Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Bottom line with recruiting, Willard has recruited 2 Top 100 kids in 8 years. (Cale and Powell). Of course the exception is this year's senior class in which jobs were given away to get Delgado and Whitehead.
I don't count transfers as recruiting. TT was great to get this year as a transfer. But could you imagine how good this team would be if he was recruited out of high school? You can't rely on players being dissatisfied with their original school to transfer to SHU. Think about it, Sterling Gibbs and TT are two top 100 recruits that equals the amount of top 100 recruits actually recruited out of high school by the staff. Sorry, this is woefully bad recruiting.
Losing out on some top local talent is inevitable.It's going to be ok. Not losing my mind because we didn't land an overall top 17 recruit (per 247). Let's let it playout.
I'd think almost anyone would be an upgrade at this point.
Willard has done a nice job getting the team to the tournament these last 2 years. That being said, I hope they make a deep run this year and he leaves for a bigger job.
He's not building a program here.
Not a surprise. I posted that Ohio State was the favorite months ago.
We weren't getting Quinerly or Reid. But we had a great shot at King. GREAT.
Despite everyone's disappointment SHU did a fabulous job with King.
Unfortunately only the bottom line counts in most cases. Nike clearly won out here.
How about hiring the next Kimani Young or Book Richardson, this way you can recruit kids every year?
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.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.
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.so why is Nike so interested on where a kid goes to college? if they were that interested they would start at the youngest level and have entire top 100 at nike schools if they wanted to. I have a hard time wrapping my head around corporate Nike in a meeting saying "we need king to go to oregon"
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.so why is Nike so interested on where a kid goes to college? if they were that interested they would start at the youngest level and have entire top 100 at nike schools if they wanted to. I have a hard time wrapping my head around corporate Nike in a meeting saying "we need king to go to oregon"
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.
I think its irrelevant for my question. Why is king so important to them? Why dont they just get the top guysTo 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."
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.
He will announce for Oregon. It's over.Did I miss the announcement or are we all working off the general consensus that its Oregon? Just curious bc I'm not seeing it anywhere.
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.I think its irrelevant for my question. Why is king so important to them? Why dont they just get the top guys
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.Oregon was a final 4 team. Hard to compete with that. Can someone explain the role the Nike and UA play in these kid's recruitment? How do the kids benefit?
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.
We need more suitcases filled with $$$. Just when you think recruiting can't get dirtier, it continuously does. To think what you do on the court is the main attraction is completely false. You have to keep up with the Jones' in the ugly world of recruiting.
As a side note, Oregon has a very good cheerleading team.
This is a new one. Now it's tough to compete against a final 4 team. Let me add this to the Bingo card, which i'm almost done with.
LOL this is hilarious...needed this today
Ummmm-- you're right: Oregon isn't just another Nike school--it's THE Nike school. I thought everyone on here knew about about Phil Knight and the history of Nike and Oregon. Isn't that obvious?To be clear, Oregon is NOT just another Nike school. They use the school as a test market, training ground, etc... and pump money into the coffers like nobody's business.
Origin of the relationship?
"Nike, originally known as Blue Ribbon Sports (BRS), was founded by University of Oregon track athlete Phil Knight and his coach Bill Bowerman in January 1964."
What do you call assuming no money was given... all schools do it, ALL...So you have some facts to share with us about that?
Or is it just your assumption? If so, alleging 'suitcases filled with $$$' is pretty irresponsible.
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 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?
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.
Bottom line with recruiting, Willard has recruited 2 Top 100 kids in 8 years. (Cale and Powell). Of course the exception is this year's senior class in which jobs were given away to get Delgado and Whitehead.
I don't count transfers as recruiting. TT was great to get this year as a transfer. But could you imagine how good this team would be if he was recruited out of high school? You can't rely on players being dissatisfied with their original school to transfer to SHU. Think about it, Sterling Gibbs and TT are two top 100 recruits that equals the amount of top 100 recruits actually recruited out of high school by the staff. Sorry, this is woefully bad recruiting.
Best postOn last year’s team we had 2 top 100 players (Angel and Powell) and we were a 9 seed in the NCAA tournament.
Next year we have 3 top 100 players (Powell, Cale, and TT). Going off of high school rankings (which is the focus of so many on here).. Gordon, Walker, and Sandro are ranked higher than everyone else other than KC.
It's going to be ok. Not losing my mind because we didn't land an overall top 17 recruit (per 247). Let's let it playout.
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.
Pacific?
I'm not suggesting that at all .There is no evidence that we unwisely managing our resources.
Our recruiting strategy should not be "let's sit tight and hope somebody gets homesick."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.
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.
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...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.