2022-2023 Season outlook
- Thread starter SpiderDad75
- Start date
Before everyone jumps all over VT, his original argument was that he doesn’t think our reputation is that we’re a perennial ncaa tournament ghost. I actually agree with that, even though objectively it’s true that we’ve been a ghost.
I do think it’s hard to argue that tournament participation doesn’t rate high on the list to recruits though. I suspect most want that, they just can’t all have it.
I do think it’s hard to argue that tournament participation doesn’t rate high on the list to recruits though. I suspect most want that, they just can’t all have it.
Yep. Chicago St has not had a winning season since 1986. They went 63-262 from 2012-2021, the years we are discussing, including years of 4-26, 4-28, 3-29, 3-29, and 4-25. If you think our program and school is similar to theirs, I can't help you here. But, to add to how silly your comment is, VCU doesn't get the players Ky. does either, and they went to more NCAA tourneys from 2011-2017 than Ky. did.
Last edited:
I hear you, T. And, I wonder why they feel the need to act like this just because I disagree with them? Anyway, it may rate high on the list, but some on here act like it is the bottom line for most of our recruits, and the facts just do not support that side. Despite what EL might think, we are not going to get the big time Ky., UNC, Duke, Kansas type of recruits here. Those guys can have it all......NCAA tourneys, big time schools, and playing time if they are top recruits. So, yes, to a lot of them, they might rather go to a team that makes the dance a lot. So, we have to look elsewhere, and while those type of recruits might all want the same things the big time recruits want, most realize during the recruiting process other things are just as if not more important because there are only so many non power teams that go to the dance every year. So, just because a kid wants to go the dance (who doesn't?), that doesn't mean that will be his deciding factor.
Everyone on here loves talking about the recent tournaments Davidson made, but it's not like we lost recruits to Davidson every year because they made the dance and we didn't go. I find all the crap I am getting (not from you, T, but others) hilarious because no one has been able to back their views up with any facts. Just the "of course missing the tourney matters" talk. And, forget the fact that I have talked to numerous kids about this very thing. We won't even go there. So, even though history has shown that all of our coaches have had good and bad recruiting years (because it is normal for 90+% of programs to have both), and our recruiting has not been any better than normal following tourney years under any past coach, somehow I am the one getting ridiculed when I am the one who has facts supporting my views. And, how can anyone explain how pretty much every recruit we got from 2012-2021 had offers from teams that went to the dance at some point those years, but still chose us? According to some of you on here, guys like Nick and Buck should have gone to LaSalle since they had made the dance more recently than us. That's all that matters. right? Shoot, we have a source right here on the board, SDad. Why not get on him for allowing his son to go to a school that had not made the dance for several years if that is all that matters? I guess the same ones that are getting on me should also be questioning guys like Nick, Buck, Jacob, Grant, Tyler, Blake, Dji and all the other recent guys who have come here. They all must be as crazy as me, right? It's laughable.
Last edited:
Well to be fair to them as well, several provided credible examples in their experience that demonstrated that program success and postseason play were critical deciding factors in program selection.
So you are probably being a bit dismissive by not acknowledging that it is likely more influential than you’re giving credit to.
Most of this discussion of VT being only one supplying facts with opinions can only be found in his head. Most all
of this discussion has simply been opinions of what one feels is most important.. Example McKillop going to more post season tournaments since entering A10 then Mooney but VT said it was meaningless cause Mooney when he is in the post season, wins more games. Example II what do recruits find more important in recruiting: post season opportunities/successful programs vs your average program which wins more than it loses. There were examples and facts from both sides of the aisle, neither right or wrong. This Board was created for open discussion and not a podium for one person to dictate who is right or wrong.
of this discussion has simply been opinions of what one feels is most important.. Example McKillop going to more post season tournaments since entering A10 then Mooney but VT said it was meaningless cause Mooney when he is in the post season, wins more games. Example II what do recruits find more important in recruiting: post season opportunities/successful programs vs your average program which wins more than it loses. There were examples and facts from both sides of the aisle, neither right or wrong. This Board was created for open discussion and not a podium for one person to dictate who is right or wrong.
