Time to change the recruiting methodology

[willievic]

He just needs a little more forethought and better internal roster evaluation, this year he should have known the bigs behind Adebayo were just not good enough. I don't know how hard he tried to get Jared Allen, we all remember Bolden, so I think he knew to some extent, but he didn't get the roster I'm betting he really wanted.

He IS recruiting multi-year players as supplemental pieces, but so far that has been a relative bust. He has to do better there too.

You can recruit multi-year players all you want, but if you don't give them a chance to play, what good is it.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

 

[TheEgyptianMagician]

You and I have always disagreed on this Brian. I continue to believe the proper team building pattern would be 2-3 elite players, based on specific needs, and the rest from the 40-150 range. I'm convinced more than ever that '12 was a fluke. .

Maybe, maybe not... what you are essentially describing is Bill Self/KU, they do everything you want in addition to satisfying other rafters complaints like playing zone, bench coaching etc. yet they aren't producing better results.

IMO, the anomaly for a myriad of reasons is winning a title in general... OUr relative success inflates fans' expectations more than anything else.

 

[BourbonBalz]

We've had a few issues the past few years. In my opinion, the two biggest are relying 100% on man defense and not having a true SF that can shoot and take their man off the dribble. Not having a good three man hamstrings our offense. In addition, we've lacked a post presence the past two seasons. Last year we didn't have one, and this year we have one player that relies on dunks 75% of the time. We're just not a very complete team. Too many guards that can't shoot and too few post players with any offensive moves. Also, two stretch fours that do almost all their scoring from the perimeter. Throw in the fact that none of our players are very good defensively, and you've got issues. My fellow fans, that all equals a very flawed team.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

have to have more 3-4 yr players period! These freshman have been a debacle in big games

You mean like Willis, Hawkins, Mulder, and then Humphries will be next year.

 

[brianpoe]

You and I have always disagreed on this Brian. I continue to believe the proper team building pattern would be 2-3 elite players, based on specific needs, and the rest from the 40-150 range. I'm convinced more than ever that '12 was a fluke. A few things lined up to allow us to win the title. We had a highly skilled and experienced senior, we had two highly skilled sophomores who had some good experience and we had a once in a lifetime talent in AD. We had talent in every position but most either had some good experience or they were very special players. We don't have that now. Next year will be worse.

Our relative success has created a smoke and mirrors situation that has served to cement Cals idea that team building in this manner is best. We hear from the mountain tops "look at our wins", "look at our final fours", "he won a title this way". I see an anomaly in our title, I see the brute force of athleticism and individual skill getting us to final fours, but I also see the trap of youth and inexperience causing us to wilt under the pressure in final fours. You can disagree, but that is what I see. I no longer believe we will see another title under Cal unless the stars miraculously line up again - I'm not holding my breath.

Personally, I'm growing weary of our sloppy play, our terrible decisions, our inability to play team basketball and our apparent low basketball IQ. These are all issues of youth and inexperience. Most of these guys will blossom into very good NBA players but they will grow into that. For us, we can hope for more final fours and great draft days I guess. I'd rather feel like we have more chances for banners. Don't get me wrong, I love Cal but I don't love his theory on team building.

Blend in a few Joey Dorsey Types. Tough guys like at Memphis and U Mass players. Recruit to fit your NC model. Need a couple 6 7 athletes. Not all 5 stars.

I couldn't care less about our recruiting ranking. I care very much about the results at the end of the year. That's all that matters.

We disagree because your idea goes against logical reasoning.

A players ranking directly correlates with their college success.

Not 100% of the time for each kid, but in much greater percentages. See Bama in football.

5 stars produce at a higher level with more consistency than 4 stars, much more than 3 stars and tremendously more than 2 stars.

Your thought process that we should ignore 2-3 better players each year for ones that have a less likely chance of being productive doenst make sense.

A Skal and a Briscoe will happen from time to time, but a high 3 or low 4 star flopping out happens much more frequently.

The KU and Zona way are simply myths. They recruit the exact same players we do. They want ALL the 5 stars they can get. They simply cannot match UK or Duke.

