how does recruitment work?

[Dillon77]

Bold and candid words from a Gamecock. Overall, I've feared (and respected) Notre Dame the most for the past 15 years for what you say. But Muffet is getting on in age as well (she's only 18 months younger than Geno, and somehow she can't seem to change that), and so we enter the land of "you never know." At some point pretty soon, potential recruits are going to ask two questions of Geno and Muffet: 1. will you stay for the next 4 years; 2. if you are committed to staying the next four years, will you continue to have the same energy and enthusiasm for coaching? Geno and Muffet may answer "yes" to both questions, but about the second question competing coaches will whisper "no way" in the ears of recruits. Time is a cruel leveler....

Good musings. As for #1, she's signed up until next decade. According to an article on the ND website, which I've linkeed below, "...Notre Dame VP & director of athletics Jack Swarbrick saw to that when he signed McGraw to an extension in July 2012 that will keep McGraw in her current position through the 2021-22 campaign. Her place was further cemented in February 2015, when hers became the first coaching position at Notre Dame to be fully endowed, funded by a $5 million gift from one of her former players, 1991 graduate Karen (Robinson) Keyes and her husband... Kevin Keyes."

As for #2, she seems very committed by all appearances: her one son is grown and her husband offers solid support and counsel, plus she's got a committed, dedicated coaching staff. But, as you said, who knows down the line when she gets a bit closer to the end of that extension?

Until then, will continue to enjoy everything she, her staff and players have done.

BTW, here's a link to the article: http://www.und.com/sports/w-baskbl/spec-rel/120915aaa.html

 

[bags27]

McGraw in her current position through the 2021-22 campaign.

Thanks for all the info. And I'm not surprised by the length of the contract. But contracts aren't people. They don't age, get sick, suddenly have other priorities with members of their own families, realize that they've pretty much already accomplished most of what they set out to do etc. What I was trying to say is that once a person in a very high stress job turns ~60, the unforeseen things multiple and we can't really predict their future with confidence. In the meantime, we should all enjoy watching (and some of us--not me!--will root for) the second best coach in women's college basketball.

 

[Fightin Choke]

I knew I would take some heat about this. Bleak, not by other's standards, but by ours. That is, will it support a 5th, 6th, 7th etc. National Championship? That's what we're used to. Not hardly, and not only in the post either, although that's the most glaring deficiency. Ideally, you don't replace a player when they're gone; you provide overlap. One by one our most coveted have gone elsewhere.

Fighting Choke's data supports my argument.
2013
Saniya Chong (75, 75, 30) one recruit, still not a starter

2014
Gabby Williams (14, 18, 6) excellent
Kia Nurse (33, foreign, 10) a good serendipitous late find
Sadie Edwards (17, 8, 9) gone
Courtney Ekmark (31, 26, 14) a non-factor so far

2015
Katie Lou Samuelson (1, 2, 1) a starter
Napheesa Collier (6, 6, 5) a question mark with high hopes
De'Janae Boykin (23, 21, 9) gone

2016: Crystal Dangerfield (3, 4, 3) should be excellent
Kyla Irwin (unranked, 103, 44) unranked
Molly Bent (unranked, unranked, 111) unranked

It's not like I'm blaming anyone in particular, they just don't portend a continuing string of NC's. Geno et. al. are miracle workers, maybe they'll prove me wrong, I hope.

Meanwhile will the guy who first predicted that the AAC would hurt our recruiting please stand up and take a bow? Ok, ok there may be other reasons as well.

I think you are missing the point. If you compared other schools recruiting since your blockbuster 2012 class, you would find that you would probably not change your recruits with any other teams (based on merit, not affection, because of course you love your Huskies). While you certainly may look at the 2016 class as a disappointment, your previous class was ridiculously awesome, as most people believe that Collier was under-ranked at 5th/6th. You would have had the highest ranked class but another school with 5 recruits took that honor, as the ranking services reward large classes. After a class like that, it would be expected that the 2016 class would be less highly regarded, because top players question whether they want to share time with/back up awesome players that are a year ahead of them. (That was also the explanation for the lackluster 2013 class.) The class of 2014 was also a top class, ranked second, I believe.

