I’m def leaning that way right now too, not bc of stats but what I’ve seen.
2022-2023 Season outlook
- Thread starter SpiderDad75
- Start date
I'm leaning that way because he is 7 feet tall and because of the 15 points, 7.4 Reb, 4 assists, 1.4 blocks, and 1 steal a game averages. If not stats with a 7 footer, what? If he averaged half or less of these numbers, we wouldn't have gone after him. Same with Roche, if Roche didn't make so many 3s, we wouldn't have gone after him. Unless you have seen a lot of full 40 minute games from him, and have other ways to look at him, it seems like the stats will show up on the highlights. I saw blocks, assists, post up shots, other scoring, and rebounds. Stats might not be a tell all, but geez, sometimes they do matter a little bit.
From the little I can glean on the pictures and video posted of Quinn from our school site, he appears to be in really good shape, and moving well. I think he mentioned that he was looking to improve agility and conditioning this off season. That would be great, b/c that is the really only concern I have with him at this point.
I'm excited to have Grace back, he seems to improve incrementally every year and if follows suit this season will really help solidify our interior. He looks like a guy that can shoot 35% from 3, though he was at 28% this past season. He did shoot 87% from the line, wow, lets get him fouled some more this year.
I'm excited to have Grace back, he seems to improve incrementally every year and if follows suit this season will really help solidify our interior. He looks like a guy that can shoot 35% from 3, though he was at 28% this past season. He did shoot 87% from the line, wow, lets get him fouled some more this year.
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that I am agreeing with 23 so much lately?
I find I am easier to get along with on this board in the offseason - especially following an NCAA runIs it a good thing or a bad thing that I am agreeing with 23 so much lately?
Good stuff from Neal. Really like to hear that his "advisors" were so high on Richmond. Building a good reputation for developing bigs. I also like the trajectory Quinn has been on since high school, not very highly recruited but shown steady development and improved numbers each year. Seems like a super fit.
We've had a reputation as a really good fit for talented, small point guards for quite awhile, and now, with TJ's and Grant's recent success, we've got a really good reputation for bigs as well. This is awesome!
We also have a reputation for going over a decade between tournament appearances with the same coach. But I’m sure we can just pretend that isn’t a thing
Clearly, it helped...our recruiting was terrible coming off the back-to-back.
Well, true. But Ply's point stands, prior to this year, the kids we are recruiting were 1st or 2nd grade the last time we made the tournament.
I don’t know about reputation but it’s certainly something I expect recruits would have been aware of.
I think the actual book on UR is probably something along the lines of “competitive program with strong facilities and good academics with low player turnover and high graduation rates.” I don’t expect anyone talks about UR as being a basketball tour de force nor a meat grinder, which is probably ok on both fronts.
I think our reputation leans way more toward "giant killers" than it does a team that missed the tourney those years. We have 9, yes 9, wins as a 12 seed or lower. No other team has more than 4. That gets talked about way more than tourney droughts.
And, there is way more to recruiting than "hey, they made the tourney a few years ago, so I need to go there." Fit, school, staff, location, and a whole lot of other things are just as or more relevant than recent tourney appearances, especially if you still had some solid years like we did when not making the dance. Plus, there are just as many guys who say, "hey, I am going there to help get this team back to the dance" as there are guys who only worry about going to a team that often goes to the dance.
And, then the fit factor. We got Grant because of TJ's success, and then got Quinn because of TJ and Grant. Same with Smith, Nelson, Jacob and all the PGs before them.
And, there is way more to recruiting than "hey, they made the tourney a few years ago, so I need to go there." Fit, school, staff, location, and a whole lot of other things are just as or more relevant than recent tourney appearances, especially if you still had some solid years like we did when not making the dance. Plus, there are just as many guys who say, "hey, I am going there to help get this team back to the dance" as there are guys who only worry about going to a team that often goes to the dance.
And, then the fit factor. We got Grant because of TJ's success, and then got Quinn because of TJ and Grant. Same with Smith, Nelson, Jacob and all the PGs before them.
