2021 Class

[cu8493]

And for the Mac haters out there, if we believe we should go local regardless, doesn't that mean we should Mac a pass when the local players don't produce?

Well, first of all, what makes you think "Mac haters" are the only ones who think Mac should go after local talent? Or, that Mac haters are the only ones disappointed that we haven't been able to land most of our top targets? Second, I have only heard mention of going after several local players who are top 150 players. I don't think anyone is suggesting Mac should be giving scholarships to All State 2nd team players just because they are from Omaha. Third, what Omaha region kids have been on Mac's team since we joined the Big East who didn't produce? Seems to me the Omaha scholarships have been well used. So, pretty much a red herring argument there all around.

[gtmoBlue]

I asked this question over on the other site and I guess I'll paraphrase it slightly to more closely match the comments here. It has been suggested that CU is the premiere college basketball program in the state. It has been suggested that Chucky Hepburn and Matthew Mors are the premiere players their age and it was therefore critical that we sign them. But what if the "premiere" players in the state don't grade out as the "premiere" players on our list of recruits. Do we give them a geographic bump or go after players we believe are better suited to play in the Big East and that better suit our needs? And for the Mac haters out there, if we believe we should go local regardless, doesn't that mean we should Mac a pass when the local players don't produce?

Excellent argument MREDLE, excellent indeed.
Hepburn and Mors are good recruits...and can develop over time into better players. Were they premiere recruits? No, but they were 2 of the better recruits in the immediate area.
Should we give local/immediate area recruits a bump? No. We should always go after recruits "better suited" to the BE/our needs - regardless of where they are geographically located. We don't get brownie points for taking local players. Sallis grades out to a premier recruit. he is the only local that fits the criteria. If we get him, fine. If we don't, fine. But we go after top recruits that fit our needs and can play at a high level.

[bluejayb13]

I asked this question over on the other site and I guess I'll paraphrase it slightly to more closely match the comments here. It has been suggested that CU is the premiere college basketball program in the state. It has been suggested that Chucky Hepburn and Matthew Mors are the premiere players their age and it was therefore critical that we sign them. But what if the "premiere" players in the state don't grade out as the "premiere" players on our list of recruits. Do we give them a geographic bump or go after players we believe are better suited to play in the Big East and that better suit our needs? And for the Mac haters out there, if we believe we should go local regardless, doesn't that mean we should Mac a pass when the local players don't produce?

Excellent argument MREDLE, excellent indeed.
Hepburn and Mors are good recruits...and can develop over time into better players. Were they premiere recruits? No, but they were 2 of the better recruits in the immediate area.
Should we give local/immediate area recruits a bump? No. We should always go after recruits "better suited" to the BE/our needs - regardless of where they are geographically located. We don't get brownie points for taking local players. Sallis grades out to a premier recruit. he is the only local that fits the criteria. If we get him, fine. If we don't, fine. But we go after top recruits that fit our needs and can play at a high level.

We have 4 scholarships opening up for the 2021 class. Hunter Sallis is a premiere recruit, and we have never signed someone as highly touted as him. This idea that the others aren't Big East caliber recruits is so laughable. I'm not sure what kind of revisionist history is trying to be written here, but we wanted all three of the guys that we missed out on.

We have two players that have ever committed to Creighton that were ranked higher in their class than Murrell currently is and those are Epperson and Kalkbrenner. Ballock and Patton are the only other top 100 recruits we have had. So this idea that we are suddenly passing on top 150 guys comes from where? Even if Sallis commits, the other three slots in that class are going to be filled by top 100 guys? We're all of a sudden going to double the number of top 100 recruits in program history with one class? When did the program that has never closed on a top 50 player become one that is passing up 84th, 104th, and 142nd ranked recruits?!

[LJay]

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/189384/ronnie-harrell

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/207878/ty-shon-alexander

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/224316/marcus-zegarowski

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/239946/max-murrell

Pesky facts.

[bluejayb13]

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/189384/ronnie-harrell

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/207878/ty-shon-alexander

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/224316/marcus-zegarowski

http://www.espn.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/239946/max-murrell

Pesky facts.

Used 247 for all my rankings. To be fair, I did forget about Ronnie.

