Commits/Recruiting

[twballgame9]

Let's just say he wasn't 6'5'' by any stretch of the imagination.

congrats on making the biggest exaggeration in EO history.

Yeah, not really. I suppose everyone here thinks Paul Pierce is 6'7'' too.

[twballgame9]

Craig smith was a third team All American, Sam Dingba is a college basketball recruit with offers from the America East. You've got to be kidding me

Wait... Sam Dingba only has America East offers but has already told Don "thanks but no thanks"? Our recruiting is more fucked than I could've predicted. Maybe its because we allocated all our recruiting resources to Vonleh.

He's pretty good though. He's getting good looks, lacks notable offers as of now though. But to say he is the answer to our rebounding issues is ludicrous. BC need someone at least 6'8 if they don't have legit offers.

Seriously? The two inches is what makes a rebounder among players with bad offers? This is a special kind of stupid.

[twballgame9]

Craig Smith was friends with a friend of mine in college, and he came to our house a few times his sophomore year. At least at that point, if he was 6'6", he was wearing shoes with very thick soles. Maybe he got taller after that, though.

This. And he is now 6'7'' because all NBA teams exaggerate height.

[Shaddix]

Craig smith was a third team All American, Sam Dingba is a college basketball recruit with offers from the America East. You've got to be kidding me

Wait... Sam Dingba only has America East offers but has already told Don "thanks but no thanks"? Our recruiting is more fucked than I could've predicted. Maybe its because we allocated all our recruiting resources to Vonleh.

He's pretty good though. He's getting good looks, lacks notable offers as of now though. But to say he is the answer to our rebounding issues is ludicrous. BC need someone at least 6'8 if they don't have legit offers.

Seriously? The two inches is what makes a rebounder among players with bad offers? This is a special kind of stupid.

You are such a friggin idiot. Wanna know why ACC teams don't recruit 6'6 PF's? Because it doesn't work.

It's getting pathetic when your desperately flailing to find reasons to support your claim. A real man knows when he's talking bullshit. Just admit what you said was stupid. FYI, Craig Smith is 6'6.

[twballgame9]

Craig smith was a third team All American, Sam Dingba is a college basketball recruit with offers from the America East. You've got to be kidding me

Wait... Sam Dingba only has America East offers but has already told Don "thanks but no thanks"? Our recruiting is more fucked than I could've predicted. Maybe its because we allocated all our recruiting resources to Vonleh.

He's pretty good though. He's getting good looks, lacks notable offers as of now though. But to say he is the answer to our rebounding issues is ludicrous. BC need someone at least 6'8 if they don't have legit offers.

Seriously? The two inches is what makes a rebounder among players with bad offers? This is a special kind of stupid.

You are such a friggin idiot. Wanna know why ACC teams don't recruit 6'6 PF's? Because it doesn't work.

It's getting pathetic when your desperately flailing to find reasons to support your claim. A real man knows when he's talking bullshit. Just admit what you said was stupid. FYI, Craig Smith is 6'6.

Craig Smith was not 6'6'' in college. I am 6'5'' and Craig Smith was shorter than me. I don't need a reason to support my claim other than having stood in his proximity.

You continue to ignore the fact that the real point is that height does not equal good rebounding. Ties back to the other retarded point from last week about how putting 20 pounds on Eddie Odio is going to turn him into Dennis Rodman.

[781]

2015 6'5 wing player Terance Mann (Tilton, NH), who i informed the board about earlier today will be taking an unofficial visit to BC later today. Heres highlights of Terance who is a high school teammate of Wayne Selden and also plays for BABC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HemD3EwSBlM

[Shaddix]

Craig smith was a third team All American, Sam Dingba is a college basketball recruit with offers from the America East. You've got to be kidding me

Wait... Sam Dingba only has America East offers but has already told Don "thanks but no thanks"? Our recruiting is more fucked than I could've predicted. Maybe its because we allocated all our recruiting resources to Vonleh.

He's pretty good though. He's getting good looks, lacks notable offers as of now though. But to say he is the answer to our rebounding issues is ludicrous. BC need someone at least 6'8 if they don't have legit offers.

Seriously? The two inches is what makes a rebounder among players with bad offers? This is a special kind of stupid.

