Tinae to UW, Alexander crystalled to ASU
- Thread starter chugspig
- Start date
Recruiting 25 Guys a year vs. 4 Guys a year is a completely different ballgame.
Thanks for proving my point above that you don't know what you are talking about.
It's premature to judge Rolovich based on recruiting at this point. Until everyone (including recruits) sees how he handles game day coaching at WSU and gets to see how our team plays, he's recruiting with one hand tied behind his back. The question is whether he can get guys that can be functional in the meantime where we can be competitive.
As far as 25 guys vs 4 guys.....gotta disagree with you. If it was so easy, why have we had to fire so many basketball coaches who haven't been able to recruit the guys we need to compete?
I've followed recruiting long enough to know that "package deals" aren't a real thing. Kids always say they want to go play with their teammates, but come signing time, that's rarely the case.
That's not saying much. He could probably never leave his office and bring in better recruits than that '08 class.
Wait Wait Wait.... You actually think trying to land a Top-25 Football Recruiting Class made up of 25 Guys is the same or even somewhat equally as difficult as landing a 4 Recruit Top-25 Basketball Class ????
Last edited:
I'd love to hear a tale about Brian Baucham and the magic eye for talent....
Foreign players.....something the Bennett's could do and something Bone and Kent were unable to do much of from their past backgrounds.
Bone reliant upon D-I transfers at Seattle Pacific and Portland St. (and left an academic mess in his wake at PSU)
Kent had Worldwide Wes working on his behalf for awhile at Oregon. Kent wasn't able to adjust to the transfer culture that has developed.
It's not easy to recruit a top 25 basketball class by any means. In many ways, recruiting for b-ball is harder than football at WSU.
That said, it's easier to pull in a top 25 basketball class than a football class due to the outsized impact a couple of recruits can have on a four-man class as opposed to a 25-man class. BTW, as much as I'm over the moon with everything Smith is doing, the class only is top-25 because it has 6 recruits in it.
On Brand X, at least, the per-recruit ranking is 11th out of 12 in the Pac-12, even with those two very good recruits at the top, the likes of whom haven't been seen on the Palouse in about a decade.
That said, it's easier to pull in a top 25 basketball class than a football class due to the outsized impact a couple of recruits can have on a four-man class as opposed to a 25-man class. BTW, as much as I'm over the moon with everything Smith is doing, the class only is top-25 because it has 6 recruits in it.
On Brand X, at least, the per-recruit ranking is 11th out of 12 in the Pac-12, even with those two very good recruits at the top, the likes of whom haven't been seen on the Palouse in about a decade.
To answer your question.
1. Focus is usually on Football over basketball
2. WSU has hired either some pretty bad bball coaches, or average at best, that COULDNT RECRUIT, and would probably have had a hard time either winning or recruiting at other places.
3. WSU doesnt have a traditionally winning bball program.
4. That would be different if WSU had found a Mark Few decades ago that would have turned WSU into a Gonzaga, etc, and then had hired a series of coaches who would have sustained that.
5. What your saying about bball was more applicable BACK THEN, because NOW there are more EQUALIZERS, things thst make things much easier for WSU NOW compared to BACK THEN.
6. If WSU hires a COACH K type who can recruit at WSU, WSU can easily recruit, etc.
7. Case in point, Smith is either making it easy or making it look easy.
Yes, but regarding the basketball ranking, it is cherry picking the argument to say they are only ranked so high because of the number of players signed, and then say that on a per recruit bases they are the 11th ranked team out of 12 in conference.
By signing so many players, it brings their overall per recruit ranking down. You don't sign the three of four bottom ranked players, then all of a sudden, WSU is near the top of per recruit rankings.
Now, look at Oregon and UCLA, they signed one player and because of that, their per recruit ranking is high.
I get your point, and it's well-taken. It's not cherry-picking in an attempt to misrepresent the data, though. It's WSU recruiting the best players it can, which in this case is two very good players at the top and four players that still are pretty highly-ranked and sought compared to WSU's norm, but which combine with those at the top to be 11th on a per-recruit basis.
If Oregon or UCLA recruited six players instead of one (or three or four), with the types of players they typically land, they'd still be well ahead of WSU.
