So Pikiell is doing a bad job cause he’s not recruiting with the likes of the bluest of the blue bloods?
An Honest Look at Recruiting
- Thread starter ouchmyknee
- Start date
GRF top 10 Pike’s most important players (on court)
1. Myles Johnson
2. Geo Baker
3. Ron Harper
4. Eugene Omoruyi
5. Jacob Young
6. Akwasi Yeboah
7. Montez Mathis
8. Caleb McConnell
9. Cliff Omoruyi
10. Paul Mulcahy
Program was an absolute ********* when he inherited it and he turned it to 2 NCAAs.
This is my most important list for play on the floor. #7 and #9 were good “recruits”
1. Myles Johnson
2. Geo Baker
3. Ron Harper
4. Eugene Omoruyi
5. Jacob Young
6. Akwasi Yeboah
7. Montez Mathis
8. Caleb McConnell
9. Cliff Omoruyi
10. Paul Mulcahy
Program was an absolute ********* when he inherited it and he turned it to 2 NCAAs.
This is my most important list for play on the floor. #7 and #9 were good “recruits”
I think folks are being very kind to Pike--he's a solid citizen and has gotten us to the Dance. But I'm not comfortable with the line that he is "recruiting to a system," "recruiting under the radar kids." Sounds like a happily accepted euphemism. I'd like to see a few more wins on the 3+ and 4 star kids.
Would never say Pike is doing a bad job. I'm saying I think it's reasonable to expect this program to take the next step on the recruiting front. Do I expect a top 40 recruit every year? Absolutely not. However, programs like Xavier, Creighton, etc. pick up 1-3 top 100-150 guys every class. Why should I not expect that?
There is definitely a distinction to be drawn between "perceived recruiting ability", which is to say as measured by recruiting agencies prior to players ever seeing the floor in college, and "actual recruiting ability", which is to say how well do the players you bring in perform through their careers.
For instance, Myles Johnson was a bigger actual recruiting success than Mamadou Doucoure, while Doucoure was a better perceived recruit that year. Doucoure contributed more to our perceived recruiting as compared to other schools in 2017, but Johnson contributed more on the court.
As long as Pike's actual recruiting keeps moving us in a positive direction, the perceived recruiting is just a interesting conversation topic.
For instance, Myles Johnson was a bigger actual recruiting success than Mamadou Doucoure, while Doucoure was a better perceived recruit that year. Doucoure contributed more to our perceived recruiting as compared to other schools in 2017, but Johnson contributed more on the court.
As long as Pike's actual recruiting keeps moving us in a positive direction, the perceived recruiting is just a interesting conversation topic.
The Rutgers MBB program isn't Xavier or Creighton.
RU has some work to do to catch up to them historically speaking.
Both of those programs have more wins than RU despite starting programs about 5 years after RU. Creighton probably has won 60% of its games
The key to Pike's success is getting the right kids into the program. The kids he's recruited and brought in are guys who buy into the team concept and understand their role. I would much rather have that then having players that may be more highly ranked coming out of high school (Corey Chandler, Mike Rosario, etc) ,but were more interested in their individual success than fitting within a winning team concept.
Not sure that is fair with respect to Creighton. You’re talking about a win rate in the Missouri Valley Conference and current restructured/watered down big East vs prime big East and current big ten.
Meh. Winning is hard regardless of the conference you are in unless you have a huge budget advantage over your conference-mates so that you can hire and retain better coaches than your conference-mates.
Or, are you saying that Creighton is simply much better than its current and former conference-mates and that allows them to win a higher percentage of games and RU wasn't in a similar position?
I understand that recruiting, roster building, player development, and coaching are all different things.
Pikiell’s recruiting is what it is - a few hits, some low ceiling guys, and some misses.
The combination of his recruiting, roster building, and defensive coaching has pulled Rutgers out of the basement and to a respectable big ten program. A pretty big feat in the eyes of the college basketball world at least. Jay Young’s development Myles probably played a nice part in that as well.
I think it’s fair to be wary of some of the commitments he takes each year because he has not had a ton of hits in recruiting and lost his fair share of recruiting battles. But hes done well in the transfer market and made it work. (The portal is recruiting too but I think we’re focusing on traditional high school recruiting though it’s less important than it used to be).
Now that everyone has had a taste of success it’s natural to want more. And it’s hard to imagine getting much more than the top of the bottom half of the conference if he doesn’t raise the level of probably he’s weakest albeit ok trait which is recruiting.
Pikiell’s recruiting is what it is - a few hits, some low ceiling guys, and some misses.
The combination of his recruiting, roster building, and defensive coaching has pulled Rutgers out of the basement and to a respectable big ten program. A pretty big feat in the eyes of the college basketball world at least. Jay Young’s development Myles probably played a nice part in that as well.
I think it’s fair to be wary of some of the commitments he takes each year because he has not had a ton of hits in recruiting and lost his fair share of recruiting battles. But hes done well in the transfer market and made it work. (The portal is recruiting too but I think we’re focusing on traditional high school recruiting though it’s less important than it used to be).
