Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson
Sat Feb 02, 2013 1:05 pm
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson
Mon Feb 11, 2013 8:15 pm
To Georgia Tech.
Not sure I get that one.
Not sure I get that one.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson
Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:40 pm
The team is playing like shit, we're losing recruits to teams that haven't had any success for decades, what's next, the C7 passing over CU for the Shox?!
Shit.
Shit.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson
Mon Feb 11, 2013 10:58 pm
Crappy ACC team that hasn't been successful in years. Ouch. Not even close to home. Oh well, another fail. We've been swinging and missing on like the last 10 recruits.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)
Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:59 am
His recruitment has been a bit of a soap opera all around. We'll see if the verbal sticks this time or not. In any case, it's not clear that we needed a PG as much as we needed the athletic 2 or combo guard that we are also recruiting. IMO, with Chatman for 2 more years and with Yates and then with Norton our true need is elsewhere.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)
Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:24 am
When is the last time we actually landed one of our top targets? Zach Hanson, I suppose, could fall into that category. But outside of him, I don't see much success. Seems like we have routinely settled for our second or third option.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)
Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:25 am
Oh well.
This clears the deck for an All-In approach on Harris. If we get Kendall, he caps an excellent class of 2013.
Go Steve Lutz...get him.
This clears the deck for an All-In approach on Harris. If we get Kendall, he caps an excellent class of 2013.
Go Steve Lutz...get him.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)
Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:38 am
Duke1Agn wrote:When is the last time we actually landed one of our top targets? Zach Hanson, I suppose, could fall into that category. But outside of him, I don't see much success. Seems like we have routinely settled for our second or third option.
Hegner was a long term recruiting effort. Hanson was, as you note. Harris had a good bit of interest when we landed him. Talbert especially is a guy we got in on early and landed early and we should be very happy. I think he'll really turn into an athletic difference maker for us.
Bottom line is that so long as we are in the Valley our recruiting will continue to be a dog fight like this.
Re: 2013 PG Travis Jorgenson (Georgia Tech Verbal)
Tue Feb 12, 2013 11:54 am
Would have been nice to get him, but it's not like he committed to Penn State or Nebraska, or one of many other lowly power six programs. It shows what we’ve accomplished and how low Georgia Tech has recently sunk that people on here are questioning why they’d beat us out for a recruit.
For the past couple of years Georgia Tech has been one of the bad power six conference teams, but they’ve actually been to the NCAAs more than Creighton has since Korver graduated. They’ve easily had more historical success in the NCAAs than any MVC team, by far. As conference realignment currently stands, ACC hoops will improve, and regardless of some recent conference struggles, the ACC is probably still the premier basketball league. Georgia Tech apparently just opened a new basketball practice facility a couple of years ago, and their arena was just renovated. In terms of college rankings, only about a dozen schools with legit basketball teams can claim to be better. I far prefer Omaha to Atlanta, but Atlanta’s a huge city with lots of appeal to some. And the weather is much nicer. Finally, my guess is that Jorgenson envisioned and was sold more playing time at Georgia Tech. I know virtually nothing about the 2012-2013 Yellow Jackets, but they’re rebuilding and probably have few positions that are locked in for the next few years. If you’re Jorgenson, you guess that Chatman’s got two more years of starting, and you know you’re not the only other PG behind him. I also think kids and parents of kids who go the prep school route are more likely to want the competition and prestige of a power six school, as the reasoning behind those transfers usually seems grounded in a desire for more national exposure and competition.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even assuming both schools targeted and courted Jorgenson with the same force, I am less bothered by losing this battle than I was in losing the Foster battle with K. State, and I am sure that a lot of kids would rather commit to K. State than Creighton. I just don’t want to see us consistently losing out to true power six bottom feeders or actual mid-majors. Kind of like Uthoff, where a kid had previously turned us down to go or commit elsewhere, there was a second chance. But, you knew that if the relationship and Creighton dream was overwhelmingly strong, the first commitment would not have happened.
