Re: Recruiting At A Glance

[dfairchild]

dmuc,

Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.  Since you gave a long post,
you are getting long response.

Point 1 - the Satt situation - I think Jon Breiner already addressed this
point.  Yes, Satt had the NBA in his eyes.  Your point about Logan is
inaccurate - "that leaves you with Logan (who to that point was more of a
SG)"  Logan was a PG in hs, played PG his freshman year, started his
sophmore year at point till Satterfield won the position.

So I don't think there was an emergency - he had Logan, he tried to recruit
Jarret Jack; but didn't get him.  In the spring he need a PG - he chose
Barker.
So he had Logan in 2001-2002
Logan
2001 - 2002 - 34 min - 22 pts - shot 46% ( 37% from 3 point) - 87% FT
shooting - 187 assists! - 88 TOs - 2.13 A/TO ratio
and Barker in
2002 - 2003 - 32 min - 6.8 pts - shot 40% (47% from 3 point) - 67% FT
shooting - 140 assists - 49 TOs - 2.86 A/TO ratio!
no Steve Logan, but solid PG play
this team wasn't very good, but I don't think it was the PG play, I think it
was the lack of a center - here was the line up - Barker, Field, Stokes,
Maxiell, and Johnson/Hollman.

point 1b - I think there is a misunderstanding - I do not believe HS players
are inferior to JUCO players.  When I spoke about inferior players, I was
saying you could take an inferior hs player compared to the top 25 high
school players.  So, in the spring - Huggins had a choice between a JUCO
player or a lower rate HS player.

My preference is for us to get 5 star recruits in the fall signing periord,
unfortunately, recruiting hasn't worked that way for UC.

Point 2 - you don't have to have a star - I agree.  Barker wasn't a star,
but he ended up being a pretty solid PG.  You do have to have top Div 1
talent - like there are reasons a player is JUCO, there are reasons a player
is at a Dayton, Miami, or No. Iowa.  This takes us back to the exercise I
suggested, but you have failed to try - pick one of the lower rated HS
players from the recruiting class and we can see how they did -
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=10&p=9&c=11&cfg=bb&yr=2002&pid=40&iSchoolStateP
rovinceId=-1&iRatingValue=-1&iGetJUCOFlag=0&iCommitFlag=-1&iGroupbyPosition=
0&toinid=-1&iInterestLevelId=-1&iOffer=-1&iRecruitVisitFlag=-1&OrderbyColumn
=RatingValue

Point 3 - "Third, I would rather take a mid level player as a frosh, more
than a 2 year JUCO."  I don't think you can make that broad of statement -
At that point in UC's recruiting, I think there were two priorities - 1)
filling needs in the upcoming season; and 2) recruiting top tier high school
players (who fit into Huggins system).  We can look at the classes and agree
that mistakes were made.  One that makes your point is Jimmy Hubbard - we
would have been better with a HS player who might develop; on the other
hand - Souleyman was a mid level player who never did develop.

Point 4 - It seems your opinion is that Huggins didn't try to get 4 year
players to develop, but we can see plenty of ones he did, including a
walk-on - Jamaal Lucas in the same class as Taron Barker!  - Though while
Lucas stayed 4 years, developed, and learned the system inside and out - he
never contributed to the level Barker did.

Point 5 - I think you make a point I have been saying for while now - it is
very hard to recruit a top rated pg, period.

Point 6 - I'm not sure I agree that poor planning was the problem with our
recruiting.  I think there is a lot of agreement that our recruiting was not
the greatest.  I would say that it was very good compared to our peers in
C-USA (we regularly won championships).  It is when you compare our
recruiting to the top 15 schools or so, that it doesn't look so good.  The
big question is why?  I say the primary reason was that we were in an
inferior league.  Jerry says that it was Huggins' personality and the
negative perception of the program (I can allow that had a negative impact
on our recruit; I just don't think it was the primary issue); you believe it
was poor planning.

Even Jerry agrees that we did not lose recruits to our peers (UL, Memphis,
Marquette, Utah, Temple, Gonzaga), but to teams in the power conferences,
what does that tell you?

Again, I think recruiting is complex and difficult.  I think it easiest to
recruit wings, then PF, then PG, then Cs (especially in the era when most
top centers were going to the NBA).

Finally, regarding good vs. effective recruiting - all I can say is -
against his peers, Huggins recruiting was pretty effective (he regularly won
championships).  Against the top teams (not so effective - we weren't able
to win a NC or take deep tournament runs).

