Scrimmage Thoughts.

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

I am glad he’s thriving there. He seems like a good guy. Being a captain is very cool. He played 7 minutes and 4 minutes in their two tournament games, though. Not sure that supports your argument.

As for this academic advantage Northwestern has, you greatly overestimate the value high school basketball players put on academic rankings. Lots of college basketball programs can make compelling academic arguments and there are so many more small private schools that we have to compete with in basketball than football. Butler, Marquette, Georgetown, the Ivy League schools, etc.

The simplest way to look at is that none of the players on our current roster (I don’t think) were offered by Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin or Maryland. So either those programs are bad at evaluating talent or Collins is at a huge disadvantage. It’s a little like joining a fantasy league in which you don’t get to draft in the first 6 rounds but then get all the picks in round 7. Obviously, fantasy is much easier to project but you get the idea. Not saying you can’s succeed, but it’s not going to happen with nearly the frequency of the other programs. And I know that every now and then we get a player that one of those other programs wanted. It’s just pretty rare.

Maryland offered Ryan Young the day before he committed to NU!

I agree that we can't compete for the vast majority of the "Top 100" guys don't have the academics or who want to play for Izzo or get paid to play for Calipari or Bill Self or Bruce Pearl or Coach K junior or Rick Barnes and on and on.

but.... how the hell does Princeton win two games in the NCAA tournament if its all about player ratings out of high school? Surely we have recruiting advantages over that program.

In recent recruiting classes...
Julian Roper, offered by Iowa and Wisconsin. He left for greener pastures.
Casey Simmons, offered by Texas, Penn State, Miami FL, Xavier and lots of teams. He left for Yale.
Brooks Barnhizer got a lot of MAC offers, but also Butler and Xavier. His schools were all close to Indiana.
Luke Hunger got offers from Miami (FL), Boston College, Mississippi and Pitt plus many others.
NU offered him Oct 7, he visited Oct 8 and committed Nov 2.
Ty Berry had offers from Iowa, Iowa State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Colorado, etc.

Nick Martinelli committed to Elon before he exploded as a high school senior.
Justin Mullins committed to Denver before he exploded as a high school senior.
Matt Nicholson committed to Northwestern before he exploded as a high school senior. (Creighton offer)

Of the guys Collins was able to recruit after the 2021-22 season and the public termination threat by Gragg, none had Power 6 offers, other than Jordan Clayton's offer from Cal. Parker Strauss had an offer from Wyoming.

 

[clarificationcat]

Maryland offered Ryan Young the day before he committed to NU!

I agree that we can't compete for the vast majority of the "Top 100" guys don't have the academics or who want to play for Izzo or get paid to play for Calipari or Bill Self or Bruce Pearl or Coach K junior or Rick Barnes and on and on.

but.... how the hell does Princeton win two games in the NCAA tournament if its all about player ratings out of high school? Surely we have recruiting advantages over that program.

In recent recruiting classes...
Julian Roper, offered by Iowa and Wisconsin. He left for greener pastures.
Casey Simmons, offered by Texas, Penn State, Miami FL, Xavier and lots of teams. He left for Yale.
Brooks Barnhizer got a lot of MAC offers, but also Butler and Xavier. His schools were all close to Indiana.
Luke Hunger got offers from Miami (FL), Boston College, Mississippi and Pitt plus many others.
NU offered him Oct 7, he visited Oct 8 and committed Nov 2.
Ty Berry had offers from Iowa, Iowa State, Missouri, Oklahoma State, Colorado, etc.

Nick Martinelli committed to Elon before he exploded as a high school senior.
Justin Mullins committed to Denver before he exploded as a high school senior.
Matt Nicholson committed to Northwestern before he exploded as a high school senior. (Creighton offer)

Of the guys Collins was able to recruit after the 2021-22 season and the public termination threat by Gragg, none had Power 6 offers, other than Jordan Clayton's offer from Cal. Parker Strauss had an offer from Wyoming.

Princeton was a great story because it’s so rare. It can happen … just not consistently without having an extraordinary coach.

And it’s not just the top 100 we miss out on because of academics and tradition. There are lots of really good players in the 100-300 range that would be great fits for our program that Collins can’t recruit. Consequently, he has to fight a lot harder for the players in the smaller pool. And if he misses on them, he has to drop down a talent level. That was Carmody’s biggest issue. In the later years, he and his staff did a great job of finding stars in the 125 to 300 range. He just couldn’t fill out the rest of the roster. Without academic restrictions, I’m pretty sure he could have recruited a few more contributors so the starters didn’t need to play almost every minute.

Academic restrictions aside, Northwestern basketball has lots of challenges. No tradition. Until last year, no home court advantage. Not a party school. Intimidating student body for the typical high school student. And prior to Collins, poor facilities.

If there are 100 high school recruits Collins would love to have each year, academics aside (not the top 100, just the kids that would be good program fits), how many of those kids can be admitted and are interested in a school like NU? How many of those kids would rather play in front of 12,000 adoring fans? How many want to play for their state school because that’s who they grew up following? How many of those kids want to go to a “party” school? If IU or Purdue had offered Barnhizer, I doubt he would be playing for NU. Each of the other state schools in the conference has a similar built-in recruiting advantage.

It’s clearly not impossible to succeed. But unless our recruiting gets consistently better, we are going to have down years. Or the coaches at the other programs in the conference should be fired because they can’t evaluate talent.

 

[IGNORE2]

Back to the name-calling again, which merits deletion. That attitude may be your distorted perspective on me, but what matters is my take was an indisputably correct point of view in hindsight when it was actually important about Collins’ future / value. Definitely ok with where I’m at, especially having decided to attend 4 games last year and more coming this year.

No name calling - reading apprehension. I said that attitude towards the ability to compete is a loser attitude. You literally argue NU cannot compete - they are destined to lose.

Of course, you fail to address the substance of my post because there is no defense to it. This is the second time you have conceded that you cannot rebut one of my positions. Starting to like this game.

