2020 Recruiting: Cam Thomas

[soxfan23]

This is a stupid post. Stop posting about things you know nothing about. Go back to thinking UConn should be winning recruiting battles v. LSU. Just keep it off the yard we are trying to discuss actual recruiting here not your fantasies.

So you really think that every recruit UConn loses is because the kid got paid?

 

[soxfan23]

Care to expound on this?

You think UConn is playing the same recruiting game LSU, Auburn, Duke, Oregon etc. are playing?

No, I think you are being naive thinking that every lost recruit is because of money

 

[soxfan23]

It's one of the biggest factors in recruiting. And that's from plenty of boots on the ground types. Whenever you see a monster class go somewhere, that's a big part of the reason. When a kid commits out of the blue, quite often the reason. When certain schools grab big recruits, that's the reason. Certain coaches....etc

No, it's not every kid, especially the further you get away from the top 50. But if you can't recognize and accept that, it's tough to follow college basketball.

And this isn't a criticism of kids. I'd be looking for the bag too. Gotta get paid.

I absolutely accept it happens, hell UConn was guilty of it during the glory days, my points was some(not all) posters think that every time a recruit doesn't pick UConn it is because of money.

 

[UCfor3]

Nobody said every. When these SEC schools are involved and some of these others from the FBI probe....

 

[superjohn]

I absolutely accept it happens, hell UConn was guilty of it during the glory days, my points was some(not all) posters think that every time a recruit doesn't pick UConn it is because of money.

You're bloviating badly.

 

[polycom]

So you really think that every recruit UConn loses is because the kid got paid?

not every recruit but to certain schools yes

 

[gtcam]

If you lose a high ranked kid (Top 100) to Zona, LSU, Auburn, Kensucky, UNC, Kansas, Louisville and now Duke, I have a definite feeling it's because of cash and money related perks.
If you lose to Gtown, Nova, etc - its because the kid wanted to go there for other reasons
I have little trust in SEC and ACC programs
EVERY school bends some things to get all sorts of athletes - if not you can't compete

 

[Hoophound]

If you lose a high ranked kid (Top 100) to Zona, LSU, Auburn, Kensucky, UNC, Kansas, Louisville and now Duke, I have a definite feeling it's because of cash and money related perks.
If you lose to Gtown, Nova, etc - its because the kid wanted to go there for other reasons
I have little trust in SEC and ACC programs
EVERY school bends some things to get all sorts of athletes - if not you can't compete

This. Dead on.

 

[intlzncster]

If you lose a high ranked kid (Top 100) to Zona, LSU, Auburn, Kensucky, UNC, Kansas, Louisville and now Duke, I have a definite feeling it's because of cash and money related perks.
If you lose to Gtown, Nova, etc - its because the kid wanted to go there for other reasons
I have little trust in SEC and ACC programs
EVERY school bends some things to get all sorts of athletes - if not you can't compete

Add UCLA, Oregon, WKU (lol) into that group, among others.

Probably shouldn't say "and now" Duke. They've been at that game for a looong time now.

 

[DonaldDraper]

I think the combination of tradition and education at Duke has made it a magnet to the point where they no longer have to put a penny on the table to get the best recruits. It is self-propagating.

There may have been some cash floating around at some point, but I don’t think K needs it now. He can select kids that don’t need to play the $$ game and it makes his team better/easier to manage.

I also feel like the prestige of Kentucky (basketball, not academics) has the same vibe. They are the media darlings and that has a unique allure.

 

[Dogman69]

If you lose a high ranked kid (Top 100) to Zona, LSU, Auburn, Kensucky, UNC, Kansas, Louisville and now Duke, I have a definite feeling it's because of cash and money related perks.
If you lose to Gtown, Nova, etc - its because the kid wanted to go there for other reasons
I have little trust in SEC and ACC programs
EVERY school bends some things to get all sorts of athletes - if not you can't compete

Add Georgetown to this list. They paid for a guy we all know. Then someone else came in and paid more.

 

[Kenny11]

Add Georgetown to this list. They paid for a guy we all know. Then someone else came in and else paid more.

Yale even cut a check for that one lol

 

[intlzncster]

I think the combination of tradition and education at Duke has made it a magnet to the point where they no longer have to put a penny on the table to get the best recruits. It is self-propagating.