Are you saying a decade without a NCAA appearance did not seriously impair our recruiting? If so, I respectfully disagree.
Don't believe 17 and 18 year olds are considering 9 wins as a 12 seed or more in their decision. Ancient history to them and most happened before Mooney...and before they were born.
Don't believe 17 and 18 year olds are considering 9 wins as a 12 seed or more in their decision. Ancient history to them and most happened before Mooney...and before they were born.
We got Tyler right after our 12 and 13 win seasons. Same with Blake. Same with Connor. Followed by Dji, Nelson, Noyes, Randolph, and Dread.
Last edited:
Well, one is great, the second had pros and cons, and 5 are unproven or largely unproven. All signed before 21-22 NCAA run. Seriously doubt our past Giant Killer reputation was a factor in the the recruitment for any of them.
Clearly a bunch of these guys came here and didn’t care about tournament recency. I’m sure there were a number of guys who didn’t come here for whom it did matter.
it will matter to some and not others, it’s kind of weird to argue otherwise.
it will matter to some and not others, it’s kind of weird to argue otherwise.
Not saying it was. I said I think our reputation leans way more toward "giant killers" than it does a team that missed the tourney those years. I was actually talking from a national, media perspective there. As far as recruits go, I mentioned fit, school, staff, and location, which I think are the most important factors. I just think we have had way too many talented players come through here to say a tourney drought dramatically affected recruiting. And like someone said earlier, our worst recruiting years might have been right after our last sweet 16 year. Recruiting seemed to have picked up the last several years the longer the drought went.
I think there is a lot of trying to have it both ways on here. Tonight, it is the "our recruiting was not good during the tourney drought" talk. Next week, we will probably go back to the "Mooney had too much talent to not get the team to the dance" talk. But, all good.
I think there is a lot of trying to have it both ways on here. Tonight, it is the "our recruiting was not good during the tourney drought" talk. Next week, we will probably go back to the "Mooney had too much talent to not get the team to the dance" talk. But, all good.
Last edited:
True, but what is weirder is we have a nice thread going with some good comments from Quinn to talk about, and a few posters turn this into a but what about our tourney drought talk. I mean, seriously?
Agree, T. That is why I said there are just as many guys who say, "hey, I am going there to help get this team back to the dance" as there are guys who only worry about going to a team that often goes to the dance.
Who are our best recruits and when did they commit? Somebody want to look this up? recruiting has hits and misses, Richmond is a difficult place to recruit as it is. But we never got 5 and 4 stars before the drought.
What legendary spiders/recruits did we get from 2000-2010 and compare them to the spiders/recruits we had from 2010-2020…. What was impaired exactly?
I don’t think many kids ponder about 10 years ago but rather how they fit in and will have a chance to play…
I’m not super interested in turning this thread into an assault on recruiting failures but there were several very bleak years between 2010-20 when I don’t recall many if any from 2000-10.
I remember a ton of busts under Wainwright. Holloman, Sanders, Mayes, Nelson, Paterick (transfer), not to mention the difficulty Mooney had the first couple of years trying to rebuild. ...good bit of turnover there with Morris, Brewster, etc. We weren't even filling all of our scholarships for a decent stretch of years.
Oh for sure we had some flameouts under Ole Jer but I feel like we had some years under CM where over half the recruiting class would be deep reaches on guys.
As usual, you have your head in the sand. Do you even believe half the stuff you post?
I believe everything I post. That is why I post it. It's called an opinion. As if I am the only one on here with one. And, if what I said were not true, we would see the same teams make the tournament every year because the same teams would be the ones that keep on getting the good players. But, obviously, that is not the case because there are good college basketball players all over the country who went to good teams and to bad teams, and as a result, several different teams make the tourney every year, including ones with previous tourney droughts. Why? Because guys have many different reasons why they decide on a school, including "want to get this team back to the dance" like I posted above. I remember Nick and Buck said this very thing the year before coming here. But, who cares about that fact, right? It's much easier to just attack me than worry about facts, right?
