The Wisconsin model

[Scangg]

4 stars

2018 - 0
2019 - 0
2020 - 2
2021 - 0
2022 - 0

Wisconsin has only landed 2... TWO... DOS... DEUX... 4 star recruits in the last 5 years. That's less than 1 EVERY OTHER year.

B1G finishes

2018 - 4th
2019 - co-champions
2020 - 6th
2021 - co-champions
2022 - TBD

 

[Scangg]

4 stars

2013 - 1
2014 - 0
2015 - 1
2016 - 0
2017 - 2

B1G finishes

2013 - 2nd
2014 - champions
2015 - 3rd
2016 - 2nd
2017 - 9th

 

[Zak57]

And NCAA tourney finishes?

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Unfortunately now there is another layer needed to be successful.

 

[fluoxetine]

And NCAA tourney finishes?

@Scangg is numbering his seasons wrong; the 2022 season is already complete. Keeping that in mind:

2014 Final Four
2015 Finals
2016 Sweet 16
2017 Sweet 16
2018 Missed tourney
2019 Round of 64
2020 COVID
2021 Round of 32
2022 Round of 32

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

Wisconsin has danced 21 out of thr last 22 seasons (I think). Anyone questioning their success, would be borderline insane.

 

[RU05]

It's interesting that they do the same on the gridiron.

And we often use them as a template that RU could follow.

But I think given NJ has better talent in the surrounding area that we can aim a little higher.

See Cliff.

 

[SoCal_Knight]

@Scangg is numbering his seasons wrong; the 2022 season is already complete. Keeping that in mind:

2014 Final Four
2015 Finals
2016 Sweet 16
2017 Sweet 16
2018 Missed tourney
2019 Round of 64
2020 COVID
2021 Round of 32
2022 Round of 32

Another good comparison with a consistent level of improvement is the Illinois or Brad Underwood model:

Illinois ​			Conference	Standing	Post-Season
2017–18	Illinois	14–18	4–14	T–11th
2018–19	Illinois	12–21	7–13	T–10th
2019–20	Illinois	21–10	13–7	4th	Postseason canceled due to COVID-19
2020–21	Illinois	24–7	16–4	2nd	NCAA Division I Round of 32
2021–22	Illinois	23–10	15–5	T–1st	NCAA Division I Round of 32
Illinois:	94–66 (.588)	55–43 (.561)
Total:	203–93 (.686)**

 

[Scangg]

@Scangg is numbering his seasons wrong; the 2022 season is already complete. Keeping that in mind:

2014 Final Four
2015 Finals
2016 Sweet 16
2017 Sweet 16
2018 Missed tourney
2019 Round of 64
2020 COVID
2021 Round of 32
2022 Round of 32

They are labeled as the year the season starts not ends so 2022 is TBD

 

[SteveVA2]

On Wisconsin

 

[NickRU714]

Now can you please compare to every other school who only got 2 four star recruits over that period?
Were they all as successful as Wisconsin?

I like that there have been multiple threads and chest bumping over the potential Griffiths commitment.
But then anytime anyone says "this is great. need more recruits like him going forward" the immediately response is "well stars don't matter. look at Wisconsin".
Then why is getting Griffiths such a big deal?


Is it safe to assume @Scangg isn't excited for the Griffiths commit? Since getting 4 star recruits doesn't matter.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

Wisconsin illustrates the importance of player development, the exact thing that was non-existent in RU basketball for the better part of 3 decades before Pikell. If you're not recruiting at an elite level, you'd better have a strong player development culture.

 

[Scangg]

You're missing the point completely. It's that you only need a couple 4 stars on the roster and not a full roster of them. People keep acting like we need to land multiple of these players every class to compete and we don't

I'm probably more excited for Griffiths than almost anyone on the boards. More than you for sure

 

[kcg88]

You're missing the point completely. It's that you only need a couple 4 stars on the roster and not a full roster of them. People keep acting like we need to land multiple of these players every class to compete and we don't

I'm probably more excited for Griffiths than almost anyone on the boards. More than you for sure

The point has never been that you NEED them it's that you're far better off in the long run with a roster of 4 stars than a roster of 3 stars. The median #25-150 prospect will far outperform the median #150-#275 prospect every single season.

 

[Scangg]

Iowa

4 star

2018 - 1
2019 - 1
2020 - 1
2021 - 0
2022 - 0

 

[Scangg]

The point has never been that you NEED them it's that you're far better off in the long run with a roster of 4 stars than a roster of 3 stars. The median #25-150 prospect will far outperform the median #150-#275 prospect every single season.

