Welcome to The Holy Land of Hoops

2019 commits starting to trickle in...

So far (using 24/7 Composite):

58. Justin Moore - 6'4" CG - Nova
119. Eric Dixon - 6'7" F - Nova
128. Semari Curtis - 6'4" CG - Xavier
145. Khaliff Battle - 6'4" SG - Butler
209. John-M Mulloy - 6'9" C - Butler

Top 250 Commits by power conference (to date):

SEC - 9
BE - 5
B1G10 - 5
Pac12 - 4
ACC - 4
Big12 - 3

Anything we can do to help Georgetown annoy Syracuse by getting some of their targets in Golden and Battle, we'll do.

The thing is, not many Top 50 players have committed yet (Big East has 0), and those are the players that the P5 gets.

Also, Top 250 isn't a good metric and Top 57 or Top 118 would be way better. Adoraz NEVER used Top 250.

Simply put. BE recruiting is above expectations from the middle-bottom schools and below expectations at the top. This is a combination of Jay Wright seemingly being blacklisted by the 1-and-dones despite his success and the (hopefully temporary) down-turns at both Marquette and Georgetown.

If the middle schools can maintain their current recruiting trajectories and at least 2 of 4 (Nova, Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier) start pulling top 25 guys we will be fine. Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

DudeAnon wrote:Simply put. BE recruiting is above expectations from the middle-bottom schools and below expectations at the top. This is a combination of Jay Wright seemingly being blacklisted by the 1-and-dones despite his success and the (hopefully temporary) down-turns at both Marquette and Georgetown.

If the middle schools can maintain their current recruiting trajectories and at least 2 of 4 (Nova, Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier) start pulling top 25 guys we will be fine. Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

Honest question for you DAnon as I don't understand your post even a little. Do you think the BE is better equipped to be successful long term by getting OAD's or solid 3-4 players? In hindsight would you rather have had Henry Ellenson for 1 year or Angel Delagado for 4? Trey Lyles and Kelly Oubre for 1 or M. Bridges and T. Blueitt for 4?

As a Nova fan I am not really concerned that we have whiffed on OAD's. Look at how we've been successful. 2016: Arch (4 yrs in the program), Ochefu (4), Jenkins (3), Hart (3) Brunson (1) Avg = 3.0 ; 2018: Bridges (4), Brunson (3), Booth (4), DiV (3), Paschall (3), Spellman (2); Avg. = 3.2. And I know exactly why we have whiffed on so many OAD's. Jay W. promises nothing other than a spot to compete. Most OAD's are most likely promised anything and everything by every other coach, including immediate playing time. I think Jay believes that OAD's can supplement a team already well established. But why would he try to mimic Duke & UK when his results have been what they are? It is not like Nova has struggled on the recruiting trail--Spellman (Top 25), Brunson (Top 25), now Quinerly (top 25)--or on the court.

Look if we try to compete with Coach K and Cal we are going to lose. So will every other college hoops program out there. Keep doing what we are doing. We're doing more than fine.

Odd post IMO.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

DudeAnon wrote:Simply put. BE recruiting is above expectations from the middle-bottom schools and below expectations at the top. This is a combination of Jay Wright seemingly being blacklisted by the 1-and-dones despite his success and the (hopefully temporary) down-turns at both Marquette and Georgetown.

If the middle schools can maintain their current recruiting trajectories and at least 2 of 4 (Nova, Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier) start pulling top 25 guys we will be fine. Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

Honest question for you DAnon as I don't understand your post even a little. Do you think the BE is better equipped to be successful long term by getting OAD's or solid 3-4 players? In hindsight would you rather have had Henry Ellenson for 1 year or Angel Delagado for 4? Trey Lyles and Kelly Oubre for 1 or M. Bridges and T. Blueitt for 4?

As a Nova fan I am not really concerned that we have whiffed on OAD's. Look at how we've been successful. 2016: Arch (4 yrs in the program), Ochefu (4), Jenkins (3), Hart (3) Brunson (1) Avg = 3.0 ; 2018: Bridges (4), Brunson (3), Booth (4), DiV (3), Paschall (3), Spellman (2); Avg. = 3.2. And I know exactly why we have whiffed on so many OAD's. Jay W. promises nothing other than a spot to compete. Most OAD's are most likely promised anything and everything by every other coach, including immediate playing time. I think Jay believes that OAD's can supplement a team already well established. But why would he try to mimic Duke & UK when his results have been what they are? It is not like Nova has struggled on the recruiting trail--Spellman (Top 25), Brunson (Top 25), now Quinerly (top 25)--or on the court.

Look if we try to compete with Coach K and Cal we are going to lose. So will every other college hoops program out there. Keep doing what we are doing. We're doing more than fine.

Odd post IMO.

+1 Wright shows a strong team beats a couple of high profile players. Nova is the model most should try to achieve.