Still, yeah, you're right that if we only brought in those top two guys, we'd be up there around the same rank as the lower end of the six teams at the top, and we'd still be reasonably close to that group if we brought in the top two guys and, say, two of the others. We're not that far behind a few other teams, even with the current six players.
Good observation. I've always preferred to compare WSU basketball recruiting classes to other WSU basketball recruiting classes....and not those of other Pac-12 teams. And by that standard, the group Smith just signed is pretty special, although I realize they have to show it on the court at the college level. I don't think this class should be minimized because we needed to recruit a six-man class. (And I know you aren't doing that.)
Glad Cougar
But, it is cherry picking designed to make a point. There is a reason why all rating services take the entire class as a whole to give a team ranking instead of just the per player ranking.
WSU's highest ranked player is higher ranked than UCLA's lone recruit and Rosario is not far behind. What happens if UCLA's or Oregon's lone recruit is a bust or not as good? There is a reason why passenger airplanes have more than one engine.
To me, the entire thought process behind the 11th place is a useless thought exercise. When the numbers are bunched so close together, it really doesn't mean much. Cal, CU, Utah, and WSU are really close in average player ranking. By the way, they would be 10th, not 11th. The uw does not have a recruit in the 2020 class. OSU is 11th.
Exactly, there is a reason why all the recruiting services, like Rivals, ESPN, 247, Scout, SBnation, Verbal Commits, Bleacher Report, etc, and all the experts, have WSU's recruiting class ranked either 3rd, 4th in the PAC 12, and 29th, to 31, to 39, etc, in the nation.
The class is the best ever in all of WSU's ENTIRE HISTORY of 100+ years. And only Jack Friel, Raveling, have come close to almost being equal to this recruiting class.
Trying to downplay the class in order to make a point, isn't needed.
I didn’t say that they are the same thing. I was saying that it’s myopic to pretend that our basketball class was “easy” because it’s just four guys.
It’s obviously more difficult to get 25 kids landed that result in a Top 25 class. It isn’t that hard to get 4-5 top tier football players if you’re doing a good job, even it doesn’t get you a Top 25 class. That said, we shouldn’t freak out if it takes another year or two for Rolovich to do it.
My words were saying that if it was so easy to recruit four guys, why were we firing guys because they couldn't get the talent to compete. Kevin Eastman was a good gameday coach and led our team to a couple NIT appearances before his inability to recruit sunk him. Ken Bone got WSU to the NIT Semifinals with Klay Thompson and the leftovers from the Bennett era. By the time all of his players were in place....we sucked.
If it's so fuggin' easy to get a Top 25 recruiting class loaded with talent, why is it that most of our coaches in the past 40 years had troubles doing it? Again, recruiting 25 guys is harder, but getting a basketball class together isn't easy and based what I've seen, it's arguably harder to get classes that pan out because turnover in basketball is so damned high. Of course, that's the mystery with Smith. Nice class on paper....will it mean anything on the court?
Oh boy.
Rolo just "liked" a tweet from Doucher McDousherton about one of his camp attendees. Hoping its because of the kid and not the camp/ dude. But as far as I know, we're not on this kid's radar, correct?
Rolo just "liked" a tweet from Doucher McDousherton about one of his camp attendees. Hoping its because of the kid and not the camp/ dude. But as far as I know, we're not on this kid's radar, correct?
Who said it was easy? Here is my quote for you since you are in digging in mode on your quotes:
"Recruiting 25 Guys a year vs. 4 Guys a year is a completely different ballgame."
We are one of numerous schools to offer him. He's definitely a kid you'd like to be in on, but we know Ford won't push him out way.
I don't have a problem with Rolovich having a good relationship with Ford. I hope he does. Rolovich has an interest in getting the best players he can from wherever he can, and Ford has an interest in getting his trainees as many scholarships as he can, from the biggest and most impressive programs he can, so he can tout the same to build his reputation and drum up more business. I don't fault him for that, but it should be recognized for what it is.
I just don't want Rolovich to be offering scholies to today's equivalents to Blair Bomber, owing to a sense of obligation or weird pressure from Ford, other trainers, Washington high school coaches, or misguided fans / media members.