Now that everyone has had a taste of success it’s natural to want more. And it’s hard to imagine getting much more than the top of the bottom half of the conference if he doesn’t raise the level of probably he’s weakest albeit ok trait which is recruiting.
Pike relishes under the radar guys who excel. Getting the resources to hire Hobbs/Knight, is a bonus in helping to develop these kids. I like that he doesn’t mind putting pressure on himself saying this is his best team yet so expectations are high. You have to like that he doesn’t wane from the culture he established. I trust in Pike and results so far prove it.
You cited Creightons winning percentage as the measuring stick between the programs. I’m saying I don’t think you can compare the winning percentage of a Missouri Valley Conference team to a team that’s lived in the arguably the two best conferences that have existed over the past 20 years. And if we’re comparing budgets I think Creighton wins in a land slide.
What does this even mean ? If you don’t think rutgers kids take the same types of classes as those kids you’re clueless. For every Myles Johnson there are 20 Jacob young’s. .
Since Pike has been at Rutgers he has one less NCAA tournament win than McDermott. To me, that is the only stat that really matters. And we have been clearly better than Xavier with zero NCAA tournament seasons since Steele took over for Mack three seasons ago. Pike also has the same amount of NCAA tournament bids (since at Rutgers) as Ed Cooley and one more NCAA tournament win.
Not saying we passed those programs or as it specifically relates to Creighton that we are even at the level of that program. But when Pike took over we were coming off a 7-25 season and rated as the 279th best D-1 program by Kenpom. It would be foolish to say we have "passed" programs like Xavier or Creighton or Providence. But we sure as heck appear to have caught up with some pretty decent basketball programs pretty quickly.
Why does everyone care so much about stars? Unless we stay stagnant or regress I don’t care if we have 0 stars. It’s obvious he prefers hard working, defense first players that buy into the culture. Last year was a peak into what can happen if there’s some pieces that don’t fit in 100%. I’d bet we see the difference this year.
Who would have predicted this turn around. There’s plenty of teams that recruit more stars that under perform.
Who would have predicted this turn around. There’s plenty of teams that recruit more stars that under perform.
The idea Rutgers would have been better off getting Myles Cale (ranked #77 in Rivals in 2017) rather than Geo Baker is silly. I posted in another thread that I went to the Rivals recruiting board to ask about Derek Simpson after he committed and none of the Rivals guys had seen him play at any AAU events this summer. Now I don't know if Simpson is going to be good or not, but Rivals sure as heck doesn't know either.
Don't get me wrong, I love when a top-flight player decides RU is his destination.
With that said, I worry about the number of wins at the end of each season more than recruiting rankings and the number of stars a player has. As long as Pikiell and Co. continue to have Rutgers in the NCAA tournament discussion every March, I'm a happy camper.
With that said, I worry about the number of wins at the end of each season more than recruiting rankings and the number of stars a player has. As long as Pikiell and Co. continue to have Rutgers in the NCAA tournament discussion every March, I'm a happy camper.
one reason is ,they are the only game in town....bb is in the spotlight at these two universities....no fb program means the players on these teams are the big men on campus.
bb only at the two schools?....focusing on one program makes it easier to shine a light on the only game in town.
I think the opposite is true. Basketball recruiting at the highest level is much more of a sure thing than in football. For basketball, coaches can watch these kids compete against the other best players in their class from like 8th grade on up through 4 years of HS.
In football, most great HS players are not on the field with more than maybe a handful of D1 recruits at a time and many might be the only one on either team at times. They certainly don't get to participate in anything resembling AAU. Summer camps are mostly just drills and measurements/40 times.
There are hits and misses in both sports, but basketball players are far more heavily scouted in a team environment with other elite players on the court with them (for years and years) than football players are coming out of HS.
Didnt Jacob Young excel in advanced physics at the University of Rutgers?
I guess what I meant is if you look at football recruiting rankings and AP polls the correlation is far greater than Men's basketball. I've linked the '21, '20 and '19 class rankings for basketball. It doesn't appear to me the correlation is nearly as strong as it is in CFB.
I am not arguing that the top 25 or 35 kids in any given basketball class aren't clearly identifiable. They are. And those top 25 or 35 are (way) more often than not the best kids in any given class. I also believe It is much more rare a kid rated #250 in a basketball class becomes a first round pick than in a football class. However, I also believe the difference between a 4* kid (let's say a kid rated #75 in a class) in CBB and a kid rated #250 in CBB (a low 3*) is much (MUCH) "thinner" and much closer than is a 4* and low 3* kid in college football.
Now, I believe that is most likely due to the fact there are (I believe) 10x to 20x more recruiting site evaluators looking at high school football kids than high school basketball kids. Camps, tapes, etc. These recruiting sites simply don't allocate nearly the same resources to watching college basketball prospects as they do college football prospects.
Just my $0.02
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2021/all-teams/basketball
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2020/all-teams/basketball
https://n.rivals.com/team_rankings/2019/all-teams/basketball
Last edited:
I understand what you are saying, I just think it doesn't matter. HS hoops players have been seen in literally hundreds of games with elite teammates against elite opponents. They do AAU type stuff for years and years. And now there are elite HS teams that travel the country playing other elite teams. You get thousands of data points of a kid playing against similarly talented competition.
