Recruiting - Past and Present

[ACE]

I do think there is a relevant recruiting comparison to the past to be made. Prior to this three-year run, the only other time of consecutive NCAA appearances was back in the Spoon era. I have said it previously, as good as Spoon was, he did a very poor job capitalzing on our success when he hit the recruiting trail following those back-to-back NCAA appearances. It was a LONG time ago and recruiting info is not what it is today, but I don't recall being very impressed by the profiles of the likes of Adkins, Hardin, Halliburton, Barentine. I don't think of any of them had other good offers. Sure, Spoon hyped up some of them, but that's what most coaches do. Spoon talked about Hardin being "All-City NY" - I think he played at a small school against bad competition. I don't think the Big East was knocking down his door to get him. Then toss in guys like Biles and Caswell who flamed out for various reasons - the recruiting was just not good enough to sustain success. The program slid back... then Spoon caught a break with Hughes and recruiting began to pick up again.

One of my questions was could Crews & Co. build on the 3-year NCAA Tourney run by stepping up recruiting. I may be drinking the kool-aid, but it looks like we have done a much better job than we did in the mid-90s. We're consistently getting players with BCS offers. We're not floundering around late in the recruiting period or have the dreaded "saving scholarships."

[Billikenboy]

Talent level of players coming to SLU now is at the high BCS level. Competing will be a thing of the past soon enough

[brianstl]

Talent level of players coming to SLU now is at the high BCS level. Competing will be a thing of the past soon enough

No it is not. How many top 150 kids do we have coming in? How many future NBA players? Landing those kids is recruiting at a high BCS level.

That said, the recruiting is at a much higher level than before and we don't have to recruit like a high level BCS program to be really successful.

[Taj79]

Think what you want, there is nothing wrong with that. Is this recruiting talent level better than in the mid-90's? Gosh, I sure hope so. Is the talent level high BCS? I don't think so becauser as brian points out, we've signed no top 150s. Are our recruits coming in with other BCS offers? Yes, if we believe what is written. Did the dregs of the 90's compare? Gosh, I hope not.

Spoon was a gamer, and could coach with anyone. As I understand it, recruiting was not his forte, he may have even detested it. So he took kids he never saw play (rumored) and prayed he could coach them into what he needed. Didn't work out well. He built his SLU rep on Grawer's last great recruiting class and then rode the wave of one five-star recruit who attracted some nice, complimentary players with him. Then -- poof! --- he was gone.

What the future holds remains unknown. What the past tells me --- and not the ancient past of the 80's or even the 90's --- is that Majerus recruited a certain type of kid to play his system and to accept his tutelage and guidance. For the most part, all of those kids are gone. It's a new era, to be judged on its own merits. Tempered with reason.

[Dwayne's_World]

Grandy was a top 150....

Nothing against him, but just goes to show that rankings outside of the top 50-75 are usually not indicative of a player's future development

[DeSmetBilliken]

Grandy was a top 150....

Nothing against him, but just goes to show that rankings outside of the top 50-75 are usually not indicative of a player's future development

Exactly. Majerus' 2 best recruits, at least from a player ranking standpoint, were Brett Thompson and Grandy Glaze.

[brownwolves]

With the A10 becoming stronger and stronger over the last few years, it seems as if all teams in the Conference are attracting more talented level of players. Even though Dukane's Ovie Soko was here for one season, he contributed to a - better quality - player in the league

I'm all for parity in the A10, before you know it Fordham, Dukane and the Bonnies will be fighting for First place in Conference play.

[ACE]

Grandy was a top 150....

Nothing against him, but just goes to show that rankings outside of the top 50-75 are usually not indicative of a player's future development

Recruiting rankings are an inexact science for sure - career backup Anthony Booker made a Top 40 list based largely on one good weekend at an AAU Tourney. There are numerous examples of flawed rankings. IMO, seeing the quality of what other schools are offering a kid is a better guage, but with that being said, I would take my chances with a Top 150 recruit. Landing players at that level certainly doesn't guarantee future success, but I think it increases your odds.

[Clock_Tower]

Think what you want, there is nothing wrong with that. Is this recruiting talent level better than in the mid-90's? Gosh, I sure hope so. Is the talent level high BCS? I don't think so becauser as brian points out, we've signed no top 150s. Are our recruits coming in with other BCS offers? Yes, if we believe what is written. Did the dregs of the 90's compare? Gosh, I hope not.

Spoon was a gamer, and could coach with anyone. As I understand it, recruiting was not his forte, he may have even detested it. So he took kids he never saw play (rumored) and prayed he could coach them into what he needed. Didn't work out well. He built his SLU rep on Grawer's last great recruiting class and then rode the wave of one five-star recruit who attracted some nice, complimentary players with him. Then -- poof! --- he was gone.