Yes, 4 stars are more likely to be good. No one disputes this lol

People have unrealistic thoughts on recruiting though thinking we need to land multiple 4 stars every year to be good.

We don't

1 a year would be great. 2 in a year unbelievable. 0 in a year, not the end of the world some make it out to be

 

[Scangg]

It seems many are under the impression that every good program is landing all these 4 stars with just an occasional 3 star mixed in but it's not alwayd the case

 

[kcg88]

Yeah, and Kansas State made the Elite 8 in 2018. Their previous recruiting classes:

2017 - 0
2016 - 0
2015 - 0
2014 - 1

Amazing right?

But then what happened? They lost in the first round in 2019, went 3-15 in the B12 in 2020, 4-14 in 2021, 6-12 in 2022.

2018 - 0
2019 - 0
2020 - 1
2021 - 0

Why did the formula stop working?

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The point has never been that you NEED them it's that you're far better off in the long run with a roster of 4 stars than a roster of 3 stars. The median #25-150 prospect will far outperform the median #150-#275 prospect every single season.

Looking at all teams I'd agree with you. I wouldn't agree with you if you picked apart certain schools. I defintely would agree with the top 40 or so basketball programs. As it relates to Rutgers I wouldn't agree with that.

 

[kcg88]

Looking at all teams I'd agree with you. I wouldn't agree with you if you picked apart certain schools. I defintely would agree with the top 40 or so basketball programs. As it relates to Rutgers I wouldn't agree with that.

Yeah, yeah, the inverse of the Groucho Marx joke: Any 4 star that would go to Rutgers isn't a 4 star worth taking.

By that logic should Rutgers not recruit or take Griffiths? What about Cliff? Was he a bad choice?

 

[Scangg]

Yeah, yeah, the inverse of the Groucho Marx joke: Any 4 star that would go to Rutgers isn't a 4 star worth taking.

By that logic should Rutgers not recruit or take Griffiths? What about Cliff? Was he a bad choice?

You're missing the point. The blueprint for success at Rutgers is to follow more of the Wisconsin Iowa formula. Land hopefully 1 4 star a year along with solid 3 stars and some underecruited gems then rely on player development and good coaching.

The model for success at Rutgers is not the UNC Kentucky model of expecting to land multiple elite top 4 or 5 star recruits every single year and many 1 or 2 year and done players.

Sure, landing nothing but 4 star and up players would be great

Do you honestly thing that's realistic?

 

[kcg88]

If we're going to get nittier about this then I would point to Wisconsin's 2023 preseason Torvik rating of #67 and say that their formula perhaps isn't working as well as you want us to believe.

For one, you've cut off their 2017 recruiting class that had two 4 stars in Brad Davison and Nate Reuvers who were on those 2019-21 teams, with Davison obviously around for 2022 as well. Hell, Ethan Happ was still on the 2019 team that finished 4th.

Then there's the Johnny Davis factor. How repeatable is it to get a kid ranked #164 and turn him into a lottery pick? How repeatable is it for Pikiell to get Ron Harper and turn him into what he became? Fran McCaffrey has worked some magic twice now with Garza and Murray and might do it with the other Murray. So the Iowa model is literally "turn sub-100 ranked prospects into National Players of the Year." Is that really the formula you want to try and replicate?

That's more the point. You're cherry picking the schools that have found success. What about Penn State over the past 5 years with their 3 star classes? What about my Kansas State example above?

I agree that we're not going to get nothing but 4 star players. That isn't realistic. But there's also a difference between getting 3 star Johnny Davis (offers from Marquette, WVU, DePaul, Iowa, etc) and Dean Reiber and Mawot Mag and Derek Simpson and Oskar Palmquist... all of whom had at most one other P5 offer.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Yeah, yeah, the inverse of the Groucho Marx joke: Any 4 star that would go to Rutgers isn't a 4 star worth taking.

By that logic should Rutgers not recruit or take Griffiths? What about Cliff? Was he a bad choice?

A top 250 guy is worth recruiting. Of course Cliff was a good choice. The sample size is obviously small, but there has been zero to a slight negative correlation to how a player performs here and his recruiting when committed.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Of course you cast your pole in the legitimate 4 or 5 star lake. The Wisconsin and Rutgers blueprint also casts lines in the 2 star and 3 star lake knowing that those lakes have decent fish and those fish could like the bait you have.

I think in the past we have caught some fish in the 4 star lake that were thrown back by other fisherman

 

[Plum Street]

I know Wisconsin was a program that kinda did it right . At least under Ryan . Most of their players were decent enough students to be considered real students. Not sure if that has changed under gard.