 

[IGNORE2]

I am glad he’s thriving there. He seems like a good guy. Being a captain is very cool. He played 7 minutes and 4 minutes in their two tournament games, though. Not sure that supports your argument.

As for this academic advantage Northwestern has, you greatly overestimate the value high school basketball players put on academic rankings. Lots of college basketball programs can make compelling academic arguments and there are so many more small private schools that we have to compete with in basketball than football. Butler, Marquette, Georgetown, the Ivy League schools, etc.

The simplest way to look at is that none of the players on our current roster (I don’t think) were offered by Michigan, Michigan State, Indiana, Purdue, Ohio State, Iowa, Wisconsin or Maryland. So either those programs are bad at evaluating talent or Collins is at a huge disadvantage. It’s a little like joining a fantasy league in which you don’t get to draft in the first 6 rounds but then get all the picks in round 7. Obviously, fantasy is much easier to project but you get the idea. Not saying you can’s succeed, but it’s not going to happen with nearly the frequency of the other programs. And I know that every now and then we get a player that one of those other programs wanted. It’s just pretty rare.

Not sure blue chippers aspire to play at Maryland, Wisconsin, Iowa, you forgot Illinois. I think we have historically beat those schools out for some players.

Competing w Butler, Marquette - those we can as they also aren’t fantasy level landing places for blue chippers.

And only those blue chip players dream solely of an NBA life. The smart students - 3 and 4 stars - consider academics among various factors.

Finally, NU had a long history of post season play prior to ccc. Since ccc, it’s tourney or trash bin. Most here would be happy with one tourney, two nit and one miss every four years. Two tourneys and nine disasters is not NUHOF success in my book.

But turn the page, hopefully the 🧙‍♂️ will keep us in a post season this year too.

 

[IGNORE2]

Princeton was a great story because it’s so rare. It can happen … just not consistently without having an extraordinary coach.

And it’s not just the top 100 we miss out on because of academics and tradition. There are lots of really good players in the 100-300 range that would be great fits for our program that Collins can’t recruit. Consequently, he has to fight a lot harder for the players in the smaller pool. And if he misses on them, he has to drop down a talent level. That was Carmody’s biggest issue. In the later years, he and his staff did a great job of finding stars in the 125 to 300 range. He just couldn’t fill out the rest of the roster. Without academic restrictions, I’m pretty sure he could have recruited a few more contributors so the starters didn’t need to play almost every minute.

Academic restrictions aside, Northwestern basketball has lots of challenges. No tradition. Until last year, no home court advantage. Not a party school. Intimidating student body for the typical high school student. And prior to Collins, poor facilities.

If there are 100 high school recruits Collins would love to have each year, academics aside (not the top 100, just the kids that would be good program fits), how many of those kids can be admitted and are interested in a school like NU? How many of those kids would rather play in front of 12,000 adoring fans? How many want to play for their state school because that’s who they grew up following? How many of those kids want to go to a “party” school? If IU or Purdue had offered Barnhizer, I doubt he would be playing for NU. Each of the other state schools in the conference has a similar built-in recruiting advantage.

It’s clearly not impossible to succeed. But unless our recruiting gets consistently better, we are going to have down years. Or the coaches at the other programs in the conference should be fired because they can’t evaluate talent.

If you look at the last five tourneys, there are more than a dozen Princetons. So your starting premise is factually wrong.

 

[Kat burglar]

Most here would be happy with one tourney, two nit and one miss every four years.

Sign me up!

I think Collins has changed his recruiting philosphy over the years. He started thinking he could recruit like he did at Duke, albeit lower on the rankings between 60-100. He missed on a lot of those recruits and had to dip lower 150-250 to take who was left. I think he is more realistic now about who he can get to commit. Some of his higher ranked recruits did not pan out.

He started out looking for length and quickness but ended up with only length (Rap, Nance, Beran).

He may have seen Loyola's success and traded to quickness over length. His latest recruits have been a few inches smaller but quicker.

Recruiting is always tough as there are always hits and misses, but I think he is getting better finding what fits and who can get in NU. It is a complex calculus but getting one tourney, two NITs and one miss every four years would definitely be NUHOF and keep NU bball on a good trajectory.

 

[UpsetAlert]

I've explained the Ryan Young thing many many times. The results speak for themselves. Duke just named Young a captain for the upcoming season. He is thriving there.

The only reason - literally the only reason - that you think Robbie Beran deserved to be playing ahead of Ryan Young is that you fear that Coach Chris Collins would look bad if everybody agreed Beran was overused.

Rabid loyalty is commendable at times but it does not foster objectivity..

As for another of your wild claims - I don't know where you get this stuff - I have said over and over that NU has advantages and disadvantages in recruiting. Academic requirements limit the pool size. The desirability of the university greatly increases the appeal within that reduced talent pool. The transfer portal for grad students is a big plus for NU. You only have to recruit 3 players a year. Target players appropriately and recruiting is not the problem that some (like you) want to make it. To me, it comes off as an excuse. I do not wish to see academic restrictions lowered further for athletes.

Ryan Young was/is a decent player. He also doesn’t fit in our new defensive scheme and is a liability on that side of the ball. But our team last year would have destroyed Duke (and UNC). I’m not really sure what your point is.

 

[UpsetAlert]

If you look at the last five tourneys, there are more than a dozen Princetons. So your starting premise is factually wrong.

Princeton doesn’t play in the Big Ten

 

[loyolacat]

Ryan Young was/is a decent player. He also doesn’t fit in our new defensive scheme and is a liability on that side of the ball. But our team last year would have destroyed Duke (and UNC). I’m not really sure what your point is.

What is the defensive scheme that Ryan Young would not have fit in?

 

[IGNORE2]

Princeton doesn’t play in the Big Ten

The all mighty big ten argument now. Yet the B1G regularly sends a half dozen or so teams to the dance plus more to the NIT. Those basketball powerhouses WI and IA, even PSU routinely appear. Pretty sure the Lebron James of high school basketball aren’t lined up to play at those schools…

Oh, almost forgot, NU has appeared in many post season tournies so those academic restrictions appear to be failing to hold the cats down.

