UK, Duke and UNC each has 6 top recruits coming in

[Capt. Tuttle]

That's BS. They should spend the money to change the kid's mind. They are only teenagers afterall. Easily swayed. JB should fly to each kid's house and sit on his front porch until the kid lets him in. Then, all he has to do is use the old JB charm to convince the kid to forget about the money being offered to his family and handlers and coaches. It can't be that hard.

Maybe if he spent the night wearing khakis?

 

[FrancoPizza]

is anyone really disputing that our recruiting results the last 5 years is not the worst 5 year stretch in the JB era? the second worst stretch is probably mid-90s to 2002. We can make all the excuses we want, but we're not even cracking top 25 classes. we can rate dior's class when he actually signs.

 

[73CAV]

This is just a view from afar, but... I am unsure Syracuse's problems are related to recruiting (although that may be true in the last few cycles). I think the problem is retention. Coach Boeheim has recruited some nice talent, but it seems to be arriving through a revolving door. Some highly talented prospects enroll only long enough for a cup of coffee. Then, they're gone. There has been less and less continuity in the program in recent years. Schools like Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky can lose players early because they can replace them so easily. Of course, I'm am not sure how much good it has done them. For both Kentucky and Duke, their last national championship teams had some serious leadership from upperclassmen. Syracuse doesn't recruit like that, so replenishing cupboards gone bare due to premature attrition is problematic If you look at Final Four rosters from the past four cycles, it seems to be that they are all dominated by upperclassmen. Even UNC had few OADs during its recent appearances. As I said, I believe retention is a much bigger issue than recruiting.

Also, FWIW, in reference to Diakite's rankings as a recruit: he re-classified during the summer before his senior year in high school. Originally, when he committed, he was part of the 2016 class. When it was realized that he had enough credits to qualify for admission, he re-classified to the 2015 class and reshirted. Few of the recruiting services bothered addressing this change. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it might fill some holes in your discussion.

 

[RF2044]

This is just a view from afar, but... I am unsure Syracuse's problems are related to recruiting (although that may be true in the last few cycles). I think the problem is retention. Coach Boeheim has recruited some nice talent, but it seems to be arriving through a revolving door. Some highly talented prospects enroll only long enough for a cup of coffee. Then, they're gone. There has been less and less continuity in the program in recent years. Schools like Duke, Kansas, and Kentucky can lose players early because they can replace them so easily. Of course, I'm am not sure how much good it has done them. For both Kentucky and Duke, their last national championship teams had some serious leadership from upperclassmen. Syracuse doesn't recruit like that, so replenishing cupboards gone bare due to premature attrition is problematic If you look at Final Four rosters from the past four cycles, it seems to be that they are all dominated by upperclassmen. Even UNC had few OADs during its recent appearances. As I said, I believe retention is a much bigger issue than recruiting.

Also, FWIW, in reference to Diakite's rankings as a recruit: he re-classified during the summer before his senior year in high school. Originally, when he committed, he was part of the 2016 class. When it was realized that he had enough credits to qualify for admission, he re-classified to the 2015 class and reshirted. Few of the recruiting services bothered addressing this change. It doesn't mean much, but I thought it might fill some holes in your discussion.

Good post. SU needs to pick a lane and stick with it, to avoid getting stuck in the middle -- which is where we've been for the last 5-6 years.

Recruit a team of high quality four-year guys, a la UVa, Nova, Notre Dame. Build depth, develop that depth, and never have years where you have crisis level depth issues at any key positions, because the roster is stocked. Rely upon your upperclassmen to offset higher rated recruits [think: senior CJ Fair being "better" then eventual #2 pick, Jabari Parker from Duke].

Or go all in on one- and two-and-dones, and play that game.

Problem is, we do neither effectively. We've recruited guys who fit an athletic profile that is attractive to the NBA, but those guys leave before they actualize their potential for SU due to having the right athletic profile, which enables them to sneak into the first round. And due to the scholarship restrictions, until class of 2019, we lacked depth / the type of "program" guys that have been very effective for us in recent years.

We're stuck in the middle.

 

[Newhouser]

If NCAA allows players to profit then the G league will be dead.

That will be interesting to see down the road. Time will tell.

 

[CuseFaninVT]

That will be interesting to see down the road. Time will tell.