 

[Russ Wood]

I'll never knock how Wisconsin recruits because its philosophy has been very successful for them.

Most fan bases would lose their collective minds if their program started recruiting lots of three-star guys, some that aren't even ranked, redshirting some guys etc.

It helps if you can avoid staff turnover.

 

[fluoxetine]

They are labeled as the year the season starts not ends so 2022 is TBD

Like I said: wrong.

 

[Scangg]

Like I said: wrong.

Makes more sense when comparing recruiting classes to seasons. Each year is the year that season starts for a recruiting class

 

[Scangg]

4 stars

2013 - 1
2014 - 0
2015 - 1
2016 - 0
2017 - 2

B1G finishes

2013 - 2nd
2014 - champions
2015 - 3rd
2016 - 2nd
2017 - 9th

If we're going to get nittier about this then I would point to Wisconsin's 2023 preseason Torvik rating of #67 and say that their formula perhaps isn't working as well as you want us to believe.

For one, you've cut off their 2017 recruiting class that had two 4 stars in Brad Davison and Nate Reuvers who were on those 2019-21 teams, with Davison obviously around for 2022 as well. Hell, Ethan Happ was still on the 2019 team that finished 4th.

Then there's the Johnny Davis factor. How repeatable is it to get a kid ranked #164 and turn him into a lottery pick? How repeatable is it for Pikiell to get Ron Harper and turn him into what he became? Fran McCaffrey has worked some magic twice now with Garza and Murray and might do it with the other Murray. So the Iowa model is literally "turn sub-100 ranked prospects into National Players of the Year." Is that really the formula you want to try and replicate?

That's more the point. You're cherry picking the schools that have found success. What about Penn State over the past 5 years with their 3 star classes? What about my Kansas State example above?

I agree that we're not going to get nothing but 4 star players. That isn't realistic. But there's also a difference between getting 3 star Johnny Davis (offers from Marquette, WVU, DePaul, Iowa, etc) and Dean Reiber and Mawot Mag and Derek Simpson and Oskar Palmquist... all of whom had at most one other P5 offer.

I went back to 2013. You're also still missing the point

 

[kcg88]

I went back to 2013. You're also still missing the point

Oh my mistake, it's simple then. Just get one of the best 10 coaches in the sport (Bo Ryan)

Pointing to an outlier as the "model" is foolish.

All this said I don't disagree completely. Some people are being unrealistic and unfair in their expectations.

 

[LotusAggressor_rivals]

How many stars was Steph Curry?

 

[GM]

To put my two cents into the discussion, sure it’s more likely to find success with the bulk of your class being four stars, but scouting is a skill, as is development, and there is a reason Wisconsin has repeatedly found success, it’s cause they have skilled scouts and developers. Pike seems to have a similar ability, along with the assistants. Recruiting isn’t just playing the odds, it’s your ability to find talent. Of course, I’d like us to get the four stars as well, but it’s certainly not impossible to build a program like Pike has.

 

[kcg88]

How many stars was Steph Curry?

 

[wheezer]

I don’t like the theory of the Wisconsin model any more than the use of
the Villanova model ( 3 guards little height}
the success for each of those teams would be difficult to duplicate and should not be our goal or expected path to winning
Get the high star player
Get the tall player
Whenever you can

 

[RUJMM78]

Wisconsin illustrates the importance of player development, the exact thing that was non-existent in RU basketball for the better part of 3 decades before Pikell. If you're not recruiting at an elite level, you'd better have a strong player development culture.

Wisconsin runs a slow down offense based on screens and passing for 3 three point shots from around the perimeter of the foul line..Johnny Davis was the difference maker this season similar to Harper for Rutgers.Wisconsin has recruited better shooters while Rutgers had better athletes.and defenders.

 

[NickRU714]

You're missing the point completely. It's that you only need a couple 4 stars on the roster and not a full roster of them. People keep acting like we need to land multiple of these players every class to compete and we don't

I'm probably more excited for Griffiths than almost anyone on the boards. More than you for sure

Your last paragraph is 100% accurate. I couldn't care less about Griffiths.
You'll never find a post by me lauding (or criticizing) Pike, Sciano or anyone's recruiting.

I go by what happens on the field/court.
As you've pointed out - you can have the #1 class and fail. Can have a "mediocre' (others words - I don't even know where we rank in recruiting) class like HC Pike and succeed.

Just saying - stars and rankings either matter or they don't. If they don't, then Griffiths is the same as any other unranked recruit.

 

[Rokodesh]

How many stars was Steph Curry?

Lol Steph had a dad who played in the league for years and hit a growth spurt late in his teens.