The HC position may be more important than at blue blood schools - in that you need good schemes, strong skills to recognize and develop talent - but even Gonzaga showed a nothing school can become a powerhouse over a generation.

 

[UpsetAlert]

The all mighty big ten argument now. Yet the B1G regularly sends a half dozen or so teams to the dance plus more to the NIT. Those basketball powerhouses WI and IA, even PSU routinely appear. Pretty sure the Lebron James of high school basketball aren’t lined up to play at those schools…

Oh, almost forgot, NU has appeared in many post season tournies so those academic restrictions appear to be failing to hold the cats down.

The HC position may be more important than at blue blood schools - in that you need good schemes, strong skills to recognize and develop talent - but even Gonzaga showed a nothing school can become a powerhouse over a generation.

Just curious, what is your obsession with going to the NIT a handful of times? I’m not sure that’s the convincing argument you think it is.

 

[clarificationcat]

If you look at the last five tourneys, there are more than a dozen Princetons. So your starting premise is factually wrong.

Do you not understand them so lol

If you look at the last five tourneys, there are more than a dozen Princetons. So your starting premise is factually wrong.

Do you make any attempt to try to understand the arguments being made? Seriously? I regret every time that I get drawn into these discussions. The internet was made for strange guys like you. The point of my post is that the recruiting disadvantages that we face make it very difficult to have consistently good teams. The fact that there are underdog teams each year that have success supports my argument since the teams are different almost every year. Princeton last went to the tournament in 2017. They last went to the Sweet 16 in 1967. Teams with recruiting disadvantages can have success when they hit on some hidden gems, are led by a bunch of upper-classmen and/or have an exceptional coach. I don't dispute that. It's hard to have consistent success that way, though. I go back to my original analogy. If you are in a fantasy league and you can't draft until the 3rd round and then can only pick about half of the rest of the available players, you probably aren't going to win very often.

 

[IGNORE2]

Just curious, what is your obsession with going to the NIT a handful of times? I’m not sure that’s the convincing argument you think it is.

I am quite content with any postseason play. As you point out, we compete in the B1G so it can be tough to get to dance. But if we are among the top 9 teams, our season continues beyond the regular season.

What’s your obsession with finding excuses why NU cannot succeed or why CCC is a demigod?

 

[IGNORE2]

Do you not understand them so lol

Do you make any attempt to try to understand the arguments being made? Seriously? I regret every time that I get drawn into these discussions. The internet was made for strange guys like you. The point of my post is that the recruiting disadvantages that we face make it very difficult to have consistently good teams. The fact that there are underdog teams each year that have success supports my argument since the teams are different almost every year. Princeton last went to the tournament in 2017. They last went to the Sweet 16 in 1967. Teams with recruiting disadvantages can have success when they hit on some hidden gems, are led by a bunch of upper-classmen and/or have an exceptional coach. I don't dispute that. It's hard to have consistent success that way, though. I go back to my original analogy. If you are in a fantasy league and you can't draft until the 3rd round and then can only pick about half of the rest of the available players, you probably aren't going to win very often.

I get your love for internet and fantasy but there is no analogy.

In truth, of the hundreds of NCAA D1 MBB programs, only a few are blessed. Duke, Stanford, MI…

The rest have challenges. What basketball player WANTS to go to Gergia Tech? How does MN attract players to the ice dome? Marquette? Butler? Gonzaga?

Some campuses offer beauty. Others offer the party. Some offer particular majors. Some offer nearly unmatched educational opportunities. Hell, ND, not a BB destination, offers the premiere alum network of them all.

Yes, NU has its minuses as it has it pluses. In a game that requires you hit on 2-3 players every four years and get 2-3 average players every four years, you can succeed.

You can succeed if, after identifying that actual talent and recruiting them, you develop them and deploy a solid O and D scheme. (Thus Gonzaga, once a nothing and now a destination)

I also believe there are coaches with known niche strengths- Phil jackson and the triangle, Brian James and the big man, lowery and D. I think your best programs find a smart coach with a niche and an ego that allows him to cover his weaknesses with assistant to make up for it.

And that’s why the Princeton and Gonzaga’s returned repeatedly over the years to post season play. Yet, even those without all the proposer coaching can get into post season. Unless your coaching team is absolutely lacking.

 

[CoralSpringsCat]

Do you not understand them so lol

Do you make any attempt to try to understand the arguments being made? Seriously? I regret every time that I get drawn into these discussions. The internet was made for strange guys like you. The point of my post is that the recruiting disadvantages that we face make it very difficult to have consistently good teams. The fact that there are underdog teams each year that have success supports my argument since the teams are different almost every year. Princeton last went to the tournament in 2017. They last went to the Sweet 16 in 1967. Teams with recruiting disadvantages can have success when they hit on some hidden gems, are led by a bunch of upper-classmen and/or have an exceptional coach. I don't dispute that. It's hard to have consistent success that way, though. I go back to my original analogy. If you are in a fantasy league and you can't draft until the 3rd round and then can only pick about half of the rest of the available players, you probably aren't going to win very often.

Your fantasy league analogy is a good one.

 

[IGNORE2]

Your fantasy league analogy is a good one.

Ok -

Give me Herbert at QB and ADP in Rd 3
I’ll take Mostert and Etienne at RB - also late or undrafted
At WR - starting after Rd 2 - I’ll take Brown, Allen and St Brown
My late TE pick will be hockenson

Nobody takes a K or D before the end so irrelevant. And I’ll kick all your fantasy arses without a single 1st or 2nd round draft pick.

Now, before you change the goalposts - shall we review the number of 3 star and less recruits that appeared in the last 10 tournies? Or maybe the average star rating for the rosters across all 60some tourney teams? Maybe we can examine all the offers to the starting players on non blue blood programs in last year’s tourney? Because I think we will find a lot of teams succeeded without access to top 100 talent. Heck, I bet most teams did not have a single top 100 recruit on their roster.

 

[clarificationcat]

I get your love for internet and fantasy but there is no analogy.

