Raise your hand if you

[chum1]

(i)  maintain that Wooldridge recruited enough talent to win and

(ii)  are comfortable with post-Wooldridge recruiting outside of Beasley and Walker.

If your hand is raised, how do you reconcile (i) and (ii)?  If your hand is not raised, do you reject (i), (ii), or both? 

[michigancat]

I don't agree with either, although I'm not uncomfortable with post-Wooldridge recruiting....yet.

[coitus]

wooldridge did not recruit (and retain) enough talent relative to his coaching abilities.

so basically, you could easily reconcile those statements by pointing out 3 things:

1.  wooly didn't retain much of the talent he recruited
2.  wooly didn't achieve to the level of the talent he did retain
3.  only a moron can say "outside of beasley and walker" when we're talking about 2 recruiting classes

[chum1]

For the sake of argument:  winning = >.500 conference record and comfortable = thinking we'll win.

[michigancat]

For the sake of argument:  winning = >.500 conference record and comfortable = thinking we'll win.

dumb argument

[WildCatzPhreak]

Wooly recruited enough to win.  He had some bunk strategies though.  "The 3 is fool's gold" and trying to force the triangle on a team that couldn't really run it that well.

He had some decent teams, and I think a better coach could have won more with those teams.  Massey's senior year comes to mind as a giant waste.  Massey was pretty good.  Cartier was there (although hurt.)  Justin Williams was a decent center(we haven't had anyone as good as him since he left) even though he wasn't a scoring monster, he would dunk when he got the ball and was a great rebounder.  Not to mention Lance shot out of his mind his sophomore year.  I remember the game against ku at the Big XII tourney watching him hit what seemed like 8 in a row.  That year set up expectations for his junior/senior years that he could never quite reach.

We still had Stew, who's never been amazing, but he's never been bad either.

That was a decent team that should have won more than it did.

As far as our recent recruiting, underwhelmed with some of the recent guys(actually just one, Andre ), but not worried.  Every one of the coaches has pretty good recruiting connections.  If they start grabbing more people like Andre then I'll start worrying.

[chum1]

Phreak got what I was trying to get at.  A lot of people seem to be taking for granted that our recruiting outside of Beasley and Walker - exceptions because they came under very, very exceptional circumstances - will be greatly improved.  But it's one thing to get on someone's list early on and quite another to bring him in down the road.  And Gilbert and Jeter really look like mid-major recruits, don't they?

[Legore]

(i)  maintain that Wooldridge recruited enough talent to win and

(ii)  are comfortable with post-Wooldridge recruiting outside of Beasley and Walker.

If your hand is raised, how do you reconcile (i) and (ii)?  If your hand is not raised, do you reject (i), (ii), or both? 

Pretty easy to reconcile i and ii because if you would have stuck Beasley and Walker on any of Wooly's teams then it they would have been pretty damn good.  Wooly had a lot of solid talent he just never landed the go to type of players which Walker and Beasley certainly are.   With guys like Walker and Beasley Wooly level talent around them is all you really need. That said I still reject the notion that the rest of these guys are Wooly level.  Certainly Wooly recruited some guys at their level but not this many guys all in the same class.  Take Sutton for example he is rated about the same as wooly's best recruit ever in Cartier and Sutton is only the third best guy in his own class.  

[coitus]

Pretty easy to reconcile i and ii because if you would have stuck Beasley and Walker on any of Wooly's teams then it they would have been pretty damn good.  Wooly had a lot of solid talent he just never landed the go to type of players which Walker and Beasley certainly are.   With guys like Walker and Beasley Wooly level talent around them is all you really need. That said I still reject the notion that the rest of these guys are Wooly level.  Certainly Wooly recruited some guys at their level but not this many guys all in the same class.  Take Sutton for example he is rated about the same as wooly's best recruit ever in Cartier and Sutton is only the third best guy in his own class.  

massey, reid and cartier were certainly go to players. 

[chum1]

A lot of people seem to be taking for granted that our recruiting outside of Beasley and Walker - exceptions because they came under very, very exceptional circumstances - will be greatly improved.  But it's one thing to get on someone's list early on and quite another to bring him in down the road.

See, for example

i assumed it was Kenny Kadji

Same here.  He's ours IMO.

