2015 recruits

[vivid_dude]

What are people's thoughts on Creighton targeting transfers and JUCOS seemingly more than they ever have? Is this a transitional strategy as we get used to being a in a much tougher conference? Is it the new normal? A product of circumstances? Little bit of everything? Is my original question an oversimplification of what's actually happening?

I don't know where I stand on it, frankly. Because I am borderline giddy about having proven, top-level talent on our roster instead of hyped-up high schoolers who may or may not pan out. But...is this the way to build and sustain a team? Just thinking out loud here (or on my keyboard).

[HandDownManDown]

Mac hinted as much would happen at a luncheon late in the 14 season. He said we would be very active going forward because we look MUCH better to recruits the second time around.

[section221jay]

What are people's thoughts on Creighton targeting transfers and JUCOS seemingly more than they ever have? Is this a transitional strategy as we get used to being a in a much tougher conference? Is it the new normal? A product of circumstances? Little bit of everything? Is my original question an oversimplification of what's actually happening?

I don't know where I stand on it, frankly. Because I am borderline giddy about having proven, top-level talent on our roster instead of hyped-up high schoolers who may or may not pan out. But...is this the way to build and sustain a team? Just thinking out loud here (or on my keyboard).

I'm a little torn as well because I think you do build a program with high school recruits. But with the amount of movement among players in college basketball these days I think we'll continue to see CU be a player in this "market". I mentioned in another thread last week that CU really needs to make a run or two in the dance before they start making a habit of landing these top notch H.S. kids they keep missing on. Hopefully guys like Watson, Cole, Foster will help get CU over that 1st weekend hump which might lead to a little more success in the HS ranks?

You lose a player after the season (i.e. Gilmore) and the options to replace him with among high schoolers are pretty slim as most are already spoken for. Even JUCO. So with 500 or so transfers every year, if you've got a slot to fill you have a decent chance to fill it with a guy with a college track record rather than maybe reaching on a High School kid.

I wonder about chemistry issues. Hasn't been a problem yet with transfers so maybe it's not a big deal. I'm sure that year of sitting out helps in that regard.

So basically, if the coaches are comfortable with the circumstances of the player's departure from the previous school I think it can be useful method to help CU get to where they want to be.

[Dundee Hipster]

I almost prefer transfers at this point. Get guys who have proven they can play and mix in some freshman with potential.

[mel ott]

Transfers the last few years are more about guys wanting to play at a higher level ( Cole and Mo) than troubled kids. Until they change the rules, Creighton should always have a spot open for such a player. Again, a proven commodity that wants to play at the top level (thank you Big East) and also is not as taken in by name programs and wants to find a good fit for their last several years of college.

[Chicagojayfan]

What are people's thoughts on Creighton targeting transfers and JUCOS seemingly more than they ever have? Is this a transitional strategy as we get used to being a in a much tougher conference? Is it the new normal? A product of circumstances? Little bit of everything? Is my original question an oversimplification of what's actually happening?

I don't know where I stand on it, frankly. Because I am borderline giddy about having proven, top-level talent on our roster instead of hyped-up high schoolers who may or may not pan out. But...is this the way to build and sustain a team? Just thinking out loud here (or on my keyboard).

I think it has to be a critical part of our strategy for the near term and maybe for the long term. Let's face it, our name isn't big enough to overcome the bigger names who are out there recruiting and it isn't big enough to overcome some of the more underhanded things that take place in getting kids placed from their AAU programs.

As our name and reputation grow it will be easier, but in the short term, we can build relationships and use those relationships when kids experience the reality that they receive at so many other programs.

Bonus with transfers - often they have proven themselves already and are looking to move up, or like Foster looking for a better system/coach for their talents.

[gtmoBlue]

In a perfect world - all HS recruits.

Most know I hate redshirting with a passion the practice "burns" (uses) an additional year (sit out year) of scholie that "could be used" for a new recruit - 5 years to potentially play 4.

Regular transfers also "burn" an extra year of scholie. I do not like either practice - however, the Jays have been very, very fortunate to pick up excellent people/athletes (Wop, Cole, Marcus) which makes the regular transfer palatable.

Primary preference: all HS recruits.

2nd preference is the graduate transfer (kreklow) who is a totally proven commodity. Kid comes in for 1 year - adds his skill set to the team. Immediate contributor- generally as someone to fill a specific need(s), then moves on to real life or a European pro league.

Pref #3: Jucos are very similar to the Grad Transfer scenario, with 2 years to contribute. Immediate contributors.

However, the transfer segment has grown rapidly. Whether such growth is good or bad as an indicator of the times we live in, or as a cultural barometer of sorts, transfers are a very real portion of the current recruiting landscape.

Regardless to any emotional or philosophical reactions or arguments to the current state of affairs - any university would be penny wise and pound foolish not to scour all 4 segments for good talent to better their team. Let's get ours.

[JacobPadilla]

In a perfect world - all HS recruits.

Most know I hate redshirting with a passion the practice "burns" (uses) an additional year (sit out year) of scholie that "could be used" for a new recruit - 5 years to potentially play 4.

