ESPN Take on NU Hoops

[NJCat83588]

ESPN is doing a series of short articles on Power 5 Hoops teams and what to expect for 2015. NU's preview has been posted, take a look.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/107293/looking-ahead-northwestern-wildcats

 

[Styre]

*reads article*

Gee, I wonder what direction this thread is going to go.

 

[willycat]

Really don't know how much time and effort the ESPN crew put into their opinions but one thing really stands out. It's the importance that a head coach brings to the recruiting table.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Really don't know how much time and effort the ESPN crew put into their opinions but one thing really stands out. It's the importance that a head coach brings to the recruiting table.

Seems like they put in enough, since they were EXACTLY SPOT ON.

 

[Medill90]

The article says nothing about NU's basketball team.

Carmody, who has been gone for over two years, gets 500 words. Falzon, Law and B Mac are mentioned.

Alex Olah is not mentioned.

Scottie Lyndsey is not mentioned

JVZ is not mentioned.

Pardon and Ash are not mentioned.

Skelly is not mentioned.

It's a vacuous piece.

 

[TheC]

On the one hand, from a Northwestern publicity point of view, we should be happy with this. The piece says, yes, we know NU has been historically bad, but here is why that may be changing. That's good for us. On the other hand, those of us who have argued the BC historical record to death here know that piece was shallow, over simplistic and even untrue in places. And I say that as one who is a huge CC supporter and was just fine with ending the BC era.

In my mind, there is no question that CC is doing a better job at recruiting. What we are still figuring out is whether he can coach. BC brought in lower ranked players, but he figured out a way to make them better where he could and develop a way to make them win as much as he could. At the end of the day, its the wins and losses that matter. The optics look good for CC so far (better recruits, more athleticism, an improved mental toughness I think), but we really don't know yet if he'll be able to make these players better and find ways to get more wins.

So, I'm ok with the rest of the world reading an article like this and thinking... hmmm, maybe NU is on the rise finally. But those of us on this board know that article doesn't tell the whole story.

 

[thewildcat2011]

What a pathetic article. Why are we still talking about a coach who hasn't been here for two years and now coaches a different team? I could understand it if Carmody ran a once-great program into the ground or something, but that's not the case.

Sad that ESPN editors let this go through, but I guess that's the "perk" of being completely irrelevant.

 

[EvanstonCat]

What a pathetic article. Why are we still talking about a coach who hasn't been here for two years and now coaches a different team? I could understand it if Carmody ran a once-great program into the ground or something, but that's not the case.

Sad that ESPN editors let this go through, but I guess that's the "perk" of being completely irrelevant.

Like it or not, the article captures the exact essence of NU hoops, and the difference between now and before. Irrelevant? Hardly.

 

[JournCat]

What a pathetic article. Why are we still talking about a coach who hasn't been here for two years and now coaches a different team? I could understand it if Carmody ran a once-great program into the ground or something, but that's not the case.

Sad that ESPN editors let this go through, but I guess that's the "perk" of being completely irrelevant.

Couldn't agree more.

He wrote that article like he hasn't really watched NU play the last two years, which is surprising since we beat his alma mater Hoosiers each of those years.

 

[willycat]

On the one hand, from a Northwestern publicity point of view, we should be happy with this. The piece says, yes, we know NU has been historically bad, but here is why that may be changing. That's good for us. On the other hand, those of us who have argued the BC historical record to death here know that piece was shallow, over simplistic and even untrue in places. And I say that as one who is a huge CC supporter and was just fine with ending the BC era.

In my mind, there is no question that CC is doing a better job at recruiting. What we are still figuring out is whether he can coach. BC brought in lower ranked players, but he figured out a way to make them better where he could and develop a way to make them win as much as he could. At the end of the day, its the wins and losses that matter. The optics look good for CC so far (better recruits, more athleticism, an improved mental toughness I think), but we really don't know yet if he'll be able to make these players better and find ways to get more wins.