What the future holds remains unknown. What the past tells me --- and not the ancient past of the 80's or even the 90's --- is that Majerus recruited a certain type of kid to play his system and to accept his tutelage and guidance. For the most part, all of those kids are gone. It's a new era, to be judged on its own merits. Tempered with reason.

Taj. Mostly agree with you but Spoon has a larger body of work than just here at SLU. Spoon recruited some good talent to SMS and also coached them to their max. Prior to SLU, Spoon won the Valley Tournament and regularly made it to the NCAA Tourney. When his teams played ours coached by Grawer, his teams were both mentally and physically tougher than ours and, more than not, his teams came out on top. And yes, I do hope our new recruits turn out better than in the days of the 1990s. It should, though, be pointed out that Spoon did rely heavily upon JUCO's (both at SMS and at SLU) and that following the whole JUCO approached changed during Spoon's tenure. With a larger budget for assistant coaches and recruiting, and less meddling from above, maybe Spoon would have stayed, maybe his recruiting would have been better...

I agree that the future is unclear and look forward to seeing what Jim Crews can do. To date, his recruiting has exceeded my expectations. His development of players, though, is where I have a pause. I will be patient and am not intending to be overly critical, but I do think that Crews could have played/developed at least 2 of our 3 freshmen more than he did. Hard to find fault, though, with what Jim Crews and SLU did last year.

[sludevil]

Grandy was a top 150....

Nothing against him, but just goes to show that rankings outside of the top 50-75 are usually not indicative of a player's future development

One player does not a trend make.

Higher-rated players tend to be better than lower-rated players over the course of their college careers. Top 100 players tend to be better than unknown two- and three-star recruits. Certainly, there are exceptions in both directions. But there is also a reason why certain teams are generally good, and other teams are not.

Honestly, the suspicion (and often animosity) towards higher-ranked recruits on this board is something I just don't understand. I would love to recruit at a higher level, because higher-ranked recruits tend to be better. Granted, all non-elite recruits are going to take some coaching (and strength and conditioning, etc.) to become true players. But if you're starting with higher-quality inputs, you're probably going to end with higher-quality outputs.

And, to that end, I'm definitely encouraged by the latest recruits to sign with SLU. We're pulling recruits away from BCS schools; the next step, then, is to start pulling top-100 recruits away from BCS schools. And, whether you accept it or not, that's a step we're probably going to have to make to be consistently competitive in March.

[JettFlight5]

One player does not a trend make.

Higher-rated players tend to be better than lower-rated players over the course of their college careers. Top 100 players tend to be better than unknown two- and three-star recruits. Certainly, there are exceptions in both directions. But there is also a reason why certain teams are generally good, and other teams are not.

Honestly, the suspicion (and often animosity) towards higher-ranked recruits on this board is something I just don't understand. I would love to recruit at a higher level, because higher-ranked recruits tend to be better. Granted, all non-elite recruits are going to take some coaching (and strength and conditioning, etc.) to become true players. But if you're starting with higher-quality inputs, you're probably going to end with higher-quality outputs.

And, to that end, I'm definitely encouraged by the latest recruits to sign with SLU. We're pulling recruits away from BCS schools; the next step, then, is to start pulling top-100 recruits away from BCS schools. And, whether you accept it or not, that's a step we're probably going to have to make to be consistently competitive in March.

My point of contention is that I don't trust the people making the rankings. That's why I don't really think too highly of the recruiting reports. I mean, 2* Dwayne Evans and 2* Jordair Jett never really contributed much, did they?

[sludevil]

My point of contention is that I don't trust the people making the rankings. That's why I don't really think too highly of the recruiting reports. I mean, 2* Dwayne Evans and 2* Jordair Jett never really contributed much, did they?

Again, there are exceptions in both directions. And I think it's fine (and, indeed, healthy) to be skeptical of any given ranking. But, on the whole, the major recruiting services tend to identify the best talent. So I'd be more interested in aggregate trends in our recruiting. Which means that if we start pulling top-100 level talent, that's a tangible indicator of improved recruiting (and, thus, a better program), even if some of those recruits don't pan out as anticipated. All talk of "diamonds in the rough" and "system guys" aside, I just don't believe we can be consistently competitive in March unless we're consistently in play for higher-ranked recruits. So we need to continue to leverage this recent on-court success into success on the recruiting trail.

[JettFlight5]

I agree with your last premise that we need good players.

I just dispute that some of the recruiting services do a good job of identifying who those players are.

