Terry Larrier transferring

[tcf15]

 

[OkaForPrez]

@Fishy

But Fish, Iowa State's seen back to back 3 seeds with this model and 4 straight tourneys. 6 straight tourneys for SDSU. I get that the bar for us is Calhoun recruiting in his Prime, but there wasn't exactly this model back then either.

 

[businesslawyer]

If Miller/Gibbs/Larrier ends up being what we get this spring, then that's extremely fortuitous. But KO will not get respect until he has what's considered a strong early signing period, i.e. not letting next year's Clarke/Mack/Jones get away.

OMG. How does the man sleep at night without the respect of this Board for not getting recruiting off to strong starts?

 

[scrappy2.0]

Assuming that we're going to get two players that we do not currently have, trying to make a living off of other programs' misfortune is not a sound long-term strategy.

The fifth-year players are nice band-aids to cover the failings of the recruiting trail, but it really just kicks the problem down the road by a year.

Hey Id be thrilled to bring in an NBA caliber PG prospect with a burgeoning/growing 6-11 250 PF/C each year followed by transferring fifth year or other transfers who might want new scenery or better roads maps to the NBA. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not sound.

 

[superjohn]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

We might have to be a bit creative, obviously we wouldn't employ this strategy if we were in the Big 10 or ACC.

 

[8893]

Assuming that we're going to get two players that we do not currently have, trying to make a living off of other programs' misfortune is not a sound long-term strategy.

The fifth-year players are nice band-aids to cover the failings of the recruiting trail, but it really just kicks the problem down the road by a year.

I don't disagree with your primary premise that recruiting kids out of high school should be our main focus, but if the conventional wisdom is that Diamond Stone was a one-and-done, I don't see how getting Shonn Miller instead is anything but the same end result as Stone would have been, i.e., a one-year solution.

And I might add, I think Miller is a better fit for us, all things considered.

 

[DaveHuskiesFan]

If we get Sterling Gibbs, doesn't that put us at the maximum scholarship allotment? I don't believe we'd have enough scholarships left for next year for both Larrier and Gibbs.

 

[CallMeBruce]

If we get Sterling Gibbs, doesn't that put us at the maximum scholarship allotment? I don't believe we'd have enough scholarships left for next year for both Larrier and Gibbs.

Gibbs would put us at 12. We'd have one for Larrier -

Brimah
Nolan
Facey
Enoch
Miller
Hamilton
Calhoun
Purvis
Gibbs
Adams
Samuel
Cassell

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

OMG. How does the man sleep at night without the respect of this Board for not getting recruiting off to strong starts?

Bad day?

 

[HuskyBballFan]

How many points do you get to start the game with because you write in the scorebook that your team was recruited in a "sustainable way?" Seriously, get TF out.

I take it you missed the part of my post where I said that it doesn't matter where the players come from in terms of evaluating the roster as a whole.

 

[jminziii]

Gibbs would put us at 12. We'd have one for Larrier -

Brimah
Nolan
Facey
Enoch
Miller
Hamilton
Calhoun
Purvis
Gibbs
Adams
Samuel
Cassell

Larrier would have to sit out a year anyway, no?

 

[Matrim55]

So does Purvis count as a bad job of recruiting by Calhoun or a good job by Ollie?

 

[Leebo]

Larrier would have to sit out a year anyway, no?

He still needs a scholarship.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Larrier would have to sit out a year anyway, no?

I'll admit that I'm not sure how this works, but I believe he'd still be on scholarship.

 

[superjohn]

I'll admit that I'm not sure how this works, but I believe he'd still be on scholarship.

You are still on scholarship in your year sitting out.

 

[CTBasketball]

Summon the gif parade.

 

[businesslawyer]

Bad day?

Yes, actually, but not the point. The expectations on KO are absurd. I have no reason to think we're getting Larrier, but if we got our two frosh, Miller and Gibbs for 1 year and Larrier for 3, that's a great class. A few points.

1. You can only grade a class once, when recruiting is done, even putting aside you don't know how they actually play for years. This "strong start" bs is simply internet bulletin board drivel.

2. The days of 4 year players, many of whom will sit on the bench for a few years and then settle in as useful role players, is done. Kids transfer out if they don't think they will be impact players. So there are going to be more and more transfers whether or not they abolish grad transfers.

3. If UK can make a living off one and dones, the thought that you can't usefully employ grad transfers is dumb. If we were to get Gibbs, that will be 4 in 4 years (including Miller) who helped us. When does it stop being a fluke or non-sustainable?

4. I really don't get the angst about the number of recruits that spurned us. Our class is what it is. Other than posters feeling bad about being rejected, it makes no difference to anyone whom we went after and didn't get.

 

[Dove]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

Here comes UConn!!!

 

[businesslawyer]

I take it you missed the part of my post where I said that it doesn't matter where the players come from in terms of evaluating the roster as a whole.

You said it didn't matter and then told us, because I used your exact words, why it did matter.

 

[CallMeBruce]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

I would rather we get our players that way, but I'll say this: I'll feel a lot better about our recruiting going forward if we fill those last two spots with Gibbs and Larrier. That's five scholarships filled by five good players, three of which are going to be serious impact guys right away. Those wouldn't have been easy battles to win.