In truth, of the hundreds of NCAA D1 MBB programs, only a few are blessed. Duke, Stanford, MI…

The rest have challenges. What basketball player WANTS to go to Gergia Tech? How does MN attract players to the ice dome? Marquette? Butler? Gonzaga?

Some campuses offer beauty. Others offer the party. Some offer particular majors. Some offer nearly unmatched educational opportunities. Hell, ND, not a BB destination, offers the premiere alum network of them all.

Yes, NU has its minuses as it has it pluses. In a game that requires you hit on 2-3 players every four years and get 2-3 average players every four years, you can succeed.

You can succeed if, after identifying that actual talent and recruiting them, you develop them and deploy a solid O and D scheme. (Thus Gonzaga, once a nothing and now a destination)

I also believe there are coaches with known niche strengths- Phil jackson and the triangle, Brian James and the big man, lowery and D. I think your best programs find a smart coach with a niche and an ego that allows him to cover his weaknesses with assistant to make up for it.

And that’s why the Princeton and Gonzaga’s returned repeatedly over the years to post season play. Yet, even those without all the proposer coaching can get into post season. Unless your coaching team is absolutely lacking.

Princeton last went to the tournament in 2017 in case you missed that in my post. And they play in the Ivy League and had one of the great college coaches to build the foundation. The rest of the teams that you mention have strong basketball traditions and (this part is important!!!) can admit almost every player they want to recruit. Collins can’t. Do you understand that?

And Gonzaga has a hall of fame coach. That’s another way to consistent success. Just hire and retain an all-time great coach. I don’t doubt Bobby Knight would have led us to the tournament.

I’m done. Nothing to be gained from this.

 

[IGNORE2]

Princeton last went to the tournament in 2017 in case you missed that in my post. And they play in the Ivy League and had one of the great college coaches to build the foundation. The rest of the teams that you mention have strong basketball traditions and (this part is important!!!) can admit almost every player they want to recruit. Collins can’t. Do you understand that?

And Gonzaga has a hall of fame coach. That’s another way to consistent success. Just hire and retain an all-time great coach. I don’t doubt Bobby Knight would have led us to the tournament.

I’m done. Nothing to be gained from this.

And my point is that absent a few blue blood schools, there are many schools that have experienced periods of sustained success. And I agree that coaching had a big roll in that. And talk about admissions…Princeton is a great example. Sustained through a few coaches.

You make my point. With the right coaching, even non blue bloods can excel. Btw, Gonzaga has had a couple coaches to credit their rise from irrelevancy to blue blood. Talk about disadvantages! Sure they could probably get my dead g’ma through admissions but tough to get any players of note to even apply.

But they found some guy that identified talent he could convince to come and that he develop. He did a great job maximizing the minimal available talent pool to him.

 

[UpsetAlert]

I am quite content with any postseason play. As you point out, we compete in the B1G so it can be tough to get to dance. But if we are among the top 9 teams, our season continues beyond the regular season.

What’s your obsession with finding excuses why NU cannot succeed or why CCC is a demigod?

I’m a fan. I like Collins, NU, Carmody, going to the postseason, etc., but let’s not pretend it’s not an uphill battle for us. That appears less steep when we are winning, but make no mistake—it’s there. Enjoy the run we’re on while it lasts.

 

[TheC]

What is the defensive scheme that Ryan Young would not have fit in?

The one where they guard the guys on the other team.

 

[IGNORE2]

I’m a fan. I like Collins, NU, Carmody, going to the postseason, etc., but let’s not pretend it’s not an uphill battle for us. That appears less steep when we are winning, but make no mistake—it’s there. Enjoy the run we’re on while it lasts.

Ok. But it’s uphill for most programs for various reasons. Only a select few enjoy nearly automatic success.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I

Ok -

Give me Herbert at QB and ADP in Rd 3
I’ll take Mostert and Etienne at RB - also late or undrafted
At WR - starting after Rd 2 - I’ll take Brown, Allen and St Brown
My late TE pick will be hockenson

Nobody takes a K or D before the end so irrelevant. And I’ll kick all your fantasy arses without a single 1st or 2nd round draft pick.

Now, before you change the goalposts - shall we review the number of 3 star and less recruits that appeared in the last 10 tournies? Or maybe the average star rating for the rosters across all 60some tourney teams? Maybe we can examine all the offers to the starting players on non blue blood programs in last year’s tourney? Because I think we will find a lot of teams succeeded without access to top 100 talent. Heck, I bet most teams did not have a single top 100 recruit on their roster.

I want to play in your fantasy league if those guys are all available.

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Princeton was a great story because it’s so rare. It can happen … just not consistently without having an extraordinary coach.

And it’s not just the top 100 we miss out on because of academics and tradition. There are lots of really good players in the 100-300 range that would be great fits for our program that Collins can’t recruit. Consequently, he has to fight a lot harder for the players in the smaller pool. And if he misses on them, he has to drop down a talent level. That was Carmody’s biggest issue. In the later years, he and his staff did a great job of finding stars in the 125 to 300 range. He just couldn’t fill out the rest of the roster. Without academic restrictions, I’m pretty sure he could have recruited a few more contributors so the starters didn’t need to play almost every minute.

Academic restrictions aside, Northwestern basketball has lots of challenges. No tradition. Until last year, no home court advantage. Not a party school. Intimidating student body for the typical high school student. And prior to Collins, poor facilities.

If there are 100 high school recruits Collins would love to have each year, academics aside (not the top 100, just the kids that would be good program fits), how many of those kids can be admitted and are interested in a school like NU? How many of those kids would rather play in front of 12,000 adoring fans? How many want to play for their state school because that’s who they grew up following? How many of those kids want to go to a “party” school? If IU or Purdue had offered Barnhizer, I doubt he would be playing for NU. Each of the other state schools in the conference has a similar built-in recruiting advantage.

It’s clearly not impossible to succeed. But unless our recruiting gets consistently better, we are going to have down years. Or the coaches at the other programs in the conference should be fired because they can’t evaluate talent.