Fair enough, T. I think the main point was about our program, though. I guess I just don't understand how other schools and another person's exact experiences relates to our school. My point has been the tourney drought did not affect our recruiting, and I have given plenty of examples to back that point. Had we performed like Chicago State, as someone mentioned, then yes, it most likely would have affected our recruiting. So, I say it didn't, others say it did. We will just have to disagree. But, another question would be why can't we just disagree without all of the ongoing criticism and attacks?
I’m not sure how you can say the tourney drought didn’t affect our recruiting, at least not objectively. We had some really poor recruiting in several of those years, coupled with some dreadful records twice and a number of generally mediocre seasons. So we definitely had some bad recruiting, but impossible to know why.
Perhaps we succeeded in spite of that? Equally impossible to say that we didn’t lose guys we might have otherwise been competitive for. But it’s reasonable to think that tourney drought was a factor.
That’s my point, this is generally impossible to know without asking those who went elsewhere. So it can’t be a fact that it was, nor that it wasn’t.
We do have first person accounts from AAU level coaches and parents who say it does matter. You could probably consider that a fact.
But, everything "matters". Fit, location, coaching staff, facilities, and, yes, a past history of winning likely matter to a lot of recruits. But, we can just disagree on what matters more, and can definitely just disagree on how much our tourney drought affected our recruiting. And, yes, it is impossible to know without talking to every recruit we've looked at. Yet, funny how my opinion is the one that gets trashed on here. By the way, I know quite a bit of coaches, parents, and players too. Yet, this cannot be viewed as fact while the other view can?
I’m not saying your reasoning isn’t factual. You didn’t lay it out that it was based on personal experience though, so I didn’t take it as such. Other people did.
You did make a definitive statement previously though that the tourney drought didn’t affect our recruiting. I don’t think you can state that, given we all agree you’d have to poll recruits that didn’t come here.
Very easy answer here and it has been answered numerous times, including by someone other than me. It can be argued that our worst recruiting years happened right after our back to back tourney appearances, and we seemed to get some pretty good talent in here as the years went on. Just because we did not make the dance does not mean we were Chicago State. Kids that came here saw the potential we had. Same with past coaches, when we went to the dance under Tarrant, Beilein, and Wainwright. We've kind of recruited who we recruit, and there has never really been this dramatic bump up in recruiting after we made the dance. So, this kind of ruins the other argument right away. But, if you think it's fine that your opinion says you don't understand how I can say the drought did not affect us, at the same time, it should be fine that my opinion says that I don't understand how you can say it did. Isn't that okay as well? You, yourself, said there's really no way to prove any of this anyway, yet, I'm the one that keeps getting questioned here, right?
I agree 100% you have to poll all of the recruits to know for sure. I think you have me mistaken for others on here when talking about making definitive statements. I have let it be known more than once that this is my opinion on here. I've posted facts to support my opinion. I have also, unlike others, said "I think" a lot before stating my opinion. I never once said my opinion was a fact. But, I will add that I appreciate how you reply in a respectful way.
Last edited:
Here's the thing, let's just make the tourney 2 out of every 3 years and see if that can push up our recruiting. I do agree that we whiffed hard following the ncaa in 2011-12. I believe we put too many eggs in the top 100 basket and likely missed out on some guys waiting on the AW3 types. Hopefully we learned from that and take the bird in hand when presented.
That's the tricky part...how do you elevate your recruiting when you're taking the bird in the hand? Really has to be a balance where you focus one, maybe two slots depending on class size on those "reach" guys while making sure you're at least holding the quality steady on the rest of the guys you're bringing on board.
Problem is, it's not as simple as that with recruiting being subject to however many factors. Ideally every guy is something of a reach...that's how you improve. But how much can you reach?
Problem is, it's not as simple as that with recruiting being subject to however many factors. Ideally every guy is something of a reach...that's how you improve. But how much can you reach?