Unless something radically changes, players get far more media exposure playing in college. Would Zion have been as ‘featured’ as much playing in the G league last year? That exposure translates to huge dollars once these big time players hit the association.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Unless something radically changes, players get far more media exposure playing in college. Would Zion have been as ‘featured’ as much playing in the G league last year? That exposure translates to huge dollars once these big time players hit the association.

No. He wouldn’t be playing in games. It’s basically a basic training program.

 

[orangecuse]

Good post. SU needs to pick a lane and stick with it, to avoid getting stuck in the middle -- which is where we've been for the last 5-6 years.

Recruit a team of high quality four-year guys, a la UVa, Nova, Notre Dame. Build depth, develop that depth, and never have years where you have crisis level depth issues at any key positions, because the roster is stocked. Rely upon your upperclassmen to offset higher rated recruits [think: senior CJ Fair being "better" then eventual #2 pick, Jabari Parker from Duke].

Or go all in on one- and two-and-dones, and play that game.

Problem is, we do neither effectively. We've recruited guys who fit an athletic profile that is attractive to the NBA, but those guys leave before they actualize their potential for SU due to having the right athletic profile, which enables them to sneak into the first round. And due to the scholarship restrictions, until class of 2019, we lacked depth / the type of "program" guys that have been very effective for us in recent years.

We're stuck in the middle.

I think we will continue to be stuck in the middle for sometime, and who knows what's in store for us after JB finally retires. We aren't & have never been a program that gets consistent one & done types, etc. and that's not likely changing. The high quality four year types, IMO, is the path, but the problem I see is how does the coaching staff, or anyone for that matter really gauge who fits that mold of that high quality four year guy and get us out of this mediocrity/in the middle? I mean, a guy in order to have 4 years of high quality, would have to be a guy that is still relatively highly rated, no? And, if so, don't you think that guy by the time he finishes his sophomore year of being high quality (and relative success on the court) be looking to jump to the NBA or some other viable level he'll be compensated at?

A high quality four year guy still has to learn the system, go through growing pains, etc., in those early years, as if he was any higher quality of a guy, he's likely looking to bolt as soon as possible I'd imagine? I think it's a serious dilemma for a program that has attained such high stature in the past, but now kind of being stuck in the mud because of today's overall landscape/climate. I don't know, but I think in order for us to get to that level of success we are all hoping for, is still some combination of one/two & done with the mixed in high quality four year type, especially in an upper echelon league as the ACC. Just my $.02.

 

[RF2044]

I think we will continue to be stuck in the middle for sometime, and who knows what's in store for us after JB finally retires. We aren't & have never been a program that gets consistent one & done types, etc. and that's not likely changing. The high quality four year types, IMO, is the path, but the problem I see is how does the coaching staff, or anyone for that matter really gauge who fits that mold of that high quality four year guy and get us out of this mediocrity/in the middle? I mean, a guy in order to have 4 years of high quality, would have to be a guy that is still relatively highly rated, no? And, if so, don't you think that guy by the time he finishes his sophomore year of being high quality (and relative success on the court) be looking to jump to the NBA or some other viable level he'll be compensated at?

A high quality four year guy still has to learn the system, go through growing pains, etc., in those early years, as if he was any higher quality of a guy, he's likely looking to bolt as soon as possible I'd imagine? I think it's a serious dilemma for a program that has attained such high stature in the past, but now kind of being stuck in the mud because of today's overall landscape/climate. I don't know, but I think in order for us to get to that level of success we are all hoping for, is still some combination of one/two & done with the mixed in high quality four year type, especially in an upper echelon league as the ACC. Just my $.02.

I honestly don't understand the point you are attempting to make. There are literally dozens [understatement] of programs in D1, most of whom do not ever recruit one-and-dones, who field competitive teams. There are also lots of teams that make the NCAA, are ranked in the top 25, etc. who also do so without having one-and-dones carrying their program.

The reason? Because being successful in the NCAA and being an NBA prospect are mutually exclusive, for the most part. There are PLENTY of terrific collegiate players who just don't fit the modern NBA game -- we've had a number of them. CJ Fair was a second team all-american, but he didn't shoot from three well enough. All-american, but someone who has never played a game in the NBA.