[ksuno1stunner]

A lot of people seem to be taking for granted that our recruiting outside of Beasley and Walker - exceptions because they came under very, very exceptional circumstances - will be greatly improved.  But it's one thing to get on someone's list early on and quite another to bring him in down the road.

See, for example

i assumed it was Kenny Kadji

Same here.  He's ours IMO.

QFT

[catzacker]

So I guess if you take out Beasley and Walker and then make the assumption that we won't get any of the top 100 guys for '08, then no, I'm not comfortable with the post-Wooly recruiting.  Thankfully, we do have Beasley and Walker and it's freaking May of 2007. 

Wooly didn't get results and that leads people down 3 paths: (1) he can't coach, but has good kids (b) he can't recruit, but can coach  (c) he can't recruit and can't coach.  Wooly had a perfect storm of crap to deal with/create himself...he walked into a terrible program, he lost "talented kids", the 5/8 rule, the stupid triangle offense, and the North was more difficult than it now is....he never could overcome any of the obstacles, whether created by himself ot he environment in which he was working in. 

The current staff has a better program to work with, have retained talented recruits, have no 5/8 rule, won't employ some terrible offense (hopefully), and the North is weaker.  The the last 3 that the staff got are probably more "Wooly" like players, but the difference, imo, is that they aren't the players that are supposed to come in and play, they are supporting players.  We'll see very quickly what this staff can and can't do on the recruiting trail.  As of now, I'm comfortable. 

[purplehiatt]

I'll be more comfortable once we have 2 of the following committed:
(1) from: Woods, Witherspoon, Kadji, X. Gibson
(1) from: Releford, Shipman, Denmon

[fatty fat fat]

yes, let's conveniently ignore beasley and walker.

dumb basketball fans.

[michigancat]

yes, let's conveniently ignore beasley and walker.

dumb basketball fans.

That's like ignoring Mack Brown's NC when trying to say he can't coach.

[Legore]

Pretty easy to reconcile i and ii because if you would have stuck Beasley and Walker on any of Wooly's teams then it they would have been pretty damn good.  Wooly had a lot of solid talent he just never landed the go to type of players which Walker and Beasley certainly are.   With guys like Walker and Beasley Wooly level talent around them is all you really need. That said I still reject the notion that the rest of these guys are Wooly level.  Certainly Wooly recruited some guys at their level but not this many guys all in the same class.  Take Sutton for example he is rated about the same as wooly's best recruit ever in Cartier and Sutton is only the third best guy in his own class.  

massey, reid and cartier were certainly go to players. 

Perhaps these guys were "go to guys" but Reid and Massey never sniffed the NBA and Cartier isn't that likely too either.  Also we never had more then 1 guy like that on the team at the same time.  Cartier and Massey played together but Cartier wasn't a go to guy at that point in his career.  With Walker and Beasley we have two NBA players playing together at the same time we have not had that since 88 with Richmond and Henson and it's not coincidence that is the last time we did anything in the tournament.  

This class has the two immediate impact guys plus the Suttons, Pullens, and Samuals of the world that may well turn into impact players 2 years down the road.    I don't think Wooly ever signed three high school players in the same class as good as Sutton, Pullen and Samuals.  He came close once with Cartier, Dez and Lance but Lance was just a regionally recruited guy with a few offers.  Even without Walker and Beasley the comparisons to Wooly's recruiting don't hold any weight with me.  

[chum1]

yes, let's conveniently ignore beasley and walker.

dumb basketball fans.

That's like ignoring Mack Brown's NC when trying to say he can't coach.

Really?  How so?  Ignoring the following details would be dumb.  Both Beasley and Walker came in solely because of extra special relationships they had with new coaches coming in.  We have neither new coaches coming in nor extra special relationships at this point.

[michigancat]

We have neither new coaches coming in nor extra special relationships at this point.

You sure about both of those statements?

[fatty fat fat]

yes, let's conveniently ignore beasley and walker.

dumb basketball fans.

That's like ignoring Mack Brown's NC when trying to say he can't coach.

Really?  How so?  Ignoring the following details would be dumb.  Both Beasley and Walker came in solely because of extra special relationships they had with new coaches coming in.  We have neither new coaches coming in nor extra special relationships at this point.

Yes, therefore let's ignore those recruits and focus on the others.

Why aren't you ignoring Blake Young? He only came because of Underwood.

V'sky only came because Gillisepie left.

