Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.

[quote="Monte" post=401410][quote="Dan V" post=401409][quote="Monte" post=401407]FWIW, these are the 3rd recruiting classes for all of our coaches since Louie. May have missed one or two kids. I'm only listing players that played in coach's 3rd year:

Mahoney: Felipe, Zendon, Tarik
Fran(he never coached a 3rd year):Bootsy, Barkley, Emmanuel
Jarvis:Cook, Cuffe, Diakite
Norm: Wright, Calhoun
Lavin: Sampson, Obekpa, Jones, Balamou
Mullin: Simon, Clark, Trimble[/quote]

What if Anderson does better and is more consistently good than those guys but continues to recruit they way he has been? If he fails he fails nothing new around here, I’m just not worried because I think he’s doing a good job all around so far.[/quote]

As long as he wins, I don't care if he does it with unranked kids. I'm happy with pretty much everything he's done here so far, I've said that countless times on this board[/quote]

I guess what I’m saying is you shouldn’t question his decision to take Stanley this early, based off results so far. Obviously you can do as you please; so I’m wrong but I enjoyed the back n forth have a good night Monte.
 
[quote="Dan V" post=401411][quote="Monte" post=401410][quote="Dan V" post=401409][quote="Monte" post=401407]FWIW, these are the 3rd recruiting classes for all of our coaches since Louie. May have missed one or two kids. I'm only listing players that played in coach's 3rd year:

Mahoney: Felipe, Zendon, Tarik
Fran(he never coached a 3rd year):Bootsy, Barkley, Emmanuel
Jarvis:Cook, Cuffe, Diakite
Norm: Wright, Calhoun
Lavin: Sampson, Obekpa, Jones, Balamou
Mullin: Simon, Clark, Trimble[/quote]

What if Anderson does better and is more consistently good than those guys but continues to recruit they way he has been? If he fails he fails nothing new around here, I’m just not worried because I think he’s doing a good job all around so far.[/quote]

As long as he wins, I don't care if he does it with unranked kids. I'm happy with pretty much everything he's done here so far, I've said that countless times on this board[/quote]

I guess what I’m saying is you shouldn’t question his decision to take Stanley this early, based off results so far. Obviously you can do as you please; so I’m wrong but I enjoyed the back n forth have a good night Monte.[/quote]

Thanks, you too.
 
[quote="Paultzman" post=401386]
First issue still hanging is whether or not Cuffe moves up a class. I defer to Panther on that. In any event this seems to be a tough get.[/quote]

Cuffe staying put helps us roster-wise . . . but kills us because a lot more big-time schools likely jump in. If he goes to UCLA or Pitt I'll root hard for him. If he goes to Georgetown or UConn . . . I'll have to simply reminisce over how much I liked his dad. :lol:
 
[quote="NCJohnnie" post=401367]
Now we are hearing lots of good things about all 4 recruits from Zach who has been watching practices. The proof will be in how they perform as is always the case with ultimate rating of recruiting classes but preliminary reports are this class may be better than originally projected.[/quote]

I think of practices sort of like early spring training intrasquad games. You can learn a little, but not a whole lot. 4 years ago, at this point in the season we were anointing Freudenberg as a 4* future Detlef Shrempf. Much was written about him beating Mullin in horse to obtain the right to wear number 20 (I think Mullin tanked it, personally). Then the season started and it was clear he was just a kid not ready for prime time.

I'll watch a practice but I don't think I will get too excited one way or another.

I just want the season to start. If we are better than the team that finished last season, I'll be content.
 
It's very surprising to me that after almost a decade of Lavin/Mullin teams chock full of 4-5 star kids, that so many seem to be brow-beating those who are a bit concerned that we are only on 2-3 star kids seriously some of which who are not ranked at all. Is there a path for CMA to succeed here with 2-3 star kids? Of course there is...but that would mean having to be one of the best in scouting in all of college basketball. To regularly take 2-3 star kids and turn them into top half Big East contenders. Is that really a reasonable thing to ask? Again, Marist recruits 2 star kids. That's a fact. I know because I used to follow them closely. If Boston College started accepting students who were C students on the reg, what would that say about them? After all, surely those so-so students in HS could be taught up to a Rhodes Scholar level right? Just something to think about. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely statistically to have this as a model of success. My hope is that this is only the beginning and CMA's plan is to get the kids he can coach up now, perform well, make tourneys, then successfully convince better recruits to come here. I don't think anything I said is unreasonable to anyone objective.
 