Hi clarification:

Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner, had a bunch of stuff to do. I honestly was (and am) pleased that you spelled out your arguments about recruiting in a conversational way. You made a lot of valid points and I didn't want to fire off a response without thinking.

My main point about NU is that for a certain type of player - somewhere in the 75 - 300 rank, we are probably in that kids top 3. I'm not sure how many schools can say that. Possibly none. Maybe Stanford or Vanderbilt. Yes, there are 10 programs who focus on the Top 75 and get a lot of kids who are obsessed with the NBA. We could be one of 50 other programs who pursue those kids, with absolute futility. Most of those Top 50 don't pass our admissions requirements, but we are not going to get them anyhow. This is important - we are not going to get them. So is that really a "disadvantage?" On paper, it sounds like it. In reality, no way. They want to go to a blueblood program and NU is not that. Even if we didn't have the admissions restrictions, we are not getting those guys. Neither is Mississippi, Minnesota, Providence, Butler, Texas Tech, Oregon State or about 30 other schools.

Here's an alternative universe... Alabama wants to upgrade its academic reputation. They want to get the smartest kids in America to enroll. The recruiting office runs advertisements and tries like hell to get the top 2% of students to apply. They offer free tuition to anybody in the top 5% of standardized test scores. Nobody applies - except the kids whose families cannot afford to send their kids to the Ivy League or Northwestern or the other Top 20 schools, even with financial aid. Alabama gets some of those kids because they offer them a free ride and that makes sense for a subsection of the top 1000 students in America. Kids who have the test scores and can pay some tuition are not going to go to Alabama. However, a subset of smart kids with absolutely no money will put Alabama in their top 3.

Northwestern has something to offer that very few schools can. Big Ten athletics, world class education (and diploma) and a beautiful campus. This is a significant advantage - maybe even a huge advantage - for the right type of student-athlete.

Some people looks at recruiting and say "jeez we can't recruit 250 of the top 300 players."
My response is "True, but you aren't getting any of the Top 50, you only need 3 kids a year and the 50 kids you can recruit probably have you in their top 3. And its a crapshoot outside the Top 50."

Is that going to stop us from winning a national title? Yes.
Is that going to stop us from making the tournament regularly? No.

And lastly, smart dedicated kids are much more coachable than kids who lack those attributes, so their talent is underappreciated by scouts watching high school basketball.

 

[IGNORE2]

I

I want to play in your fantasy league if those guys are all available.

I looked them up to compile the list. All went round three or later. Also, seems like half the teams that had a first and second round pick are losing for the season. So - about the value of this analogy…

Of course, cc nor CSC wanted to go the road I suggested relating to MBB. Probably because they arrived at the same presumptions I did.

 

[IGNORE2]

Hi clarification:

Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner, had a bunch of stuff to do. I honestly was (and am) pleased that you spelled out your arguments about recruiting in a conversational way. You made a lot of valid points and I didn't want to fire off a response without thinking.

My main point about NU is that for a certain type of player - somewhere in the 75 - 300 rank, we are probably in that kids top 3. I'm not sure how many schools can say that. Possibly none. Maybe Stanford or Vanderbilt. Yes, there are 10 programs who focus on the Top 75 and get a lot of kids who are obsessed with the NBA. We could be one of 50 other programs who pursue those kids, with absolute futility. Most of those Top 50 don't pass our admissions requirements, but we are not going to get them anyhow. This is important - we are not going to get them. So is that really a "disadvantage?" On paper, it sounds like it. In reality, no way. They want to go to a blueblood program and NU is not that. Even if we didn't have the admissions restrictions, we are not getting those guys. Neither is Mississippi, Minnesota, Providence, Butler, Texas Tech, Oregon State or about 30 other schools.

Here's an alternative universe... Alabama wants to upgrade its academic reputation. They want to get the smartest kids in America to enroll. The recruiting office runs advertisements and tries like hell to get the top 2% of students to apply. They offer free tuition to anybody in the top 5% of standardized test scores. Nobody applies - except the kids whose families cannot afford to send their kids to the Ivy League or Northwestern or the other Top 20 schools, even with financial aid. Alabama gets some of those kids because they offer them a free ride and that makes sense for a subsection of the top 1000 students in America. Kids who have the test scores and can pay some tuition are not going to go to Alabama. However, a subset of smart kids with absolutely no money will put Alabama in their top 3.

Northwestern has something to offer that very few schools can. Big Ten athletics, world class education (and diploma) and a beautiful campus. This is a significant advantage - maybe even a huge advantage - for the right type of student-athlete.

Some people looks at recruiting and say "jeez we can't recruit 250 of the top 300 players."
My response is "True, but you aren't getting any of the Top 50, you only need 3 kids a year and the 50 kids you can recruit probably have you in their top 3. And its a crapshoot outside the Top 50."

Is that going to stop us from winning a national title? Yes.
Is that going to stop us from making the tournament regularly? No.

And lastly, smart dedicated kids are much more coachable than kids who lack those attributes, so their talent is underappreciated by scouts watching high school basketball.

This! Thanks PWB for stating my position in a more friendly and digestible fashion. If your explanation cannot get through then chalk it up to more homerism and move on.

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

I looked them up to compile the list. All went round three or later. Also, seems like half the teams that had a first and second round pick are losing for the season. So - about the value of this analogy…

Of course, cc nor CSC wanted to go the road I suggested relating to MBB. Probably because they arrived at the same presumptions I did.

You may of looked them up to compile, but I actually play in over 100 best ball leagues on DraftKings. I hope you realize you only get one pick per round. Doesn’t sound like you do. So, you get one pick somewhere between 25-36. St. brown and Brown go in the top 15 picks ( in every single draft) they are off the board for you. So you can have your next highest, probably Allen ( who is done for the year, so you got hosed). You would potentially get Etienne, but you wouldn’t get both Etienne and Allen. In pick 37-48, we will generously give you Herbert. You now have about the sixth best QB to lead your team. In pick 49-60 you might get Hockenson. Good pick but he is in the low scoring position of TE. You can get Mostert late. Congratulations you found a RB for your squad with great foresight to predict that break out season, but all other teams have one and probably two better. You still have 1 RB and 1 WR with a flex position. You are now in tier two players.

