How confident are you

[BigErnMcCracken]

Not happening. He'll bring in ok recruits, mostly high mid-major maybe. He might occasionally get lucky with an under the radar guy. But the combination of conference affiliation and his lack of a "name" (and please no he was a backup point guard for 13 years...nobody cares) will be huge obstacles. Calipari brought guys to UMass by paying them. He brought them to Memphis because he was Calipari. Just like Pitino brought guys to Louisville because he was Pitino. Calhoun could probably continue to recruit blue chippers to UConn even in the Big Mess conference. Ollie, not so much.

Yikes. This is one to be saved.

 

[upstater]

Conference affiliation excuse = taking the escalator...period. Confernce affiliation only helps the lower teams in a conference get a couple of Top 100 kids. It doesn't impact blue chip players. UConn will be on national TV plenty of times because we are now an elite program which has won 3 championships in the last 15 years. At this time, we don't need conference affiliation to get on national TV. We did in 1985 when we were a bottom feeder program. The blue chippers go where they think they need to go to have the best shot at getting into the NBA. That depends mostly on the coach. If KO continues to lose out on all of these kids, it will be on him as the contract excuse is gone. If he can't outrecruit Pastner, he shouldn't be our head coach.

Pastner gets top 20 guys. Pastner is a better recruiter than Jim Calhoun. When you fire Ollie, who is going to recruit these top guys, Shaka Smart?

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

If he can't outrecruit Pastner, he shouldn't be our head coach.

How much college basketball do you watch? If there's one thing Pastner can do, it's recruit. Calhoun didn't outrecruit Josh Pastner.

 

[freescooter]

Fair question. I'd say Daniels, Drummond were Big time recruits. Whether they are big time players at UConn is a different question, obviously, but all were highly rated recruits. I think Boatright was a high recruit too, certainly played that way. I don't remember where he ranked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan and Tolsdorf strike me as very low level recruits. Calhoun is a high level guy.
Facey & Samuel, from what I can gather are high mid-major, low major recruits. Facey seems to have come up a good deal since we first found him, and that is a good example of what I meant by sometimes getting lucky. he might be one of those cases. At the time he announced for UConn he was ranked around 100 (99 in at least one, Yahoo I think and high 80s in another) Now he's 60s. Samuel is 125 plus. He was mostly being looked at by A-10ish and some of the Big East Catholics (the lower level ones) To me he's an A-10 recruit. I don't think either of them are what you'd consider blue chip. Now you do need some role players to be successful. The perfect examples I guess would be Kevin Freeman or Ricky Moore. Neither had significant if any NBA careers. Both played crucial roles in our 1999 title run. So maybe Facey or Samuel become that kind of player.

If I were going to rank players by say top 100, I guess i would have 4 groups:
Super elite: 1-10. Maybe 1-20 depending on a particular year/position...so let's say 1-20. those are the guys everyone wants and if you land 2point guards you figure out a way to deal with it. the 5 star guys. Drummond was in this group.

Top Level D-1 players: 21-50ish. these are the guys you figure can come in and either start or play significant minutes as a true freshman, add significant value. Calhoun is a good example actually. He was ESPN low 30s. On the 2011 team he is definitely an off the bench guy. This year he sees significant time. Again, maybe it goes a little higher than 50 some years.

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Mid-major: Over 100. Not to say you can't have hidden gems or guys can't improve significantly with good coaching, or become significant role players. But if you sign these guys and they make major contributions, especially early in their careers, you are either a genius or exceptionally lucky.
Let me also say that these lines aren't firm fixed and a #23 guy can't turn out to be elite and a #19 just an ordinary player. As with any rankings, some of it is subjective and some is trying to project what a guy will do at the next level with better coaching, more consistent training regimen and so forth. And sometimes people don't completely agree. Facey is a good example. I think he's 68 on 1 ranking, 99 on another . In any case its pretty clear he isn't top 20 but different evaluators see different things. the other think you have is the guys who don't fall into an easy ranking. Thabeet is a great example. Big, athletic but little basketball skill. Actually lots of foreign players fall into this pot. Who knows really?

