Exactly. JB recruited him, coached him, and has overseen his development as a coach. He has also spoken and written glowingly of GMac's character, competitiveness and great potential as a coach. I will go with JB's assessment over that of some random posters on a message board.
even a sage like this Pizza dude??!!
I could start a list.
why should we expect today's high school players to even remember GMacs playing career? When he played here today's hot shot recruits were at most 6-7 years old.
They can google it very easily. A tiny bit of research by the prospect will help us a ton.
GMac
If our sales pitch asks them to do a Google homework assignment then we're in bigger trouble than I thought.
I think kids know how to use Google.
Awesome breakdown! Any reason hop is not in charge of more leads?
As others have mentioned here before, the plan is to groom GMac into the lead recruiter role once Hop becomes the HC. The 2017 class is all about G building up that resume and landing us some good talent. Ron Patterson needs to be a distant memory off his list and needs to be replaced by several of the studs mentioned above.
Any particular reason they chose gmac over red? Are they thinking red will move on at some point?
He may be "#3" but he's responsible for all the 2017 big hitters sans Richards. It's not even close. The way it was divvied up you'd think red is gone next year.
JB is grooming him to become the lead recruiter even though his resume is pretty sparse at the moment, which I think is a huge risk. Wish they would take a wait-and-see if he can close on the big names in 2017 before designating him the heir apparent to Hop's role.
The difference is the fate of 2017 rests primarily on gmac. Our most experienced and proven assistants are not on the biggest fish which just seems risky. I'm sure many of us thought Louis Orr was going to do "just fine". That became a dark chapter in Syracuse basketball. And that's the problem with bad recruiting - it usually takes a few cycles to recognize that someone isn't cutting it. And by that point, we're talking about 3 or 4 NITs before the ship can get righted.
You do realize that a recruit's final decision is likely based on more than the efforts of his primary recruiter, do you not? And how, exactly, would you ever be able to attribute the loss of a recruit to the efforts of the recruiter?
You would know if the recruiter strikes out on multiple targets... but by then, it's too late.
Too late for what? Why should one assume another recruiter would have produced different results? Who do you propose we have out there recruiting then?
whose this goombah think he his??