You are such a friggin idiot. Wanna know why ACC teams don't recruit 6'6 PF's? Because it doesn't work.

It's getting pathetic when your desperately flailing to find reasons to support your claim. A real man knows when he's talking bullshit. Just admit what you said was stupid. FYI, Craig Smith is 6'6.

Craig Smith was not 6'6'' in college. I am 6'5'' and Craig Smith was shorter than me. I don't need a reason to support my claim other than having stood in his proximity.

You continue to ignore the fact that the real point is that height does not equal good rebounding. Ties back to the other retarded point from last week about how putting 20 pounds on Eddie Odio is going to turn him into Dennis Rodman.

No shit, I told you that last week when you tried to tell me players couldn't learn rebounding. But fact is, a 6'6 recruit with America East offers isn't going to fix BC's big man depth. If you don't have the skills, you better be tall...and Dingba won't be able to play the 4 in this league and rebound well.

Eddie Odio is also a legit 6'7.

Craig smith was 6'6 in college. Don't be ridiculous

[eagle9903]

Craig smith was a third team All American, Sam Dingba is a college basketball recruit with offers from the America East. You've got to be kidding me

Wait... Sam Dingba only has America East offers but has already told Don "thanks but no thanks"? Our recruiting is more fucked than I could've predicted. Maybe its because we allocated all our recruiting resources to Vonleh.

He's pretty good though. He's getting good looks, lacks notable offers as of now though. But to say he is the answer to our rebounding issues is ludicrous. BC need someone at least 6'8 if they don't have legit offers.

Seriously? The two inches is what makes a rebounder among players with bad offers? This is a special kind of stupid.

You are such a friggin idiot. Wanna know why ACC teams don't recruit 6'6 PF's? Because it doesn't work.

It's getting pathetic when your desperately flailing to find reasons to support your claim. A real man knows when he's talking bullshit. Just admit what you said was stupid. FYI, Craig Smith is 6'6.

Craig Smith was not 6'6'' in college. I am 6'5'' and Craig Smith was shorter than me. I don't need a reason to support my claim other than having stood in his proximity.

You continue to ignore the fact that the real point is that height does not equal good rebounding. Ties back to the other retarded point from last week about how putting 20 pounds on Eddie Odio is going to turn him into Dennis Rodman.

While relative shortness doesn't automatically equate to bad rebounding, there are exponentially more examples of good rebounders who are more prototypically sized for their position. It is interesting that guys like Barkley and Rodman (Mutumbo, Shaq, Wallace, Duncan as counter examples) were able to be so successful despite their stature, but does not change the fact that while height does not equal good rebounding it is probably a benefit:

Here are the top 30 college players for 2011-12 by RPG, 2 are 6-6, 5 are 6-7 the other 23 are 6-8 or taller, of course we have no idea how accurate these heights are:

1 12.516 O.D Anosike Jr 6-8 232 31 Siena
2 11.872 Thomas Robinson Jr 6-9 237 39 Kansas
3 11.139 Andre Roberson So 6-7 210 36 Colorado
4 11.086 Drew Gordon Sr 6-9 245 35 New Mexico
5 11.062 Jamelle Hagins Jr 6-9 240 32 Delaware
6 10.909 Kevin Jones Sr 6-8 260 33 West Virginia
7 10.818 Rob Jones Sr 6-6 240 33 Saint Mary's
8 10.686 Wendell McKines Sr 6-6 230 35 New Mexico State
9 10.649 Draymond Green Sr 6-7 230 37 Michigan State
10 10.543 Mike Moser So 6-8 210 35 UNLV
11 10.484 Cameron Moore Sr 6-10 230 31 UAB
12 10.467 Arnett Moultrie Jr 6-11 249 30 Mississippi State
13 10.424 Geddes Robinson Sr 6-5 235 33 Utah Valley University
14 10.394 Herb Pope Sr 6-8 236 33 Seton Hall
15 10.375 Anthony Davis Fr 6-10 220 40 Kentucky
16 10.333 Kyle O`Quinn Sr 6-10 240 36 Norfolk State
17 10.303 Arsalan Kazemi Jr 6-7 220 33 Rice
18 10.206 T.J. Robinson Sr 6-8 205 34 Long Beach State
19 10.094 Robert Nwankwo Sr 6-8 220 32 Towson
20 10.056 Chris Cooper Sr 6-9 230 36 Old Dominion
21 10.032 Keith Rendelman Jr 6-8 213 31 North Carolina-Wilmington
22 9.971 Dennis Tinnon Jr 6-8 225 35 Marshall
23 9.943 John Henson Jr 6-11 220 35 North Carolina
24 9.857 Chris Gaston Jr 6-7 225 28 Fordham
25 9.657 Jackie Carmichael Jr 6-9 240 35 Illinois State
25 9.657 Dario Hunt Sr 6-8 238 35 Nevada
27 9.621 Greg Mangano Sr 6-10 240 29 Yale
28 9.605 Tyler Zeller Sr 7-0 250 38 North Carolina
29 9.6 Mike Groselle Jr 6-8 238 30 Citadel
30 9.5 Ike Azotam So 6-7 231 32 Quinnipiac
30 9.5 Vander Joaquim Jr 6-10 245 32 Hawaii