It's not easy by any means. It's hard as hell. It's just (i) more impactful in terms of affecting class rankings in that rare event in which a combination of effort, luck, and opportunity line up to let WSU get a recruit it typically wouldn't; and (ii) as A&M Fan wrote, just a different matter altogether working to land 2-6 players a year as opposed to 25 pretty much every year. Not easy. Just a more focused situation.
He's dancing with the devil. If he "snubs" a 2 or 3 star that Ford is propping up as a 4 star, then (knowing the kind of person Ford has proven to be) Ford starts badmouthing WSU and Rolo to any and everyone he can. I think we stand more to lose more than we can gain by getting into bed with this guy, so I hope Rolo is keeping him at arms distance.
I don't have a big issue with most of this and, again, see your points. They're good ones. I know WSU's class is very close to a lot of teams right above it. Good stuff.
As for why recruiting services rank teams by total points, though, I think that has more to do with (i) football classes being relatively standardized in size, year in and year out, with total class rankings making sense in that setting and basketball recruiting being tracked on these services largely being an outgrowth of football; and (ii) the need to have some kind of ranking system, even if imperfect. Ranking them by total points is merely less flawed and less prone to weird results -- or, perhaps, prone to different types of weird results -- than ranking them by the average rankings of each signee.
Ranking classes by "average" points wouldn't make sense since you could have weird situations where, e.g., some school like South Carolina manages to land a 5-star due to his dad playing there, as the sole commit in the class, and South Carolina then having the "top class." That doesn't make sense.
It also doesn't make sense, though, to have the fact that a team can recruit, say, 5 players with a value of 80, which is the bare bones any P6 recruit would get (so 400 "points" total), rank above a team who recruits four players with a value of 95 (with a value of 380). In that context, anyone would look at the average points per recruit, and it's far from a useless thought exercise. It's one school recruiting the equivalent of four borderline top 100 recruits, all like Jakimovski, ranking below the other school that recruited five stiffs who only had other low-tier WCC interest like Kent usually was scraping around for, but just had one more guy in the class. That's why some services allow sorting by average ranking / recruit value when looking at team rankings.
More generally, that's why I, and I had thought pretty much everyone, looks at not only total points values of classes but also the relative caliber of the recruits being landed.
Given the small numbers of recruits and variations in class sizes, perhaps the best conclusion is that any hard focus on hard "rankings" in class standing for basketball, especially, is of relatively little value ... and I'd usually ignore it unless it's favorable to WSU in some way, as it is here. In that way, I have no problem touting WSU having the 4th best class in the Pac-12 in 2020. If I'm evaluating it for any serious purpose, though, of course, I'm accounting for the different rankings of the recruits and how that compares against other schools with different class sizes.
Last edited:
Agreed and well-stated. I don't mean they need to be best buds. I think as a coach, you'd want to stay on at least neutral, moderately good standing with these kinds of guys if possible. If they don't like you and feel snubbed anyway, they're already not going to speak favorably to any recruits or coaches about you or your program, so it makes sense to play the game a little without being their best buddy. Be cordial, like some tweets, etc. Just don't give in and offer the guys who aren't Pac-12 players.
Remember that it's in Ford's interest to stay on Rolovich's good side, too, perhaps even more so. If Ford starts badmouthing WSU or Rolovich to coaches and that gets back to Rolovich, then Rolovich may adopt the Leach approach and Ford now has lost one of two P5 programs in his home state again as a source to try to drum up P5 offers for these guys.
I wouldn't even play games, I just wouldn't work with the "businessman" at all.
He needs WSU more than WSU needs him.
I agree with this. But IF Ford, lets say Ford doesnt push the 4 star WR, toward WSU. And lets say that Ford's 2,3 star, that Rolo offered, doesnt pan out. Then lets say that Rolo thinks, says, "I took his 2 star kid, and he didnt pan out, and Ford didnt even try to get his 4 star to me, so because of that, I am not going to offer another of his 2 stars in the future."
Then lets say Ford bad mouths Rolo for not offering any of his 2,3 stars, and accuses him of not recruiting WA, like Leach did.
