Happy New Year and a question!

[Billikan]

Happy New Year to all Billikens fans!

Here is my issue--there have been several references to the concept of "recruit over" a player by various people including our earstwhile Billiken Roy.

My quesiton is--why would any coach in the country try not to get the absolutely best players possible in the next years recruiting class? Some people seem to think it is a crime for a coach who has a player as a freshman at a position to then recruit a player for the same position the following year.

To me it makes perfect sense for a coach to recruit as many good players as possible, filling in holes but if a great player is available then you sign him, regardless of the position he plays. Then you let the kids compete hard for playing time in practice. Having better players come in will help push the players we have and will give us much greater depth. I could see a bit of a concern if you are recruiting too many players who play the same position in one class but in today's game players often can play at least 2 and sometimes three positions so they can play at the same time.

I hope we keep recruiting the best kids we can find, who have a big upside potential and are true students. Next year's class already looks excellent and if we can get one or two more excellent players then I would go for it!

[moytoy12]

Agreed. I guess one of the few issues could be if a certain kid was promised something (i.e. you'll be our starting SG next year) and then a SG is brought in to be the starter (or similar situation). I don't know how often things are "promised" and even then, I don't know how safe it is to assume that such a "promise" would be kept.

I'm not saying anything close to this has happened with RM (i don't know), just pointing out one of the instances where recruiting over a person might be objectionable.

[NH]

Agreed. I guess one of the few issues could be if a certain kid was promised something (i.e. you'll be our starting SG next year) and then a SG is brought in to be the starter (or similar situation). I don't know how often things are "promised" and even then, I don't know how safe it is to assume that such a "promise" would be kept.

I'm not saying anything close to this has happened with RM (i don't know), just pointing out one of the instances where recruiting over a person might be objectionable.

I think that idea is fine but I do have a concern about recruiting too many players in the same class. With the way Rick is recruiting we may not have any scholarships available in 2010 or 2011 and that is worrysome to me

[Majerus Magic]

I hope we keep recruiting the best kids we can find, who have a big upside potential and are true students. Next year's class already looks excellent and if we can get one or two more excellent players then I would go for it!

Agreed.

[NH]

Agreed.

say we sign two more people for next years class. Our team next year would look like this

5 Sophmores

7 Freshman

With one scholarship remaining for the next two years.

I agree that if you have a chance to upgrade you do it however, at this point I would rather our coaching staff eb spending their time and energy on the classes of 2010, 2011, and 2012. Look at Illinois, they have alrady filled their class for next years and because of that they are getting a jumpstart on underclassmen

[Cowboy]

-imo make no promises other than you can compete for playing time; playing time is not given, it is earned

-imo go get the best players available to fill the roster, being careful not to overload on types of players, not necessarily positions

-as we have seen,and not just with cotto, players leave for whatever reasons, you have to be able to not have a fall off when this happens

-for how long now has our limited roster been a hinderance?? finally i sense this is changing

-in my mind the term "recruit over" seems to only apply if a promise is made other than line 1 of this post

[Clock_Tower]

Happy New Year to all Billikens fans!

Here is my issue--there have been several references to the concept of "recruit over" a player by various people including our earstwhile Billiken Roy.

My quesiton is--why would any coach in the country try not to get the absolutely best players possible in the next years recruiting class? Some people seem to think it is a crime for a coach who has a player as a freshman at a position to then recruit a player for the same position the following year.

To me it makes perfect sense for a coach to recruit as many good players as possible, filling in holes but if a great player is available then you sign him, regardless of the position he plays. Then you let the kids compete hard for playing time in practice. Having better players come in will help push the players we have and will give us much greater depth. I could see a bit of a concern if you are recruiting too many players who play the same position in one class but in today's game players often can play at least 2 and sometimes three positions so they can play at the same time.

I hope we keep recruiting the best kids we can find, who have a big upside potential and are true students. Next year's class already looks excellent and if we can get one or two more excellent players then I would go for it!

Good question. Believe Moy has hit the nail on the head - the real world (making promises to land recruits and keep them on board) facing many college coaches is alot different than the idealistic world which Cowboy is stating how college coaches should act.

If a coach has the juice or ability to replace a quality player with a quality recruit, he can recruit over any player and deal with the consequences (existing player transfer or stay and cause dissention). For example, RM laid in on the line to TL (our best or second best player) at the beginning of last year and seriously challenged him to play differently - and hopefully better. Brad would never had done the same because Brad desperately needed TL and couldn't deal with/recover from a guy like TL transferring whereas RM can. Not that RM is not happy to still have TL and is quite pleased that TL accepted the challenge and changed his game (as I certainly am - I give TL alot of credit for hanging in there and not taking the easy route of transferring) but if TL had transferred, we certainly would have lost more games last year/this year, but RM's overall plan for this program would not have changed.

If a coach does not have the juice, then promises are often required. SLU has made its promises over the years. For instance, I recall promises made to Julian Winfield that he would play pg. Wasn't there a promise that Brad would not recruit a shooting guard if DM commits. Believe there have several promises over the years. I am not privy to all of this but would not surprised if there have been many promises. Top coaches and/or top programs don't need to make these promises. Nice to see RM/SLU is among this elite company.

