Numbers don't lie player development under this Assistant coaching staff has stagnated since 2013

[Townie72]

I used to attend ABCD Camp in Hackensack every July for 7 years, writing about SU prospects for the board, back in the 90s and early 2000s. I had press credentials and sat with many of the experts - Clark Francis, Brick Oettinger and others. I also spoke with a lot of AAU coaches and college coaches, to learn what they were looking for when they watched prospects. Over the course of the summer, the top guys (who people subscribe to for their rankings and evaluations) have seen most players at least 5 times or so, maybe more, and they have seen them head-to-head against other elite prospects, not just against the kids they play in their local high school leagues. There is some group think, and the ratings guys do talk to each other.

Big kids with ball skills tend to get rated mostly highly, even though big men take time to develop. Just look at Coleman and Christmas, both of whom were McDonalds' AAs. I would say that the top 30-40 players are reasonably accurate. Star rankings are probably more accurate than a specific number - 5 stars are generally elite, 4 stars are generally going to be very good college players, and among them, they usually make up the top 75 or so. After that, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

As I said, the top guys are easy.

And I'd say that instead of the "beholder", I'd say "guesser.

Besides, I strongly doubt there are very many customers for this stuff. Schools depend on videos, input from sources they know and trust (alumni, coaches, etc) and finally what they see themselves.

In lacrosse, where there are a few such services --- all of them in the hotbeds --- the customers tend to be schools like the Ivies. Not UVA or SU or and ACC School.

 

[saltine44]

I think it's more that recruiting has just taken a dive. Our punishment has been 3 years of coon dog and 3 years of JB apologizing for this circumstance.

I agree that recruiting has taken a dive. Plus the upper echelon prospects aren't coming to SU to play zone. They don't play zone in the league. I'm sure this fact is used by opposing coaches to negatively recruit against Syracuse.

 

[SBU72]

I think there's a combination of small sample size and nostalgia for the good old days that is coloring the analysis here. It seems that the premise is that recent misses show that the current assistants can't develop and/or recruit players. And I see a longing for the prior crew of assistants (basically, Rob Murphy, Hop, and Fine). But that was the crew of assistants who (for the most part) coached up the post-championship class of Demetris Nichols, Terrance Roberts, and Mookie Watkins, a class that everyone would view as a disappointment. And Paul Harris didn't develop as anyone would hope under those assistants, nor did Josh Wright. But I wouldn't say the prior assistants were terrible.

The reality is that in college basketball the rosters are so small that a handful of guys who don't develop can crush a program, particularly if those guys stay around for four years. It's hard to recruit behind them because they are viewed as an obstacle to playing time but they never actually perform well enough to make the team great.

Some players miss because they get to college and don't work hard. Some miss because they get to college and have stage fright. Some don't have the body type or skill set to match their program. Some just weren't as good as you thought.

We are bringing in good talent. I think the last couple of years are attributable to a few factors: (1) probation hanging over our heads; (2) a few guys going pro when they just as easily could have decided to come back for another year (i.e., right or wrong, it wasn't a slam dunk that they HAD to go); (3) a few more misses than usual; and (4) the failure to bring in a two-guard of note in the four years between Cooney and Richardson.

There's nothing on that list that isn't fixed if the two freshmen return and Battle and Moyer show up as ready to play rotation minutes. If those things happen, we're back in business.

I think that there is a group of kids who get rated highly early in HS because basically they matured faster and simply overpower kids their own age. Guys like Paul Harris and DC2. When Harris got to SU he was no longer superior to other SF in size and strength. He didn't "develop". DC was highly rated as a hs freshmen and ws so until his sr year. If I remember correctly he dropped a lot in the ratings then. I believe it was again due to him developing early, over powering his classmates. When he stopped developing, they caught up to him and then in college surpassed him. His knee injuries have essentially stopped any development. While I sincerely hope that he can take a Christmas type of jump over this coming summer, I just don't see it happening.

 

[IthacaMatt]

As I said, the top guys are easy.

And I'd say that instead of the "beholder", I'd say "guesser.

Besides, I strongly doubt there are very many customers for this stuff. Schools depend on videos, input from sources they know and trust (alumni, coaches, etc) and finally what they see themselves.

In lacrosse, where there are a few such services --- all of them in the hotbeds --- the customers tend to be schools like the Ivies. Not UVA or SU or and ACC School.

Well, it's 20 years later. Of course things have changed. But there is far more information available about recruits online today, now that the internet is basically private broadcast networks.

 

[IthacaMatt]

I agree that recruiting has taken a dive. Plus the upper echelon prospects aren't coming to SU to play zone. They don't play zone in the league. I'm sure this fact is used by opposing coaches to negatively recruit against Syracuse.

Malachi is a Mickey Dee. McCullough would have been if he did not go to prep school. We had a guy go pro early each of the last 3 recruiting classes. We're not doing so bad as you think.