[ACE]

Again, there are exceptions in both directions. And I think it's fine (and, indeed, healthy) to be skeptical of any given ranking. But, on the whole, the major recruiting services tend to identify the best talent. So I'd be more interested in aggregate trends in our recruiting. Which means that if we start pulling top-100 level talent, that's a tangible indicator of improved recruiting (and, thus, a better program), even if some of those recruits don't pan out as anticipated. All talk of "diamonds in the rough" and "system guys" aside, I just don't believe we can be consistently competitive in March unless we're consistently in play for higher-ranked recruits. So we need to continue to leverage this recent on-court success into success on the recruiting trail.

+1 RM did quite well with "under the radar" guys throughout his career, but from what I recall, even he started attracting higher rated players the longer he had success at Utah. Yes, we can point to successes with DE, but back to the past, there are plenty of examples of players we signed off the radar, who earned those lowly rankings - Horace, Obi, Husak to name a few.

[Clock_Tower]

+1 RM did quite well with "under the radar" guys throughout his career, but from what I recall, even he started attracting higher rated players the longer he had success at Utah. Yes, we can point to successes with DE, but back to the past, there are plenty of examples of players we signed off the radar, who earned those lowly rankings - Horace, Obi, Husak to name a few.

I have used the term "under the radar" guys myself with RM. And while I do believe RM did recruit/land such kids, I guess it should also be pointed out that some of the guys turned themselves into very productive college players and/or that RM developed them, etc. Yes, JJ had raw talent from day 1, but he truly developed into the A10 Player of the Year. Curious, I am now wondering how much of what RM did was recruiting kids others overlooked as opposed how well they developed under him (or were developed by him).

IMO, Crews and his staff are passing the test of recruiting the talent and now will be judged, hopefully favorably, based on how this talent develops or is developed.

[MB73]

Those who verbatim scorn the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, Recruits, etc. are foolish. We sure could use a few of those top 100 players. Do not kid yourself.

Of course some do not pan out.

And of course some 2*'s do very well.

But overall, we would love to have 3 or 4 of the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, or Recruits, the top rating systems, in a heartbeat. 4* and 5* players, hell yes.

RM did well to find under the radar 2* and 3*'s and plug them into roles and develop them and make an excellent team with interchangeable diverse pieces. He got us about 6 (6'6" or greater) bigs on our roster each year, so we had diverse talent and were deep at the 3, 4 & 5 positions for the first time, ever.

I like Crews, and he seems to have followed RM's approach; it appears the talent is as good as RM's recruits, but hold on, we do not really know yet how good his recruits will turn out and / or how well he will develop them. So far, so good. This coming year should be interesting.

[JMM28]

Stars aren't the end all be all. But if you're recruiting only top 150 players, your margin of error is a lot larger.

[almaman]

Those who verbatim scorn the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, Recruits, etc. are foolish. We sure could use a few of those top 100 players. Do not kid yourself.

Of course some do not pan out.

And of course some 2*'s do very well.

But overall, we would love to have 3 or 4 of the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, or Recruits, the top rating systems, in a heartbeat. 4* and 5* players, hell yes.

RM did well to find under the radar 2* and 3*'s and plug them into roles and develop them and make an excellent team with interchangeable diverse pieces. He got us about 6 (6'6" or greater) bigs on our roster each year, so we had diverse talent and were deep at the 3, 4 & 5 positions for the first time, ever.

I like Crews, and he seems to have followed RM's approach; it appears the talent is as good as RM's recruits, but hold on, we do not really know yet how good his recruits will turn out and / or how well he will develop them. So far, so good. This coming year should be interesting.

+1 those who scorn top 100 same as those who think models are too pretty and they'd rather have the girl next door than the eye candy.

[kmbilliken]

Spoon's biggest recruiting failure was between year 1 & 2 of his first tournament years. Just came off the big season and only needed to replace center Evan Peterson. Loaded with guards, could promise any decent big tons of PT and he brought in Barantine who was a backup center on his juco team. In fairness, Spoon thought he had a different kid lined up that fell through and he had no backup plan. I quess he took the Soderberg approach. One scholarship, one offer.

[JettFlight5]

Those who verbatim scorn the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, Recruits, etc. are foolish. We sure could use a few of those top 100 players. Do not kid yourself.

Of course some do not pan out.

And of course some 2*'s do very well.

But overall, we would love to have 3 or 4 of the top 100 at ESPN, Scouts, or Recruits, the top rating systems, in a heartbeat. 4* and 5* players, hell yes.

RM did well to find under the radar 2* and 3*'s and plug them into roles and develop them and make an excellent team with interchangeable diverse pieces. He got us about 6 (6'6" or greater) bigs on our roster each year, so we had diverse talent and were deep at the 3, 4 & 5 positions for the first time, ever.