Mullin demise started when he didn’t keep to his word and fired Barry also he was not into coaching meaning he did not put in the work to be successful
 
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=401416]It's very surprising to me that after almost a decade of Lavin/Mullin teams chock full of 4-5 star kids, that so many seem to be brow-beating those who are a bit concerned that we are only on 2-3 star kids seriously some of which who are not ranked at all. Is there a path for CMA to succeed here with 2-3 star kids? Of course there is...but that would mean having to be one of the best in scouting in all of college basketball. To regularly take 2-3 star kids and turn them into top half Big East contenders. Is that really a reasonable thing to ask? Again, Marist recruits 2 star kids. That's a fact. I know because I used to follow them closely. If Boston College started accepting students who were C students on the reg, what would that say about them? After all, surely those so-so students in HS could be taught up to a Rhodes Scholar level right? Just something to think about. It's not impossible, but it's very unlikely statistically to have this as a model of success. My hope is that this is only the beginning and CMA's plan is to get the kids he can coach up now, perform well, make tourneys, then successfully convince better recruits to come here. I don't think anything I said is unreasonable to anyone objective.[/quote]

I think the difference is we are confident that CMA can coach these kids up, and at least get them to reach their potential, whatever that may be. It was the opposite with Mullin and Lavin who seemed to have real trouble with developing players. All of those 4 and 5 star kids that Mullin and Lavin got, and we didn't even win an NCAA game. What does that tell you? In addition to that, arguably the best team of the bunch was Lavin's first season, with kids he didn't even recruit.
 
I think Cma’s approach is a bit like those excellent VCU teams under Shaka where really good teams were built by adding workhorse types. I think our ceiling is higher based on our league though, and I think some of the higher ranked kids will start falling at some point. Let’s just go win.
 
[quote="MCNPA" post=401426]I think Cma’s approach is a bit like those excellent VCU teams under Shaka where really good teams were built by adding workhorse types. I think our ceiling is higher based on our league though, and I think some of the higher ranked kids will start falling at some point. Let’s just go win.[/quote]

I hear you, but this isn't the A-10 or Colonial Conf where you can consistently win with those kinds of kids. And Smart's final 4 team did have a top 50 recruit. CMA still deserves the benefit of the doubt and everyone's support, I just hope that this isn't a long term recruiting strategy. That's all I'm sayin'. I hope and expect that once we start winning, the higher ranked kids will find us to be a more desirable destination. But there is a little bit of a chicken/egg thing going on here.
 
Last edited:
Better recruits typically have better floors so even if they don't totally turn into beasts, they're still usually solid to good at the Big East and national level. This is why we made tourneys under Lavin but did nothing in them...he couldn't develop them but their raw talent got them there. 2 star types have lower ceilings IMO. Of course speaking on average here of course there are a few exceptions of anything. If we could get a low 4 star, that's the kind of kid CMA can start using to get us back to national relevance. Coach 4's up to 5's.

Those of you who think recruiting means nothing at all, I again ask you why Kansas, Kentucky, UConn, Michigan, Michigan State, Ohio State, etc. etc. only recruit top notch kids. Why? If a 2 star is no different than a 4-5 star kid, why bother with all the drama those kids bring? They could save a ton of money too by not paying 2 star kids and get the same production if not better! Jay Wright is one of the best developers in all of college hoops, but he needed 4-5 star kids to be in the mix for them to win rings and win Big East championships while remaining ontop. We are the only Big East team taking this approach right now. Or if it's not an approach but rather all we can get, that's an issue. Just feels like we're going backwards with recruiting after peaking under Lavin. I always say, wish we could have Lavin recruiting with CMA development and system. That is how you win at this level consistently. We know he can coach, but he needs to prove he can recruit here at the same level as the real contenders in our conf.
 
Last edited:
There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.
 
[quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Dude thinks we're going from perennial bottom fifth of the league to the Final 4 in one small step. SMH.

It's a pretty uncomplicated plan:

1. Get players who can contribute and develop them.
2. Win games so the program becomes consistently relevant.
3. Winning programs attract more talented players.

If instant gratification is your thing, then I guess the plan isn't for you - but I'm good with it.
 
[quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Butler circa 2010 and 2011 says hi
 
[quote="Moose" post=401434][quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Butler circa 2010 and 2011 says hi[/quote]


So are you saying we are going to duplicate Butler results in 2010 & 2011?
What are your next five examples?
 
[quote="lawmanfan" post=401433][quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Dude thinks we're going from perennial bottom fifth of the league to the Final 4 in one small step. SMH.

It's a pretty uncomplicated plan:

1. Get players who can contribute and develop them.
2. Win games so the program becomes consistently relevant.
3. Winning programs attract more talented players.

If instant gratification is your thing, then I guess the plan isn't for you - but I'm good with it.[/quote]

Haha! I was thinking the same thing. We haven't even won an NCAA game in 20 years but we're currently aiming for a final four appearance? What?