UK's success since Cal has arrived far outweighs either KU or Zona.

The only difference in us and Duke is that K has a way in which he has players, that if playing for us, would bolt to the NBA and yet stay another year or 2 or 3 for him - and usually suffer in the draft for doing so - but help win titles for Duke.


I dont agree with taking lesser players and gambling that their lesser talents, abilities, athleticism, etc will have just as good a chance to help us win over a kid who is tremendously talented with great measurables.


In your ideal world which kids would we have said no to? Booker? Lyles? KAT? Boogie? Wall? Noel? Knight? Jones? Bledsoe? Lamb? MKG? AD? Twins? Randle? Fox? Monk? Bam? Young?


It is enough of a crap shoot with the All Americans as to which ones will be great players much less guessing on the lower tier guys.

It simply makes no sense and no coach would go that route. Even Pitino wants all of the top kids regardless of what comes out of his mouth.


We have an issue of kids leaving before they should.


Had Teague, Lamb, Archie, the Twins, Dakari all taken Cal's advice as K's kids have, then things would be much different.

Just my opinion.

 

[morgousky]

Those programs have done it. Arizona has been to zero Final Fours since Cal got here. KU has been to 1.

Duke has been to 2. Of course K won them both so the other seasons are essentially forgotten. Just like most of Cal's ills would be forgotten if we closed the deal in '14 or '15.

We really are dancing on the head of a pin here. Let's see how this season plays out. And the next one.

If we go three straight years with round of 32/Sweet 16 type teams then it will be easier to say that Cal's deal isn't working.

But what if Princeton beats us in 2011? What if Aaron misses a shot in '14?

The line between success and failure is razor thin.

I agree and I don't want to be those programs. I was making a point that there are programs who fiddle in the 50-100 while shagging top 20 players. It can be done.

I don't want some robotic system where cal grabs two top 10's and then call it on OAD's. If it's a good class, ok. Take 10 top 10's. I don't care.

But when these classes are subpar, and you're missing on top 10 players because we've got too much competition for them right now, you've got to adjust to it. Go get a CDR, a dozier, a a Dorsey etc.

I think 2008 Memphis was A top 3 cal team of all his squads. That team had 1 OAD. Cal is best when he evaluates regardless of ranking. Right now we're too caught up in the top 25. He won't, and I get that, but we really should reflect on what we're doing.

But hey, you've heard me say this before. S&C used to say it all the time. If he's content with being IZZO instead of Rupp or chasing UCLA, then those are the results we'll get. Not bad, but nowhere near Cals ceiling.

 

[morgousky]

We disagree because your idea goes against logical reasoning.

A players ranking directly correlates with their college success.

Not 100% of the time for each kid, but in much greater percentages. See Bama in football.

5 stars produce at a higher level with more consistency than 4 stars, much more than 3 stars and tremendously more than 2 stars.

Your thought process that we should ignore 2-3 better players each year for ones that have a less likely chance of being productive doenst make sense.

A Skal and a Briscoe will happen from time to time, but a high 3 or low 4 star flopping out happens much more frequently.

The KU and Zona way are simply myths. They recruit the exact same players we do. They want ALL the 5 stars they can get. They simply cannot match UK or Duke.

UK's success since Cal has arrived far outweighs either KU or Zona.

The only difference in us and Duke is that K has a way in which he has players, that if playing for us, would bolt to the NBA and yet stay another year or 2 or 3 for him - and usually suffer in the draft for doing so - but help win titles for Duke.


I dont agree with taking lesser players and gambling that their lesser talents, abilities, athleticism, etc will have just as good a chance to help us win over a kid who is tremendously talented with great measurables.


In your ideal world which kids would we have said no to? Booker? Lyles? KAT? Boogie? Wall? Noel? Knight? Jones? Bledsoe? Lamb? MKG? AD? Twins? Randle? Fox? Monk? Bam? Young?


It is enough of a crap shoot with the All Americans as to which ones will be great players much less guessing on the lower tier guys.

It simply makes no sense and no coach would go that route. Even Pitino wants all of the top kids regardless of what comes out of his mouth.


