Max Amadasun- OSL- 6'10 PF, BX

Capel suggests Anderson to Cragg, which suggestion is deemed a home run by Krweweenski and shortly thereafter Capel starts poaching recruits from Anderson's backyard. It like an O Henry short story, nearly.

And they got the better Champagnie brother. Also hot on RJ Davis who would have been my preferred option over Posh Alexander.

Reminds me of the days Calipari and Calhoun would endorse Norm Roberts, saying what a great job he was doing. Then they would poach and cherry pick all the NYC talent.

And they got the better Champagnie brother. Also hot on RJ Davis who would have been my preferred option over Posh Alexander.

They also been recruiting them longer than CMA. It doesn’t matter what one prefers if RJ Davis didn’t want to come to SJU.

They also been recruiting them longer than CMA. It doesn’t matter what one prefers if RJ Davis didn’t want to come to SJU.

Personally I believe getting inferior kids and good coaching is > getting talented kids and poor coaching 

Personally I believe getting inferior kids and good coaching is > getting talented kids and poor coaching 

I think the greatest is getting talented kids and good coaching

I think the greatest is getting talented kids and good coaching

Absolutely, when was the last time SJU had that ?

Early years of Mike Jarvis

Absolutely, when was the last time SJU had that ?

Early years of Mike Jarvis

I can't say much about Jarvis coaching acumen but it's been a long time unless you want to count Mike Dunlap.

Personally I believe getting inferior kids and good coaching is > getting talented kids and poor coaching 

I believe CMA is building it the right way. Bring in kids who he believes is talented enough who want to be here, opposed to holding out for higher rated players only to lose out.

I don’t know. It’s a little early to settle for marginal players. I gave MA a complete pass for ‘19 ,but would have liked to see the ’20 recruits ranked higher. It’s not that I have a problem w any individual recruits., but I am disappointed w the aggregate. Would have liked to see a couple of top 100 mixed in. If  Figgy leaves, I don’t think we have 1 player for next year in the top 150. Hopefully a healthy Posh will elevate in the rankings.  I also like the Cole signing. We will see how this all plays out.

Shades of Chris Taft.

And they got the better Champagnie brother.

When Pitt got Justin Champagnie our Coach was Chris Mullin.

Personally I believe getting inferior kids and good coaching is > getting talented kids and poor coaching

Two questions:

1. Can you name some high major programs or coaches that have had sustained success recruiting inferior players?

2. If good coaching and inferior players is a recipe for success why do so many elite coaches risk their livelihoods paying for highly ranked players?

Two questions:

1. Can you name some high major programs or coaches that have had sustained success recruiting inferior players?

2. If good coaching and inferior players is a recipe for success why do so many elite coaches risk their livelihoods paying for highly ranked players?

I don't generally disagree with you on this but plenty of teams perform better with less talent than those that don't. Look at the 2 teams in the national championship game last season. Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten good players but they are certainly not the schools you would think of when when asked which CBB heavyweights typically get the best recruits year in and year out. Tony Bennett and Chris Beard get good recruits who fit what they want to do, develop them at a high level and coach circles around most other coaches.

Now, I don't think the players Mike Anderson has gotten are close to the level that Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten, nor do I think he is near the coach that either of those two guys are. But that's essentially the formula he's trying to duplicate at a smaller scale. Recruit guys that fit what he wants, develop them and win with them as upperclassmen. I have no idea if he'll be successful doing this here.

The answer to your second question is easy. Because those "elite" coaches aren't as elite as you think. The players they pay for make them elite. Give those coaches the same amount of talent as everybody else and they'd be as average as everybody else.

I believe CMA is building it the right way. Bring in kids who he believes is talented enough who want to be here, opposed to holding out for higher rated players only to lose out.

Norm Roberts did that too.

I don't generally disagree with you on this but plenty of teams perform better with less talent than those that don't. Look at the 2 teams in the national championship game last season. Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten good players but they are certainly not the schools you would think of when when asked which CBB heavyweights typically get the best recruits year in and year out. Tony Bennett and Chris Beard get good recruits who fit what they want to do, develop them at a high level and coach circles around most other coaches.