 

[uconNYC]

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Think you are a little off on this. Freeman, Okafor, Gordon, Lamb, Adrien, etc. were all in this range. You actually want the majority of your players coming from this range as they are likely to be solid and stay around for 3 or 4 years. You want one or two top 25 players to compliment them i.e. Hamilton and Kemba.

 

[CTBasketball]

I think we should go after Jahlil Okafor. Get Emeka on the phone we need this kid in Storrs.

 

[freescooter]

How much college basketball do you watch? If there's one thing Pastner can do, it's recruit. Calhoun didn't outrecruit Josh Pastner.

Pastner can recruit, but I'm not sure he can coach. And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East. he didn't do nearly as well last year (1 top 100) or the year before . It also doesn't hurt that Memphis allows you to fill out your application in crayon.

 

[CTBasketball]

Pastner can recruit, but I'm not sure he can coach. And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East. he didn't do nearly as well last year (1 top 100) or the year before . It also doesn't hurt that Memphis allows you to fill out your application in crayon.

Correct. UConn would have locked up Kuran Iverson if his grades were up to UConn par. They weren't, so we stopped pursuing him.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

And lots of his success with the 2013 class (4 ESPN Top 100)came as a result of Memphis going to the Big East.

How do you possibly demonstrate that? He's been an ace recruiter since he was a toddler at Arizona. He had the no. 1 ranked class in 2010 and top 5 classes two other years there.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Correct. UConn would have locked up Kuran Iverson if his grades were up to UConn par. They weren't, so we stopped pursuing him.

Oy. I know that we stopped pursuing him, but "would have locked up"?

 

[CTBasketball]

Oy. I know that we stopped pursuing him, but "would have locked up"?

In my opinion, yes.

 

[aceboon]

Not gonna address the other mumbo jumbo in this post regarding Facey & Samuel because you've been corrected numerous times on that but refuse to acknowledge it, but on the subject of Nolan being a low level recruit, he had offers from very major programs from BCS conferences, Clemson, Marq as has been discussed during the trip back home to play them, Baylor, Arizona. For comparison's sake he was rated higher and had much better offers than Hilton did.

Fair question. I'd say Daniels, Drummond were Big time recruits. Whether they are big time players at UConn is a different question, obviously, but all were highly rated recruits. I think Boatright was a high recruit too, certainly played that way. I don't remember where he ranked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan and Tolsdorf strike me as very low level recruits. Calhoun is a high level guy.
Facey & Samuel, from what I can gather are high mid-major, low major recruits. Facey seems to have come up a good deal since we first found him, and that is a good example of what I meant by sometimes getting lucky. he might be one of those cases. At the time he announced for UConn he was ranked around 100 (99 in at least one, Yahoo I think and high 80s in another) Now he's 60s. Samuel is 125 plus. He was mostly being looked at by A-10ish and some of the Big East Catholics (the lower level ones) To me he's an A-10 recruit. I don't think either of them are what you'd consider blue chip. Now you do need some role players to be successful. The perfect examples I guess would be Kevin Freeman or Ricky Moore. Neither had significant if any NBA careers. Both played crucial roles in our 1999 title run. So maybe Facey or Samuel become that kind of player.

If I were going to rank players by say top 100, I guess i would have 4 groups:
Super elite: 1-10. Maybe 1-20 depending on a particular year/position...so let's say 1-20. those are the guys everyone wants and if you land 2point guards you figure out a way to deal with it. the 5 star guys. Drummond was in this group.

Top Level D-1 players: 21-50ish. these are the guys you figure can come in and either start or play significant minutes as a true freshman, add significant value. Calhoun is a good example actually. He was ESPN low 30s. On the 2011 team he is definitely an off the bench guy. This year he sees significant time. Again, maybe it goes a little higher than 50 some years.

