Cliff Omoruyi Planning Visits
- Thread starter MadRU
- Start date
Can anyone comment on the engineering programs at those listed schools? If I remember correctly Cliff is a very smart kid and was looking to be a part of an engineering program in college. Maybe this gives us a chance????
I’m not sure if I’m qualified to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. I have a Rutgers chemical engineering degree and I’m in a PhD program at a top 10 school. If the quality of the degree is as important as we’ve been led to believe, we should be in a very good position compared to those other schools.
This is not an academic or engineering based decision whatsoever, there is no advantages for RU based on their academic program or engineering program.....this is a borderline 5* player that has offers from every corner of the country and will make a decision based on basketball and how fast he can get to the next level.
I believe RU is in a position where there's no downside in continuing to recruit Cliff, it's a situation where if he goes the route that typically happens, that's OK. I don't believe RU is basing their frontcourt recruiting board on a 5* player that could only be here 1 or 2 years. An ideal situation is RU lands Martice Mitchell or a similar front court player or a kids like the Stetson PF that can play the 4 or 5 behind Myles Johnson in the next 2 season or aside Myles at times at the 4.
I think if a spring decision is possible vs the fall, it gives RU this coming season to state their case on what Omoyuri could be as a missing defensive piece and finisher at the rim, to put RU over the top in 2020-21. I don't see this as a situation where Cliff would burn an official visit (they only get 5), when he can visit unofficially at any time and as often as he wants to, since he's close enough to campus.
I believe RU is in a position where there's no downside in continuing to recruit Cliff, it's a situation where if he goes the route that typically happens, that's OK. I don't believe RU is basing their frontcourt recruiting board on a 5* player that could only be here 1 or 2 years. An ideal situation is RU lands Martice Mitchell or a similar front court player or a kids like the Stetson PF that can play the 4 or 5 behind Myles Johnson in the next 2 season or aside Myles at times at the 4.
I think if a spring decision is possible vs the fall, it gives RU this coming season to state their case on what Omoyuri could be as a missing defensive piece and finisher at the rim, to put RU over the top in 2020-21. I don't see this as a situation where Cliff would burn an official visit (they only get 5), when he can visit unofficially at any time and as often as he wants to, since he's close enough to campus.
Most student-athletes that want to major in some type of engineering quickly learn how difficult it is to pursue that degree with the time demands of their chosen sport and typically end up switching majors.
Rutgers is one of 12 but being nearby might mean no OV.
I agree with Jim. I think a huge amount of focus should be put into Coleman Hawkins. I think we have this kids ear but ultimately a factory is prob the best place for him. Would love to have him obviously, I think our heavy resources are better allocated elsewhere
The relationship between winning and recruiting shows a high correlation.Rutgers has continually shown the ability to identify recruits that could have helped the program but when it came down to crunch time they have usually chosen other schools.In the rare case where a high rated recruit came to Rutgers they have usually transferred after 2 years.
Coach Pikiell and staff are hard workers attending recruiting events throughout the country.They are putting Rutgers name out there for consideration.Closing the deal requires over coming negative recruiting that has been used successfully against Rutgers for decades.Having a winning season would be the best selling point for future recruiting.
Coach Pikiell and staff are hard workers attending recruiting events throughout the country.They are putting Rutgers name out there for consideration.Closing the deal requires over coming negative recruiting that has been used successfully against Rutgers for decades.Having a winning season would be the best selling point for future recruiting.
If you are talking about high four star or five star recruits then I would agree. But this staff has landed five (5) Rivals 150 players in three classes (Doucoure, Mathis, Harper, Mulcahy, Young) so I find it tough to argue this staff has had trouble closing on high level kids.
What we really need is a bag man with no connection to the University. That’s how you score with big recruits.
Any recruit that really really cares about academics is going ivy, Stanford or NW. Its a great sound bite but means nothing with 98% of recruits
I know nothing besides what I read on the sites but my gut with Cliff is we need to give him a reason to come here this season. To be honest, not even sure of his timeline. I get the sense he likes us but we need to make some noise this year to get him
I know nothing besides what I read on the sites but my gut with Cliff is we need to give him a reason to come here this season. To be honest, not even sure of his timeline. I get the sense he likes us but we need to make some noise this year to get him
Measuring recruiting based on Rival 150s is a complete waste of time.
True. Everyone knows that the best way to measure recruiting is on how good a prospect looks in his mixtape.
Yikes. Are you involved in making a 150 list? I didn't quite mean it like i said it.
LOL yes. It is all good. I have read/heard much worse comments about rankings. At the end of the day it is all opinions so I don't sweat it much.
Apologies. Obviously you don't need to respond to me....
I know you can't quantify things (or shouldn't)...
Have you done any type of analysis on the "hit rate" on Rivals 150 for top schools vs. schools like Rutgers. "Hit rate" meaning ultimately living up to the rating.
Does character get factored in to the rankings at all?
My thesis...which you will probably refute, and probably be right...Schools like Rutgers (at least circa 2018 and before) when they land a Rivals 150 they got the player because the better schools didnt view them as a top 150.
When you go back and look at the past 4 star or better players Rutgers got the history of those players "playing to their rating" is ridiculously low.
I know you can't quantify things (or shouldn't)...