 

[CocoHusky]

The other aspect of recruiting parity that does not get enough attention is the simple fact that all number 1 are not created equal, thus all recruiting classes not equal.

 

[UcMiami]

SCGamecock - really nice post. Not sure about the ND prediction, but I agree with much of what you say. I think Geno mentioned something like the following:
In the women's game, if you can put together a class like Stewart, Moriah, and Morgan and then surround them with other good players, and coach them well you will dominate for 3-4 years. You could do the same on the men's side if you could keep them all together for 4 years, but with the NBA calling, it never happens any more.

I would add:
1. Coaching - it is spottier in WCBB than at other levels so there are fewer coaches who have the ability to reach consistency regardless of their ability to land great players - Geno, Muffet, Tara, and Gunter/Chatman are the only coaches to string together 5 final fours in a row which represents two completely different teams between the first and last. Others like Kim and Brenda and even Pat have only been able to get to when they had a specific group of great players.

2. ND may be the most impressive in that they have not consistently gotten the top players - Muffet has recruited very well but she hasn't gotten quite as many clearly outstanding HS players - she has been construction teams with mostly 5-30 ranked players who buy into her system and play tough.

3. Baylor and TX seem to be in a golden period as far as recruiting (following on the heels of SC) and they should be challenging consistently for the next 4 years. Some of the Pac also seem to be stringing together interesting classes. Whether the coaching and balance of the recruiting will match the talent being accumulated is yet to be seen.

4. I actually think the SEC might be a detriment to development of dominant teams - the style of play and the refereeing of games does not help teams develop well rounded games. There is talent and the league is balanced down through maybe #10, but the offenses and defenses are not creative enough to really challenge the good teams and expose weaknesses that need to be corrected. The same might be true for the Pac with a slight variation - not enough focus on defensive intensity.

5. While developing great RPI numbers by playing creatively terrible OOC schedules may help a league get teams into the NCAA and to better seedings, I think it really hurts overall development of individual teams - Maryland this year probably didn't get as much done as they should have early in the season because they were flattered by the ease with which they ran through a dreadful OOC. The same has been true for a number of other teams through the years. Coaches and players need challenges and even losses early to really know what they have and what they need to work on.

 

[Dillon77]

Thanks for all the info. And I'm not surprised by the length of the contract. But contracts aren't people. They don't age, get sick, suddenly have other priorities with members of their own families, realize that they've pretty much already accomplished most of what they set out to do etc. What I was trying to say is that once a person in a very high stress job turns ~60, the unforeseen things multiple and we can't really predict their future with confidence. In the meantime, we should all enjoy watching (and some of us--not me!--will root for) the second best coach in women's college basketball.

Point taken. I graduated from college (77) the same year as Muffet so your points about Age 60 ring familiar, if not downright true. As we both said, we'll enjoy it while it's still humming. In a few years, however, I'm sure there will be several threads wondering who will take the reins over in South Bend. Now, back to our regularly scheduled season.

 

[Sonny44]

I think you are missing the point. If you compared other schools recruiting since your blockbuster 2012 class, you would find that you would probably not change your recruits with any other teams (based on merit, not affection, because of course you love your Huskies). While you certainly may look at the 2016 class as a disappointment, your previous class was ridiculously awesome, as most people believe that Collier was under-ranked at 5th/6th. You would have had the highest ranked class but another school with 5 recruits took that honor, as the ranking services reward large classes. After a class like that, it would be expected that the 2016 class would be less highly regarded, because top players question whether they want to share time with/back up awesome players that are a year ahead of them. (That was also the explanation for the lackluster 2013 class.) The class of 2014 was also a top class, ranked second, I believe.