It doesn’t matter what the format is, this a an uncompetitive team. So your argument is pure fantasy unless you play in a 4 team league. In fact, you clearly make the exact opposite point you are trying to make! Surprise.

 

[IGNORE2]

You may of looked them up to compile, but I actually play in over 100 best ball leagues on DraftKings. I hope you realize you only get one pick per round. Doesn’t sound like you do. So, you get one pick somewhere between 25-36. St. brown and Brown go in the top 15 picks ( in every single draft) they are off the board for you. So you can have your next highest, probably Allen ( who is done for the year, so you got hosed). You would potentially get Etienne, but you wouldn’t get both Etienne and Allen. In pick 37-48, we will generously give you Herbert. You now have about the sixth best QB to lead your team. In pick 49-60 you might get Hockenson. Good pick but he is in the low scoring position of TE. You can get Mostert late. Congratulations you found a RB for your squad with great foresight to predict that break out season, but all other teams have one and probably two better. You still have 1 RB and 1 WR with a flex position. You are now in tier two players.

It doesn’t matter what the format is, this a an uncompetitive team. So your argument is pure fantasy unless you play in a 4 team league. In fact, you clearly make the exact opposite point you are trying to make! Surprise.

Well, you also get a first round and second pick. But, using clarcat analogy, I fairly assumed I get first three picks of round three. But feel free to move the goal posts of his poor analogy as much as you want to try to make them work.

Meanwhile, back on the relevance farm, still no takers on the various MBB comparisons I suggested as alternatives to the cc, and now ppd, fantasy idea….

 

[IGNORE2]

You may of looked them up to compile, but I actually play in over 100 best ball leagues on DraftKings. I hope you realize you only get one pick per round. Doesn’t sound like you do. So, you get one pick somewhere between 25-36. St. brown and Brown go in the top 15 picks ( in every single draft) they are off the board for you. So you can have your next highest, probably Allen ( who is done for the year, so you got hosed). You would potentially get Etienne, but you wouldn’t get both Etienne and Allen. In pick 37-48, we will generously give you Herbert. You now have about the sixth best QB to lead your team. In pick 49-60 you might get Hockenson. Good pick but he is in the low scoring position of TE. You can get Mostert late. Congratulations you found a RB for your squad with great foresight to predict that break out season, but all other teams have one and probably two better. You still have 1 RB and 1 WR with a flex position. You are now in tier two players.

It doesn’t matter what the format is, this a an uncompetitive team. So your argument is pure fantasy unless you play in a 4 team league. In fact, you clearly make the exact opposite point you are trying to make! Surprise.

Oh, and I interpreted cc to be talking about a season long fantasy football league. If it’s the weekly draft league, I agree with you with your valuations and also double down that it has terrible analogy value to the OP that CCC responded to.

Btw thanks, I was simply discrediting another poster’s analogy. We agree it simply doesn’t work. Appreciate the unintentional (forgot the OP) help

 

[Purple Pile Driver]

Hi clarification:

Sorry I wasn't able to respond sooner, had a bunch of stuff to do. I honestly was (and am) pleased that you spelled out your arguments about recruiting in a conversational way. You made a lot of valid points and I didn't want to fire off a response without thinking.

My main point about NU is that for a certain type of player - somewhere in the 75 - 300 rank, we are probably in that kids top 3. I'm not sure how many schools can say that. Possibly none. Maybe Stanford or Vanderbilt. Yes, there are 10 programs who focus on the Top 75 and get a lot of kids who are obsessed with the NBA. We could be one of 50 other programs who pursue those kids, with absolute futility. Most of those Top 50 don't pass our admissions requirements, but we are not going to get them anyhow. This is important - we are not going to get them. So is that really a "disadvantage?" On paper, it sounds like it. In reality, no way. They want to go to a blueblood program and NU is not that. Even if we didn't have the admissions restrictions, we are not getting those guys. Neither is Mississippi, Minnesota, Providence, Butler, Texas Tech, Oregon State or about 30 other schools.

Here's an alternative universe... Alabama wants to upgrade its academic reputation. They want to get the smartest kids in America to enroll. The recruiting office runs advertisements and tries like hell to get the top 2% of students to apply. They offer free tuition to anybody in the top 5% of standardized test scores. Nobody applies - except the kids whose families cannot afford to send their kids to the Ivy League or Northwestern or the other Top 20 schools, even with financial aid. Alabama gets some of those kids because they offer them a free ride and that makes sense for a subsection of the top 1000 students in America. Kids who have the test scores and can pay some tuition are not going to go to Alabama. However, a subset of smart kids with absolutely no money will put Alabama in their top 3.

Northwestern has something to offer that very few schools can. Big Ten athletics, world class education (and diploma) and a beautiful campus. This is a significant advantage - maybe even a huge advantage - for the right type of student-athlete.

Some people looks at recruiting and say "jeez we can't recruit 250 of the top 300 players."
My response is "True, but you aren't getting any of the Top 50, you only need 3 kids a year and the 50 kids you can recruit probably have you in their top 3. And its a crapshoot outside the Top 50."

Is that going to stop us from winning a national title? Yes.
Is that going to stop us from making the tournament regularly? No.

And lastly, smart dedicated kids are much more coachable than kids who lack those attributes, so their talent is underappreciated by scouts watching high school basketball.

Appreciate the detail PWB. However, it feels like you just might have an unintended bias in your value proposition of NU. Having a daughter that could pass admission requirements is something you should be proud of. Also, parent(s) that can see the value of the NU parchment is likely not common among many of those 50 players that you reference as having NU in their top 3. I suggest that you would not be a typical parent of a recruit. IMO there is not a pool of 50 players between 75-300 that would have NU in their top 3.

So let’s assume you are right and 50 top 300 players have NU in their top 3 and we’ll do some elementary math. If we got an equal share of the top 50 ( 33.3%) to have NU as their preferred choice, we would have 16 players to choose from for 3-4 spots a year. So NU would select the best 4 and turn down 12 that really wanted NU as a first choice. We know that is not reality. Do the same for 1 out of 5 choosing NU and we basically have our choice among 10 players for 4 spots tops.