We have an issue of kids leaving before they should.


Had Teague, Lamb, Archie, the Twins, Dakari all taken Cal's advice as K's kids have, then things would be much different.

Just my opinion.

I wouldn't put Briscoe in the same category with Skal. I have no problems with recruiting Briscoe, I have a problem with he roster building around him. He can't be a main focal point of an offense. And right now he is.

 

[brianpoe]

I wouldn't put Briscoe in the same category with Skal. I have no problems with recruiting Briscoe, I have a problem with he roster building around him. He can't be a main focal point of an offense. And right now he is.

#1 rated PG not even on the draft board his sophomore year doesnt fit in my analogy, otherwise of course I agree.

And as you know the roster make up is my biggest beef as well. No rim protector or SF 2 years in a row have hurt us.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Duke's recruiting is taking a hit, as we speak.. I imagine the same for UNC and UofL.. Kansas continues to go for problem recruits.

Meanwhile, we have what, 6 recruits for next year.. Probably going to add a few more. Some of those recruits are also not necessarily 1AD. Maybe cal is gunning for 30th-20th guys now also. We'll be pretty solid next year and the year after because of this.

 

[nookam]

Cal's best team(2012) had 2 sophomores and a senior playing major minutes

We start a sophomore and Willis plays major minutes. Problem is we have guys who won't defend. Bam is 1/300 of the player AD was.

 

[morgousky]

Duke's recruiting is taking a hit, as we speak.. I imagine the same for UNC and UofL.. Kansas continues to go for problem recruits.

Meanwhile, we have what, 6 recruits for next year.. Probably going to add a few more. Some of those recruits are also not necessarily 1AD. Maybe cal is gunning for 30th-20th guys now also. We'll be pretty solid next year and the year after because of this.

I don't think Cal is changing, I think the game of recruiting has changed. He's no longer considered the only place for OAD's. In 2010 he was.

This is my main concern. The system inside the game is changing, and Cal doesn't.

I agree with Duke taking a hit on the trail. This season should hurt them. Recruiting OAD's is a very thin line.

 

[morgousky]

#1 rated PG not even on the draft board his sophomore year doesnt fit in my analogy, otherwise of course I agree.

And as you know the roster make up is my biggest beef as well. No rim protector or SF 2 years in a row have hurt us.

True enough. But I don't see how Briscoe was ever considered an NBA OAD type when he's a 3 in a 1 body.

 

[brianpoe]

But hey, you've heard me say this before. S&C used to say it all the time. If he's content with being IZZO instead of Rupp or chasing UCLA, then those are the results we'll get. Not bad, but nowhere near Cals ceiling.

S&C was an absolute maniac, I heard he was abducted by some Soros funded feminazi protesters and forced to change his gender.... poor guy, uh gal....whatever.

 

[morgousky]

S&C was an absolute maniac, I heard he was abducted by some Soros funded feminazi protesters and forced to change his gender.... poor guy, uh gal....whatever.

[laughing]

 

[brianpoe]

True enough. But I don't see how Briscoe was ever considered an NBA OAD type when he's a 3 in a 1 body.

Potential only, prior to playing his 1st college game.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I don't think Cal is changing, I think the game of recruiting has changed. He's no longer considered the only place for OAD's. In 2010 he was.

This is my main concern. The system inside the game is changing, and Cal doesn't.

I agree with Duke taking a hit on the trail. This season should hurt them. Recruiting OAD's is a very thin line.

Well, I'm not so sure. It's not like 2010 was some super loaded haul. Our best class, rank wise, was in 2013.. The class we currently have has three top10 guys. If anything I think Cal is continuing to have success getting these guys to the draft.. Kansas struggles to keep them out of Jail.. and Duke just can't handle it.

 

[morgousky]

Well, I'm not so sure. It's not like 2010 was some super loaded haul. Our best class, rank wise, was in 2013.. The class we currently have has three top10 guys. If anything I think Cal is continuing to have success getting these guys to the draft.. Kansas struggles to keep them out of Jail.. and Duke just can't handle it.