[catzacker]

yes, let's conveniently ignore beasley and walker.

dumb basketball fans.

That's like ignoring Mack Brown's NC when trying to say he can't coach.

Really?  How so?  Ignoring the following details would be dumb.  Both Beasley and Walker came in solely because of extra special relationships they had with new coaches coming in.  We have neither new coaches coming in nor extra special relationships at this point.

A lot of the recruits (especially that Beasley kid) said they felt that Dalonte was the lynch pin to keep them committed to KSU.  I think the question is whether or not this staff can use a lot of the momentum/hype/exposure and hopefully success in this year's basketball season to catapult them into a position (if they already aren't) where they can recruit at a high level.  We'll find out pretty quickly.  I don't think these last 3 recruits are an example of future recruiting.  

[coitus]

Perhaps these guys were "go to guys" but Reid and Massey never sniffed the NBA and Cartier isn't that likely too either.  Also we never had more then 1 guy like that on the team at the same time.  Cartier and Massey played together but Cartier wasn't a go to guy at that point in his career.  With Walker and Beasley we have two NBA players playing together at the same time we have not had that since 88 with Richmond and Henson and it's not coincidence that is the last time we did anything in the tournament.  

This class has the two immediate impact guys plus the Suttons, Pullens, and Samuals of the world that may well turn into impact players 2 years down the road.    I don't think Wooly ever signed three high school players in the same class as good as Sutton, Pullen and Samuals.  He came close once with Cartier, Dez and Lance but Lance was just a regionally recruited guy with a few offers.  Even without Walker and Beasley the comparisons to Wooly's recruiting don't hold any weight with me.  

i'm sorry, i thought we were talking college (ksu) basketball.  you apparently are looking for nba players.

and yes, as a junior cartier martin was certainly a go-to guy.  and massey wasn't on that squad.

quit being a &@#%stick.

[chum1]

We have neither new coaches coming in nor extra special relationships at this point.

You sure about both of those statements?

We don't have relationships as strong as we had before.  We are going to have lots of competition to worry about.  Remeber, I'm just talking about not taking things for granted at this point.

Yes, therefore let's ignore those recruits and focus on the others.

Not significantly different than Wooly's, I'd say.

Why aren't you ignoring Blake Young? He only came because of Underwood.

Ignore him too, but he wouldn't be an upgrade anyway.

V'sky only came because Gillisepie left.

Not an upgrade.

[michigancat]

We don't have relationships as strong as we had before.  We are going to have lots of competition to worry about.

You're just taking those facts for granted to support your argument.

We didn't have competition for Beas/Walker but we will all of a sudden for Kadji/Shipman/Witherspoon?

LMFAO

[chum1]

We don't have relationships as strong as we had before.  We are going to have lots of competition to worry about.

You're just taking those facts for granted to support your argument.

No, there are plenty of good reasons for thinking each.  They're pretty obvious.

We didn't have competition for Beas/Walker but we will all of a sudden for Kadji/Shipman/Witherspoon?

I didn't say that.  I'm making a very mundane point.  Why so defensive?

[Legore]

Perhaps these guys were "go to guys" but Reid and Massey never sniffed the NBA and Cartier isn't that likely too either.  Also we never had more then 1 guy like that on the team at the same time.  Cartier and Massey played together but Cartier wasn't a go to guy at that point in his career.  With Walker and Beasley we have two NBA players playing together at the same time we have not had that since 88 with Richmond and Henson and it's not coincidence that is the last time we did anything in the tournament.  

This class has the two immediate impact guys plus the Suttons, Pullens, and Samuals of the world that may well turn into impact players 2 years down the road.    I don't think Wooly ever signed three high school players in the same class as good as Sutton, Pullen and Samuals.  He came close once with Cartier, Dez and Lance but Lance was just a regionally recruited guy with a few offers.  Even without Walker and Beasley the comparisons to Wooly's recruiting don't hold any weight with me.  

i'm sorry, i thought we were talking college (ksu) basketball.  you apparently are looking for nba players.

and yes, as a junior cartier martin was certainly a go-to guy.  and massey wasn't on that squad.

quit being a &@#%stick.