Bottom line, I don't think anyone is satisfied with low ranking recruits. I think most of us are willing to trust the process and plan in place. 4 and 5 star recruits are not knocking down the door to come here! Each year that passes is a year farther away from any semblance of recent success we had.
 
[quote="Moose" post=401434][quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Butler circa 2010 and 2011 says hi[/quote]

Agreed Moose, how about the George Mason’s and Loyola - Chicago’s of the world. Didn’t VCU make a Final Four also. I’m not saying this team will of course but the point being you can be successful if you have a good system, players with skill sets that fit that system and are able to enhance those skills through player development. If you can do that , have a few successful seasons, better players will come. Also, didn’t I read on this board in one of the threads that if it wasn’t for Covid and there was a normal AAU season this summer that both Traore and Pinzon would have been 4* recruits? I think if Posh wasn’t injured his Junior year he might of also have been a 4* recruit. So, let’s just play this out and maybe we will all be pleasantly surprised.
 
Gonzaga won for a lot of years without landing consistently high level talent ranking-wise. Yes, now they are landing those players, but for many years they were loaded with talented kids that were little known. In addition, Posh was or should be a 4 star easily. 2 juco Ana’s, Drissa and Stanley 3-star, Pinzon a 4-star. We aren’t landing many 2-stars except to full spots early-on. Landing 3-4 star kids and juco Aa’s for the most part. Always room to improve of
Course but not the slouches some suggesting.
 
[quote="Moose" post=401434][quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Butler circa 2010 and 2011 says hi[/quote]

I'll piggyback you here, Moose....

Texas Tech 2018-2019 team only had two four star players--one a transfer in Brandone Francis and freshman Khavon Moore (Moore played in only one game the entire season, so he doesn't particularly count)--on their Final Four run.

San Diego State had one four star player (Top 100 player, Nolan Narain) last season on a squad that was ranked in the top 10 (in the top 5 for the last month and a half) during the last two months of the season for a 30-2 team.

Is any of us saying this is an idea or long-term way of recruiting? I don't think so nor do I believe any of the folks on my side of the argument do not surmise so either. We're simply saying that there's more than one way to skin a cat AND to wait for results before gnashing of teeth.
 
Last edited:
[quote="Room112" post=401438][quote="lawmanfan" post=401433][quote="Moon Mullen" post=401431]There is no road to the final four that includes a 2 and 3 star ream. I can’t help this sound any other way then I am criticizing these kids but the reality is I am about to criticize the staff.
Is this the best the staff can do? The school is paying this coaching staff for these results in
recruiting. This has never led to long term success for any team. I am not privy to the staff’s thinking but when I see year 3 not deviating from this strategy, I only see small steps while standing in place.[/quote]

Dude thinks we're going from perennial bottom fifth of the league to the Final 4 in one small step. SMH.

It's a pretty uncomplicated plan:

1. Get players who can contribute and develop them.
2. Win games so the program becomes consistently relevant.
3. Winning programs attract more talented players.

If instant gratification is your thing, then I guess the plan isn't for you - but I'm good with it.[/quote]

Haha! I was thinking the same thing. We haven't even won an NCAA game in 20 years but we're currently aiming for a final four appearance? What?

Bottom line, I don't think anyone is satisfied with low ranking recruits. I think most of us are willing to trust the process and plan in place. 4 and 5 star recruits are not knocking down the door to come here! Each year that passes is a year farther away from any semblance of recent success we had.[/quote]

I have been a fan of this program for over 50 years. So I am not the guy to talk to about quick fixes. I am talking about one 4 star recruit. This type of thinking has been pervasive here the last 15 to 20 years. Hell I even bought into it for awhile and where did that get this team. We are projected to come in ninth by the other Big East Coaches who have actually coached against our coach’s style of play. They actually don’t know the 2 & 3 star recruits we brought in because they haven’t been on the recruiting trail?
Listen I am a fan, I hope we do well, this just didn’t work in Arkansas, and unless they have higher standards than us, I don’t see it working here.
 
If Anderson can get us back to Friday Night of the BE Tourney or to the Round of 64 in the next two years, that's success- who cares what the kids rank that get us there.

Accomplish that- then success becomes getting a win in the Tourney.

Do those who are not satisfied with the amount of stars that make our roster.... realize how far this program has fallen? I've seen people post the stats, last win in the NCAA 20+yrs ago etc... is there no recognition that we aren't a destination yet*?

I believe CMA has what it takes to get us where we want to be. He got a make shift roster (without its best player) to a winning record last year and had them playing real well at the end- thats impressive. Incremental improvements and then we can start aiming for higher caliber recruits... or we win with whatever guys he gets, cause if one thing is certain- thats what CMA does- win.

At this juncture in his tenure...a rational thought should not consist of 4/5 star recruits or NCAA tourney wins. Above 500 in BE play and Friday night of the BE tourney is the next step.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top