KING to decide tomorrow
- Thread starter jcalz88
- Start date
Why not count Delgado and Whitehead? Willard got them. What does it matter how he did it? How is hiring a coach any different than paying a player under the table, giving their uncle a job or their mom a condo, etc.? The only difference is one tactic is public knowledge the others are not.
However, I agree with you that I don't consider landing transfers a "recruiting success" and we rely to heavily on them for my liking.
Losing out on some top local talent is inevitable.
Losing out on all of them every year for 8 years now? That's a miracle.
He sucks at recruiting. That's fine. Plenty of coaches do. Surround yourself with a staff that doesn't though.
Sha is supposed to be our version of Book or Kimani, no? And he has done a good job recruiting; certainly not to Book's level (but Book has Sean Miller too) but definitely on par with Kimani I'd think.
I agree with you on King. I also have been beating the same drum on Quinerly or Reid but folks here thought we had a shot.
You've been spot on with Luther/OSU because of the available PT, but I know folks connected to local hoops who were still convinced even after the OSU visit that he was going to SJU. Just as this board is going nuts over King and others I just read their board's Muhammad thread and it isn't pretty.
You've been spot on with Luther/OSU because of the available PT, but I know folks connected to local hoops who were still convinced even after the OSU visit that he was going to SJU. Just as this board is going nuts over King and others I just read their board's Muhammad thread and it isn't pretty.
What should be obvious to KW is that SH is not a preferred destination for the elite player who I define as a five star or top 40 player and to put significant effort and financial resources into recruiting that player is not going to produce the desired results as we've seen over and over again. I would however not exclude going after one or two players who fall within those perimeters where there is a unique set of circumstances that give you a high probability of success , otherwise I would devote my efforts on the players who are in the 50 to 150 range.
Agree...we need to make a "Statement" hire...one that says, "wow, they are committing that kind of dough to the program that they are bringing XYZ in?"
Change the paradigm....
otherwise...this will continue to haunt us...."yeah, they have done ok recently, but you can see they cannot sustain the talent level, do you really want to go there? lets face it they are small time, always will be, with a couple of outlier "good" years thrown in"
perception is reality....
In
all of these top players that we went after were in our back yard. You have to go after them. Even if there is a small chance of success.
To be clear, Oregon is NOT just another Nike school. They use the school as a test market, training ground, etc... and pump money into the coffers like nobody's business.
Origin of the relationship?
"Nike, originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS), was founded by University of Oregon track athlete Phil Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman in January 1964."
You don't think Phil Knight (Mr. Nike himself), the biggest Oregon Booster of them all doesn't want a top 50 kid going to Oregon?? A lot of the unbelievable facilities, uniforms, equipment, etc is a direct result of Knight and Oregon link.
I don't think (can't speak for everyone though) anyone is saying folks are sitting around the Nike Board Room talking about how Oregon gets Louis King or other top flight talent... but it's the NIKE $ that has everything about that campus and their top programs as elite as anyone in the country...
I don't disagree. I also wonder whether you could have more long term success with the top 75-125 that may stay four years, than the top 25 one and done.types.
With that said, it might be easier to get one or two of those top 25 types, if you have been concentrating on recruiting the top 75-125 in earlier classes.
I think its irrelevant for my question. Why is king so important to them? Why dont they just get the top guys
This should be quantifiable.
1. How many Top 40 recruits did we put "significant effort and financial resources in recruiting"?
2. What is your definition of "significant effort and financial resources"?
3. How much do our "significant effort and financial resources" on Top 40 players represent as a percent of the total recruiting budget?
I think it has less to do with Nike targeting specific players and more to do with Nike providing the school with funds to go out and get the best players (at their discretion). For obvious reasons, Nike and other apparel companies have a vested interest in their schools being as good as possible. Better teams get better tv visibility and better tv visibility means Nike logos littering espn every night.
For instance, last month Louisville signed 10 year $160M deal with Adidas. You have $16M coming in a year some of that is finding its ways to the pockets of a recruit in some capacity.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/600482001
Last edited:
In his time at Dayton, Archie Miller brought in players he felt he could develop and fit his system.They were not 4 & 5 star recruits. He moves on to Indiana and now has a highly ranked recruiting class. Recruiting is a bit easier if you're doing for an Arizona, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisville, No Classes UCLA etc than it is for non P5 programs.
This is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
Where does "got arrested" fit in?This is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
You have my Vote for Post of the Year with that Card... LOL, well done (but sad)...This is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
LOL this is hilarious...needed this todayThis is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
So you have some facts to share with us about that?
Or is it just your assumption? If so, alleging 'suitcases filled with $$$' is pretty irresponsible.
This is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
Hysterical. I'll add, "blew up and now blue bloods are on him."