So, I'm ok with the rest of the world reading an article like this and thinking... hmmm, maybe NU is on the rise finally. But those of us on this board know that article doesn't tell the whole story.

Don't you think that it's pretty evident that Olah and Law have showed noticeable improvement under Collins coaching. Also "any" media coverage is good for the NU BB program, right?

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Like it or not there was some definite truths mentioned in that article...

 

[JournCat]

Don't you think that it's pretty evident that Olah and Law have showed noticeable improvement under Collins coaching. Also "any" media coverage is good for the NU BB program, right?

I'm on Team Collins and mostly happy with his work so far, and there's no denying that most of what the writer said was true. But if you're previewing a coach's third year, don't his first two years have far more relevance than the 11 years of the guy before him? Aren't Mac, Olah and Demps more relevant to how we do in 2015-16 than Juice and Shurna?

 

[EvanstonCat]

I'm on Team Collins and mostly happy with his work so far, and there's no denying that most of what the writer said was true. But if you're previewing a coach's third year, don't his first two years have far more relevance than the 11 years of the guy before him? Aren't Mac, Olah and Demps more relevant to how we do in 2015-16 than Juice and Shurna?

Look, you guys have a point. However, you're missing the writer's point. The primary factor that is guiding our prospects for 2015-2016 is the fact that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't, along with the notion that overall, our talent is finally approaching B1G standards. That's what the writer focused on, that's what the reality is, and he is spot on.

 

[rwhitney014]

Like it or not there was some definite truths mentioned in that article...

Truths or not isn't the point. In a story headlined "Looking Ahead," the overwhelming majority of the piece looking pretty far back.

 

[JournCat]

Look, you guys have a point. However, you're missing the writer's point. The primary factor that is guiding our prospects for 2015-2016 is the fact that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't, along with the notion that overall, our talent is finally approaching B1G standards. That's what the writer focused on, that's what the reality is, and he is spot on.

I see what you're saying, but at some point Collins has to do more than not be Carmody. That point, imo, is this year. It's been great seeing glimpses of good defense and the athleticism that so many of the young guys have. But Collins now needs to show more. Can he push four freshmen to the next level as sophomores? Can he manage actual shortages of playing time at wing positions while keeping Mac and Olah fresh at their positions? Can we play well without first bottoming out and requiring a mid-course reinvention of strategy? I'm confident he'll do well, but that's what I'd rather discuss. His ability to recruit better than Carmody is an old story.

 

[shakes3858]

Look, you guys have a point. However, you're missing the writer's point. The primary factor that is guiding our prospects for 2015-2016 is the fact that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't, along with the notion that overall, our talent is finally approaching B1G standards. That's what the writer focused on, that's what the reality is, and he is spot on.

Yes, and the point of most of the people in this thread is that the writer didn't do any research of any type in order to write this article and the article is pretty much complete garbage to anyone that actually knows that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't.

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

Truths or not isn't the point. In a story headlined "Looking Ahead," the overwhelming majority of the piece looking pretty far back.

Meh . . . I think in NU's case, understanding the context of the past is important when looking ahead. In terms of style, the change in leadership couldn't have been more of a 180*. The author focused mainly on why the new style might lead to more success than the previous. It's not the greatest article ever, but I've seen far, FAR worse.

 

[hdhntr1]

Yes, and the point of most of the people in this thread is that the writer didn't do any research of any type in order to write this article and the article is pretty much complete garbage to anyone that actually knows that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't.

And the point of others is, why would you expect him to do that much research? While it might have been a little incomplete (what national article about us isn't), it was pretty fair. We have been pretty much irrelevant for decades. He pointed out recent recruiting success getting us finally up to at least the bottom of the BIG. At least 70-80% of the long term success of a BB coach has to do with his recruiting. Yes BC made the most of that other 20% but he was pretty poor on 70-80% of his job. We have been constantly been told that it is impossible to get the Blue Chipper to NU and here CCC is doing it. Now the questions are, can he continue and can he get it to translate to on floor performance.