 

[James]

never understood how a kid needs to sit out but a coach can ditch a program and go coach that year.

 

[sdhusky]

How about we become better at recruiting high school kids and leave the scrambling to the SDSU and Iowa States of the world?

There's no reason that UConn has to become some sort of spring scavenger.

The occasional scholarship filled here or there - fine. But it's no way to make a living.

Agreed. But I think we will have to be a bit more creative in the AAC.

 

[mets1090]

never understood how a kid needs to sit out but a coach can ditch a program and go coach that year.

Because the coach isn't there for an education.

Oh...wait...

 

[Pmurph678]

Yes, actually, but not the point. The expectations on KO are absurd. I have no reason to think we're getting Larrier, but if we got our two frosh, Miller and Gibbs for 1 year and Larrier for 3, that's a great class. A few points.

1. You can only grade a class once, when recruiting is done, even putting aside you don't know how they actually play for years. This "strong start" bs is simply internet bulletin board drivel.

2. The days of 4 year players, many of whom will sit on the bench for a few years and then settle in as useful role players, is done. Kids transfer out if they don't think they will be impact players. So there are going to be more and more transfers whether or not they abolish grad transfers.

3. If UK can make a living off one and dones, the thought that you can't usefully employ grad transfers is dumb. If we were to get Gibbs, that will be 3 in 4 years who helped us.

4. I really don't get the angst about the number of recruits that spurned us. Our class is what it is. Other than posters feeling bad about being rejected, it makes no difference to anyone whom we went after and didn't get.

If we pull a great class out of transfers, awesome. But do you really think that is the recipe for long term success? The coaching staff doesn't, they did not sit around waiting for the 5th years transfers to pop up, they tried recruiting high schoolers, unfortunately they missed a lot.

The days of 4 year players are not done, there are very few schools that live off of one and dones and transfers.

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders. Not to mention a one and done has the potential to play up to 4 years, only if they are successful will they leave while with grad transfers you get just 1 year max.

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

 

[Jay-Bone]

@Fishy

But Fish, Iowa State's seen back to back 3 seeds with this model and 4 straight tourneys. 6 straight tourneys for SDSU. I get that the bar for us is Calhoun recruiting in his Prime, but there wasn't exactly this model back then either.

I'm an OkaForPrez lean on this one. Ollie gets recruiting credit if he lands Larrier for putting the groundwork in even if he didn't originally land him. It was still recruiting.. Just as much as he doesn't get credit for Ali and Jackson. Add the fact that he convinced Miller to come here and if he convinces Gibbs to come here also I utter major kudos. Just as convincing Kromah to come here paid off. In the end the proof is in the pudding. If this leads to another final four, he's done his job. It may not be Calipari or K level recruiting, but it ain't bad and may even have more of a guarantee. We know Miller, Gibbs and Larrier can play high level D1 ball. Its not as glamorous to ESPN as a top 5 class, but it gets the job done. However, if we become a team that relies on transfers year in and year out, then I'll be concerned. But this hypothetical class would fill all the right holes for an already potentially strong nucleus.

 

[8893]

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders.

And this matters why?

 

[johnhuskies95]

If he hasn't been released yet I doubt he's on campus right now.

 

[businesslawyer]

If we pull a great class out of transfers, awesome. But do you really think that is the recipe for long term success? The coaching staff doesn't, they did not sit around waiting for the 5th years transfers to pop up, they tried recruiting high schoolers, unfortunately they missed a lot.

The days of 4 year players are not done, there are very few schools that live off of one and dones and transfers.

Comparing one and dones to grad transfers is dumb. One and dones are future first rounders, grad transfers are almost never 1st rounders. Not to mention a one and done has the potential to play up to 4 years, only if they are successful will they leave while with grad transfers you get just 1 year max.

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

1. Would I rather have a 4 year player or an equivalent 1 year player? Of course I'd rather have an equivalent 4 year player. Of course the base of the plan has to be four year players. I'm hoping we got one great one and one really good one. And two each year, with "pieces" around them -- from whatever method -- is enough.

2. One and done's are different because they are great future NBAers? They are different. But ask me this -- which UConn one and doner had a greater impact on making his UConn team better than it would have been without him -- Drummond or Kromah? Because I'll not only answer Kromah but tell you it wasn't even close.

 

[Pmurph678]

And this matters why?

Seriously? Are you implying that the NBA talent on your team is irrelevant?

I understand NBA talent does not determine who the better player is in college every time, but to disregard it altogether is ignorant.

 

[Matrim55]

How do you not see the correlation between landing our top targets and long term success?

FWIW, we've now landed our No. 1 target two years in a row (DHam & Adams), and also got our No. 3 target (Enoch) this year.

We swung and missed a lot, but we could afford to since we already had a bunch of important players in the fold and since KO appears to have pretty good luck with 5th-years.

Everybody should also remember that each HS recruiting class under Ollie has been an improvement upon the previous one, and that the staff doesn't have a whole cycle together yet. We were dealing with a ton of uncertainty in 2013; for 2014 we lost man-hours & numbers on the trail; and for 2015 we were onto a bunch of kids late.

2016 will be the first "real" recruiting class under Ollie, in that they'll be kids who aren't touched by sanctions, uncertainty or conference realignment (in the bad way). Best to save all bile until then.