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Mid-major: Over 100. Not to say you can't have hidden gems or guys can't improve significantly with good coaching, or become significant role players. But if you sign these guys and they make major contributions, especially early in their careers, you are either a genius or exceptionally lucky.
Let me also say that these lines aren't firm fixed and a #23 guy can't turn out to be elite and a #19 just an ordinary player. As with any rankings, some of it is subjective and some is trying to project what a guy will do at the next level with better coaching, more consistent training regimen and so forth. And sometimes people don't completely agree. Facey is a good example. I think he's 68 on 1 ranking, 99 on another . In any case its pretty clear he isn't top 20 but different evaluators see different things. the other think you have is the guys who don't fall into an easy ranking. Thabeet is a great example. Big, athletic but little basketball skill. Actually lots of foreign players fall into this pot. Who knows really?

 

[aceboon]

How do you possibly demonstrate that? He's been an ace recruiter since he was a toddler at Arizona. He had the no. 1 ranked class in 2010 and top 5 classes two other years there.

He'll do the usual and refuse to acknowledge this, lol @ moving to the BE helping Pastner.

 

[CTBasketball]

Terrence Samuels will be a great point guard. Watch.

 

[freescooter]

Not gonna address the other mumbo jumbo in this post regarding Facey & Samuel because you've been corrected numerous times on that but refuse to acknowledge it, but on the subject of Nolan being a low level recruit, he had offers from very major programs from BCS conferences, Clemson, Marq as has been discussed during the trip back home to play them, Baylor, Arizona. For comparison's sake he was rated higher and had much better offers than Hilton did.

ace, I just looked up Facey. he is now #100 on the ESPN Top 100. Look it up. He has moved up and down within that list,but he's mostly been in the 90s. He is ranked better in the rivals 150, #65 I think.. The ESPN 100 is linked. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/b...rankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2013

Samuel is not rated in the ESPN and is something like 115 on rivals. that is a move up from 125 a few weeks ago. Again, here's the link. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2752
Nolan was unranked by ESPN and he was 120 or so on Rivals. Not sure what Hilton has to do with any of this. He was one of those guys who wasn't highly rated but developed under the tutelage of a hall of fame head coach. I admitted that those things happen but Nolan isn't Hilton and Ollie isn't Calhoun. So we'll see how it works out. I haven't gone back to check box scores, but I think Hilton saw more action as a freshman on a team that had better front court players. make of that what you will.
I accept your apology.

 

[caw]

Fair question. I'd say Daniels, Drummond were Big time recruits. Whether they are big time players at UConn is a different question, obviously, but all were highly rated recruits. I think Boatright was a high recruit too, certainly played that way. I don't remember where he ranked.
On the other end of the spectrum, Nolan and Tolsdorf strike me as very low level recruits. Calhoun is a high level guy.
Facey & Samuel, from what I can gather are high mid-major, low major recruits. Facey seems to have come up a good deal since we first found him, and that is a good example of what I meant by sometimes getting lucky. he might be one of those cases. At the time he announced for UConn he was ranked around 100 (99 in at least one, Yahoo I think and high 80s in another) Now he's 60s. Samuel is 125 plus. He was mostly being looked at by A-10ish and some of the Big East Catholics (the lower level ones) To me he's an A-10 recruit. I don't think either of them are what you'd consider blue chip. Now you do need some role players to be successful. The perfect examples I guess would be Kevin Freeman or Ricky Moore. Neither had significant if any NBA careers. Both played crucial roles in our 1999 title run. So maybe Facey or Samuel become that kind of player.

If I were going to rank players by say top 100, I guess i would have 4 groups:
Super elite: 1-10. Maybe 1-20 depending on a particular year/position...so let's say 1-20. those are the guys everyone wants and if you land 2point guards you figure out a way to deal with it. the 5 star guys. Drummond was in this group.