Ha yea KANSAS does have an issue with recruiting Bloods.

I wasn't meaning 2010 only, just around those years. Today it's a different landscape.

 

[LineSkiCat14]

I'm still not so sure. All the new recruits see all our past recruits in the league.. there's like 30 of them. Cal hasn't let up recruiting, we're still getting a quarter or a 1/3rd of the top 10. Now, next year, we're certainly more invested in the 25-11 range it seems... but we got them early. I think Cal just learned to not get burned by a Bolden situation again.

 

[katkraze]

Cal loves the one and dones - he will not change

 

[king of cali]

I couldn't care less about our recruiting ranking. I care very much about the results at the end of the year. That's all that matters.

If that were true then you wouldn't be in this thread bitching. In 7 full seasons Calipari has produced 4 Final 4s and 1 title. You should be satisfied if all that mattered were end of the year results. Or maybe you're one of the ones who thinks that any season that ends without a title is unsuccessful.

 

[kodakkodak]

It's all about the draft! Yes! Can't wait! Love it! So awesome not hanging banners!

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Since Calipari has been here, we've hung more title banners than Kansas, UNC, Florida, UCLA and Indiana combined..

 

[LineSkiCat14]

Maybe some of you should take a look st the real issue, The NCAA. We very often get shafted in seeding.. That plays a huge roll. Or how about not letting our recruits play? Or how about letting every other big school blatantly cheat?

Don't be mad that Calipari has to do this with one hand tied behind his back. If it upsets you, start going to the source.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

Time to expect 6-10 losses every year with a new team every year..Will have a chance in March, but will take a lot of L's through the year..

We lost more games with 3-4 year guys in the years before Cal got here. And did nothing in March.

 

[UKWildcats#8]

I couldn't care less about our recruiting ranking. I care very much about the results at the end of the year. That's all that matters.

And the results have been excellent overall.

 

[loublue22_rivals308424]

You can recruit multi-year players all you want, but if you don't give them a chance to play, what good is it.

OLD STOLL FIELD GUY!

Willis and Hawk and Hump are getting plenty of chances, they are at best inconsistent

 

[stoneycat_20]

We lost more games with 3-4 year guys in the years before Cal got here. And did nothing in March.

I didnt say i wanted 3-4 year guys..I said it will be normal to lose 6-10 games a year..you need good returners each year to carry you till the Fr stars get it...We have only had that 2 years 12-15..This year the returners are not very good...Next year will be worse...

 

[3 fan_rivals214492]

I wouldn't put Briscoe in the same category with Skal. I have no problems with recruiting Briscoe, I have a problem with he roster building around him. He can't be a main focal point of an offense. And right now he is.

Yeah. He only had 12 points, 8 rebounds and 6 assists in 24 minutes......

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

We disagree because your idea goes against logical reasoning.

A players ranking directly correlates with their college success.

Not 100% of the time for each kid, but in much greater percentages. See Bama in football.

5 stars produce at a higher level with more consistency than 4 stars, much more than 3 stars and tremendously more than 2 stars.

Your thought process that we should ignore 2-3 better players each year for ones that have a less likely chance of being productive doenst make sense.

A Skal and a Briscoe will happen from time to time, but a high 3 or low 4 star flopping out happens much more frequently.

The KU and Zona way are simply myths. They recruit the exact same players we do. They want ALL the 5 stars they can get. They simply cannot match UK or Duke.

UK's success since Cal has arrived far outweighs either KU or Zona.

The only difference in us and Duke is that K has a way in which he has players, that if playing for us, would bolt to the NBA and yet stay another year or 2 or 3 for him - and usually suffer in the draft for doing so - but help win titles for Duke.


I dont agree with taking lesser players and gambling that their lesser talents, abilities, athleticism, etc will have just as good a chance to help us win over a kid who is tremendously talented with great measurables.


In your ideal world which kids would we have said no to? Booker? Lyles? KAT? Boogie? Wall? Noel? Knight? Jones? Bledsoe? Lamb? MKG? AD? Twins? Randle? Fox? Monk? Bam? Young?


