The Bluejay Underground: A Creighton Sports Message Board

geez Tri, you think maybe the coaching staff makes offers to kids who are not a "fit" for CU? Not likely.
I don't recall CU offering any 1 and Done types. The staff always recruits and offers for fit - and should be after the
best recruits available who show reciprocal interest in the Jays.

According to posts above... #30 and #65 are statistically the same kid. Bullsh_t. Many here rooting for recruits in the +120-200 range are the very same hypocrites who will character-assassinate the same kid for 4 years for not meeting that fans' expectation. We should strive to get the highest level recruits we can get. We will not be able to compete in the BE with only top 120 to 200 players.

gtmoBlue wrote:geez Tri, you think maybe the coaching staff makes offers to kids who are not a "fit" for CU? Not likely.
I don't recall CU offering any 1 and Done types. The staff always recruits and offers for fit - and should be after the
best recruits available who show reciprocal interest in the Jays.

According to posts above... #30 and #65 are statistically the same kid. Bullsh_t. Many here rooting for recruits in the +120-200 range are the very same hypocrites who will character-assassinate the same kid for 4 years for not meeting that fans' expectation. We should strive to get the highest level recruits we can get. We will not be able to compete in the BE with only top 120 to 200 players.

Whoa, wait just a second.

How do you know ANY of this?

There's no way to know what the threshhold needed to 'compete' will be. In fact I'd argue that if you took our teams from the last 10-12 years and projected them into this conference, we wouldn't have had a single one that would have gone worse than 6-12, and over half of them would have been fourth or better. And that's with almost nothing in the way of bigtime recruiting. So what would happen if we got better examples of the same? There's no way to know until we do it, so I won't even ask you to tell me how you know that one.

Secondly, you want to see someone get character assassinated? Get a top 50 recruit that acts lazily or won't get with the program and he'll get absolutely fried. Which leads me to my next point: top 50 guys open a whole new can of worms. Look at Providence: they went balls to the wall and landed two huge recruits last year. One took a scholarship but couldn't play due to grades, and declared for the NBA this season without ever suiting up. The other was mediocre and still almost went to the pros, only coming back because he had hurt his draft stock somewhat and needed to bounce back. Meanwhile, Providence blew. And as soon as Dunn leaves next year they'll have nothing to show going forward for almost an entire year of recruiting. So 'big names' are no panacea.

Also, I'd love to know how you can be so sure that one guy ranked a few dozen spots above another is better, when often one guy is ranked 70th on one person's list and 125th on another.

And finally I'd like to know how you can be sure where we stand in the minds of ANY of the top 100 recruits, because guess what? It's very possible that our best team we can get is made up of guys from 100-175; after all, finishing second of third with a great player is pretty much the same as not getting a sniff at all, especially if it means there's no fallback plan. Or maybe we should ask Dana how that goes.

So please don't browbeat us for low standards. Unrealistic standards are far more dangerous if you ask me.

HandDownManDown wrote:

gtmoBlue wrote:geez Tri, you think maybe the coaching staff makes offers to kids who are not a "fit" for CU? Not likely.
I don't recall CU offering any 1 and Done types. The staff always recruits and offers for fit - and should be after the
best recruits available who show reciprocal interest in the Jays.

According to posts above... #30 and #65 are statistically the same kid. Bullsh_t. Many here rooting for recruits in the +120-200 range are the very same hypocrites who will character-assassinate the same kid for 4 years for not meeting that fans' expectation. We should strive to get the highest level recruits we can get. We will not be able to compete in the BE with only top 120 to 200 players.

Whoa, wait just a second.

How do you know ANY of this?

There's no way to know what the threshhold needed to 'compete' will be. In fact I'd argue that if you took our teams from the last 10-12 years and projected them into this conference, we wouldn't have had a single one that would have gone worse than 6-12, and over half of them would have been fourth or better. And that's with almost nothing in the way of bigtime recruiting. So what would happen if we got better examples of the same? There's no way to know until we do it, so I won't even ask you to tell me how you know that one.

Secondly, you want to see someone get character assassinated? Get a top 50 recruit that acts lazily or won't get with the program and he'll get absolutely fried. Which leads me to my next point: top 50 guys open a whole new can of worms. Look at Providence: they went balls to the wall and landed two huge recruits last year. One took a scholarship but couldn't play due to grades, and declared for the NBA this season without ever suiting up. The other was mediocre and still almost went to the pros, only coming back because he had hurt his draft stock somewhat and needed to bounce back. Meanwhile, Providence blew. And as soon as Dunn leaves next year they'll have nothing to show going forward for almost an entire year of recruiting. So 'big names' are no panacea.