Top Level D-1 players: 21-50ish. these are the guys you figure can come in and either start or play significant minutes as a true freshman, add significant value. Calhoun is a good example actually. He was ESPN low 30s. On the 2011 team he is definitely an off the bench guy. This year he sees significant time. Again, maybe it goes a little higher than 50 some years.

Low Major-High Mid-majors: 51-100 Guys that are going to start at A-10 schools, but have a shot to play at higher level schools but may be more of a project/have a high learning curve at one of the elite programs like Louisville, North Carolina or (formerly) UConn. some of them become really good players over time.

Mid-major: Over 100. Not to say you can't have hidden gems or guys can't improve significantly with good coaching, or become significant role players. But if you sign these guys and they make major contributions, especially early in their careers, you are either a genius or exceptionally lucky.
Let me also say that these lines aren't firm fixed and a #23 guy can't turn out to be elite and a #19 just an ordinary player. As with any rankings, some of it is subjective and some is trying to project what a guy will do at the next level with better coaching, more consistent training regimen and so forth. And sometimes people don't completely agree. Facey is a good example. I think he's 68 on 1 ranking, 99 on another . In any case its pretty clear he isn't top 20 but different evaluators see different things. the other think you have is the guys who don't fall into an easy ranking. Thabeet is a great example. Big, athletic but little basketball skill. Actually lots of foreign players fall into this pot. Who knows really?

Thanks, that does clear things up a good bit. I agree there is some room to argue where exactly the cut off is. I do think things change year to year, so I won't hold it to you exactly.

UConn has never exactly been a destination school. UConn isn't UK, Duke, UNC, UCLA, Indiana, etc. when it comes to recruiting. I would be pretty happy if UConn is filling it's roster with guys 51-100 every year.

That said, I would be shocked if Ollie doesn't get a top ten-top twenty guy in 2014, or 2015, but it really is all opinion right now because there is zero evidence on either side.

ace, I just looked up Facey. he is now #100 on the ESPN Top 100. Look it up. He has moved up and down within that list,but he's mostly been in the 90s. He is ranked better in the rivals 150, #65 I think.. The ESPN 100 is linked. http://espn.go.com/college-sports/b...rankings/_/view/espnu100/sort/rank/class/2013

Samuel is not rated in the ESPN and is something like 115 on rivals. that is a move up from 125 a few weeks ago. Again, here's the link.http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/rankings/rank-2752
Nolan was unranked by ESPN and he was 120 or so on Rivals. Not sure what Hilton has to do with any of this. He was one of those guys who wasn't highly rated but developed under the tutelage of a hall of fame head coach. I admitted that those things happen but Nolan isn't Hilton and Ollie isn't Calhoun. So we'll see how it works out. I haven't gone back to check box scores, but I think Hilton saw more action as a freshman on a team that had better front court players. make of that what you will.
I accept your apology.

It should be noted that if you count Facey and Samuel as Calhoun recruits, then you also have to note that they may be better than their rankings, maybe even considerably so.

I'm not sure when espn last updated their rankings, but I'm pretty sure Facey has never been higher and he should move up next time they rank players. He is currently almost criminally underranked by ESPN.

Samuel, I can see not ranking him, he doesn't wow in a lot of AAU games. He does a lot of facilitating and isn't always the main PG on the team. I think if he were more ball dominate he would be higher up the lists because he is quite good. He may never be an all american or an NBA player but he should be a solid 4 year player at worst, IMO.

We shall see where things go in 2014...until KO actually signs someone...

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

John Calipari's starting backcourt on the vacated UMass Final Four team was a couple of 25-year-old semi-pros from Puerto Rico with fabricated high school transcripts. The transcripts themselves were virtual carbon copies - same classes, same grades, even the same damn birthdate! I still can't believe they were ever allowed to play. I lost all faith in the NCAA after that.

 

[Mr. Wonderful]

As to the topic of recruiting rankings - they're fun for internet arguments but their value as actual predictors of ability is poor at best.