HS football? It's a joke. Most top kids face very few opportunities to match up against similarly talented competition. Add in the fact that HS football players need a lot more physical development after they get to college to compete at the highest levels and it leads to more uncertainty in recruiting. The best college basketball recruits can play in the NBA 12 months after they get on campus.
Lol . Yes ! How many drinks can one have, drive and get the charge pleaded down !
That’s why he’s still in college!!
Actually I mentioned total wins in fewer seasons of MBB than Rutgers. Creighton's winning percentage was just a guess. I might be wrong about that but probably not since you are focused on that.
Creighton has been to more NCAA Tournaments. So has Xavier.
Perhaps now Creighton's budget is bigger than RU but I don't know that.
As for the conference differences, I'm not comparing the teams. A program is more than just the team.
It's conceivable that Rutgers could catch up to those programs but RU has some work to do to accomplish that.
How’s Indiana doing with their 4 and 5 stars? How many times did we beat them? They’ve recruited well.
or tell Wisconsin they should not win so much with 3 star players.
The blue bloods who can get the top 30-40 recruits it obviously makes a difference, but much like in football, the second and third tier recruits often still require development.
We still don’t have the track record to rely on getting 4-5 star recruits. Make the tourney 8 out of ten years and I’m sure we will grab some of them. Currently we’ve officially only made the dance once in 30 years.
Top recruits aren’t going to break down our door yet.
I think you are off on Pike vs that group. Think about this:
Would Turgeon, Gard and Hioberg win at Rutgers? I doubt it.
Would Pike win at MD, Wisc, and Nebraska? Yes, I think he would.
Myles is #1 and by a big distance. There is no Myles and there is no NCAA period. Remove any of those names and we still have at least 1 appearance (assuming no covid).
some may not like that he left. Some may have thought his offensive game wasn’t good enough. Some question the fact that he doesn’t appear to have a killer instinct. I can’t see how anyone watching us day in and day out over the past 2 years can’t recognize what he meant to us on the defensive end.
For me it's not the stars. It's the offers. Here's why. Offers represent decisions by coaches in the business who have their livelihoods on the line. They're not amateurs. It's their job. And if they fail, they're fired. So, in the aggregate, offers reflect decisions by the entire NCAA basketball world on which recruits are worth offering. The better the schools and coaches offering, the better the recruit. This is a generality, and sure there are exceptions--both ways and maybe many. But this is the best method we have to rate recruits.
I don't credit fans. I don't credit analysts on websites--other than that they report offers by professionals (I hope accurately). They're thousands of analysts and reporters, and I'm sure it's fun to be involved in reporting on the college sports business. But they aren't the professionals with their livelihoods riding on it. They're much more like us, amatuers who watch a lot.
So I look at offers. Not stars. Now, they often match. And that's because the recruiting website guys generally know what I just said. Offers are the best way to rate recruits.
Even just considering last year (which was his best), he was 5th in minutes, with multiple players playing at least 6 minutes per game more than him. He was 5th in points, with multiple players scoring 6 points more per game than him. He had a weak post-up game for a center. He was 4th in steals. He was 6th in assists. He was 11th in free throw percentage, shooting 44%. He led in rebounding and blocks, which is good but also expected from a center.
He was a very good defender, good rebounder and limited offensive player. No way he was ever our best. But you are entitled to your opinion.
I left the 1990s RU backfield and went that other way on your comment: Bruce Willis.
It depends. I think Turgeon and Hoiberg would be able to recruit anywhere they go,
So I think both can win here. I realize Hoiberg hasn’t won at Nebraska yet but I do expect that to change. Not so sure about Gard but I still think he’s a better Xs and Os guy than Pike. It would be interesting to see if Pike’s recruiting would pick up at bigger basketball school like Maryland but hope we never find out.
I don't think Johnson was ever our best player, but he was our most important. Certainly this past year. Look at our record in games where he played more minutes versus fewer minutes, and we struggled in the latter. The lineup data also aligns with this. So much of our defense, and also our offense, was predicated on him being on the floor. Offenses attacked us differently when he was on the bench, and our offense flowed more smoothly when he was on the floor. The drop off to Omoruyi or Doucoure was steep.
This coming year, our approach both offensively and defensively will not be designed to rely on him, so we will see how well we do with a slightly different look. The question this year will be what the drop off looks like between Omoruyi and Agee/Reiber.
This coming year, our approach both offensively and defensively will not be designed to rely on him, so we will see how well we do with a slightly different look. The question this year will be what the drop off looks like between Omoruyi and Agee/Reiber.
Latest
-
01
The Knight Report
B1G Network Training Camp Tour Recap + Wydeek Collier Dismissed - TKR Pod
-
02
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football Fall Camp: Get 75% off The Knight Report - Final Day!
-
03
The Knight Report
Rutgers Football WR KJ Duff Named to Biletnikoff Award Watch List
-
04
The Knight Report
The 2026-27 Rutgers Women's Basketball Schedule
-
05
The Knight Report
The Knight Report Live Ask The Experts Chat: August 19th Edition