I don't believe anything has really changed for Auriemma. He is simply utilizing a recently expanding market to fill what he believes are gaps in his recruiting that he couldn't fill with HS kids. He doesn't pursue them but if the right type of kid at the right position becomes available and shows interest, he considers it and then let's them in. Just smart use of another tool.
It's hard to imagine my agreeing more.
There may not be a scholarship for her if she waits too long. Camara makes it 13 for 2017.
Just enough room for Megan and Mikayla.
Yes. One wonders however if this is just a happy and fortunate strings of occurrences or if this is really the new normal.
I say both. It feels a lot like the players can have their cake and eat it too knowing that if they have buyer's remorse all they have to do is pick up the phone to Storrs the minute their championship hopes are dashed or their personal career development isn't going the way they want at the school they initially chose over UConn.
I for one, think it is just a freak occurrence. Within well run programs I just don't think you are likely to see this kind of thing happen and top 30 programs tend to be well run. They have the money and resources to attract good coaches and good athletes. UNC is unique to an academic scandal (aided by a 'manufactured' recruiting class dynamic that didn't work), and KY and Duke have been particularly unstable coaching staffs that sent up red flags. Looking around at other programs in that top 30 range, the only one that stands out to me with a revolving door of assistants is Maryland, but none of them have had more than the kind of attrition rate of Uconn - a few front line players over the past decade and a few more bench players looking for perhaps different competitive environments or better fits.
Great point. Only time will tell, of course. And yet, Geno has already suggested that there is a qualitative difference in today's players--their "me first" attitude and refusal to take "tough love"-- that we could see naturally leading to a greater tendency to transfer.
The reality is that Uconn has lost to transfer on average one player every year and three years ago they put out a call for walk-ons to get to at least ten players for practices. The list of transfers in recent years: Banks, Boykin, Edwards, Engeln, Johnson, Walker - 6 since the 2010 freshman arrived. That is only a slightly higher rate than in the previous ten years, so to some degree you have to add that into the recruiting and team building plan. You can't just ignore that, and roster size is preference - recruiting and transfers (in and out) are very inexact science - if you find players that fit your profile and want to come, you kind of have to take them if you have roster spots, because the future is unpredictable. The 1998-2001 period was the last time Uconn was in the 14-15 roster size range and those years were pretty good, and that was primarily the result of a transfer (Big Rig) and a five player TASSK.
Right: will make them all even more determined to snatch an NC this coming year. Not that determination is necessarily outcome....
While I largely agree with your assessment of why the players possibly left, what makes you think that Banks was not in "Geno's good graces"? There's a difference between riding the pine due to being out of favor with the coach vs. being just too low on the depth chart...
Not if Walker is screaming to comitt.
Sure - I think I read a quote somewhere...Has Knoxville weighed in??
I agree, they'll definitely take Walker. And IMO, this expanded world of transfers makes it easier for Auriemma to take as many of his top targets as possible and let it set up a "survival of the fittest" scenario. After all, that's how it's been working the last 5-7 years anyway. He's just been doing it with less players to start with. If he can get 14-15 each year that he really likes to work with then it makes some attrition easier to cope with.
In addition to Walker, Uconn would also take Coombs, who has an offer, and will be visiting Uconn later this year.
Perhaps you're right here. But it may be that such an approach creates a greater amount of general uncertainty and lack of team cohesion. Team chemistry is a delicate thing that grows through mutual trust and support. That would be much, much harder to build in the scenario you describe. It's not about who has the most toys, but who uses them the most effectively.