It is enough of a crap shoot with the All Americans as to which ones will be great players much less guessing on the lower tier guys.

It simply makes no sense and no coach would go that route. Even Pitino wants all of the top kids regardless of what comes out of his mouth.


We have an issue of kids leaving before they should.


Had Teague, Lamb, Archie, the Twins, Dakari all taken Cal's advice as K's kids have, then things would be much different.

Just my opinion.

As always, I appreciate your opinion. We simply see this differently. My position isn't illogical, it is simply a different philosophy. Since you mention Pitino, whether I like it or not, he has pretty much matched our success without a team full of 5*'s. He does recruit them, but you can't actually state that he would want a team full of one and dones. I don't think there is evidence to support that.

 

[JonathanW_rivals]

7 seasons
1 championship
+ 1 runner-up
+ 2 final fours
+ 1 elite 8
+ 1 2nd round loss
+ 1 missed tournament

We have only seen that level of success twice, late 40's through early 50's, and 92-98.
If our expectations aren't achieved each year, is that on Cal or us?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

And the results have been excellent overall.

If final fours are your goal, I would agree.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

7 seasons
1 championship
+ 1 runner-up
+ 2 final fours
+ 1 elite 8
+ 1 2nd round loss
+ 1 missed tournament

We have only seen that level of success twice, late 40's through early 50's, and 92-98.
If our expectations aren't achieved each year, is that on Cal or us?

In the late 40's, we won 3 titles in 4 years. In the mid 90's, we won 2 titles in 3 years. Cal hasn't matched that level of success.

 

[kyboy1998_rivals34276]

I can't imagine any scenario where recruiting the best available talent isn't the best option.

It would be nice to see the kids presented the benefits of staying a little more. Right, wrong or indifferent it seems we have a culture of pushing the kids out the door (I know Cal is on record saying this isn't the case) or considering them a bust and in need of recruited over if they don't leave.

Take a guy like Patterson. There would have been some post basketball benefit of being our all time leading scorer and rebounder by coming back. That team probably wins a title with him too. That option could have been sold a little.

 

[brianpoe]

As always, I appreciate your opinion. We simply see this differently. My position isn't illogical, it is simply a different philosophy. Since you mention Pitino, whether I like it or not, he has pretty much matched our success without a team full of 5*'s. He does recruit them, but you can't actually state that he would want a team full of one and dones. I don't think there is evidence to support that.

UL tries to recruit the same kids. RP does not target ##88's over #10's

If your only measurement is titles than that is a different story.

Otherwise I would conclude Cal has been more successful than Rick while here.

 

[AllBall]

I've found the solution. Cal simply has to be more selfish and convince borderline guys to stay another yr or two. Recruit the same way but also recruit some current players to remain. Imagine if Meeks, Orton, Liggins, Jonhson, Lamb, Teague, Aaron Harrison, or Skal would have stuck around. Just a couple staying would have undoubtedly helped get another title. Players first if you are a lottery pick only lol.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

UL tries to recruit the same kids. RP does not target ##88's over #10's

If your only measurement is titles than that is a different story.

Otherwise I would conclude Cal has been more successful than Rick while here.

The only metric that we've done significantly better with is making final fours. Being 1 of 4 only makes my point.

 

[BBUK_anon]

I vote to not change what Cal is doing. Not that it matters... Go CATS!

 

[kybassfan]

The only metric that we've done significantly better with is making final fours. Being 1 of 4 only makes my point.

With Tubby, final fours was the holy grail according to the LOD. Classic case of cherry picked stats.

Bottom line, Cal is doing a fabulous job by any objective measure.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

With Tubby, final fours was the holy grail according to the LOD. Classic case of cherry picked stats.

Bottom line, Cal is doing a fabulous job by any objective measure.

You know as well as I do that final fours are not the goal of UK basketball. Would you be happy if we went to the final four every year, but never won a title? The only answer to that is no so we don't disagree that much on the issue, we're simply drawing our lines at different points.

 

[Mojocat_rivals48469]

Cal loves the one and dones - he will not change

Cal loves signing the very best players in the country - just like any coach in history.