As for landing a "top" target, reports were that Hegner was a "top" target, as alluded to above by Chicagojayfan. The staff obviously wanted the other guys badly, or they would not have been able to give their verbals. My understanding is that staffs do not give non-contingent offers unless they actually want a kid to potentially be given a scholarship. Meaning that it is not as if staffs simply hand out 20 truly committable offers and hope that not all 20 accept. But, because the rules require most every detail about recruiting to be shrouded in mystery, us fans have no clue as to what an “offer” means, what staffs really think about the recruits, or many of the other realities of recruiting. That mystery helps make recruiting way shadier and dirtier than it needs to be, IMO. Even Mac has been painted in a not completely favorable light (e.g., brief passage in Play Their Hearts Out on Justin Hawkins of UNLV’s (pretty sure it was Hawkins, but could have been one of the other HS players) college recruitment and his trip to ISU, a school Hawkins thought wanted him more than they did).
Whatever the case, I would be disappointed if we did not target a handful of nationally ranked players every year. Better than only targeting mid major guys. Gotta start winning in March on a regular basis and/or get in that new conference. The new practice facility will also help, and having Doug for one more year would be good, too.
For the past couple of years Georgia Tech has been one of the bad power six conference teams, but they’ve actually been to the NCAAs more than Creighton has since Korver graduated. They’ve easily had more historical success in the NCAAs than any MVC team, by far. As conference realignment currently stands, ACC hoops will improve, and regardless of some recent conference struggles, the ACC is probably still the premier basketball league. Georgia Tech apparently just opened a new basketball practice facility a couple of years ago, and their arena was just renovated. In terms of college rankings, only about a dozen schools with legit basketball teams can claim to be better. I far prefer Omaha to Atlanta, but Atlanta’s a huge city with lots of appeal to some. And the weather is much nicer. Finally, my guess is that Jorgenson envisioned and was sold more playing time at Georgia Tech. I know virtually nothing about the 2012-2013 Yellow Jackets, but they’re rebuilding and probably have few positions that are locked in for the next few years. If you’re Jorgenson, you guess that Chatman’s got two more years of starting, and you know you’re not the only other PG behind him. I also think kids and parents of kids who go the prep school route are more likely to want the competition and prestige of a power six school, as the reasoning behind those transfers usually seems grounded in a desire for more national exposure and competition.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that even assuming both schools targeted and courted Jorgenson with the same force, I am less bothered by losing this battle than I was in losing the Foster battle with K. State, and I am sure that a lot of kids would rather commit to K. State than Creighton. I just don’t want to see us consistently losing out to true power six bottom feeders or actual mid-majors. Kind of like Uthoff, where a kid had previously turned us down to go or commit elsewhere, there was a second chance. But, you knew that if the relationship and Creighton dream was overwhelmingly strong, the first commitment would not have happened.
As for landing a "top" target, reports were that Hegner was a "top" target, as alluded to above by Chicagojayfan. The staff obviously wanted the other guys badly, or they would not have been able to give their verbals. My understanding is that staffs do not give non-contingent offers unless they actually want a kid to potentially be given a scholarship. Meaning that it is not as if staffs simply hand out 20 truly committable offers and hope that not all 20 accept. But, because the rules require most every detail about recruiting to be shrouded in mystery, us fans have no clue as to what an “offer” means, what staffs really think about the recruits, or many of the other realities of recruiting. That mystery helps make recruiting way shadier and dirtier than it needs to be, IMO. Even Mac has been painted in a not completely favorable light (e.g., brief passage in Play Their Hearts Out on Justin Hawkins of UNLV’s (pretty sure it was Hawkins, but could have been one of the other HS players) college recruitment and his trip to ISU, a school Hawkins thought wanted him more than they did).
Whatever the case, I would be disappointed if we did not target a handful of nationally ranked players every year. Better than only targeting mid major guys. Gotta start winning in March on a regular basis and/or get in that new conference. The new practice facility will also help, and having Doug for one more year would be good, too.