NEW STORY TEN THOUGHTS FOR MONDAY MORNING

[unclepoppop]

The top 150 players are mostly the reason last season fell on its face. If Mark Smith and Watson played close to what you would expect it’s a really good season instead of just an ok season.

Not sure how you figure. Odd reasoning, if m getting it right, really.

Winning programs have 5, 6 or more of those guys ... or better. Especially better. They fail ... ?

Next.

The failure of those players is not the reason the team failed. The shortage of that quality or better over several classes is the failure.

 

[bgd8rd]

We’re not..........that’s probably why you can’t believe it.

You trust your eyes and there’s nothing that Cuonzo has done to allow a rational person to believe he will land a 5 Star without hiring his dad as a coach.

Cuonzo......Give up on running your Boys & Girls Club and find a bagman. Embrace the cesspool. You can’t clean up the filth that is college basketball.

Then he needs to hire his dad!

 

[pwc]

Me when the when Cuonzo beats all odds and makes us an elite team without top tier talent:

How often have we been elite?

 

[pwc]

That's an unfortunate list, for sure. On the flip side, we're talking about a program that has 0 conference titles, 2 conference tournament titles, just 3 seasons that were good enough to get better than an 8/9 seed, and just 2 second-weekend runs in the NCAA Tournament... in the last 27 seasons.

So... one could make the argument that there may be dots to connect between the fact that Missouri has not had much luck recruiting the the Top 150, and the fact that they have not really had much high level success in nearly 3 decades. Especially considering that the two really good teams that Missouri has had over that time frame both featured multiple Top 150 guys (2005 had 5 -- Carroll, Lyons, Tiller, English and Denmon... and 2012 had 4 -- Denmon, English, Dixon, Pressey along with the #1 JUCO recruit in Ratliffe).

I actually agree, to an extent, that the transfer market is changing the paradigm somewhat when it comes to recruiting. But I also agree with Gabe that the program is unlikely to ever become what most of us are hoping it can be without an uptick in the level of recruiting.

Not really trying to argue, but I can't find a rating for Lyons, although I agree he should have been top 150, Tiller was 136, English 111 and Denmon 150. Dixon was 136 and Pressey was 61. I just don't think these rankings coming out of high school offset the reality of the production of Davis, Coleman, Gordon and Degray--these guys actually have production at the D1 level. Obviously Pressey was an elite recruit at 61, but the only reason we got him was because he was CMA's Godson. in any event, I am optimistic because I don't think many would argue that the recruiting services really know the difference between 100 and 200 in rankings and the transfers actually produced in real D1 games--will be fun to see who is right.

 

[tgr4lf]

Not really trying to argue, but I can't find a rating for Lyons, although I agree he should have been top 150

Did you look up Leo Criswell--his previous name?

Edit: He was #112.

 

[pwc]

Did you look up Leo Criswell--his previous name?

Edit: He was #112.

Agreed--just looked it up and agree 112. Thanks for reminding me of the name change, but my point still remains, does anybody really think the services are good enough to really know how much better 125 is than 200? If somebody at 200 commits early and shuts down recruiting does that impact their ranking? Does actual college performance matter more than high school performance? We shall see.

 

[WlsnLouis]

If somebody at 200 commits early and shuts down recruiting does that impact their ranking?

A larger question would be if this recruit continued to work on his game and participating in events that he would be evaluated by the services.

 

[Willis26]

A larger question would be if this recruit continued to work on his game and participating in events that he would be evaluated by the services.

But there weren’t hardly any events last year.

 

[pwc]

A larger question would be if this recruit continued to work on his game and participating in events that he would be evaluated by the services.

Agree completely. This happens in certain cases every year, but last year was unique given the much more limited nature of the AAU circuit compared to normal years. In any event, I am certainly not arguing that we don't need good players but some of our best players in the last 15 years were ranked between 100 and 150--just don't think it is that unreasonable to think that some of the kids in this class are comparable, but we won't know until the Fall.

 

[WlsnLouis]

Gotcha, I didn't catch that you were specifically talking about the 2020 AAU experience specifically and how that might have affected rankings for certain prospects.

 

[kctiger30]

Not really trying to argue, but I can't find a rating for Lyons, although I agree he should have been top 150, Tiller was 136, English 111 and Denmon 150. Dixon was 136 and Pressey was 61. I just don't think these rankings coming out of high school offset the reality of the production of Davis, Coleman, Gordon and Degray--these guys actually have production at the D1 level. Obviously Pressey was an elite recruit at 61, but the only reason we got him was because he was CMA's Godson. in any event, I am optimistic because I don't think many would argue that the recruiting services really know the difference between 100 and 200 in rankings and the transfers actually produced in real D1 games--will be fun to see who is right.

