Oh, Lord, Bob. I can't decide what's more screwy about the long parade of disappointment you try to cobble together as the foundation of your argument.
If you're silly enough to be married to 10% of the board (at best!!) who talk of greatness (your word, not mine) and base your discussion on the scouting brilliance of the knowledgeable NU fanbase, I can't help you.
But you really need to understand better where the talent level is here and what it's true potential is.
Law was the top-rated recruit until Nance, right? This is the second time in a week you've referenced that Law should be "great." Oh, excuse me: the board said it. You just keep repeating it.
Here's
the ESPN top 100 in Law's class. Law is part of the 60-100 group. Why don't you show me all the "great" players in this group of 40?
Yes, there's Issac Haas, Mikal Bridges and Vince Edwards. I'll even throw in Phil Booth and Cody Martin to expand the group. Are we going to call all these guys "great?" I wouldn't at all.
So, let's lower the bar. Let's pretend a great player is someone in this class who EITHER scores double-digits for two seasons or even simply stays at their school for four years. How about you show me the long line of players in 60-100 of that class that achieved EITHER of these simple milestones of "greatness." Is it half?
Law EASILY fits into the top third of this group of 40 PLAYERS. Good luck finding "great." And, to be practical, good luck finding it with NU's grade standards.
I think you'll find similar percentages in the top 60-100 of most classes.
Regarding another of your disappointments, when exactly did you think Scottie Lindsey had "great potential." When his leg was broken in high school? Maybe it was his 4.4 points/game in his freshman year? Oh no ... it must have been his 5.7 p/g as a sophomore.
On a VERY good day, Lindsey was a great player. Then, we saw the mediocre-to-good player who Lindsey was for the next three-to-five games. Is that Collins' fault? How did Collins stifle Lindsey? He certainly had the green light.
For now, this is where NU lives. They've taken a step but last year showed this is still a development program as most are outside the top 30. On a very good day, they are recruiting in the questionable areas of the top 60-100. On the other days, top 100+.
At that address, you're going to have Pardons, Laws and BMacs. You're also going to have Brown, Falzon and Skelly. And you're ridiculous if you think you're going to avoid injuries similar to Rapolas.
Collins has his problems. They've been discussed. And they're discussed at least as much as the opinions of greatness you like to pretend are conventional wisdom out here.
If you and others think a majority of their recruits should be top-100, well, you might want to re-examine your expectations while you continue to put the coaching staff under your poorly-focused microscope. There's a reason you're repeatedly disappointed in la-la land. Well, except for that one season that is so conveniently swept away.
I think my point is misunderstood. I am not interested in Law vs the other recruits similarly ranked. My point of analysis is to examine whether our players are leaving the program four years later with significantly improved (more developed) basketball skills. I believe that school like NU, Valpo, Butler, WI, Gonzaga of old days, need several things to compete nationally: consistent player development, the ability the identify and secure overlooked or underestimated recruits and the ability to game plan and coach better than most of the coaches they face.
I think programs like Gonzaga were not the type of school to draw quality recruits until after they earned a reputation in the late 90’s, early 2000’s. UMass was able to build a reputation in the 80s. UConn is another example. Butler, Valpo and so on. In WI, they rose to national relevance in the mid 90s.
Each of these schools clawed into national relevance through coaching, IMHO. Bennett and Ryan at WI. Stevens at Butler. Calhoun at UConn. Calipari at UMass. Monson & Few at Gonzaga.
None were big name coaches before this ascent. None had any recruiting advantages. All took the recruits they could get, developed enough of them and then managed the games to become nationally relevant.
That is the high water mark for me. Unless I am missing something, there is no reason that NU cannot capture the same type of success. Bright, young coach that checks all the boxes. And there is no reason to believe CCC is not that guy – but it is fair to start to look. I would not like to see another 13 year experiment. BC took us up a notch, so has CCC and if he can go higher, I’m in. If not, I can appreciate his progress but would want to find a coach that can accomplish what many others have.
Do they grow on trees? Nope – just like 6’4” WRs that can run routes with speed. But NU has resources most of those schools referenced above can only dream about. NU is a world class institution, we seem to believe our AD is among the best – so it is his challenge to discover the next Calhoun, Bennett or Monson.
Now, let’s look at the players we have been discussing. I think all agree that Falzon, RI, Ash, Brown, Vassar did not develop, some arguably regressed. I will concede Olah though his points, blocks, rebounds, all dropped in his senior season. And Sanjay, he went up and down – I agree that he left NU a better player than when he began, but his stats go back and forth and arguably his yearly development.
Mac improved, but that improvement petered after the frosh-soph leap. Then, junior to senior, he regressed. Points, assists, steals, shooting percentage. And his three point percentage fell off after his sophomore year. CCC clearly identified a much overlooked recruit, but I wouldn’t say Bryan improved each year under CCC’s coaching.
I think we agree that Lindsey never really developed – he flashed. Without even looking, I would agree that Pardon has developed each year. Benson? It is really hard to say as there was such a small body of work. I won’t say no, but I won’t concede yes. Taphorn never really grew as a player – always the same one dimensional guy – but he got much stronger.
Gavin Skelly is a clear example of yearly development. He grew into a legit rotation guy for any competitive team.
Now, as for Vic Law, he was the most heralded recruit of all time and CCC’s first. He arrived with talent and potential – I do not have to remind those here that anointed him a savior. He clearly developed between his first playing season and second playing season, becoming a double digit scorer, increasing rebounds, steals, assists, shooting percentage. The next year, it is flat. I find this remarkable for the lack of development and because this player came in with so much “potential and raw skill” to develop. I don’t care what his ranking was or how those similarly ranked performed. My point is that his development stalled last year and he is supposed to be one of the cornerstones.
So, where does this leave us? Still too early to cast a permanent label – but there seems to be a bit more evidence that CCC is not developing talent. Do I think he should be fired? No. If he does not have a strength in developing talent, it can be solved by smartly surrounding himself by the right assistants. And we have yet to see how his team production will look after3-5 years with his own players. But, recruiting is clearly down (by CCC standards) and this begins the watch of whether player development will be a matter of concern.
I hope this submission passes Va’s spell check, DaCat’s concern about by energy level & sobriety and, most notably, lacks any personal attacks despite everything written above here.
Those of you that think this is garbage – I offer a suggestion: put me on ignore. Then every day, when you return, you will find this forum dead – except the occasional puff piece. You can then continue happily to whatever website follows this visit. I have said we all have our own unique reason to come here. I assure you that retaining your attention is not mine.
To the rest, can we now have a peaceful, intellectual discussion?
