To those that say recruiting has not fallen off...

[CUSEMODE]

Are we a lock now? (Assuming we beat Clemson and WF)

 

[kuethstheman]

I'm not sure "lock" means what you think it means.

 

[Sgt Cuse]

Are we a lock now? (Assuming we beat Clemson and WF)

We beat Clemson and WF and we're in.k

The potential still exists to get back to a more normal top 15ish year. SU looked more deserving of the #18 rank than Lville. Take 2 out of 3 from the big 3 - Duke/NC/UVA and then we can look to see what's left to get a protected seed.

 

[RF2044]

Are we a lock now? (Assuming we beat Clemson and WF)

No -- still work to be done. Can't go 1-4 or 0-5, for example -- we wouldn't be in under those circumstances.

But otherwise, we are positioned well. Just need to close strong, and play for desirable seeding.

 

[IthacaMatt]

*cough*darius bazely*cough*

You might as well have said "Winfred Walton".
Hindsight (and an article or two) has shown us that Bazely was considering skipping college back in March, before the McDonald's game ever happened. No wonder he dropped in our lap out of literally nowhere.

 

[doc05]

Here we go again! I'll say it again, whoever thinks recruiting isn't down is in denial. Doesn't mean it will be down forever, doesn't mean we aren't getting "under the radar" guys, but on paper it is right in everyone's face.

As far as Bazley, when he was considering coming here from OSU, he was not a top 10 guy -- as soon as he became one, he said "nah", let me toil in the G League or intern - don't want to go there. If you need to hang your hat on that to feel better about recruiting in the post Hopkins era, knock yourself out.

That's my 2 cents and all I will say on this repetitive topic. Have at it!

 

[moqui]

Here we go again! I'll say it again, whoever thinks recruiting isn't down is in denial. Doesn't mean it will be down forever, doesn't mean we aren't getting "under the radar" guys, but on paper it is right in everyone's face.

As far as Bazley, when he was considering coming here from OSU, he was not a top 10 guy -- as soon as he became one, he said "nah", let me toil in the G League or intern - don't want to go there. If you need to hang your hat on that to feel better about recruiting in the post Hopkins era, knock yourself out.

That's my 2 cents and all I will say on this repetitive topic. Have at it!

people can look at the star ratings and the regular season records and ignore the impact of sanctions. that is their right.

but i consider the impact of sanctions then take a more holistic look at the results on the court - two sweet 16s, a final four, two first round draft picks, 7-2 ncaat record, and now in contention for an acct double bye deep into the season. well, the proof of a pudding is always in the eating. and the guys the staff has signed & coached up have done pretty gd well considering the heavy restrictions placed on the program

but that's just my 2 cents

 

[Cusefan0307]

We would have signed Guerrier, Girard, and Goodine if we could have in 2011 as well.

 

[Ghost]

Rak was basically Chukwu until year 4. He was a 5 and 5 guy up through his Jr year.

Craziest thing I've read in a bit.

 

[doc05]

people can look at the star ratings and the regular season records and ignore the impact of sanctions. that is their right.

but i consider the impact of sanctions then take a more holistic look at the results on the court - two sweet 16s, a final four, two first round draft picks, 7-2 ncaat record, and now in contention for an acct double bye deep into the season. well, the proof of a pudding is always in the eating. and the guys the staff has signed & coached up have done pretty gd well considering the heavy restrictions placed on the program

but that's just my 2 cents

I respect you have a different opinion, all good -- I for one never said we didn't have quality players coming in, but I am also one who doesn't think a tourney run means you are oozing with elite talent either. The 1996 team wasn't the most talented team in the world outside of Wallace etc.

I do feel strongly that we are hurting a bit on the recruiting side the last 2,3 years -- to your point part of that could be related to the sanctions, part of that could be the loss of Hop etc, but I do think it is quite noticeable.

My two cents (again). Glad to have civil discourse on the topic, honestly.

 

[chugg21]

Craziest thing I've read in a bit.

Rak
Fr: 2.8 pts, 2.9 reb, 0.9 blks
So: 5.1 pts, 4.6 reb, 1.8 blks
Jr: 5.8 pts, 5.1 reb, 1.9 blks

Chukwu
Jr: 5.5 pts, 6.5 reb, 2.5 blks
Sr: 3.8 pts, 5.5 rebs, 1.7 blks

Please explain how that was a crazy statement or do you live in an alternate universe where Rak was a superstar all 4 years?

