ADVERTISEMENT

What if Collins ...

It depends who you are comparing, obviously.
You'd have to show me where I said that.
I’m not big on searching archives, so I’ll note that it was much more likely about the BigTen than any wider group, but (even though the BIG is clearly not at the top of the college basketball world), the relative point still stands - it was a shocking statement given all that is Northwestern.
 
Pitt is really regretting that extension they gave Capel recently.




Yep, once Harvard no longer had that financial aid recruiting advantage, hasn't done much.

As for Scheyer, while he's probably a good coach, much of his success is due to getting those ridiculous recruiting classes year after year.

And this started before NIL really took off (last few years of K's tenure) where Dook went from getting top 5-10 classes to top 1-2 (previously got skilled players who weren't necessarily the most athletic, but now getting the most skilled and athletic players).

Just saying...

Look at Kansas BB ever since Self lost his 2 top bag men, er assistants.

Much was made out about how UM and Wisky ended up losing top players to Kansas last off season, but neither really thrived at KU and both UM and Wisky ended up being a lot better.

At this juncture, a good argument can be made that with the talent at his disposal, Scheyer has underperformed.
They sure choked last night
 
I’m not big on searching archives, so I’ll note that it was much more likely about the BigTen than any wider group, but (even though the BIG is clearly not at the top of the college basketball world), the relative point still stands - it was a shocking statement given all that is Northwestern.
I just don't think I said it.
Maybe out of frustration, but I doubt it.
I've typically (always?) said that NU should be able to be middle third in talent or midpack or something like that.
I think the last 4 years have shown that to be true.
 
It's a stretch to the extent that anything hypothetical is a stretch. But the idea that overcoming adversity and challenges forges unique skill/talent is no stretch at all. It's proven. Otherwise Brazil wouldn't be great at football/soccer, Ethiopia would not dominate distance running, and Saudi Arabia would be accepted as the best-governed country on earth, enabled by all that oil money. Tailwinds don't develop skill/competency- arguably they do the opposite.

For many years, I worked with closely with a company known globally for a particular skill, and for training that skill. The company was a well oiled machine. Thing is - when their star leaders were headhunted for roles in other companies, they failed for the most part. They were rally bad at dealing with all the real-world challenges from which they were insulated when they were in the company. They couldn't compete with others who had to learn through hard knocks.

Let's suppose it was possible to do a head-to-head between Scheyer and Collins, 10 games apiece with the same resources, fan base, facilities, assistant coaching talent and players. My money's on Collins, every day of the week.
This actually aged well....
 
^^^ Back in 2019 3 Adidas employees were convicted of wire fraud for funneling payments to recruits, of which there was evidence of the involvement of 2 of Self's assistants, who were later dismissed.

Self, otoh, escaped any major punishment...
 
An argument can be made in support of or against any coach simply by claiming that he has incredible talent to work with or that he has no talent to work with.

We see that with Chris Collins a lot - claiming he is great despite his record because his players are terrible.
Now you're arguing the flipside with Scheyer - he is not very good despite his very high winning percentage because he has the best players.

I'm not stating an opinion on either coach- just commenting on the arguments.

Don't really recall many saying that CC's players are terrible; certainly weren't when it came to recruiting rankings except for when the bounce from the 1st Tourney appearance had run out.

In fact, there were those touting the level of recruiting.

Like Carmody?

[ducks]

Well, that is a primary reason he didn’t succeed. Carmody forgot that recruiting was part of the job.

Think too much is made of this pretty much over the fact that Carmody wasn't on campus when a certain recruit came to visit (we don't know if he was away on a recruiting trip).

Recruiting, esp the underbelly, fair to say probably wasn't Carmody's favorite thing, but he wasn't a dummy and knew that recruiting was vital.

Carmody certainly had an eye for under-appreciated talent - having a streak of recruits (Juice, Shurna, Crawford and Cobb) who were all significant contributors as frosh, not to mention having a string of PGs who were able ball-handlers from the start.

There were 4 mistakes/impediments to recruiting under Bill.

1. Simply embarrassing facilities - when recruits asked to tour the facilities, the staff would make up a bogus excuse which certainly sent off red flags.

No coincidence that when the facilities were upgraded miday thru Carmody's tenure that recruiting improved.

2. Not hiring a local coach to be on the staff; took longer than it should have to develop relationships with area coaches.

3. Running the Princeton O; while there were some benefits to running the PO, it wasn't exactly the type of scheme that was attractive to recruits, which is probably why even Princeton (under BC's former right hand man no less) has gone away from it.

4. During the last couple years of the NIT run, BC was operating on a year to year contract/extension, so suffice to say, not reassuring to recruits.


All in all, Carmody's biggest failure was in getting the depth needed to overcome the inevitable injuries and/or suspensions.

Didn't help that the program would be in on some under-recruited talent, but a better established program (like Wisconsin a few times) would swoop in whenever a schollie opened up.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT