2015 F Henry Ellenson (Marquette Commit)

[Bluejay Bilas]

Huge for the Big East.

If the league had not taken so many perception hits in the past year or so, I’d be more ambivalent about this, as it’s hardly great on a short-term basis for CU to have our conference mates end up with better recruiting classes than us. But, Brunson and Ellenson (and even Patton’s meteoric rise, to a certain extent) surely help appearances during a conference-wide recruiting year that looks likely to be a bit less impressive than the 2014 year. And even though we’ve watched some of our own top 100 recruits and conference rivals’ top 100 recruits choose football schools, the conference now has 8 top 100 2015 guys, based on the 247 composite rankings. Four of those eight are Marquette pledges (two for Georgetown, one for Villanova, and one for Creighton). We’re less likely than some of the other conferences to add much to the tally, though, as a good number of the remaining top 100 guys are top 25 or so guys who will end up at UK, KU, UNC and the like.

If my quick counting is correct:
ACC has 16
Big 10 has 14
Pac 12 has 13
SEC has 9
AAC has 4
Big 12, which has KU and UT and always gets a pass from the media in terms of where conferences stand in the wake of recent realignment, has 4
A-10 has 1
MWC has 1

These comparisons look even better if you consider the sizes of the conferences. Now, some of these Big East commits have to make a difference on the court and help a team or two do something in March.

[gtmoBlue]

Henry winkler, Henry Marshall, oh Henry... Ellenson?? Never heard of him??
Movin on.

[mredle]

Huge for the Big East.

If the league had not taken so many perception hits in the past year or so, I’d be more ambivalent about this, as it’s hardly great on a short-term basis for CU to have our conference mates end up with better recruiting classes than us. But, Brunson and Ellenson (and even Patton’s meteoric rise, to a certain extent) surely help appearances during a conference-wide recruiting year that looks likely to be a bit less impressive than the 2014 year. And even though we’ve watched some of our own top 100 recruits and conference rivals’ top 100 recruits choose football schools, the conference now has 8 top 100 2015 guys, based on the 247 composite rankings. Four of those eight are Marquette pledges (two for Georgetown, one for Villanova, and one for Creighton). We’re less likely than some of the other conferences to add much to the tally, though, as a good number of the remaining top 100 guys are top 25 or so guys who will end up at UK, KU, UNC and the like.

If my quick counting is correct:
ACC has 16
Big 10 has 14
Pac 12 has 13
SEC has 9
AAC has 4
Big 12, which has KU and UT and always gets a pass from the media in terms of where conferences stand in the wake of recent realignment, has 4
A-10 has 1
MWC has 1

These comparisons look even better if you consider the sizes of the conferences. Now, some of these Big East commits have to make a difference on the court and help a team or two do something in March.

I forgot, how many points do you start the game with based on your recruiting ranking?

[taa71458]

I forgot, how many points do you start the game with based on your recruiting ranking?

Great point, player rankings don't matter. 250+ ranked players consistently beat, out-play, and out-earn Top 100 players.

[Duke1Agn]

Yea, that's a lame argument. There's a reason Kentucky is a contender every year. And it's not because Cal motivates a group of unknowns to play above their heads. Recruiting is huge. Period.

[Bluejay Bilas]

Others beat me to a response, and did so just fine with few words.

Like it or not, recruiting is the most important part of college basketball. The better a team’s talent, which is more often than not reasonably well evaluated by the recruiting services, the more likely that team is to succeed. Coach K, Rick Pitino, Bill Self and Billy Donovan could join forces and coach DePaul this year, and DePaul would still end up in the Wednesday night play-in game at MSG. And DePaul is not completely bereft of talent. Conversely, the importance of recruiting in college basketball is how coaches like Josh Pastner end up in the NCAA tournament every year, Lorenzo Romar still has a job, and Scott Drew manages to oversee some really nice runs every once and awhile.

Sure, talent evaluation, player development, film review, pre-game strategy, motivational skills, in-game adjustments and the like are important. But, none of that is as important and reliable as regularly supplying your program with top high school players.

For 15 plus years, we were spoiled by quality coaching, MVC opponents, and players like Rodney Buford, Kyle Korver and Doug McDermott. The university, AD, and staff have mostly done a nice job getting the team ready for post-Doug Big East life, but we’ve got more to do. Fan expectations, which may not have been realistic, have not yet been met for the 2015 recruiting period, IMO.

[gtmoBlue]

So, mredle, just what exactly are you saying?

Are you implying you don't want Top 100 recruits? Are you implying that Creighton can successfully compete and win BE titles without Top 100 recruits. Are you implying that Creighton can make SS, possibly Elite 8 NCAA runs without Top 100 players? Fella, we are not in the MVC (or Kansas, Dorothy) anymore.

In order to annually and consistently thrive in the Big East and to effectively compete nationally in the NCAA tourney - we will need all the best recruits/players we can get. Yes, MVC teams have had great runs previously (Bradley, SIU, UNI, WSU), but they have not had consistent hi-level performance. Recruiting is a top priority. Ask Coach Mac.

Edited to acknowledge mockery...

[taa71458]

So, TAA71458 and mredle, just what exactly are you saying?

Thats what he was saying, I was simply mocking that line of thought

[Sundeckers]

"Stars and rankings don't matter." That way of thinking gets you in the CBI.

Rankings and Rivals' stars may not mean much to certain fans, but they most certainly mean everything to high-level 17-yr old prospects. It's a vicious cycle--if you can't sign highly ranked players with four stars next to their name, unsigned prospects aren't likely to sign with the school.

We need big-time talent to compete in this league, and we need it every single year. That means multiple top 100-150 recruits in each class. We are one or two poor recruiting years away from being DePaul. Georgetown, Marquette, Villanova, etc. don't face that razor thin margin of error, but Creighton certainly does.

[Chicagojayfan]

Yes, recruiting is important. It's even more important for teams that don't pull the top 25 players and get enough one and done players to keep the pipeline full. For the rest of the world, recruiting means getting top guys who fit your system. The problem is.. who are the top players? Well, outside of that top 25, the rest of the top 150 and even top 250 can lead to huge variances.

AAU summer games give people a ton of exposure, but I think it can also leave people lazy and unable to find guys who aren't in front of them. If you are Louisville, Duke or someone like that, you can get enough of the top 25 just by recruiting the tourneys and the top kids when they pop up.

Even on the east coast, the situation is different. Many of the BE teams can recruit fairly close to home and then fill in with a kid or two from a bit further away. Because the recruiting is so intense and the talent pools are big, the east coast kids get a lot of exposure. It's in the midwest (really all around the mid west) that kids get skipped. Sure a few pop up, but there's not a clear progression as to why Gesell and Akoy get noticed while guys like Hanson don't.

Is there a huge difference between the # 75 guy and the # 150 guy? Maybe, maybe not. It often comes down to fit and to attitude and work ethic.

Given that we've recruited two top 100/150 guys last year, added two of the top transfers in basketball last year, and have a top 50 and a potential top 150 guy this year, I'm really not that worried about where we are.