 

[Styre]

And the point of others is, why would you expect him to do that much research? While it might have been a little incomplete (what national article about us isn't), it was pretty fair.

Read any of the other Big Ten previews. None of them spend half their length talking about a coach who hasn't been associated with the program since 2013. The Minnesota preview doesn't wax poetic about Tubby Smith. Most of them go in depth talking about returning players, incoming freshmen, and their prospects. As a preview for 2015-16, this article is terrible. It doesn't even mention Alex Olah, and our success might revolve around him more than any other player!

We have been constantly been told that it is impossible to get the Blue Chipper to NU and here CCC is doing it.

What blue-chip recruits has Collins brought to Evanston?

 

[VirginiaWildcat]

What blue-chip recruits has Collins brought to Evanston?

Well...compared to what YOU claimed was the ceiling for recruits (regardless of the coach) before Collins, nearly all of them are blue-chippers. Bottom line, there's no comparison regarding recruiting skill, and typically that means a brighter future when depth/skill is improved. That's where the optimism comes from. Never mind CC already has a better conference winning percentage...

 

[NJCat83588]

What blue-chip recruits has Collins brought to Evanston?

Vic Law
Aaron Falzon
Rapolas Ivanauskas

All are 4* Blue Chip players, unless you are just being a pain for the fun of it.

 

[Styre]

Well...compared to what YOU claimed was the ceiling for recruits (regardless of the coach) before Collins, nearly all of them are blue-chippers.

I actually do agree with that, and I'm happy I was wrong about the ceiling. However...


EDIT: Actually, never mind. I did some more research and found Rivals sites referring to 4* players as blue-chip recruits. So yes, by that definition he has indeed brought in blue-chip recruits. I was working from the idea that "blue-chip" means top-tier, five-star, pro-caliber-from-day-one guys.

 

[docrugby1]

Vic Law
Aaron Falzon
Rapolas Ivanauskas

All are 4* Blue Chip players, unless you are just being a pain for the fun of it.

On the one hand, from a Northwestern publicity point of view, we should be happy with this. The piece says, yes, we know NU has been historically bad, but here is why that may be changing. That's good for us. On the other hand, those of us who have argued the BC historical record to death here know that piece was shallow, over simplistic and even untrue in places. And I say that as one who is a huge CC supporter and was just fine with ending the BC era.

In my mind, there is no question that CC is doing a better job at recruiting. What we are still figuring out is whether he can coach. BC brought in lower ranked players, but he figured out a way to make them better where he could and develop a way to make them win as much as he could. At the end of the day, its the wins and losses that matter. The optics look good for CC so far (better recruits, more athleticism, an improved mental toughness I think), but we really don't know yet if he'll be able to make these players better and find ways to get more wins.

So, I'm ok with the rest of the world reading an article like this and thinking... hmmm, maybe NU is on the rise finally. But those of us on this board know that article doesn't tell the whole story.

I rarely agree with TheC about things political but I believe he sums up NU BB pretty well. BC was competitive by NU, standards with under talented teams, that used both offensive and defensive schemes that frustrated far more talented teams and got us close to "the dance". He never got us over that hurdle and the move to CC has brought some enthusiasm back to the program

The real question is whether NU can assemble enough talent to play "conventional" BB and win. CC will have to show that this is possible. I certainly hope he is successful but only time will tell. The athleticism of the team is greatly improved but we will be playing teams straight up rather than with an "ace up our sleeves"

 

[NJCat83588]

Calling 4* players "blue-chip" is stretching the definition to breaking point. Blue-chip players are guys like Jahlil Okafor. I accept that we're using different definitions but there's a difference between that and needless hyperbole.

There were 18 4 or 5* commits among the 14 Big 10 teams in the 2015 class, out of 55 total commitments. Last year, there were 12 of the same, including Vic Law, out of 47 commitments. I'd say that being a 4* Big 10 commit is Blue Chip. These guys don't grow on trees!