I like Crews, and he seems to have followed RM's approach; it appears the talent is as good as RM's recruits, but hold on, we do not really know yet how good his recruits will turn out and / or how well he will develop them. So far, so good. This coming year should be interesting.

I agree that we would like higher rated recruits. I have an issue with how the ratings are created, but I wouldn't mind a couple Top 50 guys myself.

[davidnark]

Decades of tracking recruits and rankings has taught me that outside of 4 and 5 star (ie top 50) recruits, the rankings don't mean much. Otherwise, there are just too many unreliable variables that factor into a completely subjective (and often slanted) ranking system. What Majerus understood better than most is that every recruit needs to have a base level of athleticism, skills, competitive drive, and coachability to develop and succeed. The majority of coaches fail at recruiting because they fall in love with a kid for one or two of these traits (usually the first one or two).

I guarantee that the athletic and skill set difference between Jett, Loe, McCall, and Evans and their counterparts ranked 50 - 150 was largely inconsequential. I also bet these 4 greatly exceeded most of these counterparts in competitive drive and coachability.

[Old guy]

Decades of tracking recruits and rankings has taught me that outside of 4 and 5 star (ie top 50) recruits, the rankings don't mean much. Otherwise, there are just too many unreliable variables that factor into a completely subjective (and often slanted) ranking system. What Majerus understood better than most is that every recruit needs to have a base level of athleticism, skills, competitive drive, and coachability to develop and succeed. The majority of coaches fail at recruiting because they fall in love with a kid for one or two of these traits (usually the first one or two).

I guarantee that the athletic and skill set difference between Jett, Loe, McCall, and Evans and their counterparts ranked 50 - 150 was largely inconsequential. I also bet these 4 greatly exceeded most of these counterparts in competitive drive and coachability.

Good post

[cheeseman]

Taj. Mostly agree with you but Spoon has a larger body of work than just here at SLU. Spoon recruited some good talent to SMS and also coached them to their max. Prior to SLU, Spoon won the Valley Tournament and regularly made it to the NCAA Tourney. When his teams played ours coached by Grawer, his teams were both mentally and physically tougher than ours and, more than not, his teams came out on top. And yes, I do hope our new recruits turn out better than in the days of the 1990s. It should, though, be pointed out that Spoon did rely heavily upon JUCO's (both at SMS and at SLU) and that following the whole JUCO approached changed during Spoon's tenure. With a larger budget for assistant coaches and recruiting, and less meddling from above, maybe Spoon would have stayed, maybe his recruiting would have been better... .

I agree that the future is unclear and look forward to seeing what Jim Crews can do. To date, his recruiting has exceeded my expectations. His development of players, though, is where I have a pause. I will be patient and am not intending to be overly critical, but I do think that Crews could have played/developed at least 2 of our 3 freshmen more than he did. Hard to find fault, though, with what Jim Crews and SLU did last year.

I believe that Spoon was looking for a legacy hire of his son to follow him and when he saw that being at SLU was going to be hard work he realized that getting the situation to the point that his son could take over was not going to be an easy task - he left for lots of reasons but that was one of them in my opinion.

[MB73]

Decades of tracking recruits and rankings has taught me that outside of 4 and 5 star (ie top 50) recruits, the rankings don't mean much. Otherwise, there are just too many unreliable variables that factor into a completely subjective (and often slanted) ranking system. What Majerus understood better than most is that every recruit needs to have a base level of athleticism, skills, competitive drive, and coachability to develop and succeed. The majority of coaches fail at recruiting because they fall in love with a kid for one or two of these traits (usually the first one or two).

I guarantee that the athletic and skill set difference between Jett, Loe, McCall, and Evans and their counterparts ranked 50 - 150 was largely inconsequential. I also bet these 4 greatly exceeded most of these counterparts in competitive drive and coachability.

Agree.

4* and 5* are much more likely to be successful than 3* and 2*.

And the top 10 are more likely to be successful than 90-100.

I wonder if some posters here do not understand that and / or refuse to accept it as a fact.

Again, yes, some 2* and 3* and unranked players blossom into stars. Of course. And coaching / development matters.

But, again, I'll take a few 4* and 5* players here, hell yes.

[JettFlight5]

Agree.

4* and 5* are much more likely to be successful than 3* and 2*.

And the top 10 are more likely to be successful than 90-100.

How many Top 10 guys is SLU getting?

That's my point is that this program is winning with what we have been able to get. The stars on this class are higher than the class of 2014, so that is an improvement on paper. But will that translate into more wins and more success?

I'm excited now when any player commits to SLU...if he's highly rated by the services, that's a bonus.