The notion that we can't win with, or that winning requires, a flurry of NBA prospects who leave by their second year is bunk. Arinze Onuaku, Kris Joseph, Scoop, Triche, CJ, Gbinije, Rak, and others were difference makers who all stayed four years. THOSE are the types of guys we need to land.

And for the record, we've had several one-and-dones, and even more two-and-dones. We've recruited high potential athletes, but guys who aren't quite good enough to put the team on their backs [for the most part, sans Carmelo obviously] and elevate the program. If they're good enough to make the jump to the NBA, then wish them the best and continue to recruit depth so that you aren't scrambling to replace them at the last minute -- as we've had to do far too often in recent years.

 

[Bayside44]

I think you guys actually agree...

 

[73CAV]

As long as I am at it, I'll toss out another thought for you to consider. Syracuse isn't the only school in the NCAA that has to deal with this paradox. You want the best players possible on your basketball team, but you don't want them leaving prematurely for the NBA. So, what is Coach Boeheim selling when he's recruiting a prospect? I don't know Coach Boeheim. I am not privy to his thoughts and/or discussions on matters related to recruiting. However, it seems to me that in the evolving world of intercollegiate basketball, a coach cannot simply sell the basketball program. If all he is selling is basketball, as soon as a player thinks he's ready, he'll leave for the NBA. (I suspect that that is all that Calipari is selling.) I think Boeheim needs to be selling Syracuse Unversity, a Syracuse degree, and the Syracuse family as well as basketball. It is a pitch which will appeal to recruits from 5 stars to 2 stars. It is also a pitch that will be of little interest to other recruits from 5 stars to 2 stars. However, it would seem to me that the former group would be less likely to bolt to the NBA after one or two years than the latter. It does put a greater burden on the coaching staff. They not only have to evaluate a prospect's basketball skills, they have to evaluate his attitude about school and a degree. Also, they cannot simply give lip service to the academic side. They really need to sell the University and the degree. I think Tyus Battle valued a Syracuse University degree. There have been others in recent years who didn't give that impression. As I said, I don't know Coach Boeheim. He may be doing exactly as I believe every coach should be doing, but... Just a thought.

 

[orangecuse]

I honestly don't understand the point you are attempting to make. There are literally dozens [understatement] of programs in D1, most of whom do not ever recruit one-and-dones, who field competitive teams. There are also lots of teams that make the NCAA, are ranked in the top 25, etc. who also do so without having one-and-dones carrying their program.

The reason? Because being successful in the NCAA and being an NBA prospect are mutually exclusive, for the most part. There are PLENTY of terrific collegiate players who just don't fit the modern NBA game -- we've had a number of them. CJ Fair was a second team all-american, but he didn't shoot from three well enough. All-american, but someone who has never played a game in the NBA.

The notion that we can't win with, or that winning requires, a flurry of NBA prospects who leave by their second year is bunk. Arinze Onuaku, Kris Joseph, Scoop, Triche, CJ, Gbinije, Rak, and others were difference makers who all stayed four years. THOSE are the types of guys we need to land.

And for the record, we've had several one-and-dones, and even more two-and-dones. We've recruited high potential athletes, but guys who aren't quite good enough to put the team on their backs [for the most part, sans Carmelo obviously] and elevate the program. If they're good enough to make the jump to the NBA, then wish them the best and continue to recruit depth so that you aren't scrambling to replace them at the last minute -- as we've had to do far too often in recent years.

Ha, I wondered myself after I re-read what I wrote whether my point came across as intended. It obviously failed. The larger point I was attempting to make is that it wasn't too long ago that unless you were a lottery type pick, guys were probably coming back on the premise that by next year, they could possibly get into that position. Then it moved to anywhere in the first round, kids were gone. Now, it has evolved to even where a 2nd round projection has kids leaving. Some of those guys you mentioned above (in today's climate vs. when they played) may be of that "high quality" you are thinking fit that mold, but would leave because the environment has changed so much since they played. I think we need a combo of a one or two & done types on the roster (like we've had as you mentioned) along with those "high quality" types to get us out of our middling state the past 5 years or so. I hope that's clearer...if not, just go with Bayside's comment that I pretty much am agreeing with you.

