here's a thought....

[kcshocker11]

they should get orange slices and a soda after the game as well.

Hey Hey tooth decay! :D 8)

[wsu789]

Snap, frankly I'm not sure if you're being serious or not, but if so, here are my thoughts.

Under your apparent theory that recruiting is not a success unless all scholarship players contribute, almost no team in the country could count its recruiting as a success. As noted by another poster, most teams (including the elite) go 8 or 9 deep for the vast majority of minutes. The math doesn't work to support your theory.

My assumption is that all players are recruited with the thought that they can contribute on the floor at some point in their career. I imagine that coaches are often looking for "diamonds in the rough." Sometimes the roughness may not go away.

You assume that coaching staffs are not evaluated on recruiting. I'm confident a pretty rigorous examination is done each year. Even if it wasn't, they ultimately are judged. The proof is in the pudding--wins and losses. If they don't recruit good players they don't win and they get fired.

I don't know what to say about the dance lessons. I think you should probably call Coach Marshall's call in show and suggest all of these ideas to get his take.

[Ricky Del Rio]

If this situation existed in Baseball in lieu of Basketball, would you be stating the same thing?

You play the players that you can win with. Many players can not 'cut it' for one reason or another. My point of contention is: Why were they recruited in the first place?, and how are we changing our recruiting methods to be more effective?

To me, various parts of coaching, should be evaluated, and graded, just like when companies compare 'budgets' vs. 'actuals', and recruiting is no exception, and if 'recruiting' is at a 'B' level or below, you need to examine your methods of recruiting to be more effective. Recruiting players who end up not be effective for the team, and just ride the bench taking up space, does not reflect favorably on the coaching staff.

My philosophy is recruit 13 starters. Never mess around with players, who cannot cut it.

When coaches recruit players, who cannot cut it, they are wasting everybody's time including the fans and posters on this forum, of course.

[im4wsu]

If this situation existed in Baseball in lieu of Basketball, would you be stating the same thing?

You play the players that you can win with. Many players can not 'cut it' for one reason or another. My point of contention is: Why were they recruited in the first place?, and how are we changing our recruiting methods to be more effective?

To me, various parts of coaching, should be evaluated, and graded, just like when companies compare 'budgets' vs. 'actuals', and recruiting is no exception, and if 'recruiting' is at a 'B' level or below, you need to examine your methods of recruiting to be more effective. Recruiting players who end up not be effective for the team, and just ride the bench taking up space, does not reflect favorably on the coaching staff.

My philosophy is recruit 13 starters. Never mess around with players, who cannot cut it.

When coaches recruit players, who cannot cut it, they are wasting everybody's time including the fans and posters on this forum, of course.

Nice theory, but you will ALWAYS fail because teams can only START FIVE players. By your definition, all your other guys will be non-starters and therefore worthless and the coach should be fired for recruiting more non-starters than starters.

[RoyalShock]

Unless I'm misunderstanding where RDR is coming from, the only way to recruit 13 starters is to make promises that can't be fulfilled. Then you'll have frequent defections, damaging the staff's reputation.

Depending on how the classes are spread out, I'd ideally like to see one or two recruits every year who are threats to break into the starting lineup. The others should be threats to become starters by their senior year. Every couple of years there is going to be a player that will never be starting material, but could be a solid bench player (ie. Graham Hatch)

Next year's class is a good example.

Hannah - Starting PG on arrival.
Stutz, Murry - Threats to be starters as Fr or So.
Kyles - Solid reserve that should be a starting candidate by his Jr year (after Hawkins is done).

That is the ideal scenario. But the reality is that if you have two classes in a row like that, expect a "down" year, unless theres an obvious hole or you can pull in a 4 or 5 star recruit. Otherwise, potential recruits are going to have a hard time seeing the opportunity for early playing time.

[shockerfan1]

You obviosly can't play everyone and it seems to me that gm knows what he's doing. You have to let players mature and hold on to them like royalshock says. We can obviosly see something in each player or he won't be on the team for long.

[McShocker]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my take on what RDR was saying is that every player that you recruit should be a high enough quality player that starting is an option.

Obviously, only 5 can start and it would be stupid to promise starting roles to incoming freshman. However, it would also be a mistake to recruit a player hoping for bench contributions when they are a senior.

I want to recruit players that have the ability to either play right away, or at least make the upper classmen have to work their tails off to keep their spots.

I don't believe in recruiting "projects" very often. They usually develop more like you thought they would and less like you hoped they would. There are situations where I am okay with it, but by and large I think that development of "projects" is better done at the juco level where they might actually get to see the floor. If they pan out, we can recruit them as juniors.

[rrshock]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but my take on what RDR was saying is that every player that you recruit should be a high enough quality player that starting is an option.

Obviously, only 5 can start and it would be stupid to promise starting roles to incoming freshman. However, it would also be a mistake to recruit a player hoping for bench contributions when they are a senior.

I want to recruit players that have the ability to either play right away, or at least make the upper classmen have to work their tails off to keep their spots.

I don't believe in recruiting "projects" very often. They usually develop more like you thought they would and less like you hoped they would. There are situations where I am okay with it, but by and large I think that development of "projects" is better done at the juco level where they might actually get to see the floor. If they pan out, we can recruit them as juniors.

This theory is good, but as was pointed out, even the elite don't get this. You can't tell me that every year the Duke and UNC freshmen all threaten to take a starter's spot. It just doesn't happen.

[McShocker]

Actually, I think the elite programs are in a better position to take on a "project" every couple of years. The high school AAs will usually get big PT right away, so it works for a big body to sit the pine for 2-3 years waiting his chance. All the talking heads keep saying that Darnell Jackson wasn't highly recruited, and I don't think he played much until last year. He is having a big senior season.

When you don't get many/any top 100 recruits, it puts a real premium on talent evaluation. You have to go after guys that are good enough to play for you, but aren't so high on themselves that they won't let you in the door. I think there are some players that fall into that category that have maxed out at the high school level. Those are going to be your busts. You can't assume that a kid will stop getting better, so you will have some busts. That is why, IMO, you recruit kids that, given your personal experience as a judge of talent, will be starters during their career. Sometimes, even the best recruiters will get it wrong, but that is exactly why you don't knowingly settle for recruiting bench guys.