[HJS]

(4) Those who favor 2014 argue that taking a 2013 PF just to fill the gap immediately, when the 2013 recruiting cycle is in this late a stage, is far more likely to lead to taking someone incapable of doing the job in ACC competition. They also point out that BC has been working hard on the class of 2014 for some time and is much more likely (although not guaranteed) to get a high-quality PF in 2014 than in 2013. Finally, they insist that the BC team's improved performance (or lack of it) this season will have a crucial effect on recruiting for 2014.

Personally, I think the 2013 strategy is low-percentage. I have to assume that advocates of getting a PF in 2013 want one good enough to make a difference in ACC play. Where do they suggest that such a quality PF is to be found? At this point, pretty much all the known 2013 PFs of this level have either signed or reduced their recruiting list to a few schools; if BC can make room for itself in the recruiting contest for someone like Etou, fine, but realistically that's a very unlikely scenario. So is pulling a sleeper rabbit out of the hat next spring or summer; Jared Dudleys just do not pop up very often. We can certainly discuss the value and availability of particular 2013 PFs, but insisting on taking one in 2013 just because you can't stand the thought of the slot going unfilled until 2014 is, to my mind, irrational.

I simply cannot give the staff a pass on being out of 2013 PF targets. They should have been in on dozens of these guys... especially, since they know that they have a very low percentage of landing their top targets.

[HJS]

2015 6'5 wing player Terance Mann (Tilton, NH), who i informed the board about earlier today will be taking an unofficial visit to BC later today. Heres highlights of Terance who is a high school teammate of Wayne Selden and also plays for BABC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HemD3EwSBlM

BABC means he's not coming to BC.
2015 means there is plenty of time for another high major to show interest and for BC to quickly back-out to preserve its limited recruiting resources.

[Shaddix]

Jared Dudley is 6'7, so unless both of these kids grew over 2 inches after they were 22 years old....then Craig smith was 6'6.

[eagle9903]

(4) Those who favor 2014 argue that taking a 2013 PF just to fill the gap immediately, when the 2013 recruiting cycle is in this late a stage, is far more likely to lead to taking someone incapable of doing the job in ACC competition. They also point out that BC has been working hard on the class of 2014 for some time and is much more likely (although not guaranteed) to get a high-quality PF in 2014 than in 2013. Finally, they insist that the BC team's improved performance (or lack of it) this season will have a crucial effect on recruiting for 2014.

Personally, I think the 2013 strategy is low-percentage. I have to assume that advocates of getting a PF in 2013 want one good enough to make a difference in ACC play. Where do they suggest that such a quality PF is to be found? At this point, pretty much all the known 2013 PFs of this level have either signed or reduced their recruiting list to a few schools; if BC can make room for itself in the recruiting contest for someone like Etou, fine, but realistically that's a very unlikely scenario. So is pulling a sleeper rabbit out of the hat next spring or summer; Jared Dudleys just do not pop up very often. We can certainly discuss the value and availability of particular 2013 PFs, but insisting on taking one in 2013 just because you can't stand the thought of the slot going unfilled until 2014 is, to my mind, irrational.