 

[Todoubled23]

Tier 1 Recruiting Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, Unc

We should be in that next Tier of Recruiting witch should put us Year in and Year out for kids ranked between 10 and 25 or so. It blows my mind why so many top ten fifteen kids go to same UNC Duke Kentucky then when they are not good enough to be one n done because there is only one basketball and they have to come back to school they get buried and passed by the next class of top recruits. Just from an SU view Quade Green, Jordan Tucker, Alex O'Connell to name a few.

I mean, by all accounts we had quade, tucker too...and Alex took an OV here before e getting a duke offer at the 11th hour.

 

[Briancuse]

I'd rather be like Nova or Virginia.

Uva has a better recruiting class than us this year.

 

[Cusefan0307]

Uva has a better recruiting class than us this year.

You don’t know what you say you know.

 

[RF2044]

Ha, I wondered myself after I re-read what I wrote whether my point came across as intended. It obviously failed. The larger point I was attempting to make is that it wasn't too long ago that unless you were a lottery type pick, guys were probably coming back on the premise that by next year, they could possibly get into that position. Then it moved to anywhere in the first round, kids were gone. Now, it has evolved to even where a 2nd round projection has kids leaving. Some of those guys you mentioned above (in today's climate vs. when they played) may be of that "high quality" you are thinking fit that mold, but would leave because the environment has changed so much since they played. I think we need a combo of a one or two & done types on the roster (like we've had as you mentioned) along with those "high quality" types to get us out of our middling state the past 5 years or so. I hope that's clearer...if not, just go with Bayside's comment that I pretty much am agreeing with you.

Sorry -- didn't pick up on that, when you suggested that we would be stuck in the middle forever and couldn't change lanes. I actually agree that we won't see a significant strategic shift until JB eventually steps down, but I DO believe that we could see markedly better outcomes with a more robust roster that includes a sprinkle of some higher rated recruits supplementing a solid foundation of program guys.

That's always seemed to be our formula for success. In 1996, we had Wallace and a bunch of role players who all stepped up. In 2010, sure - we had Wes who was a star, but we also had two fifth-year seniors [Andy / Arinze] and four other guys who ended up being four year players who were all above average and terrific college players [Kris, Rick, Scoop, Triche], who weren't NBA prospects.

In 2012, we had Dion / Fab who were two-and-dones, but the "best" / most impactful players on that team were four year players like Kris, CJ, and Scoop. BTW, that team was insanely deep, and one of the few examples of JB not being locked into certain players / specific lineups, and truly going 9 deep.

The 2013 final four team featured MCW and Jerami in reserve, but also featured four year [and sometimes five year] guys like CJ, Triche, Southerland, Rak, and Coleman.

The 2016 final four squad had two eventual early entrants [Mali, Lydon], but featured three fifth year players [Gbinije, who was the best player, Cooney, Coleman].

I think that the key for our program - which is never going to compete chasing McD's all americans against the likes of Duke / UK / UNC - is having a good foundation. Probation screwed us in that regard by reducing the # of scholarships we had available, and that was exacerbated by having several key misses on guys we targeted [Green to UK, Bryant to Indiana, even Tucker to Duke / Golden to Butler]. Would those guys have made a difference here? We'll never know. But I believe [my opinion only] that the last couple of years would have unfolded completely differently if we'd landed the lead guard we coveted in Quade, or Bryant back in 2016, or even Stewart last year].

I'm willing to bet that in 2-3 years, we're going to look back at JGIII, Edwards, JBA, Kadary, Newton, etc. and recognize that these two classes were really important foundational pieces of the puzzle vis a vis restocking the coffers. And if Dior and any other higher rated guys ever make it to the hill and suit up, their superior prowess will be enhanced by already having a talented nucleus of capable players who are program guys surrounding them.

Just my two cents.

 

[kirbivore]

They all can't go to Kentucky, Duke, and UNC.

Sometimes its okay to date the goodlooking president of the student council with a six pack, instead of the Hot Captain of the Football Team with the 12 pack.

A lesson Jordan Tucker learned the hard way

 

[CuseRunner]

Whenever we have a situation where we are recruiting a player and he is in our grasps like Jordan Tucker who we are the favorites but sense hes waiting for that big Duke, Kentucky like offer.

We tell him the stories of Jordan Tucker and what happened to him. And ask do u want that to be u ?