I'm not missing any point. I'm simply saying that this level of recruiting won't support a string of NC's like we're used to. We'll have to wait a couple of years to know whether I am correct. Again, I hope I'm not.
You seem to missing my point. We don't want to be like "any other teams".

 

[SCGamecock]

Here's the SEC's problem.... as far as WCBB, it's a league pretty much built on the backs of the Tennessee Lady Vols and that Lady Vol style of play. The entire league is still playing the game as if physicality and rebounding are the only things that matter. Coaches recruit players that fit that style of play then the cycle continues and most SEC schools recruit within the region.

A lot of the coaches in our league are in their 30s and 40s, so they're still developing their style in a way and I think things will improve as more SEC schools begin recruiting nationally. For instance, just by looking at our own recruiting and the players Dawn is going after I can tell that SC is putting more emphasis on offense and recruiting players nationally with various offensive skill sets.

I think Vanderbilt and Missouri have creative offenses based on spacing. They just don't have the athletes to execute at an elite level yet. As a conference, the SEC has always gone the way of whatever particular power program is dominant. Tennessee gave the league its current style of play but as South Carolina rises I think more teams in the league will try to emulate whatever the gamecocks decide to do in coming years.. Hopefully we bring about some offensive innovation.

 

[JordyG]

The other aspect of recruiting parity that does not get enough attention is the simple fact that all number 1 are not created equal, thus all recruiting classes not equal.

Again, you're 100% correct. Further, not all relatively equal #1 recruits turn out to be the commodity they were projected to be. Not all equivalent #1's have the intangibles necessary to lead their teams to championships.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

SCGamecock - really nice post. Not sure about the ND prediction, but I agree with much of what you say. I think Geno mentioned something like the following:
In the women's game, if you can put together a class like Stewart, Moriah, and Morgan and then surround them with other good players, and coach them well you will dominate for 3-4 years. You could do the same on the men's side if you could keep them all together for 4 years, but with the NBA calling, it never happens any more.

I would add:
1. Coaching - it is spottier in WCBB than at other levels so there are fewer coaches who have the ability to reach consistency regardless of their ability to land great players - Geno, Muffet, Tara, and Gunter/Chatman are the only coaches to string together 5 final fours in a row which represents two completely different teams between the first and last. Others like Kim and Brenda and even Pat have only been able to get to when they had a specific group of great players.

2. ND may be the most impressive in that they have not consistently gotten the top players - Muffet has recruited very well but she hasn't gotten quite as many clearly outstanding HS players - she has been construction teams with mostly 5-30 ranked players who buy into her system and play tough.

3. Baylor and TX seem to be in a golden period as far as recruiting (following on the heels of SC) and they should be challenging consistently for the next 4 years. Some of the Pac also seem to be stringing together interesting classes. Whether the coaching and balance of the recruiting will match the talent being accumulated is yet to be seen.

4. I actually think the SEC might be a detriment to development of dominant teams - the style of play and the refereeing of games does not help teams develop well rounded games. There is talent and the league is balanced down through maybe #10, but the offenses and defenses are not creative enough to really challenge the good teams and expose weaknesses that need to be corrected. The same might be true for the Pac with a slight variation - not enough focus on defensive intensity.

5. While developing great RPI numbers by playing creatively terrible OOC schedules may help a league get teams into the NCAA and to better seedings, I think it really hurts overall development of individual teams - Maryland this year probably didn't get as much done as they should have early in the season because they were flattered by the ease with which they ran through a dreadful OOC. The same has been true for a number of other teams through the years. Coaches and players need challenges and even losses early to really know what they have and what they need to work on.