 

[Styre]

There were 18 4 or 5* commits among the 14 Big 10 teams in the 2015 class, out of 55 total commitments. Last year, there were 12 of the same, including Vic Law, out of 47 commitments. I'd say that being a 4* Big 10 commit is Blue Chip. These guys don't grow on trees!

Yeah, you're right. I edited my earlier post while you were writing this.

 

[Medill90]

I rarely agree with TheC about things political but I believe he sums up NU BB pretty well. BC was competitive by NU, standards with under talented teams, that used both offensive and defensive schemes that frustrated far more talented teams and got us close to "the dance". He never got us over that hurdle and the move to CC has brought some enthusiasm back to the program

The real question is whether NU can assemble enough talent to play "conventional" BB and win. CC will have to show that this is possible. I certainly hope he is successful but only time will tell. The athleticism of the team is greatly improved but we will be playing teams straight up rather than with an "ace up our sleeves"

I agree with this. I'm fairly confident that in the next two or three years NU will break through and make the tournament. It could even happen this upcoming season helped along by the size and athleticism of JVZ and Pardon.

An argument can be made that the biggest obstacle will be coaching. The talent is there, but will the game management and strategy progress along with the talent.

I'm betting on Collins to make it happen.

And then the big question is can NU continue to grow and progress and win consistently.

 

[thewildcat2011]

Like it or not, the article captures the exact essence of NU hoops, and the difference between now and before. Irrelevant? Hardly.

The essence of NU hoops has been captured again, and again, and again, and again by various articles and news outlets over the past couple of years. It's BOOOOOOORIIIIINNNNNGGGGG to keep talking about how much better of a recruiter, how much more energetic, etc. Collins is than Carmody. Everyone could see that from day one. Carmody had many widely publicized flaws....and guess what: HE GOT FIRED! It's over. Why in the world are we talking about the Princeton and 1-3-1 zone (other than the fact the author is apparently a lazy hack)?

Talk to me about the system, about the actual recruits and how they fit, the prospects for next year, how the schedule shapes up, the zone vs. man, the offense. Talk to me about anything else besides Bill ****ing Carmody at this point. This article doesn't even mention most of our players!

Don't kid yourself...until we make the tournament, we are irrelevant--I don't like it, but that's what it is.

 

[hdhntr1]

Read any of the other Big Ten previews. None of them spend half their length talking about a coach who hasn't been associated with the program since 2013. The Minnesota preview doesn't wax poetic about Tubby Smith. Most of them go in depth talking about returning players, incoming freshmen, and their prospects. As a preview for 2015-16, this article is terrible. It doesn't even mention Alex Olah, and our success might revolve around him more than any other player!



What blue-chip recruits has Collins brought to Evanston?

4* recruits are generally considered to be chippers. Top 100 players would generally be considered to be chippers as well. The group we are getting are not the one and done type. Even with the upgrade, we are still near the bottom of the BIG but before, we were so far below the bottom that we had a hard time even seeing it. We still have a way to go but at least it is a start.

 

[Deeringfish]

Truths or not isn't the point. In a story headlined "Looking Ahead," the overwhelming majority of the piece looking pretty far back.

Exactly! I was hoping for a preview not a history lesson.

 

[GOUNUII]

I thought the preview, one written for a national audience that collectively knows little or nothing about NU BB, was spot on. It gave the intended audience a sense for what's happening now in the context of a very unique history. No ... it was not at all conventional as previews go. But there is nothing conventional about NU BB. That CC is bringing NU hoops into the norm was the whole point of the article, and I believe that was an appropriate point to make. It was also appropriate to focus on recruiting ... where the horses you get make or break the program. The preview the author gave us was to say NU is starting to get some real horses for the first time in people's memory. The necessary first recruiting steps have occurred to bring NU into the wide band of the norm in college basketball. All of those initial recruits, BTW, are program upgraders, not game changing difference makers.