And, by the way, the only "as usual" thing about this is the fact that you continue to troll me. Look at the majority of your posts. It's laughable. Maybe at some point you might add something different to the board?
And, by the way, the only "as usual" thing about this is the fact that you continue to troll me. Look at the majority of your posts. It's laughable. Maybe at some point you might add something different to the board?
Last edited:
With thousands of high school kids choosing schools every year, maybe the tournament history of a school might matter to a few of them, but being around lots of talented high school kids, I know what the most important things are to them: fit, coaching staff, and possible playing time are usually the main decision makers and are way way more important than any kind of past tournament talk. When tournament talk does come up, it is more about future tournament chances than past. Why would a recruit care about past tourney history if he didn't think that team would have as good a chance at future tourney appearances? If we go 24-7 in 2020 and a team that went .500 or worse made the tourney more recently than us, wouldn't we be a more attractive option to someone who only cares about the dance? Isn't a team on the rise a better option for them than a team in decline? But, hey, I don't and haven't talked to every guy out there, so if you talk to ones that only care about tournament history, that's fine too. Unless I talk to every guy out there, I can't prove otherwise and say you are wrong.
In case you guys want to see our all time rankings per 247 Sports… I don’t think the 2 tournament years helped us land big name guys. Because out of HS none of them were big name guys. What is a good recruit to this board? A guy who comes in and helps or a guy who had a high ranking?
To say a team's history of success might matter to only a "few" of recruits is naïve.
I go through recruiting with every one of my teams every year. All 12 of my girls will play college basketball virtually every year and the ones that don't, it because they are playing another sport in college. Every single one of them considers the past success of a program (which absolutely includes NCAA tournaments). Some consider it more than others for sure - - some only pay it a passing glance. Some look more at the coach than the school when thinking about success etc. But 100% for sure - a lack of success hurts in recruiting.
It doesn't hurt with every single player obviously and saying it hurts doesn't mean you never get any players etc. It can be overcome! What it does is reduces your pool of people you might be able to successfully recruit. I can assure you that some kids get a letter from school x and say " No way am I going there - - they suck" or the like and some when reducing their list of possibles, very much consider that school's success (including NCAA history). Remember, when kids create and reduce lists, they generally have more schools they like than spots on the list and are looking for tangible ways to make cuts. They like the coach and the system etc. at a variety of schools and are looking for ways to decide. Interestingly, they LOVE tangible ways because they don't want to tell a coach they like that they just like school x and those coaches more than you and success is an easy out to tell a coach because its less personal (not that its not personal - - - its less personal and less judgement to cite facts)!
And then there are the parents and other folks (some good and many bad when it comes to living life through their kids) - - - many of them only care about one thing - - - their kid going to the "best" school. And best usually means highest ranked etc. - - - the one the parent can brag about around town etc. The longest thread in board history - the 4 year, three transfers AWIII saga is a prime example of this. Losing and lack of NCAA pedigree hurts with these types.
Again, not every kid will be impacted and kids will weight 100's of factors in a million different ways. But winning helps, so do NCAA bids and NCAA wins etc. and they matter -at least a little - - to almost everyone and they matter a lot to more than a "few" . Again, everyone is still able to recruit and programs can get turned around (via recruiting OR other ways) etc. But success matters a lot in recruiting - - don't kid yourself.
I go through recruiting with every one of my teams every year. All 12 of my girls will play college basketball virtually every year and the ones that don't, it because they are playing another sport in college. Every single one of them considers the past success of a program (which absolutely includes NCAA tournaments). Some consider it more than others for sure - - some only pay it a passing glance. Some look more at the coach than the school when thinking about success etc. But 100% for sure - a lack of success hurts in recruiting.
It doesn't hurt with every single player obviously and saying it hurts doesn't mean you never get any players etc. It can be overcome! What it does is reduces your pool of people you might be able to successfully recruit. I can assure you that some kids get a letter from school x and say " No way am I going there - - they suck" or the like and some when reducing their list of possibles, very much consider that school's success (including NCAA history). Remember, when kids create and reduce lists, they generally have more schools they like than spots on the list and are looking for tangible ways to make cuts. They like the coach and the system etc. at a variety of schools and are looking for ways to decide. Interestingly, they LOVE tangible ways because they don't want to tell a coach they like that they just like school x and those coaches more than you and success is an easy out to tell a coach because its less personal (not that its not personal - - - its less personal and less judgement to cite facts)!