A string of great points. Adding 2 cents -
1 - CVS spoke one time about building a team with the players that can contend. I think for most programs - even if they can get a genuine star or two - they can't get enough of a team around them year in and year out. And I'll take if further:
2 - The coaches you mention are system coaches. Even Geno, I've always thought, though tweaked no doubt. But unlike the others, he does get enough players each year to contend. But for the Muffets, Tara's, etc. they get good quality players and have a system that uses them well. And part of it is about getting the right players (not necessarily only personality but also skill set, etc.).
4 - While I think you may oversimplify the PAC, the truth is that the SEC, Pac and historically the B1G play very specific styles, influenced by or producing the way they are ref'd, that do impact their interactions when they face non-conference teams or referees. One of the things that was commented on when RU joined the B1G (with Maryland) was the different style that both teams were bringing.
5 - Conferences on the whole promote tougher OOC scheduling, at least among their better teams. There was an article a few years ago about the B1G (this is when the BE was still the BE) strongly encouraging tougher schedules - hence for a number of years the B1G's OOC SOS was very good. Scheduling is a very touchy thing - the year Rutgers won the WNIT, what kept us out of the NCAA's was poor OOC scheduling (I think Rutgers didn't account for no longer being in the oBE). Minny this year has a touch row to hoe because of a weak OOC schedule (not completely their fault, as they played Duke which hasn't preformed well and lost (unfortunately for them) to Auburn).

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

PS - excuse my spelling issues. On an old desktop that is giving me some typing issues. Too difficult with this computer to go back and fix them.

 

[JordyG]

Here's the SEC's problem.... as far as WCBB, it's a league pretty much built on the backs of the Tennessee Lady Vols and that Lady Vol style of play. The entire league is still playing the game as if physicality and rebounding are the only things that matter. Coaches recruit players that fit that style of play then the cycle continues and most SEC schools recruit within the region.

A lot of the coaches in our league are in their 30s and 40s, so they're still developing their style in a way and I think things will improve as more SEC schools begin recruiting nationally. For instance, just by looking at our own recruiting and the players Dawn is going after I can tell that SC is putting more emphasis on offense and recruiting players nationally with various offensive skill sets.

I think Vanderbilt and Missouri have creative offenses based on spacing. They just don't have the athletes to execute at an elite level yet. As a conference, the SEC has always gone the way of whatever particular power program is dominant. Tennessee gave the league its current style of play but as South Carolina rises I think more teams in the league will try to emulate whatever the gamecocks decide to do in coming years.. Hopefully we bring about some offensive innovation.

I and others have been saying this exact thing. UT and most SEC teams play an antiquated style of offense that today's 2/3 defenses with long armed players have negated. Unfortunately it's not just a matter of recruiting offense but coaching effective offensive strategies that will take advantage of the weaknesses inherent in the 2/3. In watching WBB I've noticed almost every team shows efficient spacing. Most teams however don't maintain that spacing even within a single offensive possession. Specifically in watching SEC ball I rarely see teams flood an area of the zone, use a skip pass, or flash to the high post. A coach needs to teach these and other techniques properly using an enormous amount of repetitions. If you don't know these strategies how can you teach them? Of course The SEC isn't alone in this. Baylor plays a similar style of drbbledribbledrible kick ball.

 

[UcMiami]

KnightsBridge - good points!
1. CVS always annoyed me in that while her defense when run well is a thing of beauty, she never seemed to focus on offensive strategy, rather depending on great individual skills to score. Ultimately you have to score more points than you give up, and that has always been a challenge for her teams. Not sure why coaches with an obvious weakness do not both hire and empower assistants with strengths in those areas.

2. Absolutely agree - getting the right players and the right balance of players is more important than getting the most skilled players. The better the overall talent on a team, the more particular a coach can be in recruiting, and the easier it is for them to walk away from a player that might cause chemistry issues regardless of their obvious talent. Muffet I think has followed in Geno's footsteps in that regard - having success with perhaps less talent that leads to being able to attract the right higher talent players for her system.