I simply cannot give the staff a pass on being out of 2013 PF targets. They should have been in on dozens of these guys... especially, since they know that they have a very low percentage of landing their top targets.

Why won't you get it?

[eagle9903]

Fuck, I think I'm actually going to have to explain this to HJS.

1) Think of recruiting resources like a pie of a certain size, determined by the current appeal of the program.

a: you can cut the pie:

i. in equal sized pieces (you understand this part); or

ii. in some pieces which are larger than others (you either aren't thinking of this, or are pretending not to)

When I, and I think others, describe rationing of recruiting resources, I don't mean that they don't have $ or personnel to make offers and visit 25 power forwards, I believe they could split their time and resources 25 different ways (like 25 equal small pieces of pie); I mean that it is more productive when dealing with a small pie (9-22, conte morgue, GDF poisoning the well with Skinner, Residue from JOB w/ BABC other local coaches and hangers on, etc), to cut a bigger piece (more time to analzye and ensure an offer is warranted, more coaches attendance at HS or AAU games, one on one meetings, "showing the love" etc) for a more important target(s) so that instead of 25 small pieces you have 4 relatively big pieces and 3 smaller backup pieces. Skinner realized this, before the assistants left and he never had more than 17 offers in a season. Both Donahue and Skinner seem to go after a few reaches and then pull back at varying stages of the recruitment if it is not happening, it appears Donahue stuck with Vonleh for a long time. That seems like a good thing to me, maybe there is a smaller backup piece available (in addition to Owens) maybe they have all selected other schools who's coaches used a bigger piece of the pie in their recruitment.

If you are the coach at Kentucky, conversely, the pie is 10 times larger (national titles, no class, whores, etc.), so you can cut 25 pieces and each is still larger than the BC pie cut 7 ways. Maybe Donahue can increase the size of the pie soon.

[Shaddix]

Fuck, I think I'm actually going to have to explain this to HJS.

1) Think of recruiting resources like a pie of a certain size, determined by the current appeal of the program.

a: you can cut the pie:

i. in equal sized pieces (you understand this part); or

ii. in some pieces which are larger than others (you either aren't thinking of this, or are pretending not to)

When I, and I think others, describe rationing of recruiting resources, I don't mean that they don't have $ or personnel to make offers and visit 25 power forwards, I believe they could split their time and resources 25 different ways (like 25 equal small pieces of pie); I mean that it is more productive when dealing with a small pie (9-22, conte morgue, GDF poisoning the well with Skinner, Residue from JOB w/ BABC other local coaches and hangers on, etc), to cut a bigger piece (more time to analzye and ensure an offer is warranted, more coaches attendance at HS or AAU games, one on one meetings, "showing the love" etc) for a more important target(s) so that instead of 25 small pieces you have 4 relatively big pieces and 3 smaller backup pieces. Skinner realized this, before the assistants left and he never had more than 17 offers in a season. Both Donahue and Skinner seem to go after a few reaches and then pull back at varying stages of the recruitment if it is not happening, it appears Donahue stuck with Vonleh for a long time. That seems like a good thing to me, maybe there is a smaller backup piece available (in addition to Owens) maybe they have all selected other schools who's coaches used a bigger piece of the pie in their recruitment.

If you are the coach at Kentucky, conversely, the pie is 10 times larger (national titles, no class, whores, etc.), so you can cut 25 pieces and each is still larger than the BC pie cut 7 ways. Maybe Donahue can increase the size of the pie soon.

I would also say that ideally the pie would get bigger as the years go on....so rather than being stuck with your original small slices, you can wait until the pie is bigger then cut it.

[Hunta518]

Fuck, I think I'm actually going to have to explain this to HJS.