 

[sufandu]

It’s not about having tons of MAA. It’s about landing the guys just below that. Paul Harris was top 15. He was a year ahead of Flynn but essentially a package deal. Flynn and Green were among the top 20. Scoop and Rick Jackson were top 50-60 range. Waiters and Fab were both top 20 and CJ was top 60. MCW and Rak were top 25 kids and Cooney was 50-100. Jerami Grant was in the top 40. Ennis was top 25. CMac was top 15. Gbinije, though a transfer, had been a top 50 guy. Malachi was top 25 and Lydon among the top 75. This is all within a 7-8 year period. We haven’t landed any recruits rated that high since Tyus Battle (until Dior). It’s a downturn anyway you look at it.

I think it's about getting both. Your last point is right on though. We haven't landed those guys lately. And I'll add that the too many of the guys that were supposed to be long term projects that were supposed to give us stability left too early for us to absorb without consistently landing a high number of of really good players every year.

 

[sufandu]

Good post. SU needs to pick a lane and stick with it, to avoid getting stuck in the middle -- which is where we've been for the last 5-6 years.

Recruit a team of high quality four-year guys, a la UVa, Nova, Notre Dame. Build depth, develop that depth, and never have years where you have crisis level depth issues at any key positions, because the roster is stocked. Rely upon your upperclassmen to offset higher rated recruits [think: senior CJ Fair being "better" then eventual #2 pick, Jabari Parker from Duke].

Or go all in on one- and two-and-dones, and play that game.

Problem is, we do neither effectively. We've recruited guys who fit an athletic profile that is attractive to the NBA, but those guys leave before they actualize their potential for SU due to having the right athletic profile, which enables them to sneak into the first round. And due to the scholarship restrictions, until class of 2019, we lacked depth / the type of "program" guys that have been very effective for us in recent years.

We're stuck in the middle.

Exactly. I've said for a few years now that we recruit the wrong non-elite players. We need to find good players that have some sort of flaw that makes them really good in college but a bit unattractive to the NBA. If the team has a good stable base with those, then we land the occasional stud, those will be the special years (top 10) surrounded by the solid years (top 25).

I don't see that happening though. That profile doesn't fit the zone.

 

[orange2win]

We have had 3 McAA players on the same team 6 times.

1989-90 Owens, Coleman, McRae
1990-91 Owens, Autry, McRae
1992-93 Autry, Wallace, McRae
2007-08 Greene, Flynn, Devendorf
2011-12 Melo, Christmas, Carter-Williams
2012-12 Carter-Williams, Christmas, Coleman

 

[orange2win]

The most NBA pros we ever had on one team was 6. This happened twice.

1988-89 Douglas, Thompson, Coleman, Owens, Johnson, Manning
1989-90 Owens, Coleman, Thompson, Ellis, Johnson, Manning
(arranged by mins played)

 

[cliftonparksufan]

Exactly. I've said for a few years now that we recruit the wrong non-elite players. We need to find good players that have some sort of flaw that makes them really good in college but a bit unattractive to the NBA. If the team has a good stable base with those, then we land the occasional stud, those will be the special years (top 10) surrounded by the solid years (top 25).

I don't see that happening though. That profile doesn't fit the zone.

Thats crazy thinking but I guess Buddy (slow) and JG3 (height) fit your bill.

 

[sufandu]

Thats crazy thinking but I guess Buddy (slow) and JG3 (height) fit your bill.

They really do. Now if we had a physical center with a post game that would be a really solid base. You add an elite or near elite guy to that mix and we're looking at top 25 or better. We've actually described a part of the 2010 team, loaded with really good pieces that complemented each other well along with one near elite player that made the team great.

 

[Sherman20]

Jaley Carey was Top 50, IIRC.
#38 in ESPN Top 100.
Just because he didn't work out, does NOT mean he wasn't a highly ranked 'croot.

OSB and QG were each the #1 guy in Canada their respective years.

You were saying?...

Yes, true, Jalen was top 50 on ESPN but 50-100 on other recruiting sites (lots of schools missed on their evaluation of him). But you can’t deny he’s the only top 50 recruit we’ve had since Tyus. Feel free to continue to deny the reality we’ve had a bit of a downturn in recruiting (hopefully that changes). I love JB, but our recruiting isn’t on par with where it used to be, and even he agrees. He actually said it himself on his radio show in 2019—“we need to recruit better players, develop them better and coach them better.” So you were saying?