4. - Yes an oversimplification regarding the Pac but you got my drift - perhaps being too 'finesse' would be a better description? I think the BE really benefitted from the variety of systems being run, and by the frequent infusions of new teams - Rutgers, ND, Louisville, USF all bringing new talent to the league as they joined. The ACC has benefitted in the same way and I think now the Big10 as well - the SEC, Big12, and Pac less so, and of course none of the expansions have ever been driven by WCBB, so it is by chance and not by design.

5. You look at some of the conferences and it sure seems they do not promote tough OOC. The SEC other than TN has generally been pretty dreadful as has the Big12 - the 'our conference is so tough we need an easy OOC' mentality. And you look at specific teams like Northwestern 11-1 OOC and 3-12 InC; Iowa 10-2, 5-9; KState 10-1, 6-8; TxTech 9-2, 2-12; Oregon 11-0, 8-6; USC 12-0, 6-8; GA 12-1, 7-5; FL 12-1, 7-5, Mizz 13-0, 7-6; KY 11-0, 6-6; Vandy 11-2, 4-8; Bama 11-2, 3-9. (I didn't do any research so a few of these schools may have suffered injuries or won good games OOC - just used the records to cull a sampling of disparities between conference and OOC records.) A strong league explains only some of the differences. Specific to the SEC and Big12 - OOC schedules with almost no road games is also a problem - the teams don't learn how to deal with hostile environments, and then cannot win on the road in conference games.

 

[CocoHusky]

I want to caution us all to be careful how broadly we paint an entire conference with a specific style of play and not to further assume because a team is locked into that conference that they must adopt that conference's style of play. SCGameock already stole my SEC counter example =Vanderbilt & KnightBridgeAZ stole my PAC 10-=Stanford. So I'll just trump both of those examples and point to TA&M and Cal-the former a recent National champion and the latter a more recent FF team. To point out that TA&M was not in the SEC when they won NC would be missing the point. It seems to me that TA&M has adapted to SEC by adjusting it's style but maintaining what it takes to be successful outside the conference.

 

[UcMiami]

I want to caution us all to be careful how broadly we paint an entire conference with a specific style of play and not to further assume because a team is locked into that conference that they must adopt that conference's style of play. SCGameock already stole my SEC counter example =Vanderbilt & KnightBridgeAZ stole my PAC 10-=Stanford. So I'll just trump both of those examples and point to TA&M and Cal-the former a recent National champion and the latter a more recent FF team. To point out that TA&M was not in the SEC when they won NC would be missing the point. It seems to me that TA&M has adapted to SEC by adjusting it's style but maintaining what it takes to be successful outside the conference.

Agree. One could also point to KY as a team that bucks the 'style' of the SEC. And the 'style' issue doesn't preclude a team from being very very good, but A&M and Stanford as examples (and Cal as well) tend to play good P5 teams OOC which exposes them early each year to a broader range of quality and style than the typical teams in their respective conferences.

I am going to be really curious to see how Baylor fares in the NCAA this year - they have played some decent teams OOC, but not any top 10 teams and the Big12 is not what it used to be so it is a little hard to judge just how well their freshman posts are doing and how strong a team they really are - it is conceivable they are the second best team in the country, but they might also be closer to #10 - no way to really know. TX is in the same boat so even the games against each other don't really shed any light on the situation.

 

[KnightBridgeAZ]

I want to caution us all to be careful how broadly we paint an entire conference with a specific style of play and not to further assume because a team is locked into that conference that they must adopt that conference's style of play. SCGameock already stole my SEC counter example =Vanderbilt & KnightBridgeAZ stole my PAC 10-=Stanford. So I'll just trump both of those examples and point to TA&M and Cal-the former a recent National champion and the latter a more recent FF team. To point out that TA&M was not in the SEC when they won NC would be missing the point. It seems to me that TA&M has adapted to SEC by adjusting it's style but maintaining what it takes to be successful outside the conference.

I don't disagree - but new conference teams do have to adapt to a conference's style of play as opposed necessarily to adopting it.

The mix of coaches from all different backgrounds has gradually started to erase stereotypes of various conferences, I think.