I believe the real number of recruits that has us in their top 3 is closer to 8-10. CCC then has to close the deal on 3-4 of them. Not necessarily an easy task. Sometimes your hit result is less than 50%.

So I think alum and people associated with NU way oversell the value proposition of a NU education to revenue sports athletes. It helps but it isn’t the silver bullet to bring in healthy classes each year. It’s further down the line in factors that determine a selection. I’m with Clarification on this one, PWB. Don’t think the makes me a Homer. Probably the opposite.

 

[IGNORE2]

Appreciate the detail PWB. However, it feels like you just might have an unintended bias in your value proposition of NU. Having a daughter that could pass admission requirements is something you should be proud of. Also, parent(s) that can see the value of the NU parchment is likely not common among many of those 50 players that you reference as having NU in their top 3. I suggest that you would not be a typical parent of a recruit. IMO there is not a pool of 50 players between 75-300 that would have NU in their top 3.

So let’s assume you are right and 50 top 300 players have NU in their top 3 and we’ll do some elementary math. If we got an equal share of the top 50 ( 33.3%) to have NU as their preferred choice, we would have 16 players to choose from for 3-4 spots a year. So NU would select the best 4 and turn down 12 that really wanted NU as a first choice. We know that is not reality. Do the same for 1 out of 5 choosing NU and we basically have our choice among 10 players for 4 spots tops.

I believe the real number of recruits that has us in their top 3 is closer to 8-10. CCC then has to close the deal on 3-4 of them. Not necessarily an easy task. Sometimes your hit result is less than 50%.

So I think alum and people associated with NU way oversell the value proposition of a NU education to revenue sports athletes. It helps but it isn’t the silver bullet to bring in healthy classes each year. It’s further down the line in factors that determine a selection. I’m with Clarification on this one, PWB. Don’t think the makes me a Homer. Probably the opposite.

First, many athletes do five years to play four. Injuries, depth, whatever. It’s a free masters which smart kids find value. So you have five years of recruiting.

And expecting regular departures, you have the portal with the NU masters parchment as a lure.

Looking back at the first dancing team, how many went pro? How many do you think truly had nba aspirations? Just need to recruit. 2-3 a year and hit on average of 1.5 to be a competitive team.

 

[IGNORE2]

Now, before you change the goalposts - shall we review the number of 3 star and less recruits that appeared in the last 10 tournies? Or maybe the average star rating for the rosters across all 60some tourney teams? Maybe we can examine all the offers to the starting players on non blue blood programs in last year’s tourney? Because I think we will find a lot of teams succeeded without access to top 100 talent. Heck, I bet most teams did not have a single top 100 recruit on their roster.

Bump for emphasis

 

[Kat burglar]

Now, before you change the goalposts - shall we review the number of 3 star and less recruits that appeared in the last 10 tournies? Or maybe the average star rating for the rosters across all 60some tourney teams? Maybe we can examine all the offers to the starting players on non blue blood programs in last year’s tourney? Because I think we will find a lot of teams succeeded without access to top 100 talent. Heck, I bet most teams did not have a single top 100 recruit on their roster.

I agree with your main point that number of stars is over-rated.

I think the relevant comparison would be what is the average star rating for rosters that made the tournament AND could have made the tournament playing in the B1G.

You have to be around the top half of the B1G to make the tourney (some years top 10). There are some teams with lower average star ratings that could do that, but the pool is smaller.

There are 12 teams in the top 60 of Kenpom. Any of those could make the tourney. I guess there's more opportunity for Quad 1 wins but it's still a tough league.

Your point still stands.

 

[SDakaGordie]

I get your love for internet and fantasy but there is no analogy.

In truth, of the hundreds of NCAA D1 MBB programs, only a few are blessed. Duke, Stanford, MI…

The rest have challenges. What basketball player WANTS to go to Gergia Tech? How does MN attract players to the ice dome? Marquette? Butler? Gonzaga?

Some campuses offer beauty. Others offer the party. Some offer particular majors. Some offer nearly unmatched educational opportunities. Hell, ND, not a BB destination, offers the premiere alum network of them all.

Yes, NU has its minuses as it has it pluses. In a game that requires you hit on 2-3 players every four years and get 2-3 average players every four years, you can succeed.

You can succeed if, after identifying that actual talent and recruiting them, you develop them and deploy a solid O and D scheme. (Thus Gonzaga, once a nothing and now a destination)

I also believe there are coaches with known niche strengths- Phil jackson and the triangle, Brian James and the big man, lowery and D. I think your best programs find a smart coach with a niche and an ego that allows him to cover his weaknesses with assistant to make up for it.

And that’s why the Princeton and Gonzaga’s returned repeatedly over the years to post season play. Yet, even those without all the proposer coaching can get into post season. Unless your coaching team is absolutely lacking.

Going to a challenging school for 4-5 years (minus of NU) vs. any other plus of another school (less difficult school, more fans, bigger stage, better history, etc.) - for a kid looking to make it to the NBA (90+% are; even NU’s main recruits are), it’s just not a plausible argument to say the pluses and minuses offset for these kids so focuses on basketball.

 

[IGNORE2]

I agree with your main point that number of stars is over-rated.

I think the relevant comparison would be what is the average star rating for rosters that made the tournament AND could have made the tournament playing in the B1G.

You have to be around the top half of the B1G to make the tourney (some years top 10). There are some teams with lower average star ratings that could do that, but the pool is smaller.

There are 12 teams in the top 60 of Kenpom. Any of those could make the tourney. I guess there's more opportunity for Quad 1 wins but it's still a tough league.

Your point still stands.

I would say - let’s examine those same factors from round of 32. The rift raft is gone. Underdogs had to knock off decent teams to remain. Still think my assessment stands.

