Will this season hurt our recruiting for 2016 and beyond?

by **R Jay** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 10:44 am

Most of us know that our competitors have used the "Post-Dougie Creighton is going to be awful" argument against us. We still managed to land top transfers and solid prospects for 2015, but now given our season so far it looks like that argument might resonate with our 2016 recruits. So, just like the poll asks, will this season hurt our recruiting for 2016 and beyond?

by **Billybluejay** » Sun Jan 18, 2015 11:43 am

by **LynchMob** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:22 am

Of course it will. Better seasons help recruiting, everybody knows that. I can't help but feel like this thread is just a thinly veiled excuse to have yet another place to run down the current team.

by **mredle** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:42 pm

Perceived opportunities for immediate playing time helps recruiting.

by **Duke1Agn** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 12:59 pm

You think kids go to Arizona, Duke, Louisville because they think they will immediately contribute? There are four/five star players at those schools who don't see the floor as a freshman.

Recruits want to go to a winning program.

by **mredle** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:11 pm

Duke1Agn wrote:You think kids go to Arizona, Duke, Louisville because they think they will immediately contribute? There are four/five star players at those schools who don't see the floor as a freshman.

Recruits want to go to a winning program.

I am not saying that is the only reason kids choose a school, but it is A reason!!

by **Bluejay Bilas** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 1:45 pm

Duke1Agn wrote:You think kids go to Arizona, Duke, Louisville because they think they will immediately contribute? There are four/five star players at those schools who don't see the floor as a freshman.

Recruits want to go to a winning program.

Yeah, but we’re not seriously going after any of the same recruits who are being pursued by the elite programs. We’re mostly competing in the huge shark tank of schools that include basically all non-elite power five conference schools (from teams like Pitt and Oklahoma State at the top to teams like Clemson, Washington State and Nebraska at the bottom), the Big East, half of the AAC, and a handful of the really good non-power five and non-Big East or AAC schools (e.g., VCU and San Diego State).

Sure, players want to win games and go to the NCAA tournament and all. But, playing time, location and other aspects of the school, history of program, number of pro players aided by that program and/or coach, facilities and other things related to a player’s day-to-day life as a student athlete, connection with staff and current players, and just the general ability of a coach to convince a player that said coach’s team is the right fit for that recruit are all factors of varying degrees of importance. Mac and co’s ability to sell their vision of next season and beyond are much more crucial than current wins and losses. Do we have top-level salesmen in charge of the program? I don't know, yet.

Of course, more important than any of that, cause this thread seems to inquire into the ability of a losing team to get a certain type of player who has high major suitors with winning conference records, is the staff’s ability to scout well and bring in the right mix of players. This is of more immediate concern, as this staff is the architect of a team that has not shown that they can do particularly well in the Big East without Doug McDermott. But, since that staff has only been able to prepare for their current conference affiliation for a little less than 2 years, we need to wait and see how Harrell, Gilmore, Huff, Watson, Patton, Stewart, Krampelj and future guys fit together with the MVC holdovers like Hanson, Hegner and Zierden as a Big East team. Unlike Chicagojayfan, I'm not super enamored by the staff's MVC recruiting, but at worst, they were doing a slightly below average job (average in the context of their school and it's standing in the MVC) and had what seemed like a very solid MVC-based plan for the team. At best, Marshall had assumed the throne of the conference and Mac was in charge of building team that would surely compete for 2nd or 3rd most seasons.

by **Oldfan** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 3:52 pm

The immediate playing time angle evidently didn't work for this year when we were a winning program losing all of our major contributors. It will work less coming off a 4 conference win (at best) season.

by **R Jay** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 4:48 pm

Oldfan wrote:The immediate playing time angle evidently didn't work for this year when we were a winning program losing all of our major contributors. It will work less coming off a 4 conference win (at best) season.

I'm not sure I follow. We added two freshmen, one obviously needed a year to bulk up, the other just isn't ready to play yet and might have redshirted if not for Avery's injury early on. We also added three transfers, two of whom had to sit out this year but look to be playing big minutes next year. The other WALKED ON and is playing good minutes this year. I just don't see where your argument is coming from here.

by **jays911** » Mon Jan 19, 2015 8:02 pm

R Jay wrote:
Oldfan wrote:The immediate playing time angle evidently didn't work for this year when we were a winning program losing all of our major contributors. It will work less coming off a 4 conference win (at best) season.

I'm not sure I follow. We added two freshmen, one obviously needed a year to bulk up, the other just isn't ready to play yet and might have redshirted if not for Avery's injury early on. We also added three transfers, two of whom had to sit out this year but look to be playing big minutes next year. The other WALKED ON and is playing good minutes this year. I just don't see where your argument is coming from here.

+1