Oh sure, I think there's some validity to that. I think you can be reasonably confident that the guys in the Top 25 or 30 are mostly ready to hit the floor running when they get to college. And I'd say that in the Top 50ish, you're usually getting a guy who can at least be a significant contributor as a FR, if not a starter. Once you get too much past that range, yeah, I think the lines between rankings do start to blur somewhat.

But generally speaking, the guys in the Top 150 are ranked for a reason. They've shown something that caught people's attention. The rankings are far from perfect, but that's why it's important to throw numbers at it -- because they're not all going to work out.

I just think it's noteworthy that Missouri's really only had 2 really good teams in the last 27 seasons, and both of those teams had five* Top 150 players who were starters or at least major contributors.

*the 2012 team had 4 Top 150 guys, but they also had the #1 JUCO recruit in the country.

I'm not saying that Missouri can't be respectable without upping their HS recruiting. I think they can be. But until they show us otherwise, I just think there's a ceiling to what the program can consistently be just by finding some of the underrecruited dudes and/or transfers.

 

[pwc]

Oh sure, I think there's some validity to that. I think you can be reasonably confident that the guys in the Top 25 or 30 are mostly ready to hit the floor running when they get to college. And I'd say that in the Top 50ish, you're usually getting a guy who can at least be a significant contributor as a FR, if not a starter. Once you get too much past that range, yeah, I think the lines between rankings do start to blur somewhat.

But generally speaking, the guys in the Top 150 are ranked for a reason. They've shown something that caught people's attention. The rankings are far from perfect, but that's why it's important to throw numbers at it -- because they're not all going to work out.

I just think it's noteworthy that Missouri's really only had 2 really good teams in the last 27 seasons, and both of those teams had five* Top 150 players who were starters or at least major contributors.

*the 2012 team had 4 Top 150 guys, but they also had the #1 JUCO recruit in the country.

I'm not saying that Missouri can't be respectable without upping their HS recruiting. I think they can be. But until they show us otherwise, I just think there's a ceiling to what the program can consistently be just by finding some of the underrecruited dudes and/or transfers.

We agree completely--the only point I am making is I think at lease three of the freshman are Top 150 type players--Keita, Duragordan and Brookshire. Injury, lack of AAU play and signing early are some of the factors as to why they didn't end up ranked. No doubt we need better high school recruits in the long run, but I think this class is going to turn out to be a lot better than people think--we shall see. If it doesn't, we can hope the next coach and recruit HS talent better!! It isn't easy though as we really haven't loaded up on top 150 players over the last 15 years or so.

 

[GabeD]

I'm not saying that Missouri can't be respectable without upping their HS recruiting. I think they can be. But until they show us otherwise, I just think there's a ceiling to what the program can consistently be just by finding some of the underrecruited dudes and/or transfers.

This is the crux of it to me. What is defined as successful? Can they make NCAA Tournaments with the current construct of the roster? Probably. Not every year, but some. They did last year without a ton of highly ranked talent. Can they be in the upper third of the SEC and put themselves in position to make runs in the tournament? I don't think so and history tells us probably not. That was really my point. You can win enough to be considered mildly successful recruiting this way. I just don't think you can win anything significant. Others will disagree and that's fine.

 

[pwc]

This is the crux of it to me. What is defined as successful? Can they make NCAA Tournaments with the current construct of the roster? Probably. Not every year, but some. They did last year without a ton of highly ranked talent. Can they be in the upper third of the SEC and put themselves in position to make runs in the tournament? I don't think so and history tells us probably not. That was really my point. You can win enough to be considered mildly successful recruiting this way. I just don't think you can win anything significant. Others will disagree and that's fine.

I don't really think people are disagreeing with that at all. It is cart before the horse type situation in my mind. We can hope I guess that we can hire a coach that can start landing ranked HS talent because of who he is irrespective of the team's on-court performance or what I think is more realistic is you use the transfer portal successfully (this is a new reality that isn't going away) to supplement developmental HS players so you can demonstrate the ability to get to the tournament consistently. Once you have some level of sustained success you hope the ability to land ranked players improves. I really don't think we can consistently win without ranked players--it is how you get to the point you can recruit them consistently that is the debate.

 

[kctiger30]

We agree completely--the only point I am making is I think at lease three of the freshman are Top 150 type players--Keita, Duragordan and Brookshire. Injury, lack of AAU play and signing early are some of the factors as to why they didn't end up ranked. No doubt we need better high school recruits in the long run, but I think this class is going to turn out to be a lot better than people think--we shall see. If it doesn't, we can hope the next coach and recruit HS talent better!! It isn't easy though as we really haven't loaded up on top 150 players over the last 15 years or so.

Yeah, I got no issues with that take. I'm fairly optimistic about this class myself, tbh.

 

[tef54]

Drink has really invigorated the fans and brought some excitement to the FB program. Assuming he’s “ the guy”, what’s it going to take to keep him here?