Recruiting - Past and Present

[sludevil]

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.

That's the thing, though. If we want to continue to win when it counts (in the NCAA tournament), we're going to need to continue to improve our recruiting. Our recent 2* and 3* guys have done a great job, and have hit a level far above what many would've predicted. Which has, up to this point, been good for making the tournament and winning the first game. But beyond that first game - in the sweet 16, elite 8, and even the final 4 - we're almost always going to be matched up against teams (e.g., Louisville and Michigan State, as recent examples) that recruit at a high level. And if we're sending out a team of 2* and 3* recruits to match up with their team of 3*, 4*, and 5* recruits, then I don't like our chances to win more than one game in the tournament. Which is, again, why we need to start having some pull in the top 100. Because those teams do, and those teams tend to win.

[slu72]

There are just a handful of schools similar to SLU who routinely land top 100 players. GU, X, VCU, Nova, and Zaga. Why them and not us? Simple, they've all been consistent winners. We won't land the highly rated recruits until we prove ourselves winners over a longer period of time. Next year will likely be a bump in the road for us, but if JCs recruits can take us to the dance the following 3 years and we can get past the 3rd round in a couple of those, we might see some of them choosing SLU.

[JettFlight5]

There are just a handful of schools similar to SLU who routinely land top 100 players. GU, X, VCU, Nova, and Zaga. Why them and not us? Simple, they've all been consistent winners. We won't land the highly rated recruits until we prove ourselves winners over a longer period of time. Next year will likely be a bump in the road for us, but if JCs recruits can take us to the dance the following 3 years and we can get past the 3rd round in a couple of those, we might see some of them choosing SLU.

I think you're 1000% right...consistent winning begets better recruiting. I know this next statement will be seen as ridiculously unfair, but I think this team needs to make the NCAA next year to keep the momentum going.

Will 6 of 7 years (3 NCAA, off year, 3 NCAA) be enough to get kids at the 4* level to consider SLU? I hope so.

[sludevil]

There are just a handful of schools similar to SLU who routinely land top 100 players. GU, X, VCU, Nova, and Zaga. Why them and not us? Simple, they've all been consistent winners. We won't land the highly rated recruits until we prove ourselves winners over a longer period of time. Next year will likely be a bump in the road for us, but if JCs recruits can take us to the dance the following 3 years and we can get past the 3rd round in a couple of those, we might see some of them choosing SLU.

Sure, and I think that's a reasonable expectation. There are certainly things SLU can do to expedite the process, but, in the end, good recruits want to play for good teams.

[slu72]

We should also hope to reach a sweet16 or elite8 in a couple of those years. You kind of fall off the radar if you don't make it thru the 3rd round.

[davidnark]

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.

I guess my ultimate point is that most 4 and 5 stars are legitimate talents reflective of their rankings. For all other rankings, it is relatively meaningless. Go back and look at the recruiting rankings of the success and failures at SLU and its conference rivals. Despite many claims here to the contrary, you will find that there is little to no predictive value between a 2* and 3* ranking (or 2.2*, 3.2*, 2.6* etc.). Once you fall past the top 50 or so, the good coaches--not the for profit recruiting services--are the best judges of a recruits' likelihood of success at a given D1 program. This is why Majerus had no regard for recruiting rankings but relied heavily on a trusted global network of basketball contacts who had a great understanding of what Majerus looked for in his recruits. Most of the guys who brought SLU recent success and went "under the radar" with the recruiting services were referred to Majerus through his network. Don't get me wrong; if we sign a kid who is rated a 3.5 start, I will get excited, but I shouldn't because it doesn't really mean anything. On the other hand, if we land a 5* like Jayson Tatum (or Hughes in his day), it means everything.

[JettFlight5]

I guess my ultimate point is that most 4 and 5 stars are legitimate talents reflective of their rankings. For all other rankings, it is relatively meaningless. Go back and look at the recruiting rankings of the success and failures at SLU and its conference rivals. Despite many claims here to the contrary, you will find that there is little to no predictive value between a 2* and 3* ranking (or 2.2*, 3.2*, 2.6* etc.). Once you fall past the top 50 or so, the good coaches--not the for profit recruiting services--are the best judges of a recruits' likelihood of success at a given D1 program. This is why Majerus had no regard for recruiting rankings but relied heavily on a trusted global network of basketball contacts who had a great understanding of what Majerus looked for in his recruits. Most of the guys who brought SLU recent success and went "under the radar" with the recruiting services were referred to Majerus through his network. Don't get me wrong; if we sign a kid who is rated a 3.5 start, I will get excited, but I shouldn't because it doesn't really mean anything. On the other hand, if we land a 5* like Jayson Tatum (or Hughes in his day), it means everything.

