A recruiting season unike the others

[Palatine]

It's pretty interesting, we usually get our first recruits near or after the coaches camp. This year our first camp is June 16th and we already have four (going on five) recruits. This group of coaches seems to evaluate, offer and move very quickly to close.

This also shows why an early signing period would benefit a team like the Huskies. This year the Huskies have to protect these kids from poaching all the way to February. If one of these kids blows up and has a great season, the vultures of larger programs will appear. As it is now, we have to continue to recruit these kids for the next eight months. A September signing period would make the process more manageable for the Huskies.

 

[coachcap]

I have a feeling that you won't have to worry about these kids getting poached. They seem to genuinely want to be at UCONN & coached by this staff.

 

[weyuo]

Being bowl eligible by Halloween should solve that problem.

 

[Dooley]

I love our 2015 class. I think they are Hungry Huskies and love UCONN but I agree that if they have solid senior years, that P5 schools will circle around like vultures. If UCONN can get a few early season wins and our stadium is packed to the top with screaming fans, then it would be a tougher sell job for the vultures.

 

[FDNY99]

Pal...you said the key word in your post..."close"...we have never had a collective staff that has a closure reputation like we do now.

 

[sportsart]

I also think if these kids couldn't play at a high level, they don't get a "committable offer" this early. I like 'em.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

This board was in panic mode a few weeks ago cause we didn't have any commits.

 

[UConnDan97]

This board was in panic mode a few weeks ago cause we didn't have any commits.

I had the same exact thought!

I will say that I'm happy that we are landing what look to be big, talented kids who want to be here. It's also fun to see that Rivls is up to its old tricks again, where kids who were unrated suddenly become 2-star prospects after committing to UConn. We love you too, Rivls...

 

[sdhusky]

I had the same exact thought!

I will say that I'm happy that we are landing what look to be big, talented kids who want to be here. It's also fun to see that Rivls is up to its old tricks again, where kids who were unrated suddenly become 2-star prospects after committing to UConn. We love you too, Rivls...

That's rivals policy. If a player commits to a BCS level school, players that haven't been evaluated automatically get 2 stars. After they've been evaluated, they either stay at 2 stars or move up.

This is nothing new and nothing directed at UCONN.

 

[J187Money]

That's rivals policy. If a player commits to a BCS level school, players that haven't been evaluated automatically get 2 stars. After they've been evaluated, they either stay at 2 stars or move up. This is nothing new and nothing directed at UCONN.

You have to have some system. Too many players and it isn't like rivals has the cash to evaluate them all.

 

[UConnDan97]

That's rivals policy. If a player commits to a BCS level school, players that haven't been evaluated automatically get 2 stars. After they've been evaluated, they either stay at 2 stars or move up.

This is nothing new and nothing directed at UCONN.

I've seen kids go for quite some time with no ranking post-commitment to UConn, so I'm not sure if what you're telling me is true. In fact, I'll wait to see how long they keep Okounam as unrated.

But even if you're right, what a stupid system. They should leave a player unrated until you've seen anything remotely resembling data to allow you to rate him. Otherwise, what they're saying is, "We're not going to take the time to rate that kid because he wasn't offered by the SEC or the B1G, because that's who pays us our subscriptions." Which statement do you think holds more true, yours or mine?

 

[APA]

I've seen kids go for quite some time with no ranking post-commitment to UConn, so I'm not sure if what you're telling me is true. In fact, I'll wait to see how long they keep Okounam as unrated.

But even if you're right, what a stupid system. They should leave a player unrated until you've seen anything remotely resembling data to allow you to rate him. Otherwise, what they're saying is, "We're not going to take the time to rate that kid because he wasn't offered by the SEC or the B1G, because that's who pays us our subscriptions." Which statement do you think holds more true, yours or mine?

SD husky is correct

 

[sportsart]

SD husky is correct