Edit: Between the three top recruiting sites (ESPN, Rivals, 247) our consensus top 100 recruits are Patton, Ronnie, and Kalkbrenner. Tyshon, Mitch, and Jacob are in 2/3. Zegarowski is only found in ESPN's top 100. Murrell is in 2 of the three, and weirdly hasn't even been graded by ESPN. Mors and Hepburn also do not even have an ESPN profile page I can find, but are both top 150 on both of the two other sites. Sallis is not in ESPN's top 60, but is top 50 on both of the other sites.

[gtmoBlue]

bluejayb13, your argument presumes that local kids want to come to the Hilltop. You also assume the program cannot afford to pass on top 150 kids.

Murrell committed to Stanford. Chucky and Mors opted to commit to Wisconsin, not CU. Shit happens. We passed on both Nicholson and Powell (top 150 guys) in order to go all-in on Ryan Kalkbrenner. As was said by others- Kalkbrenner helps move the program upwards, while Nicholson/Powell would not.

One of our members stated -paraphrasing: 'CU has an up hill battle on 90% of our recruiting'. If that is the case, we should spend our time and resources recruiting the Enarunas, Kalkbrenners, and Waltons, not the bottom end of the top 150 list.

[bluejayb13]

bluejayb13, your argument presumes that local kids want to come to the Hilltop. You also assume the program cannot afford to pass on top 150 kids.

Murrell committed to Stanford. Chucky and Mors opted to commit to Wisconsin, not CU. Shit happens. We passed on both Nicholson and Powell (top 150 guys) in order to go all-in on Ryan Kalkbrenner. As was said by others- Kalkbrenner helps move the program upwards, while Nicholson/Powell would not.

One of our members stated -paraphrasing: 'CU has an up hill battle on 90% of our recruiting'. If that is the case, we should spend our time and resources recruiting the Enarunas, Kalkbrenners, and Waltons, not the bottom end of the top 150 list.

My argument is that when top 100,150 talent ends up in the city, it would be extremely beneficial to lock that talent down. Shit does happen, but basically what I have seen on the board since we lost out on those players I mentioned is saying that we passed on them. Never really wanted 'em. To me, that is just total bullshit. We missed on two of our top targets and it sucks, I'm just pointing out that I don't buy this whole 'we passed on them' narrative being pushed.

When all is said and done I do not believe we will sign 4 players more highly rated than both Mors and Hepburn in our 2021 class, which is why missing on them is a gut punch.

[mredle]

I understand some people relying upon scouting services for determining a players value. For fans that is one of the only ways of comparing talent. And if a kid is local a fan may see the local kid playing against local talent and familiarity may be biasing. I would submit that coaches are far more likely to use the eyeball test and come up with their own rankings rather than rely heavily on rivals 247 or ESPN. Their assessment and that of trusted scouts and other information go into their personal ranking of individual players.

[Chicagojayfan]

I understand some people relying upon scouting services for determining a players value. For fans that is one of the only ways of comparing talent. And if a kid is local a fan may see the local kid playing against local talent and familiarity may be biasing. I would submit that coaches are far more likely to use the eyeball test and come up with their own rankings rather than rely heavily on rivals 247 or ESPN. Their assessment and that of trusted scouts and other information go into their personal ranking of individual players.

Exactly. Coaches have to evaluate talent. It's not a game of seeing how many top 150 guys we can land.

- With Hepburn, it's clear we liked him, but didn't think as much of him as some other teams and the recruiting services.
- We wanted Mors a lot, but based on his comments, WI was his dream school
- Murrell was a later blooming player and we did everything we could to sign him. He just wanted to go to Stanford and it's hard to argue against their academics

As to whether or not we'll get improvements over Murrell and Mors:

Instead of Murrell, we got Kalkbrenner (upgrade)

Mors will depend, but remember we already landed Antwann Jones whose role for us may be similar to what Mors would have been, and he was a top guy (106 composite versus 115 for Mors) also and he'll have 3 years to play after sitting out this year.

With Hepburn, we'll see, but it's clear we liked Mitchell more than Hepburn (although in different classes) and it looks to me like we like Tamar Bates more than him as well (FWIW, Bates is at 117 composite and Hepburn at 141) -- note that Mitchell was 205 on 247 (221 composite), but I doubt the coaches were looking at that when they came up with their own ideas about his value to our team

[jayball]

people working overtime to say its 100% cool not to get guys we wanted and top 150 rankings don't matter at all.

While we don't live or die by any one to two recruits, the pollyanna contortions are a sight to behold.