Coach Majerus said as much in an interview about Brian Conklin...he didn't care.

[Clock_Tower]

I think you're 1000% right...consistent winning begets better recruiting. I know this next statement will be seen as ridiculously unfair, but I think this team needs to make the NCAA next year to keep the momentum going.

Will 6 of 7 years (3 NCAA, off year, 3 NCAA) be enough to get kids at the 4* level to consider SLU? I hope so.

No. It is not ridiculously unfair to say that we need to make the NCAA Tourney next year -- four (4) years in a row. It should be our team's goal and, I believe it to be a reasonable goal. Here's why.

First, our youngsters (6 Frosh and 3 Sophs) are certainly not "one and done" guys like the other programs have who usually lead their teams deep in the Tourney and/or being top seeds but we, instead, are "merely" asking them to help us make the Tourney -- what's that, be a Top 35 or so team? And for the record, a #13 or #14 seed would be fine with me next year!! Second, we already have experienced players in JM, GG, AM and Ash to help carry the load. Third, history has shown that a top 4 or 5 finish in the A10 would likely lead to an invite and while the A10 is good, it is not that great. Fourth, assuming our younger players learn, improve, gel as a team (some might call this getting "hot" like Dayton), then our team's record would be enhanced by means of greater success toward the end of the year. Fifth, we are now a "known" name with the NCAA Committee which has called our name the past three years and might get the benefit of the doubt.

Without getting to the Tourney, all the doubters will come forward saying "See, Jim Crews can only win with RM's players" so we do need to make the Tourney for that reason, to keep the momentum rolling -- and also to keep the money rolling in.

[MB73]

Coach Majerus said as much in an interview about Brian Conklin...he didn't care.

He was just saying that.. sure he would want 5*'s, but he couldn't, playing in the A-10, etc.

He WAS a great judge of character, talent, and potential, and had a terrific national network, so he was able to get 2* and 3* kids that played so well for us.

He knew.

Judging talent, that is the key, especially for a mid major coach where 4* and 5*'s are not feasible. RM did it and developed them, created a culture of winning.

But don't kid yourself, he would love to have landed some legitimate 4*& 5* talent.

We can start to land a few 4* and 5*'s here and there, if we get in the NBE. TV exposure, big name national teams, recognition, etc.

[sludevil]

I guess my ultimate point is that most 4 and 5 stars are legitimate talents reflective of their rankings. For all other rankings, it is relatively meaningless. Go back and look at the recruiting rankings of the success and failures at SLU and its conference rivals. Despite many claims here to the contrary, you will find that there is little to no predictive value between a 2* and 3* ranking (or 2.2*, 3.2*, 2.6* etc.). Once you fall past the top 50 or so, the good coaches--not the for profit recruiting services--are the best judges of a recruits' likelihood of success at a given D1 program. This is why Majerus had no regard for recruiting rankings but relied heavily on a trusted global network of basketball contacts who had a great understanding of what Majerus looked for in his recruits. Most of the guys who brought SLU recent success and went "under the radar" with the recruiting services were referred to Majerus through his network. Don't get me wrong; if we sign a kid who is rated a 3.5 start, I will get excited, but I shouldn't because it doesn't really mean anything. On the other hand, if we land a 5* like Jayson Tatum (or Hughes in his day), it means everything.

I agree, to an extent. There's definitely a place at which rankings stop offering meaningful distinctions - I'd agree that the ceiling of a 2* is probably not going to be materially lower than the ceiling of your average 3*. But I think rankings are meaningful far beyond just the top 50 recruits. There are a number of teams that do the bulk of their recruiting in that 50-100 (or greater) range, and still tend to be very good.

I'd also say that who the good coaches are recruiting is a rough proxy for the rankings themselves: generally, the better the program, the higher they recruit. So whether you're paying attention to the ESPN/Scout/Rivals rankings, or the guys being recruited by coaches at certain programs, you're probably going to end up with roughly the same group of recruits.