[billiken_roy]

sure the rules are that scholarships are only one year "deals". however, i doubt if the writers of that rule had recruiting over in mind when they designed such. my guess is it was written in an attempt to give the coach the ability to clean house when a player is not the ethical and/or academic match they hoped for. but if the kid is indeed a good citizen and student, you all think it is ok to yank the rug out from under a kid that directed his life blindly to the university in question because joe ballplayer is now eligible for college and can make more jump shots than the original kid? imo that is deplorable. and more often than not the kid in question ends up in a lesser scholastic scenario that will more than likely harm their future potential to some degree.

you all are looking at the situation strickly from a basketball sense. yeah i know "this is the bigtime now. the rules and expectations change". whatever. there is no reason a coach cant be successful both ways without wrecking havoc over the kids in question life path. i say as long as the kid is doing everything right and playing basketball to the best of his ability, the coach should at least have the decency to honor the offered scholarship as long as the kid in question's heart is all for the program.

[RUBillsFan]

sure the rules are that scholarships are only one year "deals". however, i doubt if the writers of that rule had recruiting over in mind when they designed such. my guess is it was written in an attempt to give the coach the ability to clean house when a player is not the ethical and/or academic match they hoped for. but if the kid is indeed a good citizen and student, you all think it is ok to yank the rug out from under a kid that directed his life blindly to the university in question because joe ballplayer is now eligible for college and can make more jump shots than the original kid? imo that is deplorable. and more often than not the kid in question ends up in a lesser scholastic scenario that will more than likely harm their future potential to some degree.

you all are looking at the situation strickly from a basketball sense. yeah i know "this is the bigtime now. the rules and expectations change". whatever. there is no reason a coach cant be successful both ways without wrecking havoc over the kids in question life path. i say as long as the kid is doing everything right and playing basketball to the best of his ability, the coach should at least have the decency to honor the offered scholarship as long as the kid in question's heart is all for the program.

I didn't read any of the posts in this thread as though they were talking about pulling scholarships. I think rather they are talking about situations where you have player at say PF who is starting and then you recruit another PF who steps in and starts. IMO this is completely acceptable. Take UNC for example, Bobby Frasor started at PG as a freshman and the team went to the tournament. Then Roy Williams brought in Ty Lawson who took Frasor's starting PG job. Basically if you have good players with good attitudes these things work out because they are willing to accept a lesser role to better the team. Also usually when kids aren't happy about losing playing time or a starting job they transfer which is their own decision.

[kshoe]

sure the rules are that scholarships are only one year "deals". however, i doubt if the writers of that rule had recruiting over in mind when they designed such. my guess is it was written in an attempt to give the coach the ability to clean house when a player is not the ethical and/or academic match they hoped for. but if the kid is indeed a good citizen and student, you all think it is ok to yank the rug out from under a kid that directed his life blindly to the university in question because joe ballplayer is now eligible for college and can make more jump shots than the original kid? imo that is deplorable. and more often than not the kid in question ends up in a lesser scholastic scenario that will more than likely harm their future potential to some degree.

you all are looking at the situation strickly from a basketball sense. yeah i know "this is the bigtime now. the rules and expectations change". whatever. there is no reason a coach cant be successful both ways without wrecking havoc over the kids in question life path. i say as long as the kid is doing everything right and playing basketball to the best of his ability, the coach should at least have the decency to honor the offered scholarship as long as the kid in question's heart is all for the program.

Roy, you seem to be confusing what Billikan refers to as "recruiting over" with the practice of pulling scholarships. While there is some similarity in the two they are not the same. Recruting over means you've got a PF and the next year you recruit another PF that is better than him. This is what Billikan is talking about.

Now naturally, recruiting a better player COULD lead to the original player being upset and eventually transferring, but it doesn't necessarily mean that will happen.

There have been plenty of threads based on the morality of pulling scholarships, but this shouldn't be one of them.

[courtside]

I believe when your program is struggling, you recruit the best available players regardless of position. When your program is on stable footing, it is important to adjust your recruiting for position, at least in some regards. Obviously recruiting for position is not an easy thing as high quality big men are more difficult to recruit than guards due to depth and availability.

Balance wins. Balance can be achieved in several ways, i.e. balance at every position or say a several guard lineup as long as you have quality at the point, shooters, serviceable bigs, etc...

[GOSLU68]

I believe when your program is struggling, you recruit the best available players regardless of position. When your program is on stable footing, it is important to adjust your recruiting for position, at least in some regards. Obviously recruiting for position is not an easy thing as high quality big men are more difficult to recruit than guards due to depth and availability.

Balance wins. Balance can be achieved in several ways, i.e. balance at every position or say a several guard lineup as long as you have quality at the point, shooters, serviceable bigs, etc...

agree as long as everyone recognizes we need interchangeability as well-the days of dropping off to a bench that shouldn't be in the game are gone

[billiken_roy]

Roy, you seem to be confusing what Billikan refers to as "recruiting over" with the practice of pulling scholarships. While there is some similarity in the two they are not the same. Recruting over means you've got a PF and the next year you recruit another PF that is better than him. This is what Billikan is talking about.