Go Cats!
DF





-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden
[mailto:address@hidden Behalf Of address@hidden
Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:34 AM
To: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [UC Basketball] Recruiting At A Glance


DF-
   Agreed, that it is refreshing to have a good intelligent conversation
about UC basketball...always interested to hear interesting thoughts instead
of the same old Huggs/Zimph.  That being said...I'll add again to this
thread.

My #6 point should be taken as a result of the first 5, and it's the one
you're referring to.  I said that "We put ourselves in emergency situations,
instead of planning ahead."  I should have said..."More often than not, we
put ourselves in emergency situations because of poor planning."  And this
is simply only my opinion, but I try to defend with good evidence.

Like I have stated before...I used to live with Mel Levett, and even after
he graduated I got to know all the players very well, especially the Logan
years.  I got to know K-Satt and let me tell you first hand...regardless of
how NBA ready he really was, we were lucky to get him back for a second
year...and there was NO way he was going to stay for a third.  I agree that
he was not NBA ready...but to a McD All-American and starting PG as a frosh
for the #1 team in the country, he thought he was and nothing was going to
change his mind.  My point is that Huggs knew this, and so did all the
players and assistants.   This is #1 example of poor planning.  (I don't
know the answer) But it'd be interesting to see how many MCD AA PG's
actually stay for more than 2 years...I bet, not many (even if they aren't
NBA ready, bc they are NBA EGO ready).  So for Huggs to "try to convince"
him to stay (even though everyone knew he was gone) was simply not a smart
choice.
   To your point, that leaves you with Logan (who to that point was more of
a SG) and Stokes (who was always a wing player, not really a PG or SG).  So
I think getting a better PG should have had much more emphasis placed on it
and wouldn't have caused the emergencies it did.  As a recruit, having the
chance to start at PG with Logan as a SG and Stokes as the #3 seemed like a
great opportunity!
   As for your argument that even with Satt, it would not be a great place
to be for a top recruit...look at the North Carolina's and even the Memphis'
and many other schools.  They get top teir recruits to come still, knowing
they won't play 35 minutes a game right away.  Another angle is the
Villanova way...last year they played 4 guards (which is a huge opportunity)
and only 1 was a Senior.  They still got 2 Top 30 guards to come this year.
Point is, if you are that good...they will find a place for you to play.

   I understand that recruiting is relationship based more than
anything...and in an emergency, a top recruit (especially at PG or C) is
very difficult to land.  This leads us to your debate of JUCO player vs.
Inferior player. First, I don't know how accurate it is to say that a TOP
250 player (who is not Top 50) is inferior to a JUCO player.  There's a
reason that guy is a JUCO and it's usually because he's not that good either
or he's had trouble (with law, school or coaching)...and notice I said
"usually".

Second, not all the players on the floor have to be a star; they have to be
a decent player, and most importantly smart and coachable.  Think of all the
guys (especially guards) from the Dayton's and Miami (OH)'s and Northern
Iowa's, etc. that have eaten UC up in the past.  Look at the early rounds of
the NCAA tourney, where no name teams with no name guys play awesome.  That
smart, decent player can be the general of a team of more talented players.
Point being, that you don't have to always have the "best" player available.

Third, I would rather take a mid level player as a frosh, more than a 2 year
JUCO.  Now I'm going to say that at Guard, you are usually more safe to do
this than at the Center position (you might end up with a
Souley..yikes!!!!!).  Look at the complete end of the spectrum; Jamal Lucas.
As a non Top 400 and a walk on,in my opinion, he was every bit as valuable
as #1 ranked JUCO guard Taron Barker or Michael Horton or Top ranked JUCO
guard Shawn Myrick.  Teaching guys a system and to play as a team for 4
years is much better than only 2 years.  Don't get me wrong, a Ruben
Patterson or a Pete Mickeal are expections...but generally, I would take a 4
player over a JUCO and especially at PG (where learning the system means
everything, and guys don't grasp it to year 2).  I think JUCO's are thought
to be more valuable than they really are (again, with the exception of a
complete stud).
   Fourth, Huggs strength was coaching to get the most out of his players.
In most years, we had guys overachieving due to our recruiting deficiencies.
So there is reason to assume that by recruiting a decent HS guard over a
JUCO guard, that HS guy would have gotten much better throughout his 4
years...been valuable to the Bearcats for a longer period of time and known
the system inside and out.
  Lastly, I think Huggs recruited "athletic wing" players far too much,
instead of recruiting a more traditional "planned" lineup.  Every year we
seem to have an abundance of 6'5" to 6'7" guys who are "slashers", but can't
shoot well, don't play in the post well, and at times seem to think they are
PG's.  Yet, we hardly ever have PGs, SGs, and Cs.  I think this was a major
recruiting deficency of Huggs.  Also, we always recruited transfers (Nick
Williams, White) who weren't that good at SG, and tried to make them PGs or
we went with JUCO PGs, and we always struggled at PG.  With the expection of
NVE, our best PG play always came from High School guys (Durden, Logan,
Satt).
   This is just a small part of my "more often that not, we put ourselves in
emergency situations because of poor planning" argument.  Just think how
good Huggs could have been if he'd planned a just a little better.  He could
coach the hell out of a player and push them to be the best they could be...