1) Think of recruiting resources like a pie of a certain size, determined by the current appeal of the program.

a: you can cut the pie:

i. in equal sized pieces (you understand this part); or

ii. in some pieces which are larger than others (you either aren't thinking of this, or are pretending not to)

When I, and I think others, describe rationing of recruiting resources, I don't mean that they don't have $ or personnel to make offers and visit 25 power forwards, I believe they could split their time and resources 25 different ways (like 25 equal small pieces of pie); I mean that it is more productive when dealing with a small pie (9-22, conte morgue, GDF poisoning the well with Skinner, Residue from JOB w/ BABC other local coaches and hangers on, etc), to cut a bigger piece (more time to analzye and ensure an offer is warranted, more coaches attendance at HS or AAU games, one on one meetings, "showing the love" etc) for a more important target(s) so that instead of 25 small pieces you have 4 relatively big pieces and 3 smaller backup pieces. Skinner realized this, before the assistants left and he never had more than 17 offers in a season. Both Donahue and Skinner seem to go after a few reaches and then pull back at varying stages of the recruitment if it is not happening, it appears Donahue stuck with Vonleh for a long time. That seems like a good thing to me, maybe there is a smaller backup piece available (in addition to Owens) maybe they have all selected other schools who's coaches used a bigger piece of the pie in their recruitment.

If you are the coach at Kentucky, conversely, the pie is 10 times larger (national titles, no class, whores, etc.), so you can cut 25 pieces and each is still larger than the BC pie cut 7 ways. Maybe Donahue can increase the size of the pie soon.

I would also say that ideally the pie would get bigger as the years go on....so rather than being stuck with your original small slices, you can wait until the pie is bigger then cut it.

[twballgame9]

I have no problem with the coaching staff sticking with one or two really big pieces of pie like Vonleh. I think the point is that he doesn't need to be the whole pie, and that the remainder can be divided into slivers and once the big piece is freed up, those slivers can become larger portions. Feels like the Don hands out the pie in a couple of portions, waits until the recipients say they don't want the pie, and then scrambles to find some people that are interested in eating it.

This metaphor is pretty good for a Philly guy.

[eagle9903]

I have no problem with the coaching staff sticking with one or two really big pieces of pie like Vonleh. I think the point is that he doesn't need to be the whole pie, and that the remainder can be divided into slivers and once the big piece is freed up, those slivers can become larger portions. Feels like the Don hands out the pie in a couple of portions, waits until the recipients say they don't want the pie, and then scrambles to find some people that are interested in eating it.

This metaphor is pretty good for a Philly guy.

Thank you, I'm going to take this time to go vomit on some children on the Rocky steps, while throwing batteries at people, eating a cheesesteak, cheering some spinal injuries, booing santa and stomping on a Rangers fan's face.

[pick6pedro]

[Shaddix]

Hoosier Nation was disappointed when touted shooting guard Ron Patterson (Indianapolis, Ind./Brewster Academy), a member of Indiana's highly ranked 2012 recruiting class, failed to make it into school.

Now at Brewster Academy, the 6-foot-2, 195-pounder recently updated his recruitment with CuseNation.com.

"It's been good so far," he told the website. "My recruitment has been good. I cancelled a visit to Xavier because of a conflict. I'm also hearing from SMU. I don't have any favorites yet. I'm going to take an official to Syracuse coming up soon. From Wednesday (October 31st) until Friday (November 2nd)."

Along with the aforementioned SMU, Xavier and Syracuse, Patterson indicates that Providence, UConn, Boston College and Florida State are the other schools recruiting him the hardest.

ESPN

[HJS]

I have no problem with the coaching staff sticking with one or two really big pieces of pie like Vonleh. I think the point is that he doesn't need to be the whole pie, and that the remainder can be divided into slivers and once the big piece is freed up, those slivers can become larger portions. Feels like the Don hands out the pie in a couple of portions, waits until the recipients say they don't want the pie, and then scrambles to find some people that are interested in eating it.

This metaphor is pretty good for a Philly guy.

I agree with this. But, I disagree with the following...

1) Think of recruiting resources like a pie of a certain size, determined by the current appeal of the program.

If you are the coach at Kentucky, conversely, the pie is 10 times larger (national titles, no class, whores, etc.), so you can cut 25 pieces and each is still larger than the BC pie cut 7 ways. Maybe Donahue can increase the size of the pie soon.

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

[eagle9903]

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

I think if you're Kentucky you can either target a few kids and be sure they'll sign, target a lot of kids and then choose some and be sure they'll sign or do absolutely nothing and still have your pick of the top recruits in the country. I think at BC a scatter shot approach is not ridiculous, but I prefer the approach of selecting a few top and likely targets with a few reaches and putting a lot of effort into those few.

