to Nova, you go to class and develop into a young man." I think Cal un-apologetically says: "Look at how many guys I send to the NBA. Come to UK and make the NBA." Two totally different focuses. We'll never be UK so Jay looks for kids that respond to his message, and I'm sure UK will continue to look for kids who respond to his message.

Also in larger terms I believe the recruiting messaging that the BE can offer that is completely different from the FB P5 is working. "Come to the BE, play in places like MSG and Hinkle against historically great programs like Georgetown and Villanova, and be the top dog on campus without having to defer to what these P5 schools care most about: football." We only care about BB. That is differentiated advantage that is helping our recruiting improve IMO. If we can parlay that into some March success, look the f' out.

I think that's the key. Getting guys in that 21-50 range.
but look at this trend- 21-50 guys from Rivals Composite
2013- 3 (plus #51!)
2014- 3
2015- 2
2016- 1 (plus #52)

Top 40 classes last 3 years
2014- 5 with 4 top 25
2015- 4 with 1 top 25
2016- 5 with 2 top 25

now this year isn't over yet- but still the top 25 classes that were there in '14 aren't there in '15 and '16. It's possible '16 could wind up with only 1 as you have a team at #24. Sorry, but that differentiated advantage just isn't working. Big East hasn't seen an uptick in recruiting, if anything, it's dropped.

[SJUBBALL]

The issue with the Big East is that they don't get the elite recruits. Ironically, the league has as many elite PLAYERS as any team in the league with Dunn, Ellenson, Hart, Bentil, Bluiett, but most aren't elite recruits. In 2015 and 2016, the only top-25 recruits (looking at ESPN) are Ellenson, Spellman and Brunson. It would be nice for the league to get more top-end guys. And even those guys aren't the top-10 types.

I recognize that the programs in this league probably aren't going to be signing too many top-10 kids, but it would be nice to get more.

Mack, I agree...maybe not Top 10 kids who clearly expect to be in the NBA in a year or two max, but consistent success in that 20-50 range would be nice. I get the sense that Jay has very little interest in guys that are looking for a one year stay before bolting for the NBA (it will be very interesting to see what happens with Spellman if he is the real deal). At one point Nova was recruiting both Briscoe and Brunson. Brunson looks to be a 3-4 year guy. Briscoe seemed to expect a short college stay. I think Brunson fits Nova and Briscoe fits UK in student athlete approach. I think Jay tells kids: "You come to Nova, you go to class and develop into a young man." I think Cal un-apologetically says: "Look at how many guys I send to the NBA. Come to UK and make the NBA." Two totally different focuses. We'll never be UK so Jay looks for kids that respond to his message, and I'm sure UK will continue to look for kids who respond to his message.

Also in larger terms I believe the recruiting messaging that the BE can offer that is completely different from the FB P5 is working. "Come to the BE, play in places like MSG and Hinkle against historically great programs like Georgetown and Villanova, and be the top dog on campus without having to defer to what these P5 schools care most about: football." We only care about BB. That is differentiated advantage that is helping our recruiting improve IMO. If we can parlay that into some March success, look the f' out.

I think that's the key. Getting guys in that 21-50 range.
but look at this trend- 21-50 guys from Rivals Composite
2013- 3 (plus #51!)
2014- 3
2015- 2
2016- 1 (plus #52)

Top 40 classes last 3 years
2014- 5 with 4 top 25
2015- 4 with 1 top 25
2016- 5 with 2 top 25

now this year isn't over yet- but still the top 25 classes that were there in '14 aren't there in '15 and '16. It's possible '16 could wind up with only 1 as you have a team at #24. Sorry, but that differentiated advantage just isn't working. Big East hasn't seen an uptick in recruiting, if anything, it's dropped.

According to rivals we have three top 50 recruits. Omari Spellman, Shamorie Ponds, and Brendan Bailey

[scoscox]

According to rivals we have three top 50 recruits. Omari Spellman, Shamorie Ponds, and Brendan Bailey

Right, which is pretty low for a major conference. I'm not saying I don't want four year players, I'm just saying that the league really need to up it's profile with the most talented prospects and our recruiting numbers prove that it's really not debateable. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting our teams to be loaded. Kentucky doesn't need 5 out of the top ten guys. We'll take a few.