At that point, if that happens, I am going to get a twitter account, Tweet Ford's public account, tweets with:
"Tracy Ford, WSU fan here. No rep WSU. You Accused Leach of not recruiting WA. Rolo did recruit WA. He got one of your 2,3 stars. That kid didnt pan out. And you didnt push your 4 star to WSU. That ok in way, you want your kids to get the best, to build your business. What NOT ok, is that when WSU, Rolo, didnt offer your 2 stars anymore because didnt pan out, and because you didnt push 4 star to WSU, you falsely accused, bad mouthed WSU, Rolo of not recruiting WA. Rolo, WSU has recruited WA. But WSU is not going to offer your WHITWORTH college kids to build your business. That surefire way to finish LAST in Pac 12. Problem with you Ford, isnt your Business. Its you. Your a HYPOCRITE that demands that WSU sign your whitworth kids, but wont let WSU get your 4 star, P5, Pac 12 kids, and then FALSELY ACCUSE, BAD MOUTH WSU for not taking your Whitworth kids to refuse to finish last in Pac 12.
Now this is where you probably wrongly say that WSU is not good etc, and that is why you send your 4 stars to UW, etc, instead of to WSU. YOUR WRONG. WSU has been AWESOME for 5 straight years of 6 to 11 wins a season, College Gameday, bowl games, Alamo bowl, 4 star recruits like Gabe Marks going to WSU.
But if you dont want your 4 stars to goto WSU, that ok in a way, your opinion. Again, whats not ok, is being a HYPOCRITE, and Falsely accusing, bad mouthing WSU, Rolo of not recruiting WA.
Since you accused WSU, Leach, of not recruiting WA, it was PUT UP, or SHUT UP time for you TRACY FORD. Either when WSU, Rolo recruited WA, either you get P5, Pac 12, 3,4 star kids(Not Whitworth 1,2 star kids), to goto WSU, when WSU, Rolo recruited WA, your kids, OR WSU, Rolo stops recruiting your whitworth kids, and then you can SHUT UP with your WSU, Rolo needs to recruit WA, my kids more, as if they do, they will get P5, PAC 12 kids.
Stop the HYPROCRISY, PUT UP OR SHUT UP. And since you wont PUT UP, and will Falsely accuse, then you can SHUT UP."
Unless and until we have a decades long streak of 8+ wins we will always be considered a Oklahoma State, Iowa State equivalent. Oregon was in our boat until the early 90s. They didn’t have a 3-year run, they had to have decades before being mentioned with the blue bloods. You need the funding and the coaching to make a sea change and even the funding (see T Boone Pickens @ Oky State) can’t guarantee it.
Lets face it. Most kids would rather play in front of 70,000 on ABC then in front of 30,000 on PAC-12.
Our only hope was a Paul Allen led infusion of money ala Knight, didn’t happen.
Lets face it. Most kids would rather play in front of 70,000 on ABC then in front of 30,000 on PAC-12.
Our only hope was a Paul Allen led infusion of money ala Knight, didn’t happen.
It wont happen overnight. It wont happen just by winning. If you wanna land 4 star kids you have to advance your product to schools that have 4 star facilities. WSU doesnt have those facilities. Likely never will.
WSU spent 100 years not giving a shit about their program. It isnt gonna take 10 years to turn the ship. It could take 25+.
My suggestion for WSU right now is to invest in people. Get the best people to lead, make decisions and fundraise.
Nobody in the Country says “Blue Bloods” & Oregon in the same sentence other than Oregon Fans.
That’s true. I guess I was just trying to say that they come up in conversations with the blue bloods, playoffs, etc.
I know the term "Blue Bloods" is kind of synonymous with "old money", but if you were to rewrite the list of "blue blood" programs right now, they absolutely would be. They've been to 27 bowls in 32 years, including 7 BCS bowls and 2 National Championships. You can't find more than 5 programs with a better 30 year running resume than that.
JMO, but I think you have to have a natty to be considered a blue blood. Having a natty doesn't necessarily mean you're in that category (Georgia Tech, uw).
Disagree with your premise, Mr. Biggs.
When the new IPF goes online in the next 12 months or so, those facilities (Stadium, FOB and IPF) will match up well with any program West of the Continental Divide.