Now, I don't think the players Mike Anderson has gotten are close to the level that Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten, nor do I think he is near the coach that either of those two guys are. But that's essentially the formula he's trying to duplicate at a smaller scale. Recruit guys that fit what he wants, develop them and win with them as upperclassmen. I have no idea if he'll be successful doing this here.

The answer to your second question is easy. Because those "elite" coaches aren't as elite as you think. The players they pay for make them elite. Give those coaches the same amount of talent as everybody else and they'd be as average as everybody else.

I'm confused because Virginia's core was full of talented players. Kyle Guy was a McDonalds All-American. Ty Jerome and DeAndre Hunter were top 50/100 players. Braxton Key, Mamadi Diakite were both top 50.

If you want to sprinkle in an underrated guy like Kihei Clark to that group that can work but you can't have a team full of Kihei Clarks.

Texas Tech is somewhat of a better example but guys like Jarrett Culver are rare and don't happen often.

Norm Roberts did that too.

Norm couldn’t coach. That was made obvious after the coaching change. Can’t compare the two.

Norm Roberts did that too.

Awesome comparison Dave, hold tight while I eviscerate you

Norm Roberts Record before becoming SJU HC - 24-84 (22.22%) 0 Postseason

CMA Record before becoming SJU HC -  369-200 (64.9%) 9 NCAA's, 1 Elite 8

Fellas we're talking recruiting. I'm not sure how many times it has to be pointed out that Mike Anderson is a very good basketball coach who has a very good track record.

It's very fair to say Norm Roberts and Mike Anderson both brought in lower rated perhaps under the radar talent.

I'm confused because Virginia's core was full of talented players. Kyle Guy was a McDonalds All-American. Ty Jerome and DeAndre Hunter were top 50/100 players. Braxton Key, Mamadi Diakite were both top 50.

If you want to sprinkle in an underrated guy like Kihei Clark to that group that can work but you can't have a team full of Kihei Clarks.

Texas Tech is somewhat of a better example but guys like Jarrett Culver are rare and don't happen often.

Fair enough. Virginia had a solid recruiting class in 2016 and then didn't have a top 30 class the 2 years leading up to their championship. Like I said, Virginia had good recruits but not 31-3 in the ACC followed by national championship level recruits.

Beard has been winning with inferior talent his whole career. Yeah, Jarrett Culver is rare but he did the same thing a year before turning Zhaire Smith from a 3 star recruit to a 1st round pick in just one season.

I don't generally disagree with you on this but plenty of teams perform better with less talent than those that don't. Look at the 2 teams in the national championship game last season. Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten good players but they are certainly not the schools you would think of when when asked which CBB heavyweights typically get the best recruits year in and year out. Tony Bennett and Chris Beard get good recruits who fit what they want to do, develop them at a high level and coach circles around most other coaches.

Coaches like Chris Beard or say Brad Stevens (Virginia had five top 75 recruits last year and the lowest rated one was a lottery pick) are few and far between. I'm not saying it's impossible for inferior talent to compete perenially on a national stage, but it happens somewhere between rarely and never. (Pete Carill was the best coach I ever saw and he didn't win anything. Whereas Jim Boeheim's a nitwit who's won 1000 games.) College blue bloods recruting elite talent and competing perennially despite being coached by numbskulls is the norm.

Now, I don't think the players Mike Anderson has gotten are close to the level that Virginia and Texas Tech have gotten, nor do I think he is near the coach that either of those two guys are. But that's essentially the formula he's trying to duplicate at a smaller scale. Recruit guys that fit what he wants, develop them and win with them as upperclassmen. I have no idea if he'll be successful doing this here.

If they wanted to win every four years they should never have fired Lavin.

The answer to your second question is easy. Because those "elite" coaches aren't as elite as you think. The players they pay for make them elite. Give those coaches the same amount of talent as everybody else and they'd be as average as everybody else.

By "elite" coaches I meant coaches whose programs are consistently in the national conversation - dook, uk, kansas, michigan - but the two coaches I was thinking of specifically were Pitino and Larry Brown, both of whom are elite in that they've won everywhere and both of whom routinely committed what otherwise would be felonies to sign elite players. Anyway if elite coaches wouldn't be elite without elite players how does that support OP's position that inferior kids and good coaching is > getting talented kids and poor coaching?