Now naturally, recruiting a better player COULD lead to the original player being upset and eventually transferring, but it doesn't necessarily mean that will happen.

There have been plenty of threads based on the morality of pulling scholarships, but this shouldn't be one of them.

i agree there is no problem with recruiting over a player as long as the player isnt asked to leave. absolutely nothing wrong with that unless the coach indeed makes a stupid promise not to. that is one promise a coach should never do. (soderberg foolishly supposedly did such with both mcguire and liddell. with liddell it wouldnt have mattered, with maguire, i shake my head. frank c says all the time that rickma promised mitchell he would start no matter what. i dont think that is a good promise either. )

however if a coach made such a promise, i think the coach should be good for his word. a promise is a promise. but like i said, a coach should not make that promise.

[Cowboy]

-what is the definition of "recruiting over" a player?

[slu72]

-what is the definition of "recruiting over" a player?

Cowboy, I think the term recruiting over is very subjective unless you bring in a one and doner, eg Rose, Gordon types. Take the Aussie kid we're after. Maybe on paper he appears an upgrade to say BK (not saying he is just using this as an example). Possibly BK may think he's being recuited over and will lose playing time. There is no guarantee the new kid will beat out BK until practice and the games begin. I don't see anything wrong w/ this approach as it's the coach's job to ensure he's constantly upgrading the program's talent level. Any coach worth his salt will tell you, "you win with players." As someone posted above about Frasor at UNC, it's a prime example of being recruited over. Williams brings in Lawson and Frasor's no longer the starting PG. I think kids understand this can and will happen all the time. They may not like it but it happens at just about every level of sport. It's up to the individual player being recruited over to improve to save his job or at least still contribute in a meaningful way. If he chooses to be upset then he's always got the option of leaving.

[Cowboy]

Cowboy, I think the term recruiting over is very subjective unless you bring in a one and doner, eg Rose, Gordon types. Take the Aussie kid we're after. Maybe on paper he appears an upgrade to say BK (not saying he is just using this as an example). Possibly BK may think he's being recuited over and will lose playing time. There is no guarantee the new kid will beat out BK until practice and the games begin. I don't see anything wrong w/ this approach as it's the coach's job to ensure he's constantly upgrading the program's talent level. Any coach worth his salt will tell you, "you win with players." As someone posted above about Frasor at UNC, it's a prime example of being recruited over. Williams brings in Lawson and Frasor's no longer the starting PG. I think kids understand this can and will happen all the time. They may not like it but it happens at just about every level of sport. It's up to the individual player being recruited over to improve to save his job or at least still contribute in a meaningful way. If he chooses to be upset then he's always got the option of leaving.

-72, no attack or anything intended to you or anyone, so recruiting and signing the best possible players is now "recruiting over" the current players?

-is this "recruiting over" new jargon for what i believe to have been going on forever and that is recruiting?

[Billikan]

-72, no attack or anything intended to you or anyone, so recruiting and signing the best possible players is now "recruiting over" the current players?

-is this "recruiting over" new jargon for what i believe to have been going on forever and that is recruiting?

I was merely repeating what some people have posted and they seem to use the term "recruiting over" to mean you have a nice recruit in year one at a position and then in year two you recruit a potentially better player at that position. To me, it is a no brainer. Any coach worth his salt should always try to get the best players possible and when the players come to fall practice then everyone fights for a job. The returning starters/seniors should be given some deference at first but in the long run the best performers should play. Most good teams today play 9 or 10 players so there would be plenty of opportunity for people to contribute and the practices should help the team get better because we have starter quality players coming off the bench.

[slufanskip]

I'd say we fire (as quickly as possible) any coach who does not try to "recruit over" every player on his roster. I would bet every coach makes some kind of promise to some kid at one time or another. Hell, didn't RM tell KM he was going to turn the keys over to him from day 1? Wouldn't that lead KM to believe he's the starting point guard? What happens if halfway through this year KM was playing horribly, turning the ball over missing shots etc... is RM stuck with having him as his point guard for 1 year? for 4 years? What if KM is really giving it his all, trying as hard as he can to succeed? Does the efoort of the player count as to whether you break your word, or does the results?

The Lucas kid is leaving Fla and going to Texas because he wants to play point. I highly doubt he wasn't led to beleive he would play the point when he was being recruited. Obviously Fla feels they have a better option at the point and the Lucas kid is leaving.

[Cowboy]

Any coach worth his salt should always try to get the best players possible and when the players come to fall practice then everyone fights for a job. The returning starters/seniors should be given some deference at first but in the long run the best performers should play.

I'd say we fire (as quickly as possible) any coach who does not try to "recruit over" every player on his roster - from skip

amen Billikan, amen Skip

I would bet every coach makes some kind of promise to some kid at one time or another. -from Skip - i hope the only promise is that a kid could compete for playing time. i also think there is a difference between a promise and an expectation.