eagle9903 wrote: RedBaron67 wrote:
eepstein0 wrote:5* coaching
This -- 125% agreement. In his extended Heights interview (link on ATLeagle's blog), Donahue shows himself to be pretty cognizant of the whole situation, but I still can't see him surviving at BC if he doesn't upgrade recruiting.
No still. I'm at the point where unless you (you two especially) can support this repeated absurdity that you state as a conclusion with actual facts, preferably with comparisons to former BC recruiting classes, and not with wrong comparisons to the classes at schools that have always had higher ranked recruits than BC I will continue to call it out every time.
Also Donahue did not show he was cognizant of being a "2*" recruiter in that article. He said he was looking for ACC players, which is no way implied that the players on the current roster were not such. He also said the starting jobs of the current players were not secure. This also does not imply recruiting failure.
closest he gets is:
I told them that everyone coming in here, I’m trying to get guys that will help us win in the ACC, so they’re probably going to want your job. Your responsibility is to get better and better, so personally you don’t lose your job if you’re playing already. You’re trying as a sub to beat those guys out, and then all of us are trying to get better. I think it’s actually, if I’m honest with a guy, I’m saying that no one’s secured this spot. I may say in two years, you know, look at this kid’s freshman and sophomore years and now he’s our junior, and at the same time I’m recruiting a guy at the same position, that’s a lot harder.
You know, what I think is more important is that we get a great ACC player. I don’t know if it has to be a position. I’m happy with a lot of our breakdown of post and perimeter. I think the way we play, the beauty of it is, is that I can put guys in different spots. They just all have to be really good ACC players. So if the kid happens to be a 6-foot-7 rebounder that fits what we do, or he is a 6-foot-3 guard, I think he’s just got to be a great player. I think you’ve got to be very selective now. I think you’ve got to make sure you’re upgrading everything about your program each and every day. And recruiting is all about getting a great kid, who is probably a little better than what you’ve got. That’s what everyone is trying to do, and I think it’s critical that we don’t say, “Oh, well we need a big guy to rebound for us. He’s not as good as these guys, but he gives us another guy that can rebound.” I think you’ve got to be careful. I think you’ve got to evaluate not on need necessarily, but on the strength of your league and how good of a player he is in your league. I think that’s more important, especially right now as we grow the program.
Again I'm watching Maryland, UVA, NCST, Pitt, Duke, UNC, Syracuse & FSU pull in Top 25 classes. At some point, the coaching in this conference is going to get above the 6th grade level (it's getting close with Turgeon & Bennett) and the teams with more talent are going to win. BC survived for a while because some of these coaches were so mentally challenged they couldn't take a team of NBA Lottery picks to the NCAA Tournament. Hewitt, Purnell, Haith, Lowe, Greenberg, etc. are dreadful. The ACC had the biggest group of clowns I've ever seen coaching for a while. Now they're all fired and these new guys know how to coach.
Do you seriously think we can complete with those teams if they have 4/5* kids while we continue to pull in short, unathletic shooters? The answer is No. I get that we're not going to win more games than Duke, UNC, 'Cuse & Pitt but I expect to finish with the Maryland's, UVA's and FSU's of the world. With the current state of their recruiting vs. our recruiting, that's not going to happen.
Pointing to the fact we beat FSU is all fine and good, but played their worst game of the season and BC barely won. Do you expect to draw teams worst performances every night out in conference?