Have you done any type of analysis on the "hit rate" on Rivals 150 for top schools vs. schools like Rutgers. "Hit rate" meaning ultimately living up to the rating.
Does character get factored in to the rankings at all?
My thesis...which you will probably refute, and probably be right...Schools like Rutgers (at least circa 2018 and before) when they land a Rivals 150 they got the player because the better schools didnt view them as a top 150.
When you go back and look at the past 4 star or better players Rutgers got the history of those players "playing to their rating" is ridiculously low.
I have never done what you call a "hit rate" on Rivals150 for top schools vs. schools like Rutgers or vs. any schools. I just don't have that much free time. However, if someone did something like that I'd definitely read it.
I've never been part of a discussion regarding a prospect's character. There have, however, been times when I've thought to myself 'this kid is a knucklehead, but damned if he isn't an elite shooter, with great size/length and above average athleticism he should be ranked X.'
Actually not true.....RU played kids ahead of when they should have played, because of lack of depth....then factor in poor coaching, not a dedicated health center, non dedicated meals and lack of a refined strength and conditioning and you have no player development.
It's impossible to have almost all of the RU kids not being ranked properly....rankings are projecting the potential of the player forward.
Russ’s response kind of supports my hypothesis.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
You have brought this up several times and it is simply not true. I would venture to say that we hit at the same rate as any other school. Duke and Kentucky have 5 star busts all the time. The problem is we don’t land as many so when they do t hit hey seem to stand out more. I guess you also have to define “hit”.
Corey Sanders did not set the program backward.
I can't speak to Mike Rosario because I never saw him play while he was at Rutgers. So if you say he set the program back I'll take your word for it. I do know that he became a better perimeter shooter each season over his college career.
I don't think Corey Sanders set the program back. Corey had a big adjustment to make, as the primary ball-handler, once there was a coaching change and the offense changed.
Corey needed, and was used to having, more talent around him for him to play make.
Most of the programs that backed off of Cory during his recruitment did so because of off the court things not because of his basketball abilities.
I don't think Corey Sanders set the program back. Corey had a big adjustment to make, as the primary ball-handler, once there was a coaching change and the offense changed.
Corey needed, and was used to having, more talent around him for him to play make.
Most of the programs that backed off of Cory during his recruitment did so because of off the court things not because of his basketball abilities.
Sanders and Rosario are not relevant to what made or didn't make RU basketball....it's an overall process that was not in place. If you have a batch of players outperforming their recruiting rankings like most programs, then you have proper player development, skills, weight training etc.
We can't find batches of players that developed significantly if they were Top 150 or outside the Top 150. That means the facilities, coaching and training and monitoring of the results with measurements like are in place now.
Eli Carter, Myles Mack and Kadeem Jack I believe played to their rankings or talent level. Mike Rosario didnt and I believe Corey Sanders did, if you look at his overall 3 years. It didn't mean he left a complete player but he matched his rankings. It's very difficult to not expect strides of development from Montez Mathis and Ron Harper in the next 3 years and Jacob Young was also a Top 150 player recruited to Texas.
Since recruiting rankings have become a "thing"our best players by a large margin have been the kids who have been rated as Rivals150 players. Our problem hasn't been that these kids haven't lived up to their billing as much as we haven't had enough of these kids.
9 of the 11 Rutgers' 1,000 point scorers recruited this century have been Rivals 150 kids: Douby, Mack, Sanders, Farmer, Inman, Rosario, Jack, Miller and Webb. Since the '00 class only Ricky Shields and Mike Williams have scored 1,000 points at Rutgers and were not Rivals 150 players. I expect Geo Baker will be the third.
9 of the 11 Rutgers' 1,000 point scorers recruited this century have been Rivals 150 kids: Douby, Mack, Sanders, Farmer, Inman, Rosario, Jack, Miller and Webb. Since the '00 class only Ricky Shields and Mike Williams have scored 1,000 points at Rutgers and were not Rivals 150 players. I expect Geo Baker will be the third.
Last edited:
and respectfully that is where evaluating recruiting by using rankings is flawed.
That is where it gets grey and your thoughts about coaching and infrastructure as a factor might be an issue.
Eli Carter left after 2 years.
Myles Mack was undersized and played little D and really wasnt a PG.
Kadeem Jack certainly did his junior year
We disagree about Corey. He leaves campus and instantly we are better.
Corey set the program backwards?!?!? He was the only player keeping fans in the RAC for 3 otherwise dreadful seasons
We're trying to rank the best players not the 150 highest character guys. I doubt any coaches, any good coaches, use player rankings when they decide to offer and recruit a kid.
Any coach who does that is unlikely to have a job long. They have to find guys who fit how their program plays.
I know one staff that has a mantra of "O.K.G" when it comes to recruiting. O.K.G stands for 'Our Kinda Guy'.
Recruiting their kinda guys led to the biggest turnaround in Division I basketball last season (14 more wins than the 2017-18 season).
It has been fascinating to watch them turn the program around.
So when you rank player X if he has had issues of or on the court are they completely ignored or used a little in rankings?
In 3 years with Corey we won 7 B1G games. He leaves and all of a sudden we win 7 in 1 year. Our offensive efficiency rockets up.
And that has nothing to do with a good freshman class and Myles Johnson development? I just stated a fact that a few out of state recruits know more of the name Corey Sanders then they know about Rutgers. Do you dispute that?