[SJUBBALL]

According to rivals we have three top 50 recruits. Omari Spellman, Shamorie Ponds, and Brendan Bailey

Right, which is pretty low for a major conference. I'm not saying I don't want four year players, I'm just saying that the league really need to up it's profile with the most talented prospects and our recruiting numbers prove that it's really not debateable. I don't think there's anything wrong with wanting our teams to be loaded. Kentucky doesn't need 5 out of the top ten guys. We'll take a few.

I think we will be fine. We have star power everywhere this year. Sumner, Blueitt, Kris Dunn, Bentil, Ellenson, Jones.

That's the thing. The big east will always have a mix of star freshmen and star older guys. Like take next year for example. If Bentil and Ellenson stay that's two stars right there. Omari Spellman and Brunson will be fun to watch at nova. Shamorie Ponds and Marcus Lovett will be a high speed and flashy back court in queens. Kelan Martin looks ready to be a big time star for butler (you could argue he already is). Creighton will have Mo back and will also get Marcus Foster. And Georgetown has guys like Isaac Copeland who could easily step up and be a star. I don't think this league needs 5+ top 50 recruits to have star power.

[scoscox]

But isn't that the point?... most of the the UK kids don't "stick around" to develop and "dominate" as you say. They bolt based on their potential. Diallo and Labissiere will be gone before their Jr years so we'll never get the chance to see them as fully matured college players like Ochefu and Farr are now. And even if Top 10 guys don't pan out in year 1 or 2 guys like Cal are quick to replace them with the next Anthony Davis or John Wall if given the opportunity.

Also, go back and look at the teams the last 10 years that have been in the FF. For every UK, Duke or Kansas, there are Butlers (2x), UConn (2x, each time led by a 4th year star PG), Wisc, Mich State (always has a bevy of 4 year players), VCU, Wich State, G'town, Geo Mason, Nova. Even UNC in 2009 was mostly 4 year players. All of these programs do not take the same approach as Duke, UK and KU. So just to say that success is predicated on the # of Top 25 players recruited in is very short-sighted. Butler surely couldn't compete with Calipari on the recruiting trail but they figured out a way to get to back-to-back FF's with the Butler way (development of players and hard work). If you know you can't match the big boys in recruiting top 10 kids you need to find another way to compete. And sorry but in your response above you didn't answer my question. In 2016 would you rather have Ochefu or Farr in the middle or Labissierre & Diallo? I don't care who will be better as Sr's. That debate is not germane to this discussion. If the X front line in 2016 is better than the UK front line in 2016 b/c of physical maturity and development, there is no way to state that in 2016 UK's recruiting of big men is better than X's. Really not that complicated regardless of what the #'s say.

I'm obviously thrilled about Farr and Ochefu outperforming those guys and I'm stoked that for those guys to have made deep runs. Calipari could lose every single game he plays and get no sympathy from me, so no arguments there, but there's a reason some of those programs are there in the elite eight and and final four and some are cinderellas. I just wanna see this league flip the script and vault some of our programs into the traditional power status. We're disagreeing on something very petty here I think. We both are basically agreeing.

[scoscox]

I think we will be fine. We have star power everywhere this year. Sumner, Blueitt, Kris Dunn, Bentil, Ellenson, Jones.

That's the thing. The big east will always have a mix of star freshmen and star older guys. Like take next year for example. If Bentil and Ellenson stay that's two stars right there. Omari Spellman and Brunson will be fun to watch at nova. Shamorie Ponds and Marcus Lovett will be a high speed and flashy back court in queens. Kelan Martin looks ready to be a big time star for butler (you could argue he already is). Creighton will have Mo back and will also get Marcus Foster. And Georgetown has guys like Isaac Copeland who could easily step up and be a star. I don't think this league needs 5+ top 50 recruits to have star power.

Right. We. are. fine, but obviously, as with anything, we could be better. You don't NEED 5+ top 50 recruits to have star power, but it certainly improves your chances. What's to debate about that?