Also, I'd love to know how you can be so sure that one guy ranked a few dozen spots above another is better, when often one guy is ranked 70th on one person's list and 125th on another.

And finally I'd like to know how you can be sure where we stand in the minds of ANY of the top 100 recruits, because guess what? It's very possible that our best team we can get is made up of guys from 100-175; after all, finishing second of third with a great player is pretty much the same as not getting a sniff at all, especially if it means there's no fallback plan. Or maybe we should ask Dana how that goes.

So please don't browbeat us for low standards. Unrealistic standards are far more dangerous if you ask me.

Let me understand your position:
You expect to be competitive, effective, and win in the BE by applying the standards and recruiting strategy
Creighton employed in the MVC. Really? 7 or 8 of the teams in the new BE signed
at least one top 100 recruit for 2013, and are pressing for more in 2014. Others have
stated we need to upgrade our recruiting in the months and years ahead. I
agree.

gtmoBlue wrote:geez Tri, you think maybe the coaching staff makes offers to kids who are not a "fit" for CU? Not likely.
I don't recall CU offering any 1 and Done types. The staff always recruits and offers for fit - and should be after the
best recruits available who show reciprocal interest in the Jays.

According to posts above... #30 and #65 are statistically the same kid. Bullsh_t. Many here rooting for recruits in the +120-200 range are the very same hypocrites who will character-assassinate the same kid for 4 years for not meeting that fans' expectation. We should strive to get the highest level recruits we can get. We will not be able to compete in the BE with only top 120 to 200 players.

Again, how do you know this? You just said yourself we can't recruit with the same mentality we did in the MVC...and we haven't gone through even a full year of BE membership to use as a recruiting tool. You don't think that staff might start recruiting a different type of player, a "one and done" if you will, to inject some talent into the roster if it was possible to land one? Not every kid is a fit. So I can't see how you can say this staff always recruits a certain way with such a small sample size. And if you want to go back to DA's staff, you can definitely see that even in the MVC he started to reach for guys that were most definitely not a fit (on and off the court).

But all I was commenting on was the blatantly obvious statement you posted that it's best to get a kid that is highly ranked AND a fit for your program. Ya think? But again, like many people of said, rankings are good to use as a guideline but not as the be-all end-all. A kid's rank can fluctuate wildly depending on what scouting/recruiting service is grading them, the area of country they are from, who has offered, what AAU team they play for, how much national exposure he's received, and subjective biases, etc. It's not a fool-proof system--especially since like HDMD you can often have a discrepancy of more than 50 spots depending on which service you are looking at.

But again, like many people of said, rankings are good to use as a guideline but not as the be-all end-all. A kid's rank can fluctuate wildly depending on what scouting/recruiting service is grading them, the area of country they are from, who has offered, what AAU team they play for, how much national exposure he's received, and subjective biases, etc. It's not a fool-proof system--especially since like HDMD you can often have a discrepancy of more than 50 spots depending on which service you are looking at.

A great example would be Zach Hanson. He's ranked pretty low in all of the recruiting services. 2 stars on ESPN. But offers from Missouri, Gonzaga, Arizona State, New Mexico, Iowa State? To me, that looks like the offer list of a 100-150 recruit, not a 2-star.

Kyle Wiltjer of Kentucky is transferring. Any interest here?

he's a gonzaga lean

Hilltop do you know of any visits that are set up? Thanks for all you do.

Hilltop. Of the SGs offered, which one(s) is/are more likely to visit?

6 - 4 SG James Demery - fast riser over spring/summer, rumored online that he will visit
6 - 4 SG JP Macura - fast riser over the summer
6 - 4 SG Nick Babb


Not on list: Do we have any remaining interest in the local kid, 6 - 4 SG Khyre Thomas? Scout-NR, Rivals-NR, ESPN- 3star.
Athletic, long, with upside. If we have to get out in the weeds, rather do so with a talented local kid.

I thought SG Jerrelle DeBerry had reopened his recruitment. Do we have any interest?

LaChance is listed by 2 of the Big 3 services as a PG, so I didn't include in this post.

Macura made an unofficial visit earlier this summer...