Hey now don't get defensive.  Those guys were go to guys on the teams they played on but there is a reason why those teams were not that good.   We're talking about a different level of go to guy in Beasley and Walker.  If you don't think it matters if you have NBA players on a roster I think you need to look around at the top teams and see what most have in common which is NBA talent.    Even go back to my example about our last really good team in 88 that had two NBA players on it and we've had none since then and little success I don't think those things are coincidences.  

[michigancat]

We don't have relationships as strong as we had before.  We are going to have lots of competition to worry about.

You're just taking those facts for granted to support your argument.

No, there are plenty of good reasons for thinking each.  They're pretty obvious.

Let's hear them.

[coitus]

Hey now don't get defensive.  Those guys were go to guys on the teams they played on but there is a reason why those teams were not that good.   We're talking about a different level of go to guy in Beasley and Walker.  If you don't think it matters if you have NBA players on a roster I think you need to look around at the top teams and see what most have in common which is NBA talent.    Even go back to my example about our last really good team in 88 that had two NBA players on it and we've had none since then and little success I don't think those things are coincidences.  

no one said they were beasley/walkeresque.  i pointed out, quite accurately, that they were definately go-to players of the caliber needed to succeed in the big 12.  massey and cartier were in the top four in scoring and top ten in rebounding for crying out loud. 

i do think we need better talent to consistently win in the big 12, but as huggins so clearly demonstrated, it is possible to make the top 4 and the post season with wooldridge recruits.

[chum1]

We don't have relationships as strong as we had before.  We are going to have lots of competition to worry about.

You're just taking those facts for granted to support your argument.

No, there are plenty of good reasons for thinking each.  They're pretty obvious.

Let's hear them.

First, thoughout the events of the past year, we've learned that our 2007 relationships are very, very strong.  So strong, in fact, that the only type of relationship between a coach and a player that would probably be stronger is paternal.  Given that relationships come in varying degrees, the odds simply say that our 2008 relationships are not as great in force.  Second, the strongest of the 2007 relationships are greater in quantity that the strongest of the 2008 relationships.  Finally, and most importantly, there's no real reason to doubt that the 2007 relationships are strong enough to bring the players in.  We can't say that about the 2008 relationships.  And if there is a real reason to doubt something (e.g. there is a possibility that Kadji may decide that he wants to stay closer to home), you can't take it for granted.

[bigdeal]

I doubt that Coach Martin's relationships with AAU and High School coaches and players is any less strong than it was last year.  I think that is probably true for Coach Hill and the new coach.  In addition, they were all recruiting before last year, and they continue to recruit.  It may be that last year's batch of recruits were enabled because Huggins brought Bill Walker and because we had the ability to hire away Coach Hill...which we aren't doing this year.  That being said, there is no reason to suspect that the other recruiting ties are any less strong.  It is about relationships and our coaches seem to have good relationships with influential people (DC Assault) in the lives of quality basketball players.  As I have said before, we just have to be patient.  If the staff can bring in some good recruits this summer for 2008, that is outstanding recruiting.  I suspect the best recruits will have to be swayed by some ESPN showings, and some national pub for KSU throughout the year that convinces them KSU is big time...beyond Walker and Beasley. 

[ksu_FAN]

The key to sustaining success in the future for Martin and the rest will not necessarily be based on consistently bringing in the Beasley's and Walker's of the world.  Don't get me wrong, if we do it will be great and we'll go through a 10 year span and be one of the Top 10 programs in the nation.  Honestly, I'm not expecting that.  So to me the key will be consisently bringing in several Top 100s and one or two Top 50s every couple years.  I truly believe if Martin can coach at all, bringing in a "starting 5" of Top 100s every 2 years with a Top 50 kid in that mix on a consistent basis he will succeed.  Mix in your kids just outside the Top 100 and develop the heck out of them and then bring in a Top 20 or so JUCO player when you need an immediate impact player at a certain position.  

And to me to make any judgements based on the late commitments after Huggins left is silly.  We won't know how well Martin and Hill and the rest can recruit without Huggins until at least next fall and spring, and to be fair we should give them a couple years.  IMO the class 2 years from now will be perhaps the key one and they have to get a couple Top 50 kids in that one.  That will be when they hopefully can really parlay the success of next season and the relationships they have (and are forming now) with younger classmen into their own success on the recruiting trail.  IMO that will be really telling to how well these guys can recruit.  So I'm hopeful for at least 2 Top 100s in next year's class, then a step up from that the season after.