Yep, and I am not opposed to going after those guys - a la Finley Bizjack. I think the game has changed dramatically from back then with the portal. There is a ton of opportunity to get high ceiling guys in the portal. I think the coaching staff has to make the evaluation is the obtainable guy and the top 100 guy that much different, that you pass on the guy that you can land. It seemed at that time we had no other options on the table. I do think recruiting has been pretty good lately, and an excellent couple months here with Smith and three good players in the portal. It seemed 10 years ago, and many times in last 10 years we were settling for the Schneiders and Verbinskis. I always want to give a kid a chance - but too many times folks (97 was particularly accurate) were able to identify a guy as a reach, and they never played any kind of role. I do think we are in a better position to go after big name/ceiling guys with a balance to more attainable players.
Not making the tourney consistently def hurts recruiting - there is no doubt about that. Now - did we take a major hit - probably not, because we were still winning 19, 21, 22 games in some seasons - made the NIT, etc. So its not like we were Fordham and bottom of the barrell. But its not about the current players - but more importantly the players we missed out on that might have to a rival school like a VCU, Davidson, or other mid-major school who more recently made the tourney. Not sure if its worth the time going back and looking at the just misses and think what could have been. But lack of appearances does result in loss recruiting - just how much - depends on the school, coach, etc.
I wondered this myself. Another thought I had is that PomSpider is a former player, perhaps one who has recently graduated. Not going to name names cause it's just a hunch.
I think the difference now is there are way more talented guys to choose from. The talent level now is just crazy good compared to 5 to 10 years ago. More and more guys are playing basketball year-round, giving up other sports and focusing only on basketball. That happened 5 to 10 years ago as well, but not nearly as many guys were doing it. Now, it's common everywhere.
I see your point about the Schneider and Verbinskis types, but we were not in the minority then with having guys at the end of the bench who never played. Schools at all levels, all the way to the highest levels, had multiple guys like this. Now, with more and more talent out there, we are seeing more rosters like ours this year, where everyone looks like they have solid potential.
Last edited:
future dancing is really important to most. past dancing varies based on the recruit. past dancing is impressive at the high school lunch table.
I believe recruits want to know:
1) can I succeed here
2) can the team succeed while I'm here
3) do I fit in with the guys on the team
we had a well discussed lull in recruiting which set us back for a while. but recruiting the past 6 years or so has been strong in my opinion.
Loyola Chi raises an eyebrow for me when looking at NCAA tourney appearances. They have been there a lot, but don’t think they have landed any big recruits. Can anyone confirm?
Well, either this is some epic trolling or my theory has legs. Either way, well done.
“They have been there a lot…”
I mean, there’s your answer. They must be recruiting well if they get there a lot.
Been there a lot lately, in 2018, 2021, and 2022. Before that, you have to go back to 1985. They have landed good talent, not NBA talent, but some solid guys the last several years. Porter Moser took over the job in 2011 and his 1st 6 years they went 89-105 overall and 33-73 in their conference. Yet, despite not coming close to making the dance those years, guess what? They still recruited some solid guys and made the final four in his 7th year, 2018. Not making the dance and going 89-105 for 6 years obviously did not affect their recruiting. But, hey, what do I know, right?
I think we can all agree that there is absolutely no correlation whatsoever between past records or levels of success, good or bad, and recruiting. Good players would just as soon sign with Alcorn State as they would with Kansas, if the coach has a good enough recruiting plan and really sells them on the program.
Since your Chicago State/Ky. example fell so flat, you figured you would try Alcorn St/Kansas now? LOL. Good one. So, since you have now used 4 examples, please share with us which of these programs we relate so closely to that would make your post even 5% relevant? Chicago St., Ky., Alcorn St., or Kansas?
They recruited better the years before they got to the tourney than after. They got good players, and those players helped them get to the tourney. Imagine that.
I’m not comparing us to any of them, I’m just applying the logic expressed in this thread that no amount of losses hurts recruiting at all — in fact, it very clearly seems to help it! We should try to lose more often so that we could sign better players.
I haven't seen anyone say no amount of losses hurts recruiting. You mentioned
Chicago St, and I said, yes, had we performed like them, it most likely would have affected our recruiting. And, obviously, no one has said we should lose more to get better players, but you already know this. It's just how you post when your points fall flat and you have nothing else to add. Whatever.
I only poke in from time to time since this is the dead season, but it does keep the board interesting.
Recruiting well by who’s standards 8? None of the guys they have had have been highly ranked or recruited!
Similar threads