Also, I believe Creighton can get in the mix; however, we are not deep enough like Nova to just replace losing key players. Losing Watson one year and Krampelj the next killed what could have been very successful tournie runs the last two years ( which duly noted we need to make). This year could be a little more of the same if we lose Khyri (which is expected). The last two recruiting classed have been more than solid and hopefully we are building that depth.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:Jay W. promises nothing other than a spot to compete. Most OAD's are most likely promised anything and everything by every other coach, including immediate playing time. I think Jay believes that OAD's can supplement a team already well established.

Jay's probably in a position now to sell the program's ability to develop kids into NBA players, which should really entice 25-75 range of players (not that Nova strictly adheres to these rankings). But he does promise playing time to higher ranked recruits. Brunson started over Booth from day 1, and Spellman would have started over Reynolds. I am betting that Quinerly starts even if he struggles a bit, unless Gillespie plays like a turbo-charged Steve Nash in practice.

I do agree with the rest of your post. The conference is doing fine, but there's always room to improve, Nova included.

GumbyDamnit! wrote:

DudeAnon wrote:Simply put. BE recruiting is above expectations from the middle-bottom schools and below expectations at the top. This is a combination of Jay Wright seemingly being blacklisted by the 1-and-dones despite his success and the (hopefully temporary) down-turns at both Marquette and Georgetown.

If the middle schools can maintain their current recruiting trajectories and at least 2 of 4 (Nova, Georgetown, Marquette, Xavier) start pulling top 25 guys we will be fine. Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

Honest question for you DAnon as I don't understand your post even a little. Do you think the BE is better equipped to be successful long term by getting OAD's or solid 3-4 players? In hindsight would you rather have had Henry Ellenson for 1 year or Angel Delagado for 4? Trey Lyles and Kelly Oubre for 1 or M. Bridges and T. Blueitt for 4?

As a Nova fan I am not really concerned that we have whiffed on OAD's. Look at how we've been successful. 2016: Arch (4 yrs in the program), Ochefu (4), Jenkins (3), Hart (3) Brunson (1) Avg = 3.0 ; 2018: Bridges (4), Brunson (3), Booth (4), DiV (3), Paschall (3), Spellman (2); Avg. = 3.2. And I know exactly why we have whiffed on so many OAD's. Jay W. promises nothing other than a spot to compete. Most OAD's are most likely promised anything and everything by every other coach, including immediate playing time. I think Jay believes that OAD's can supplement a team already well established. But why would he try to mimic Duke & UK when his results have been what they are? It is not like Nova has struggled on the recruiting trail--Spellman (Top 25), Brunson (Top 25), now Quinerly (top 25)--or on the court.

Look if we try to compete with Coach K and Cal we are going to lose. So will every other college hoops program out there. Keep doing what we are doing. We're doing more than fine.

Odd post IMO.

Jay Wright himself has been quoted multiple times as saying he would "love" some one and dones. So if you have a problem with that, take it up with him.

I don't understand what was so confusing about my post. The Big East is overachieving everywhere except the top. There are 0 top 25 recruits for the Big East in 2018. Now after that, it looks good. PC with 2 top 50 guys, Nova with 2, etc. But you are kidding yourself if you don't think it is a weak spot for the conference right now.

Schools that got top 25 players before the Big East. 2018
Vanderbilt
Maryland
LSU
Wake Forest
USC

We can beat those schools for players, or we should at least aspire to.

https://247sports.com/Season/2018-Baske ... HighSchool

DudeAnon wrote:Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

Wait, is this a troll? Even Stever wouldn't go there.

Define "fine". At the very least, BE recruiting has been average for major conferences. In 2018, we were #3 with Top 50 recruits (1-50), #6 with Top 150 (1-150), and #3 with Top 200 (1-200). We also recruited well with 200-250 but I didn't want to go too far back. In what world is that not at least "fine"?

We don't do well with one and dones, but those are probably about to go away and they don't really help teams out too much. The BE formula of 4 year players is working well. Sure, if you care about NBA prospects then by all means go and root for Kentucky and Duke because the BE will never be that. They're not important for winning, which is what most of us care about.

adoraz wrote:

DudeAnon wrote:Until then, its dishonest to say that BE recruiting is fine.

Wait, is this a troll? Even Stever wouldn't go there.

Define "fine". At the very least, BE recruiting has been average for major conferences. In 2018, we were #3 with Top 50 recruits (1-50), #6 with Top 150 (1-150), and #3 with Top 200 (1-200). We also recruited well with 200-250 but I didn't want to go too far back. In what world is that not at least "fine"?

We don't do well with one and dones, but those are probably about to go away and they don't really help teams out too much. The BE formula of 4 year players is working well. Sure, if you care about NBA prospects then by all means go and root for Kentucky and Duke because the BE will never be that. They're not important for winning, which is what most of us care about.

I noticed you skipped my entire reply to find a single line you disagreed with in the original post. Well done. Fine, Big East recruiting is "Fine". But it could be better. Again, even Jay Wright would agree with me on this.