 

[kuethstheman]

Rak
Fr: 2.8 pts, 2.9 reb, 0.9 blks
So: 5.1 pts, 4.6 reb, 1.8 blks
Jr: 5.8 pts, 5.1 reb, 1.9 blks

Chukwu
Jr: 5.5 pts, 6.5 reb, 2.5 blks
Sr: 3.8 pts, 5.5 rebs, 1.7 blks

Please explain how that was a crazy statement or do you live in an alternate universe where Rak was a superstar all 4 years?

The numbers are deceiving, per my recollection. I'd like to see the minutes and the turnovers.

I never remember Rak being a liability. I never remember being afraid if he had the ball. I never remember thinking him setting a pick was a waste of time.

I remember him getting a quick hook whenever he made a decision on defense that didn't work out.

Then again, my memory isn't that good.

 

[Ghost]

Rak
Fr: 2.8 pts, 2.9 reb, 0.9 blks
So: 5.1 pts, 4.6 reb, 1.8 blks
Jr: 5.8 pts, 5.1 reb, 1.9 blks

Chukwu
Jr: 5.5 pts, 6.5 reb, 2.5 blks
Sr: 3.8 pts, 5.5 rebs, 1.7 blks

Please explain how that was a crazy statement or do you live in an alternate universe where Rak was a superstar all 4 years?

I feel like you have to take a hardline "fantasy sports" perspective to come to the conclusion that they're remotely similar players. Which is where you seem to be going. The options Christmas presented on the offensive/defensive end, speed, covering ground, running a high-low, etc...were not remotely close at any stage IMO.

There is a slight difference in not being asked to do more, and being incapable of doing much more. That's not a slight on Pascal, who has given us plenty, but I'm not sure he could give us more, or utilize him any differently regardless of the parts we surrounded him with.

 

[chugg21]

The numbers are deceiving, per my recollection. I'd like to see the minutes and the turnovers.

I never remember Rak being a liability. I never remember being afraid if he had the ball. I never remember thinking him setting a pick was a waste of time.

I remember him getting a quick hook whenever he made a decision on defense that didn't work out.

Then again, my memory isn't that good.

I just recall everyone being extremely disappointed for 3 years after he came in as a major recruit. Dude was the #1 or 2 Center recruit in the country by everyone and was still a 5 & 5 guy in year 3. Year 4 made everyone forget about years 1-3.

 

[jncuse]

Something else to consider, as well -- would we have landed more top 50 players if we weren't down three scholarships per year since 2015 through last year?

Since we didn't land any top 50 players with the scholarships we did have, its hard to make the assumption (in my perhaps uneducated view from afar) that the extra scholarships would have got us top 50 players.

 

[RF2044]

Since we didn't land any top 50 players with the scholarships we did have, its hard to make the assumption (in my perhaps uneducated view from afar) that the extra scholarships would have got us top 50 players.

#1, the stigma of the NCAA scrutiny didn't help.

#2, with more scholarships, we would have landed additional players, some of whom would undoubtedly have been in the top 50. Or alternatively, maybe players who liked us wouldn't have opted to go elsewhere instead of to a school that was saddled with restrictions. Who knows. But I wouldn't discount the damage that the sanctions / draconian restrictions on scholarships had -- that's the point. I keep seeing posts talking about the struggles recruiting the last three years -- well, guess what was different the past three years than previously?

 

[moqui]

#1, the stigma of the NCAA scrutiny didn't help.

#2, with more scholarships, we would have landed additional players, some of whom would undoubtedly have been in the top 50. Or alternatively, maybe players who liked us wouldn't have opted to go elsewhere instead of to a school that was saddled with restrictions. Who knows. But I wouldn't discount the damage that the sanctions / draconian restrictions on scholarships had -- that's the point. I keep seeing posts talking about the struggles recruiting the last three years -- well, guess what was different the past three years than previously?

and the biggest hindrance was not the loss of scholarships, it was the loss of recruiters.
schools are allowed to have 4 coaches on the road for off campus recruiting. syracuse was limited to just 2 coaches for all or parts of 3 different recruiting cycles:

• the closing half of the 2015 cycle
• all of the 2016 cycle
• the first half of the 2017 cycle

and of course that doesn't just impact those years, but it limits the ability to lay the groundwork for following years. the top 50 kids in the class of 2019 were being contacted in 2017; some of them even earlier.

it was a much bigger thing than most fans realize

 

[CousCuse]

and the biggest hindrance was not the loss of scholarships, it was the loss of recruiters.
schools are allowed to have 4 coaches on the road for off campus recruiting. syracuse was limited to just 2 coaches for all or parts of 3 different recruiting cycles:

• the closing half of the 2015 cycle
• all of the 2016 cycle
• the first half of the 2017 cycle

and of course that doesn't just impact those years, but it limits the ability to lay the groundwork for following years. the top 50 kids in the class of 2019 were being contacted in 2017; some of them even earlier.

it was a much bigger thing than most fans realize

100%. The sanctions are meant to hurt a program, to damage a programs ability to recruit. Why would the NCAA go through the bother and expense of an investigation if it wasn't going to have any real effect on a program? Boeheim charted a course through this and it will be in the rear view mirror by the next recruiting cycle.

 

[721Comstock]

#1, the stigma of the NCAA scrutiny didn't help.

#2, with more scholarships, we would have landed additional players, some of whom would undoubtedly have been in the top 50. Or alternatively, maybe players who liked us wouldn't have opted to go elsewhere instead of to a school that was saddled with restrictions. Who knows. But I wouldn't discount the damage that the sanctions / draconian restrictions on scholarships had -- that's the point. I keep seeing posts talking about the struggles recruiting the last three years -- well, guess what was different the past three years than previously?

*cough* Kevin Huerter *cough*

 

[SUOrangeSU]

*cough* Kevin Huerter *cough*

Was just going to post him! He was definitely coming here if we had an open scholarship

 

[Ghost]

I just recall everyone being extremely disappointed for 3 years after he came in as a major recruit. Dude was the #1 or 2 Center recruit in the country by everyone and was still a 5 & 5 guy in year 3. Year 4 made everyone forget about years 1-3.

I judge most players by how fluid they look - do they look like they can develop, do they seem coordinated, athletic, etc...if you have the footwork, and all that stuff, after that it's on coaching. We failed Christmas IMO. If I recall correctly he didn't improve until he left after his Junior year and worked out elsewhere - could be wrong.

Anyway, I think my point in differentiating those two - do you think if we had an abysmal offense his Sophomore year and you needed to integrate Christmas into the offensive gameplan more - you could? I have no hesitation in saying he was capable of giving more when I answer that question.

You may think differently - and that's fair. I'm just not comfortable saying the numbers draw an accurate representation of their skill sets at any stage of their developments - AT ALL. Christmas was always far more refined IMO. His numbers were a reflection on opportunity...Chukwu's numbers are just what Chukwu is capable of - no matter the situation (in my opinion).

So, do I think you could get more out of Chukwu no matter what the situation? Not really. Maybe a little more.

That's why I'm not in love with the C recruit for next year. He just doesn't look all that fluid to me - those guys always have limited upside. He looks to have a nice shot, may get some stuff done, but Sidibe looked better...and look at him. If you look like you couldn't play soccer without falling down quite a bit, I'm not all that high on your upside.

 

[Cusesky8214]

Just gunna throw a bit more fuel on the fire...we just got done hosting two top 100 4 star kids and hop hosted another stud 5 star top 25 kid that has been a frequent visitor there this year. Hes building something out west.

 

[Cuse1055]

Just gunna throw a bit more fuel on the fire...we just got done hosting two top 100 4 star kids and hop hosted another stud 5 star top 25 kid that has been a frequent visitor there this year. Hes building something out west.

Good for Hop, especially since this one isn’t a recruit we’re also going for.

 

[Cusesky8214]

Big time recruiter...I love our class coming in next year and we have some kids that are offensively skilled but the lack of a big man is concerning. If we cant reel in some of these big fish we recruit with the staff we have then we need to hire a big time recruiter that can. Losing hop hurts and hes gunna kill it out there.

 

[Cusesky8214]

Good for Hop, especially since this one isn’t a recruit we’re also going for.

I wish him nothing but success! Just hard to watch him doing it at a school that's not Syracuse. Really bummed...he would of been a monster here for us as a head coach.