2015 PG Jalen Brunson (Villanova Verbal Commit)

[gtmoBlue]

Wanting the conference to continue to recruit well - do well, rah, rah, rah! However, if they aren't coming to Creighton, I'd just as soon prefer them to go to hell...or at least the PAC-12, so we would not have to deal with them.

Yeah, yeah, rah - rah Big East!

Couldn't disagree more. With the ever changing landscape of college athletics, it is in Creighton's best long-term interests to have the Big East schools be very successful in basketball. A rising tide lifts all boats.

Great colloquial expression - tell that to DePaul and Seton Hall (and up until 2 years ago-Providence). Both have been lifting the bottom of the conference for years now (along with a couple of the football departees). Similarly the bottom had not "lifted" for some others as well (B1G- Purdue, NW, Illinois, Minnesota; ACC- GT, VT, BC, WF; SEC- Auburn, SC, Miss St)

While I fully appreciate those who give import to a conference's strength and standing amongst fellow power conferences, those who also have visions of 5-7 BE member schools annually in the postseason mix, and those wanting the BE ranked high in conference RPI and the like. MUCH of the above has more to do with scheduling, SOS, and winning percentages vs other power conferences, than strictly with recruiting numbers. Yes, the quality of conference recruits plays into the equation, but is not necessarily the primary factor . I am not debating here - merely pointing out that I am not in any way wanting the Jays to become one of bottom dwellers - we need to continue to land a couple of these top guys annually in order to beat our conference competition. I am not one to root for conference-mates and their successes until post season tourney time. I prefer to have the Jays stepping on their (the competitions') necks regularly.

A successful conference? YES...but not at Creighton's expense.

[CUPG24]

You are describing the MVC - would you like to go back to that?

I would rather have CU in a conf needing to make up ground than back in the MVC being a top dog of a crap conference.

[Duke1Agn]

Gtmo - I truly have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not sure how anyone could not see the long term value of bringing in solid recruits to the Big East. Everything you described starts with recruiting. You don't want a successful conference at Creighton's expense. Well, you won't have to worry about that, because if the Big East doesn't have long term success, Creighton likely won't either.

[Bluejay Bilas]

If I’m correct that the heart of gtmo’s point is that it is difficult to cheer for conference foes when it is unclear if your team is keeping up with the top dogs amongst that group, I understand the sentiment. And he’s not incorrect to point out that 2/5ths of the current Big East failed most years to reap meaningful recruiting and on-court benefits from their inclusion in a league with talented Georgetown, Villanova, UConn, Syracuse, Louisville, etc. teams. Similarly, it’s not as though the success of Creighton and the good WSU, UNI and SIU teams of the past 15 years has noticeably trickled down to the benefit of the entire MVC.

But, due to all of the skepticism surrounding our new 10-team conference, it makes a lot of sense for the fans of each Big East team to get excited by every big name recruit who chooses our league over the big five football leagues and the AAC. As was pretty obvious, the inaugural season of the non-football Big East was ill-timed for every school other than CU, PC and VU. Throw in the failure of CU and VU to win their round of 32 matchups (with us losing our game in spectacular fashion), and the continued skepticism is mostly warranted. VU should be a top 10 team this year, but I’m not sure who else is going to carry the torch for the season. But, at least based on the league’s 2014 recruiting haul and some positive, if not as impressive, signs for the 2015 group, it looks like we may (a) have several non-VU teams capable of making runs in March in the future, and (b) have some potential first round draft picks. Cause, until the league has more tournament wins and NBA draft picks, it’s hard to disagree that the new Big East is closer to the MWC and A-10 than it is to the ACC, SEC, B1G, Big 12 and Pac-12. Pound for pound, it’s a better league than the AAC. But, with UConn winning the National Championship, you can’t claim that the AAC lacks star power.

And, in terms of how someone like Jalen Brunson relates to what CU’s trying to do on the recruiting trail, it has to be nice to let recruits know that contrary to what may negatively be said about the league, Big East play currently means the ability to play against more top talent, in terms of the number of top 100 players per team, than is the case in any other league besides the ACC (http://basketball.realgm.com/article/23 ... 5-Big-East). And, with new commits like Brunson and the promotion of Butler, Creighton and Xavier to a bigger stage, the league will continue to be flush with great talent.

[HandDownManDown]

It's simple: On this point Gtmo is a total idiot. The entire conference has a ton to prove. Period.

[mredle]

The rest of the world has vision and GTMO wears bifocals

[gtmoBlue]

Talk is cheap. HanddownMandown, mredle, and many others will be crying in their beer, bemoaning "what has become of our a Jays", should our Top 100 recruit-laden BE brethren log a consistent campaign of whup ass on Creighton. A strong conference is great - as long as Creighton can maintain pace with the competition. I have no desire to return to a RJ-like status. Thanks for your insight and clarifications BB, as usual you helped to amplify and clarify my position. Thank you. In top tier conferences - BE, B1G, ACC, and others - several teams occupy the bottom half, bottom third of the hierarchy. I am more than happy to have SH, Butler, DePaul, and any other conference foe occupy those spots, not Creighton.

For example: the Jays will have 1 Top 100 guy on the court in 2014 (Harrell), but as many as 3 (or more) in 2015 - (Harrell, Watson, Patton). We have to keep pace with the league in order to effectively compete, and win.

[mredle]

Talk is cheap. HanddownMandown, mredle, and many others will be crying in their beer, bemoaning "what has become of our a Jays", should our Top 100 recruit-laden BE brethren log a consistent campaign of whup ass on Creighton. A strong conference is great - as long as Creighton can maintain pace with the competition. I have no desire to return to a RJ-like status. Thanks for your insight and clarifications BB, as usual you helped to amplify and clarify my position. Thank you. In top tier conferences - BE, B1G, ACC, and others - several teams occupy the bottom half, bottom third of the hierarchy. I am more than happy to have SH, Butler, DePaul, and any other conference foe occupy those spots, not Creighton.

For example: the Jays will have 1 Top 100 guy on the court in 2014 (Harrell), but as many as 3 (or more) in 2015 - (Harrell, Watson, Patton). We have to keep pace with the league in order to effectively compete, and win.

It's called sports and it's competitive. If we can't compete will I be disappointed? Hell yes and I'll want to see CU work to change that but what you want is to return to the Valley. What I want is for us to work hard to show we belong. Isn't that really what we all said we wanted? Here is our chance. If you don't want to compete GTMO stop on your way out the door and pick up your certificate of participation.

[bird_call]

Not to sidetrack this thread any further down the rabbit hole, but how many top 100 players has Creighton every had on a team at what time? And how many should a team with an average rank of 20-35 in the polls have on its roster?

At most there are 400 top 100 players. Based on the last 4 years of drafts, 69, 58, 49, and 40 players declared early. So let's say that 40 of those 50 were top 100 recruits. So that leaves 240 college players that were top 100 recruits actually playing college ball in any given year.

Let's assume the blue-bloods have 10 top 100 recruits each. Duke, Kansas, Florida, Louisville, Kentucky, North Carolina, Indiana, Michigan, Michigan State, Syracuse. Maybe a few others like UConn, UCLA, Arizona.

Teams from 11-20 are probably sporting 5 or 6 top 100 recruits on average.

So that leaves 80 top 100 recruits at most for all other teams in college basketball. We should probably be aiming for 4-5 on the roster to be able to compete for top 25 status on a routine basis. That's one a year. I think that's doable.

[blueblood]

So much math.

If we had 3 top 50 recruits wouldn't we thus have an isosceles triangle?