I said the numbers of recruits were similar (albeit somewhat lower) to Skinner, but I said Skinner pre-2006, which I think makes a difference. Donahue offered about 32 in 2011, 24 in 12 and 20 (so far) this year. Skinner offered between 12 and 17 players a year. I was happy with early Skinner tenure recruitment.

[RedBaron67]

2015 6'5 wing player Terance Mann (Tilton, NH), who i informed the board about earlier today will be taking an unofficial visit to BC later today. Heres highlights of Terance who is a high school teammate of Wayne Selden and also plays for BABC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HemD3EwSBlM

It's good to hear that BC is in very early on Mann, but the same was true with Vonleh, and I'm afraid Mann's recruiting is going to follow a similar course. This kid looks like a budding superstar, and in another year all the big names will be on him like flies on dead meat, just as they were with Vonleh, Selden, etc.

[HJS]

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

I think if you're Kentucky you can either target a few kids and be sure they'll sign, target a lot of kids and then choose some and be sure they'll sign or do absolutely nothing and still have your pick of the top recruits in the country. I think at BC a scatter shot approach is not ridiculous, but I prefer the approach of selecting a few top and likely targets with a few reaches and putting a lot of effort into those few.

I said the numbers of recruits were similar (albeit somewhat lower) to Skinner, but I said Skinner pre-2006, which I think makes a difference. Donahue offered about 32 in 2011, 24 in 12 and 20 (so far) this year. Skinner offered between 12 and 17 players a year. I was happy with early Skinner tenure recruitment.

I guess it all comes down to how successful you are once you've identified the player. I think BC's success post-2006 and post-Joe Jones has been spotty at best... thus my suggestion of needing a wider net. If they had shown the ability to land a kid like Vonleh (who they've been recruiting longer than any other program) or at least make it onto his final list, then I think your argument has more merit.

[eagle9903]

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

I think if you're Kentucky you can either target a few kids and be sure they'll sign, target a lot of kids and then choose some and be sure they'll sign or do absolutely nothing and still have your pick of the top recruits in the country. I think at BC a scatter shot approach is not ridiculous, but I prefer the approach of selecting a few top and likely targets with a few reaches and putting a lot of effort into those few.

I said the numbers of recruits were similar (albeit somewhat lower) to Skinner, but I said Skinner pre-2006, which I think makes a difference. Donahue offered about 32 in 2011, 24 in 12 and 20 (so far) this year. Skinner offered between 12 and 17 players a year. I was happy with early Skinner tenure recruitment.

I guess it all comes down to how successful you are once you've identified the player. I think BC's success post-2006 and post-Joe Jones has been spotty at best... thus my suggestion of needing a wider net. If they had shown the ability to land a kid like Vonleh (who they've been recruiting longer than any other program) or at least make it onto his final list, then I think your argument has more merit.

I'm not following you at all now. Basically we seem to have reduced down to BC won't sign Vonleh so Donahue is a bad recruiter.

[twballgame9]

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

I think if you're Kentucky you can either target a few kids and be sure they'll sign, target a lot of kids and then choose some and be sure they'll sign or do absolutely nothing and still have your pick of the top recruits in the country. I think at BC a scatter shot approach is not ridiculous, but I prefer the approach of selecting a few top and likely targets with a few reaches and putting a lot of effort into those few.

I said the numbers of recruits were similar (albeit somewhat lower) to Skinner, but I said Skinner pre-2006, which I think makes a difference. Donahue offered about 32 in 2011, 24 in 12 and 20 (so far) this year. Skinner offered between 12 and 17 players a year. I was happy with early Skinner tenure recruitment.

I guess it all comes down to how successful you are once you've identified the player. I think BC's success post-2006 and post-Joe Jones has been spotty at best... thus my suggestion of needing a wider net. If they had shown the ability to land a kid like Vonleh (who they've been recruiting longer than any other program) or at least make it onto his final list, then I think your argument has more merit.

I'm not following you at all now. Basically we seem to have reduced down to BC won't sign Vonleh so Donahue is a bad recruiter.

No, it's BC won't sign Vonleh and he appears to have most of the pie so Donahue is a bad recruiter. I agree with the former, not so much on the latter. And I want to move back to pie.