[slu72]

I agree w/Nark's numbers. Although, I'd say only 15-20 of the top kids really are game changers for a program. We've been fortunate to have one over the last 20 years, The Legend. Some other names that would make the game changer list; Rose at Memphis, Durant at TX, Davis at KY, Carmello at Cuse. There are others but they are few and far between. They usually end up lottery picks but still they are no guarantee you'll win a national championship. No doubt we would not have gone dancing w/o the legend, so he was definitely a game changer for SLU. Nor would 'Cuse have won a championship w/o Carmello. Yes, we'd love to land one, but it's highly unlikely unless a kid like Tatum decides he wants to play in front of his parents and a hometown crowd that will adore him. We should be content w/ how we're doing at least until we see the kids play. So far, they sound like a solid group that bring a mix of skills and have the possibility of becoming a pretty good team. Emphasis being on team.

[Cowboy]

We should also hope to reach a sweet16 or elite8 in a couple of those years. You kind of fall off the radar if you don't make it thru the 3rd round.

-this is truth, if not even a bit understated

[jimmy two times]

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

Is Grandy a top 150 player...at SLU?

[RiseAndGrind]

Duke, UNC, Illinois, St. Louis, Kentucky, Wake Forest and Michigan State are showing the most interest, Tatum said.

Tatum says that schools staying in touch is key for making a good impression.

Whoever calls the most, Tatum said. Whoever stops by the school, keeps in touch really makes a good impression.

[JettFlight5]

Duke, UNC, Illinois, St. Louis, Kentucky, Wake Forest and Michigan State are showing the most interest, Tatum said.

Tatum says that schools staying in touch is key for making a good impression.

Whoever calls the most, Tatum said. Whoever stops by the school, keeps in touch really makes a good impression.

Pretty nice group to be a part of. Now it's time for the program to hit the next level and win it.

[sludevil]

Duke, UNC, Illinois, St. Louis, Kentucky, Wake Forest and Michigan State are showing the most interest, Tatum said.

Tatum says that schools staying in touch is key for making a good impression.

Whoever calls the most, Tatum said. Whoever stops by the school, keeps in touch really makes a good impression.

For what it's worth (probably not a ton this early in the game), the Duke camp is fairly optimistic about their chances with Tatum. He's also buddies with Harry Giles, another big recruiting target.

[For-DaLove]

For what it's worth (probably not a ton this early in the game), the Duke camp is fairly optimistic about their chances with Tatum. He's also buddies with Harry Giles, another big recruiting target.

Ha. I'm sure the Kentucky and Michigan State camps are too.

He's also buddies with his Mom, another St. Louis resident.

[brianstl]

Ha. I'm sure the Kentucky and Michigan State camps are too.

He's also buddies with his Mom, another St. Louis resident.

I am happy to see he didn't mention KU. My opinion is he that Duke, UNC, and MSU will end up being too far from home. I think it will come down to SLU, the Illini, SPUMAC (depending on the coach), and Kentucky. I wouldn't count out KU either.

I know future Billiken Jayson Tatum will make the right choice.

[slufan13]

Wake Forest?!? Is there some connection I'm missing? Seems like they're wasting their time. They aren't a big boy and they aren't local

[brianstl]

Wake Forest?!? Is there some connection I'm missing? Seems like they're wasting their time. They aren't a big boy and they aren't local

I wonder if new Wake asst Steve Woodberry got to know him when he was at MO St..

[JettFlight5]

I wonder if new Wake asst Steve Woodberry got to know him when he was at MO St..

Was that the Woodberry that played for Kansas?

[brianstl]

Was that the Woodberry that played for Kansas?

Yes.

[DeSmetBilliken]

Wake Forest?!? Is there some connection I'm missing? Seems like they're wasting their time. They aren't a big boy and they aren't local

My guess is that Wake is mentioned becauseTatum's buddy Harry Giles is from around Winston-Salem, NC, and Wake is recruiting both Giles and Tatum hard.

Also, maybe he likes Danny Manning.

[RiseAndGrind]

My guess is that Wake is mentioned becauseTatum's buddy Harry Giles is from around Winston-Salem, NC, and Wake is recruiting both Giles and Tatum hard.

Also, maybe he likes Danny Manning.

Kansas was recruiting him pretty heavily and now they aren't mentioned so I think you're right

[Box and Won]

Is Grandy a top 150 player...at SLU?

I don't know. There's lots of depth in the intramural program right now.