Ummmm-- you're right: Oregon isn't just another Nike school--it's THE Nike school. I thought everyone on here knew about about Phil Knight and the history of Nike and Oregon. Isn't that obvious?
By the way--it's beyond a test market. The strength training gyms, recovery/PT equipment, player's lounge areas....they're all sick. It's insanely impressive. Think Google's head location, but instead of technology it's sports.
Lots of lots of money. There is a reason they've been at the top of the food chain in football over the last 7-8 years after all the upgrades went in.
That being said, I'm still very surprised a player from the NY/NJ metro area would go all the way out there to play when you have a litany of suitors anywhere in the country. There hasn't been any track record (pardon the pun) of that at any time. Maybe it's going to change....
It's 2017, not 1917. Assuming recruiting top 20 players is clean is foolish. I never alleged anyone did anything with suitcases of $$$. I'm saying we might need to do that to compete for kids. Recruiting is very ugly, if you want to be a saint, you don't get kids. End of story.
I wish I had the data to answer that question but what I did look up was the recruiting expenses of several BE programs as reported under the Equity in Athletics act. Recruiting expenses are not broken down by each sport but just the gross amount for men and women. In my sample I eliminated schools like Nova and GT because of their FB program. Here's what I found .
SH - Men $162,600. Women $254,659 Total $417,250
X. - Men $ 404,350. Women $197,700. Total $602,050
Cry.- Men $342,850. Women $ 99,700. Total $442,550
Mrq -Men $1,210,300 Women $189,100 Total $1,399,400. ( yes that number is what they report )
PC -Men $355,200. Women $198,400 Total $553,600
As you can see , the number for the men at SH is nowhere what the schools in my sample spend and that means to me that you have to manage your financial resources wisely.
Maybe.....but as I noted elsewhere...you have to be able to assess the situation and determine if you are a real "player" in the pursuit, or only a "courtesy" invite. Then have your "Plan B" and pursue that with as much vigor...and as you sense the blue chip is slipping away, make your move on B.
Old adage....about job....life...lol....certainly in poker....always better to know when to go (fold 'em), then to be told (hold 'em)!
I just don't get the discrediting of transfers. You still need to lure them to your school once they have transferred. Kansas could have 4/5ths of their starting lineup as transfers next season. All options need to be explored when putting together a team and that includes the hundreds of transfers that become available every year.
Can you imagine how good TT will be for Cuse this year? Oh that's right he transferred from the place that landed him out of high school.
Our recruiting strategy should not be "let's sit tight and hope somebody gets homesick."
Transfers are an important piece to the puzzle but your meat and potatoes needs to be 4 year players, and the staff needs to be able to recruit talented HS seniors if they want to be successful long term.
A couple of the main reasons I'm not a huge fan of transfers:
1) During their sit out year they eat up a scholarship but all you get is a practice player.
2) Often come with baggage. The vast majority of our transfers have been headaches - Herb Pope, Keon Lawrence, Sterling Gibbs, Stix Mitchell, Jeff Robinson, Jevon Thomas.
Last edited:
There isn't a single big east team that currently has a top 30 recruit signed in 2018 and we're losing it because we weren't able to land one of 3 targets who happen to all be top 20 recruits.
Nova became a national powerhouse on the backs of recruits 50-100.
We aren't there yet.. so 50 (probably really 75)-200 is where we need to live.
Cale, Walker, and Sandro are in that ballpark and so is TT. That is the type of class that will keep us relevant.
Myles Powell, Gordon and Madison Jones was also a decent year.
2015 was garbage and can't happen.
For 2018, we could still land 2-3 players in that range and maybe a contributing grad transfer.
I know it's difficult.. but just be patient. We have a top 25 team, last year's class was solid, and we landed a pretty good transfer.
Nova became a national powerhouse on the backs of recruits 50-100.
We aren't there yet.. so 50 (probably really 75)-200 is where we need to live.
Cale, Walker, and Sandro are in that ballpark and so is TT. That is the type of class that will keep us relevant.
Myles Powell, Gordon and Madison Jones was also a decent year.
2015 was garbage and can't happen.
For 2018, we could still land 2-3 players in that range and maybe a contributing grad transfer.
I know it's difficult.. but just be patient. We have a top 25 team, last year's class was solid, and we landed a pretty good transfer.
Your original statement - quoted above - implies KW's recruitment of Top 40 players, and King specifically is not the best use of our resources. That may or may not be the case. I was wondering if you had any support for your statement.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I think what he is saying is from a $ perspective, The Hall has LIMITED recruiting resources per the financial figures he stated so the staff might have to be more prudent than other programs. Heck, the women spent 56% more on recruiting than the men. I realize it's not apples to apples as depends where you are recruiting and the costs associated to getting to/from and bringing in the player to/from etc...