There may have been some cash floating around at some point, but I don’t think K needs it now. He can select kids that don’t need to play the $$ game and it makes his team better/easier to manage.

I also feel like the prestige of Kentucky (basketball, not academics) has the same vibe. They are the media darlings and that has a unique allure.

Man, Duke and UK have, currently, some of the biggest pay for play programs going. The stuff that goes on is not at all a secret. Cash, cars, houses, jobs, etc.

Recruits don't turned down 100k and housing for family just to get that Duke University tradition and education. Duke outbids.

 

[Engineer90]

Some of you did a great job laying this out. I can't believe, given all that was uncovered by the FBI probe, that some people still don't think we lost highly ranked players to schools that paid them. How friggen naive do you have to be to still think that?! And the old debate tactic of claiming that people believe that every recruit we lose is because of money is getting really old. No one has ever said that. Not ever! It is only the highly ranked kids and, even then, some of the losses were for other reasons. However, MANY of our losses on top recruits have been due to money. As you go up the ladder, the percentages get higher. The percentage of top 20ish kids that we have lost due to money is very high.

 

[kemba]

Some of you did a great job laying this out. I can't believe, given all that was uncovered by the FBI probe, that some people still don't think we lost highly ranked players to schools that paid them. How friggen naive do you have to be to still think that?! And the old debate tactic of claiming that people believe that every recruit we lose is because of money is getting really old. No one has ever said that. Not ever! It is only the highly ranked kids and, even then, some of the losses were for other reasons. However, MANY of our losses on top recruits have been due to money. As you go up the ladder, the percentages get higher. The percentage of top 20ish kids that we have lost due to money is very high.

Yet you pull the same debate tactic and claim that people are saying no recruit we've ever lost went somewhere else for money.

The naivety is believing that its going on this huge degree....yet UConn is above it and its impossible they would ever do anything like that. The fbi probe did not just uncover sec schools and huge p5 programs. When Cockburn committed to Illinois out of nowhere after his visit it was treated like fact around here he must have gotten paid yet when UConn landed Jackson after his visit after Cuse being seen as the favorite for a long time it was all about how Hurley just must be awesome on official visits.

It goes on a massive amount of the time all throughout college basketball. To act like anyone knows specifically what schools and what recruits beyond what's been found in investigations is silly

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

I think the combination of tradition and education at Duke has made it a magnet to the point where they no longer have to put a penny on the table to get the best recruits. It is self-propagating.

There may have been some cash floating around at some point, but I don’t think K needs it now. He can select kids that don’t need to play the $$ game and it makes his team better/easier to manage.

Can I talk to you about some investment opportunities?

 

[Chief00]

Quite frankly, Chief probably has more insight than most on this issue, we have definitely loss players to $’s, regardless of how the $’s are structured.

 

[Kmba2Rmemba]

@Zionn, put me out of my misery on this one

 

[Zionn]

@Zionn, put me out of my misery on this one

 

[Dooooooomed]

But not a Next... hmmmmmm

 

[intlzncster]

reaper

Not to pick nits, but you gotta have the "game over. you lose" in there. all about the brand.

 

[AntG168]

Bizarre. The Andre Jackson excuse makes little to no sense. Something changed in the last couple of weeks. I’d love a hard pivot to Kadary here. Make Syracuse fans lose their mind lol

 

[Cuse Socks]

He deleted an Instagram post from a year ago when he officially visited UConn

 

[uchusky32]

Hope it:s not . But Jackson, Bouk, Gaffney, Cole, Sid and a little of Adams on the wing with the possibility of AG maybe stayung around could make him think about it. Yra, he is that good so he shouldn't worry about competition. But Bouk as a sophomore should be the starting 2. With Sid or more likely Jackson on the other wing.

 

[DonaldDraper]

Can I talk to you about some investment opportunities?

Sure, but my preference would be to name the players from those schools that took $$ in the last 3 years. What did the package look like?

Another interesting tidbit would be What % of the top 10 and top 50 players are getting $. How is that cash being delivered?

What I'm trying to understand is how many cash-free recruits there are in the super elite top 10 and elite top 50.

Could you theoretically build a team without paying kids?