I also would love to move back into the "good recruting" vs. "effective
recruiting" debate (bc I can see this touching on that area)...meaning that
just because a guy is highly ranked, doesn't mean he's a good recruit.  We
had too many guys who didn't even play a single game (Jerome Harper, Banks,
Evans, Pilgrim) or guys who had character issues that caused their careers
to suffer (Bobbitt, Whaley, Antwan Jones).  I wouldn't consider that
"effective recruiting".  You can get the TOP 10 players to sign to UC, but
if they all go to the NBA straight out of HS or don't qualify academically,
is that good recruiting? Not in my book.  The whole point of recruiting is
to build YOUR team with players, not just list the best "rated players by
Scout.com".  But we'll save that for another post.

From: dfairchild
Date: 28 Feb 2007 - 08:06 AM EST

DMUC,

Thank you for taking the time to actually think through some of the
important questions. At the end, you make some important observations. One
of your key conclusions, if I read it right, is that Huggins didn't plan
well. That may be true and certainly he made some mistakes. I'll comment
on your conclusions this weekend when I have more time.

I'd like to propose a little exercise to demonstrate how difficult and
complex recruiting is. Let's take the K-Satt situation.

Early signing period: During his sophomore year - UC had K-Satt (soph),
Logan (junior) and Stokes (soph). Satt may or may not leave. If you are a
top recruit - does that look like a situation where you are going to get a
lot of playing time? So, it might be a little difficult to get a top PG
recruit to sign on in the early stage.

Season ends and K-Satt leaves.

Late signing period:
How many HS PGs are available? (Look at the current top 150
http://insider.espn.go.com/ncb/recruiting/tracker/espn150?&action=login&appR
edirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fncb%2frecruiting%2ftr there are
only 6 players available - 1 is a PG). So, we can chase that top recruit
though it is highly unlikely that we will land him since we most likely
don't have a strong relationship with him and it is likely this recruit has
some issue - the reason he is still available. I believe in 2002 Jarrett
Jack was still available and Huggins was chasing him, but wasn't able to
land him.

Now 2 options: JUCO or drop down (Jerry's reasonable suggestion).

So let's look at the HS PGs who are outside of the top 150 -
http://scout.scout.com/a.z?s=10&p=9&c=11&cfg=bb&yr=2002&pid=40&iSchoolStateP
rovinceId=-1&iRatingValue=-1&iGetJUCOFlag=0&iCommitFlag=-1&iGroupbyPosition=
0&toinid=-1&iInterestLevelId=-1&iOffer=-1&iRecruitVisitFlag=-1&OrderbyColumn
=RatingValue

Here is the exercise - pick any of the PGs below the 25th ranked PG - Daryll
Hill. Look through the list and choose the one that you think will be the
player who can develop into a solid point guard. Then, I will look up how
well that player actually performed.

Note - this assumes all these players are available, which would not be
true - still for this exercise I think it will add to illustrate how
difficult recruiting is.

Another point to consider - 2002 is during the 5/8 rule, so you have to do a
lot of juggling to make sure you can actually recruit as many players as you
may need in a given year. You also may be cultivating a solid relationship
with a top recruit in 2003 and might risk losing that recruit or not having
a scholarship because of the 5/8 rule.

Finally, do you really want to risk a 4 year scholarship on an inferior
player or is it better to give a 2 year scholarship on a solid but not great
player?

Go Cats!

I hope others find this exercise fun. It moves away from the tiring Huggins
conversation. It raises important recruitng classes. And, it helps to
illustrate some of the important, difficult decisions Mick will be making in
the next month or two.

Darryl
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from
AOL at AOL.com.

--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.5/706 - Release Date: 2/28/2007
4:09 PM

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.446 / Virus Database: 268.18.8/718 - Release Date: 3/11/2007
9:27 AM