[eagle9903]

When you are Kentucky, you can be selective and don't need to work anywhere near as hard to land players or keep Plan Bs interested. You can cast a very targetted and selective net. However, when you are a crappy team, you need to put out feelers everywhere to see who is receptive to your pitch. You have to work that much harder to keep Plan B guys interested.

Also, someone mentioned in this thread that the current recruiting strategy is not unlike that of Skinner's. My recollection was that many were ready to move on from Skinner in part of their frustration regarding that very strategy.

I think if you're Kentucky you can either target a few kids and be sure they'll sign, target a lot of kids and then choose some and be sure they'll sign or do absolutely nothing and still have your pick of the top recruits in the country. I think at BC a scatter shot approach is not ridiculous, but I prefer the approach of selecting a few top and likely targets with a few reaches and putting a lot of effort into those few.

I said the numbers of recruits were similar (albeit somewhat lower) to Skinner, but I said Skinner pre-2006, which I think makes a difference. Donahue offered about 32 in 2011, 24 in 12 and 20 (so far) this year. Skinner offered between 12 and 17 players a year. I was happy with early Skinner tenure recruitment.

I guess it all comes down to how successful you are once you've identified the player. I think BC's success post-2006 and post-Joe Jones has been spotty at best... thus my suggestion of needing a wider net. If they had shown the ability to land a kid like Vonleh (who they've been recruiting longer than any other program) or at least make it onto his final list, then I think your argument has more merit.

I'm not following you at all now. Basically we seem to have reduced down to BC won't sign Vonleh so Donahue is a bad recruiter.

No, it's BC won't sign Vonleh and he appears to have most of the pie so Donahue is a bad recruiter. I agree with the former, not so much on the latter. And I want to move back to pie.

Now there appears to be a net too.

I will never understand the post Joe Jones recruiting criticism, until it actually plays out, as no one has any idea whether 1) Anderson or Clifford were Jones recruits or not, 2) where Rahon and Hanlan were on Donahue's list in 2012; 3) how to quantify 2013 recruiting.

Essentially people have jumped on what they know, that Jones is known as a good recruiter and is no longer with BC and Waheed is a no name with no track record and extrapolated all kinds of shit from it. From there they assume Anderson and Clifford wouldn't have come to BC w/o Jones despite the then-actually open depth chart and Donahue's own pedigree and recent widely publicized tournament run, due to such assumption, the one positive known quantity being the top portion of the 2011 class who has actually played is removed from credit to Donahue's recruiting. Then Hanlan and Rahon are written off for reasons I'm not clear on, despite each having at least one solid offer and by many accounts appearing to be better than their recruiting rankings.

[twballgame9]

I think it is pretty fair to say that Jones had his hand on all recruiting when he was here. If he didn't, then that is as much an indictment of the coach as anything else. That's like hiring Carville to help with foreign policy and not your campaign.

[eagle9903]

I think it is pretty fair to say that Jones had his hand on all recruiting when he was here. If he didn't, then that is as much an indictment of the coach as anything else. That's like hiring Carville to help with foreign policy and not your campaign.

That's fine, but involvement doesn't equal "but for." My issue is that it is assumed that absent Jones Anderson and Clifford wouldn't be on the team. I don't think that is necessarily accurate.

[twballgame9]

I think it is pretty fair to say that Jones had his hand on all recruiting when he was here. If he didn't, then that is as much an indictment of the coach as anything else. That's like hiring Carville to help with foreign policy and not your campaign.

That's fine, but involvement doesn't equal "but for." My issue is that it is assumed that absent Jones Anderson and Clifford wouldn't be on the team. I don't think that is necessarily accurate.

Maybe. Not sure that question can be decided in the immediate future.

[eagle9903]

I think it is pretty fair to say that Jones had his hand on all recruiting when he was here. If he didn't, then that is as much an indictment of the coach as anything else. That's like hiring Carville to help with foreign policy and not your campaign.

That's fine, but involvement doesn't equal "but for." My issue is that it is assumed that absent Jones Anderson and Clifford wouldn't be on the team. I don't think that is necessarily accurate.

Maybe. Not sure that question can be decided in the immediate future.

I'm pretty sure it can't be.