Regular transfers also "burn" an extra year of scholie. I do not like either practice - however, the Jays have been very, very fortunate to pick up excellent people/athletes (Wop, Cole, Marcus) which makes the regular transfer palatable.

Primary preference: all HS recruits.

2nd preference is the graduate transfer (kreklow) who is a totally proven commodity. Kid comes in for 1 year - adds his skill set to the team. Immediate contributor- generally as someone to fill a specific need(s), then moves on to real life or a European pro league.

Pref #3: Jucos are very similar to the Grad Transfer scenario, with 2 years to contribute. Immediate contributors.

However, the transfer segment has grown rapidly. Whether such growth is good or bad as an indicator of the times we live in, or as a cultural barometer of sorts, transfers are a very real portion of the current recruiting landscape.

Regardless to any emotional or philosophical reactions or arguments to the current state of affairs - any university would be penny wise and pound foolish not to scour all 4 segments for good talent to better their team. Let's get ours.

You're allowed 13 scholarships and rarely do you play more than 9 or 10 guys meaningful minutes. What's wrong with a redshirt?

[Chicagojayfan]

In a perfect world - all HS recruits.

Most know I hate redshirting with a passion the practice "burns" (uses) an additional year (sit out year) of scholie that "could be used" for a new recruit - 5 years to potentially play 4.

Regular transfers also "burn" an extra year of scholie. I do not like either practice - however, the Jays have been very, very fortunate to pick up excellent people/athletes (Wop, Cole, Marcus) which makes the regular transfer palatable.

Primary preference: all HS recruits.

2nd preference is the graduate transfer (kreklow) who is a totally proven commodity. Kid comes in for 1 year - adds his skill set to the team. Immediate contributor- generally as someone to fill a specific need(s), then moves on to real life or a European pro league.

Pref #3: Jucos are very similar to the Grad Transfer scenario, with 2 years to contribute. Immediate contributors.

However, the transfer segment has grown rapidly. Whether such growth is good or bad as an indicator of the times we live in, or as a cultural barometer of sorts, transfers are a very real portion of the current recruiting landscape.

Regardless to any emotional or philosophical reactions or arguments to the current state of affairs - any university would be penny wise and pound foolish not to scour all 4 segments for good talent to better their team. Let's get ours.

You're allowed 13 scholarships and rarely do you play more than 9 or 10 guys meaningful minutes. What's wrong with a redshirt?

I had the same reaction. In general, in the Big East we can't afford to redshirt everyone, but so long as we continue to recruit well and have the luxury of doing so, the payoff can be big. Guys like Hegner and Harrell are perfect RS candidates because they are long and highly skilled and need the extra time with S&C (Mac seems to be a proponent of redshirting these guys -- much as he was probably going to redshirt Doug his Freshman year). Regular transfers also get an extra year to gel with the team that is important for getting them ready for the following season (many top JUCO's struggle to fit in for about a half a season prior to adjusting). Huff and Watson will have a much bigger impact this year than they would have last year (yeah, it would have been huge to last year's team to have a scorer like Huff on the floor though!)

So, I am a proponent of redshirting, but with limitations. I don't want to have fewer than 10 available bodies on a roster in a given year, and I think it needs to be someone who we think can make it worthwhile -- look at a guy like Hegner. 6-10 with an outside shot, but super skinny and really growing into his body still when he arrived on campus. He needed to adjust from small school ball, speed up his shot and gain a ton of weight and strength, but the wait was worthwhile because there simply aren't many 6-10 guys who can shoot that way and he has the potential to play both the 4 and the 5. It shows potential of working out perfectly because he spent the year working hard, and I think there is still the potential for a lot more improvement. If Harrell shows the same jump this summer that Hegner did last summer, we will all be happy and it will have been worth the extra year on scholarship.

When do we not redshirt? It comes down to team needs. If we are going to actually use them, then they play. But I think guys who are physically ready to play but not skilled enough are tough decisions. Are the gaps in their game anything they can fix in a redshirt year? Usually, my guess is that usually the answer is no. You can add some polish to a guy's game, but you usually can't turn a unskilled PF into a SF in a year.

[JaysSoftballDad]

Getting transfers and JUCO players is a strategy I would use to bridge the talent gap and overall talent depth from Valley level talent to Big East level talent. However, in a perfect world, this should be a temporary strategy. I believe having players that fit your style of play and having them for 4 or 5 years is always better than 2 (3 with a redshirt).

As Creighton continues to develops a more national "major conference" brand, the doors should open to more nationally ranked recruits. Identifying those player and getting them on campus for visits is the next step, then getting them to commit follows that.

This process may take a few years and havin players like Huff, Watson, Millikin, and Foster should help expedite that process.

Having 1 or 2 guys redshirt is fine, in my opinion. Any more than that and you can run into depth issues quickly. Look at last year, we were lucky Kreklow and Clement were walk-ons. Late in the season, you had Gilmore and Zierden injured, Hanson limited, and 3 scholarships being redshirted. That left Mac with 7 scholarship players in the rotation, without Kreklow we could have been forced to waste half a year of Harrell's eligibility.