There is still a long way to go for CC.His initial recruits as a whole are on par with the best A-10 programs and a few Big East schools like Xavier. But his next 5 recruits in the 2016-17 classes will be critical to achieving his goals. No solid Big level center in the 2016 class, and the task of getting to the dance will be made nearly impossible after 2015. No Big level help that can seriously push/pass B-Mac, Lindsey and Law at their positions, and the program will still be razor thin in the stable. Focus on the next 5 recruits over the next two years, especially the 2016 class. Collectively, they will be a great predictor about the future of the program. They will be the last recruits to sign within the window of opportunity CC has as a new coach. Think back to Barnett's early years. Well known as an energetic, charismatic and imaginative recruiter, many people forget that his efforts to recruit his 3rd class (1995 class), on the heels of two dismal seasons with no quality wins, resulted in his laying the egg of all eggs. That class would have ranked last in the Ivy league. It was that bad. Why? Because Barnett's window had closed quickly. CC's will close soon as well.

Here's hoping Olah improves a bunch, B-Mac stays healthy, JVZ's contributions add a few wins and the rest of the gang keeps getting stronger and more confident. The best thing that could happen for CC's critical 2016-17 recruiting is for him to win 20+ THIS YEAR.

GOUNUII

 

[EvanstonCat]

I see what you're saying, but at some point Collins has to do more than not be Carmody. That point, imo, is this year. It's been great seeing glimpses of good defense and the athleticism that so many of the young guys have. But Collins now needs to show more. Can he push four freshmen to the next level as sophomores? Can he manage actual shortages of playing time at wing positions while keeping Mac and Olah fresh at their positions? Can we play well without first bottoming out and requiring a mid-course reinvention of strategy? I'm confident he'll do well, but that's what I'd rather discuss. His ability to recruit better than Carmody is an old story.

I understand what you're saying and yes it would be good to see an article that fleshes out those issues. Agree that he needs to show more.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Yes, and the point of most of the people in this thread is that the writer didn't do any research of any type in order to write this article and the article is pretty much complete garbage to anyone that actually knows that Collins is our coach and Carmody isn't.

Garbage is a strong word. The article isn't written on Wildcat Report. For the vast majority of readers (basically everyone but we schleps on this board), this is informative and spot on. For them, an article talking about the points people would have rather have seen would be irrelevant. And it is further information for the Carmody hugging holdouts to chew on, since they appear not to understand the information within.

Frankly, I'm very happy with the piece as it is good press for NU, which is all you can ask for, for a nationally syndicated article.

 

[Medill90]

For them, an article talking about the points people would have rather have seen would And it is further information for the Carmody hugging holdouts to chew on, since they appear not to understand the information within.

This might be one sentence. Or it might be two. But I love it either way, even if it makes no sense.

 

[Medill90]

I thought the preview, one written for a national audience that collectively knows little or nothing about NU BB, was spot on. It gave the intended audience a sense for what's happening now in the context of a very unique history. No ... it was not at all conventional as previews go. But there is nothing conventional about NU BB. That CC is bringing NU hoops into the norm was the whole point of the article, and I believe that was an appropriate point to make. It was also appropriate to focus on recruiting ... where the horses you get make or break the program. The preview the author gave us was to say NU is starting to get some real horses for the first time in people's memory. The necessary first recruiting steps have occurred to bring NU into the wide band of the norm in college basketball. All of those initial recruits, BTW, are program upgraders, not game changing difference makers.

There is still a long way to go for CC.His initial recruits as a whole are on par with the best A-10 programs and a few Big East schools like Xavier. But his next 5 recruits in the 2016-17 classes will be critical to achieving his goals. No solid Big level center in the 2016 class, and the task of getting to the dance will be made nearly impossible after 2015. No Big level help that can seriously push/pass B-Mac, Lindsey and Law at their positions, and the program will still be razor thin in the stable. Focus on the next 5 recruits over the next two years, especially the 2016 class. Collectively, they will be a great predictor about the future of the program. They will be the last recruits to sign within the window of opportunity CC has as a new coach. Think back to Barnett's early years. Well known as an energetic, charismatic and imaginative recruiter, many people forget that his efforts to recruit his 3rd class (1995 class), on the heels of two dismal seasons with no quality wins, resulted in his laying the egg of all eggs. That class would have ranked last in the Ivy league. It was that bad. Why? Because Barnett's window had closed quickly. CC's will close soon as well.