After you get past the top 40, recruiting rankings become a complete crapshoot. The guys who compile them are doing nothing more than WAG'ing.

 

[HooperScooper]

As to the topic of recruiting rankings - they're fun for internet arguments but their value as actual predictors of ability is poor at best.

After you get past the top 40, recruiting rankings become a complete crapshoot. The guys who compile them are doing nothing more than WAG'ing.

I follow recruiting and I'd say the cut off is more like top 20-25. After that kids 26-100 could be jumbled any way. Go through some old rankings and take a look at the top 100. I went through one and more kids ranked in the 50-70 range ended up in the NBA than 30-50. As I always said I used to trust JC way more than the rankings. It's still to be determined if Ollie has that same eye for talent.

 

[TheChamps990411]

if we could pick up a center who could rebound,block shots and get some garbage baskets we could be in great shape especially if bazz and boat come back. i think omar is going to be a stud for the next 3 years (will be great college player not sure if he has the quickness for the nba) so with omar bazz and boat scoring a ton of points all you need is some rebounding and defense at the 4 and 5 and we could make a serious run next year. college is all about guard play just look at 2011

 

[freescooter]

ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.

 

[HuskyBballFan]

ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.

Yes, Hilton was a better player. But Nolan was the more highly ranked player. Just one of a million examples suggesting that rankings mean next to nothing, especially once you get past the truly elite tier.

 

[aceboon]

ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.

Dude, you missed the entire point, you said Nolan was a low level recruit. Who knows how Nolan will turn out(I like him and feel he has alot of potential), the point was Nolan had offers from programs in major conferences, unlike Hilton who I believe had a next best offer from LaSalle besides UConn. Nolan was not a low level recruit.

 

[aceboon]

if we could pick up a center who could rebound,block shots and get some garbage baskets we could be in great shape especially if bazz and boat come back. i think omar is going to be a stud for the next 3 years (will be great college player not sure if he has the quickness for the nba) so with omar bazz and boat scoring a ton of points all you need is some rebounding and defense at the 4 and 5 and we could make a serious run next year. college is all about guard play just look at 2011

Pretty much how I feel, Boat, Bazz, Omar & DeAndre should all be better than what they are this year, except possibly Bazz who is already playing at a very high level. That should be one of the best perimeter cores in the country next year. All we need is bigs to rebound, set screens, defend and score the occasional garbage bucket and I think we'll be fine on that end. Obviously the biggest issue is rebounding and defending the paint tho, Wolf seems to be trying to get there but consistency and avoiding fouls is his biggest issue. Another offseason of putting in work and hopefully he'll get to the point where he is reliable.

 

[caw]

ace,
Looked it up last night. Hilton started 22 games and played in 32 on a team that had a much better front court, including Okafor, Hazleton, Marcus White (who was a hell of a rebounder) Tooles, any one of whom would start for us now. That was a much better front court team than the current group. On a team with a weak front court Nolan saw time in 10 of 13 and averaged about 9 minutes/game. Hilton averaged 11 his first year. So let's not try and compare Hilton and Nolan based on recruiting ranking. Hilton was a much better player.

Leaving out Okafor, as he played the 5 that year.

White was a great rebounder, he only played in 23 games as a freshman. He got lost in the shuffle and didn't show enough in practice. Showed a lot once Blaney put him in. One of the best moves Blaney ever made with Calhoun out. Ended up with 17 minutes per game and took most of Hilton's minutes after he got a chance.

Tooles played 11 minutes per game in 02-03 and averaged 2 and 2.

Hazelton got 12 minutes per game in 02-03 and averaged 5 and 2.

Aside from White, I don't think any of those players comes close to starting over Daniels at the 4 and none are big enough for the five spot. The only reason White might start is because of his rebounding and even then it's not a sure thing IMO.

Hilton started because the rest of the fours were pretty bad when he was a freshman. That said, I do think Hilton started at a higher point than Nolan, not much higher, but higher.