 

[IGNORE2]

Going to a challenging school for 4-5 years (minus of NU) vs. any other plus of another school (less difficult school, more fans, bigger stage, better history, etc.) - for a kid looking to make it to the NBA (90+% are; even NU’s main recruits are), it’s just not a plausible argument to say the pluses and minuses offset for these kids so focuses on basketball.

As pwb, those truly planning on nba are not going to NU. Also not going to most of the schools out there - like butler, Wisconsin, Iowa, Va Tech, etc. Three quarters of schools are out of the running regardless of admissions.

There are about 60 draft picks - many not from ncaa. Perhaps we evaluate how many teams from round of 32 had a nba player on the roster over the last ten tournies?

 

[PurpleWhiteBoy]

Appreciate the detail PWB. However, it feels like you just might have an unintended bias in your value proposition of NU. Having a daughter that could pass admission requirements is something you should be proud of. Also, parent(s) that can see the value of the NU parchment is likely not common among many of those 50 players that you reference as having NU in their top 3. I suggest that you would not be a typical parent of a recruit. IMO there is not a pool of 50 players between 75-300 that would have NU in their top 3.

So let’s assume you are right and 50 top 300 players have NU in their top 3 and we’ll do some elementary math. If we got an equal share of the top 50 ( 33.3%) to have NU as their preferred choice, we would have 16 players to choose from for 3-4 spots a year. So NU would select the best 4 and turn down 12 that really wanted NU as a first choice. We know that is not reality. Do the same for 1 out of 5 choosing NU and we basically have our choice among 10 players for 4 spots tops.

I believe the real number of recruits that has us in their top 3 is closer to 8-10. CCC then has to close the deal on 3-4 of them. Not necessarily an easy task. Sometimes your hit result is less than 50%.

So I think alum and people associated with NU way oversell the value proposition of a NU education to revenue sports athletes. It helps but it isn’t the silver bullet to bring in healthy classes each year. It’s further down the line in factors that determine a selection. I’m with Clarification on this one, PWB. Don’t think the makes me a Homer. Probably the opposite.

The numbers I threw out there were definitely reflecting my "pro-Northwestern" bias. Possibly overstating it to guess that there are 50 kids in the top 300 who can get thru NU admissions. I wish I knew what the real numbers are. Maybe the 50 is closer to 30.

And sure, I'm biased. Basically I'm saying "If these kids are smart enough to get thru admissions, they should be smart enough to recognize that Northwestern is one of their 3 best options."

Hopefully folks will recognize that having something that sets your program apart is an advantage in recruiting. For some schools it is the coach. For other schools it is the education / diploma. For other schools it is NIL money or the quality of the beaches. Most schools cannot differentiate themselves from the pack. Northwestern certainly can. If a kid can choose between "Average Coach Smith" at Northwestern and "Average Coach Jones" at Purdue - he "should" pick Northwestern 4 times out of 5. And the exception is somebody you don't want anyhow. You want kids who challenge themselves. They are far more likely to improve.

Lastly, I have never said our recruiting advantages totally offset the disadvantages we face because of admissions. Its just a question of how much.

I watched some old Bobby Knight interviews recently. In every interview he said "I tell recruits 'You are going to have to work hard. You are going to have to go to class. You are going to have to behave. Do you think you can do those things? Because if you can't, then this is not the program for you.'" The vast majority of talented high school kids had zero interest in that arrangement - a harsh set of "admission standards." But Indiana managed to do okay - primarily because a limited group of kids wanted to play for the coach, who was selling teamwork, a winning tradition and "I will get you to be as good as you can be."

It only takes 2-3 players a year.

 

[SDakaGordie]

Please elaborate on needing only 2-3 players. Could we have just replaced Berry, Barnhizer, Beran with anyone last year, given we had Buie, Audige and Nicholson? Who would you have dropped from our first tourney team? Lindsay / Sanjay / Tap (assuming we need Law/Bmac/Pardon).

Why did we not make the tourney with: Shurna / Crawford / Demps / Cobb?
Thompson with above?
Coble / Thompson / Shurna?
You’ve argued these players were better than Collins’ best players.

Why? We’re not DEEP enough to make the NCAA with the talent levels of 2-3 best players we get due to our recruiting limitations. We need depth in practice, great defense, solid rebounding, free throw shooting, no injuries, etc. Lots has to go our way. 2nd vs. 9th place in our last game of the season.

It’s great to hope and plan for a better future, but it’s also ok to recognize our inherent limitations outweigh our advantages, especially when they are legitimate and proven much more than the plans and hopes of our program for all of time.

 

[IGNORE2]

Please elaborate on needing only 2-3 players. Could we have just replaced Berry, Barnhizer, Beran with anyone last year, given we had Buie, Audige and Nicholson? Who would you have dropped from our first tourney team? Lindsay / Sanjay / Tap (assuming we need Law/Bmac/Pardon).

Why did we not make the tourney with: Shurna / Crawford / Demps / Cobb?
Thompson with above?
Coble / Thompson / Shurna?
You’ve argued these players were better than Collins’ best players.

Why? We’re not DEEP enough to make the NCAA with the talent levels of 2-3 best players we get due to our recruiting limitations. We need depth in practice, great defense, solid rebounding, free throw shooting, no injuries, etc. Lots has to go our way. 2nd vs. 9th place in our last game of the season.

It’s great to hope and plan for a better future, but it’s also ok to recognize our inherent limitations outweigh our advantages, especially when they are legitimate and proven much more than the plans and hopes of our program for all of time.

You need to only recruit 2-3 / year and over five year eligibility span, that’s 10 / 15. Of which, only 2-3 need to be hits with majority of rest being supportive players. 2-3 very good players gets you dancing.

 

[Hkjb]

Did not watch, any theories on why Barnhizer and Berry played so many minutes? I know without Martinelli we don't have other clear 4's. Still seems like a lot of minutes against a D2 team

Those minutes gave them time to build chemistry with other (new) players on the team. I can't recall the last time we had 6 new players - this is a new team. They need time to gel against competitors they don't know - and the minutes show it.

 

[salukicat]

Based on early reports, The Cats found two gems in next year’s recruiting class in Windham and Ciaravino.