Here's hoping Olah improves a bunch, B-Mac stays healthy, JVZ's contributions add a few wins and the rest of the gang keeps getting stronger and more confident. The best thing that could happen for CC's critical 2016-17 recruiting is for him to win 20+ THIS YEAR.

GOUNUII

It's generous to call it an article. When his internship is over he'll be writing pet obituaries.

 

[mikewebb68]

Lol. His sole research for the article appears to be reading the work of the Carmody-bashers on here.....

 

[EvanstonCat]

This might be one sentence. Or it might be two. But I love it either way, even if it makes no sense.

I deleted part of the first sentence (and the period) by accident without noticing. Fixed.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Lol. His sole research for the article appears to be reading the work of the Carmody-bashers on here.....

You would think so, but the more likely reason for him sharing the same view is because said view is the obvious one, which any reasonable person ought to be able to independently arrive at after looking at the facts.

Even if in the impossibly unlikely scenario that he did refer to Wildcat Report's hoops board for his research, the arguments of the Carmody huggers were equally out there for him to see, which he subsequently chose to dismiss as any reasonable person would.

 

[FeliSilvestris]

And the point of others is, why would you expect him to do that much research? While it might have been a little incomplete (what national article about us isn't), it was pretty fair. We have been pretty much irrelevant for decades. He pointed out recent recruiting success getting us finally up to at least the bottom of the BIG. At least 70-80% of the long term success of a BB coach has to do with his recruiting. Yes BC made the most of that other 20% but he was pretty poor on 70-80% of his job.

Absolutely horrible article.
Where does he mention that after decades of B1G futility, NU started playing competitive B1G basketball (even getting to the .500 mark) fairly early in the BC's regime? Where does he say that (except for the last injury-riddled season) NU put a string of years of NIT appearances (yes, not as good as making the NCAA-T but fairly significant) following competitive B1G seasons (winning 7-8 reg. s. B1G games)? Where does he mention that under BC NU was routinely getting players with solid offer lists, including from decent B1G programs like IOA and Illinois? Wasn't Sina a top 100 player? Etc., etc. For a coach that was so bad at recruiting, NU was doing reasonably well, it seems....He makes a huge deal of BC's apparent low interest in Law, which, if true, could have been the result of Law's skill set being more appropriate for a non-Princeton type of O (which CC instituted)...Etc. Etc.
A VERY BAD article, for sure.

 

[EvanstonCat]

Absolutely horrible article.
Where does he mention that after decades of B1G futility, NU started playing competitive B1G basketball (even getting to the .500 mark) fairly early in the BC's regime? Where does he say that (except for the last injury-riddled season) NU put a string of years of NIT appearances (yes, not as good as making the NCAA-T but fairly significant) following competitive B1G seasons (winning 7-8 reg. s. B1G games)? Where does he mention that under BC NU was routinely getting players with solid offer lists, including from decent B1G programs like IOA and Illinois? Wasn't Sina a top 100 player? Etc., etc. For a coach that was so bad at recruiting, NU was doing reasonably well, it seems....He makes a huge deal of BC's apparent low interest in Law, which, if true, could have been the result of Law's skill set being more appropriate for a non-Princeton type of O (which CC instituted)...Etc. Etc.
A VERY BAD article, for sure.

And there is the coup de grace.

 

[NUcats11]

Who did BC recruit that had an Illinois offer, let alone "regularly" get recruits like that? We generally got 1-2 guys per year with good offer lists during the last several years of his tenure, but not enough in my opinion to build the substantial depth that most big ten teams should have.