And then there are the parents and other folks (some good and many bad when it comes to living life through their kids) - - - many of them only care about one thing - - - their kid going to the "best" school. And best usually means highest ranked etc. - - - the one the parent can brag about around town etc. The longest thread in board history - the 4 year, three transfers AWIII saga is a prime example of this. Losing and lack of NCAA pedigree hurts with these types.
Again, not every kid will be impacted and kids will weight 100's of factors in a million different ways. But winning helps, so do NCAA bids and NCAA wins etc. and they matter -at least a little - - to almost everyone and they matter a lot to more than a "few" . Again, everyone is still able to recruit and programs can get turned around (via recruiting OR other ways) etc. But success matters a lot in recruiting - - don't kid yourself.
This is a great question. More coaches should ask it of themselves. The first sentence is just a great, great question. The 2nd sentence is just one way to measure it, but there are so many ways to answer that "what is a good recruit" question!
. What is a good recruit to this board? A guy who comes in and helps or a guy who had a high ranking?
Local guy and huge success Jay Wright has spent a lot of time talking about this etc. and Nova's success is really built on his willingness to define what is a great recruit for Villanova a good deal differently than most other teams and then be successful with these guys.
Girls basketball is completely different because if I had to guess, all 12 of those girls are not even attempting to play basketball professionally, so individual success means little in comparison to team success for the future… 2 extremely different circumstances.
Bigger recruits tend to chose Duke over UCLA, but UCLA has more championships? Things that happened before recruits watched college basketball hardly effect their decision to go places. Your reputation is very minimal based on # of appearances and championships especially to 16 and 17 year olds. Especially now with NIL!!!
Well, the problem with this being a tell all is there is not a set definition for lack of success here. When talking about our history between tourney bids, it is very possible that very few recruits would say we had a lack of success. We had 0 losing seasons the first 6 years after our last sweet 16 year, including two 19 win seasons, and two 20+ win NIT quarterfinal seasons, with one being a thrilling home game against Miami that showed what a great atmosphere we could have here. You can disagree, but I don't think a season like the one that ended with the Miami loss would be viewed negatively by recruits. This just does not compare to a program like Fordham, where, yes, it might be much harder to convince guys you can win there. The next 2 seasons? Sure, a lack of success, but it certainly does not look like those affected recruiting when considering Tyler and Blake had other options, but came here and helped get us to 24-7 the following year. So, we will just have to disagree here, and there is just no solid evidence out there that supports the other argument. To support my point, I look at the fact that we have had good and bad recruiting seasons under every coach here, with no obvious jump in recruiting right after our tournament years going all the way back to the 80s.
Last edited:
POMSpider and VT, are you the same person? If so, I see where the Pom Pom references used by other posters came from. No offense intended. Hope none taken. Just an observation.
To argue that regular NCAA appearances are not a factor in recruiting the best possible players defies logic. In your profession, was your goal to work for a lesser company or one that was more successful?
To argue that regular NCAA appearances are not a factor in recruiting the best possible players defies logic. In your profession, was your goal to work for a lesser company or one that was more successful?
I agree as I had a child who was being recruited in HS by 6-7 different D1 schools. He eliminated half because of their history of lack of success. He wanted to play for a top ACC team who was always in the national spotlight, realizing he would sit on the bench most of time. Instead fortunate to go to a good mid major with good history of NCAA tournament
games of which he participated in 3 out 4 years. From travel soccer he got to know a lot of college coaches and because he played for a highly successful travel program, he desired same success level at the college of his choice. Many on his travel team who were strong players felt the same way and most all went to highly successful college programs. I cannot help but feel that most good AAU players are in the same boat.
There's a reason Chicago State doesn't land the same kind of recruits Kentucky does.
