Mike Anderson - Recruiting, Coaching, Etc.
- Thread starter JohnnyFever
- Start date
TheArtest15
Member
I think Paultzman had a great post before and I agreed with everything he said. I for one am a realest. I feel like so many posters on here get offended if we speak out against CMAs recruiting. I don't get why? He recruiting so far has been poor. There are a lot of excuses, as listed in posts above: perfect fit for the system, seems like a hard nose player, CMA must have seen something in him, hope he develops a lot under CMA, oh the other program got this 4 or 5 star recruit that we were in on because they have deep pockets and are cheating.....its ridiculous. Everyone seems to agree that CMA is good at developing. So why can't we all agree how much better we would be if he had some 4 star or maybe even better recruits to develop in his system. Don't you think that these more talented kids may put us over the top? Everyone keeps raving about the winning season last year where we went 5-13 in conference. Ive stated that I've seen Pinzon play and he is a very solid good player but he is definitely not a 4 star recruit yet based on his junior year. He could make strides if his senior year happens but not there yet.
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents
[quote="TheArtest15" post=401534]I think Paultzman had a great post before and I agreed with everything he said. I for one am a realest. I feel like so many posters on here get offended if we speak out against CMAs recruiting. I don't get why? He recruiting so far has been poor. There are a lot of excuses, as listed in posts above: perfect fit for the system, seems like a hard nose player, CMA must have seen something in him, hope he develops a lot under CMA, oh the other program got this 4 or 5 star recruit that we were in on because they have deep pockets and are cheating.....its ridiculous. Everyone seems to agree that CMA is good at developing. So why can't we all agree how much better we would be if he had some 4 star or maybe even better recruits to develop in his system. Don't you think that these more talented kids may put us over the top? Everyone keeps raving about the winning season last year where we went 5-13 in conference. Ive stated that I've seen Pinzon play and he is a very solid good player but he is definitely not a 4 star recruit yet based on his junior year. He could make strides if his senior year happens but not there yet.
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents[/quote]
You're 100% right about Anderson's system and why it would not appeal to many of the top ranked kids who already have an eye on the next level. These kids want a system that will showcase their individual talent. This is not an excuse, just a potential reason he isn't landing top ranked kids yet. Hopefully with winning we will start getting our share of these who fit the system.
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents[/quote]
You're 100% right about Anderson's system and why it would not appeal to many of the top ranked kids who already have an eye on the next level. These kids want a system that will showcase their individual talent. This is not an excuse, just a potential reason he isn't landing top ranked kids yet. Hopefully with winning we will start getting our share of these who fit the system.
JohnnyFever
Active member
[quote="Room112" post=401519][quote="Mike Zaun" post=401515]Simon was a 5 star transfer
Jordan was a 5 star
Pointer was just short of 5 star caliber as a high 4 Jordan Brand All American
You kind of proved my point that we used to get tons of 4 stars easily and many 3's to patch holes. Now we get tons of 3's and 2's to patch holes. The kids had tons of talent with Lav/Mullin. Unfortunately for them neither one could coach. Especially not develop them. Many of them were poor character kids, but CMA is supposed to be better at getting high character kids. It just saddens me that we were the ones bragging not too long ago about our recruits...even up there with some big boys. All over the recruiting world news. And instead of picking up where we left off, our recruiting seems to have crashed and I'm not sure it recovers if CMA can't do it. That's why it's so important to recruit at a high enough level here to give us a chance. They are not all diamonds in a rough...I assure you. I wish they were. Some will play as their ranking implies. Some with exceed. Some will fall short. But the better the recruits you can get, the less the chance they totally flop IMO. These are the kids who are bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter.[/quote]
Are you responding to me? If so, I'd like you to at least acknowledge the entire post I made. Including about the 4 stars who never amounted to anything, and the other 4 stars who gave us headaches.
Why even bring up Jordan? The kid was on his own schedule and traveled between campus and Philly whenever he chose. You want those types of kids in the program?
Pointer yea that's great. Did you read the reaction on this board his first three season? People literally wanted him off the team.
Simon I will admit was a great addition to our program. BUT there is a reason Arizona recruited over him. He wasn't a star player.[/quote]
You're correct that those high level recruits didn't get us anywhere. But that's because Lavin and Mullin could not develop and were bad coaches. CMA is at worst a solid coach and we know he can develop way better than either of those coaches. 4 star talent with his system and his development would mean seriously competing in the Big East. I'm just not sure we really start going to tourneys on the reg until we get better talent. Hope I'm wrong. If this works and CMA turns 2-3 star kids into 4 year beasts, he will be in national headlines.
Jordan was a 5 star
Pointer was just short of 5 star caliber as a high 4 Jordan Brand All American
You kind of proved my point that we used to get tons of 4 stars easily and many 3's to patch holes. Now we get tons of 3's and 2's to patch holes. The kids had tons of talent with Lav/Mullin. Unfortunately for them neither one could coach. Especially not develop them. Many of them were poor character kids, but CMA is supposed to be better at getting high character kids. It just saddens me that we were the ones bragging not too long ago about our recruits...even up there with some big boys. All over the recruiting world news. And instead of picking up where we left off, our recruiting seems to have crashed and I'm not sure it recovers if CMA can't do it. That's why it's so important to recruit at a high enough level here to give us a chance. They are not all diamonds in a rough...I assure you. I wish they were. Some will play as their ranking implies. Some with exceed. Some will fall short. But the better the recruits you can get, the less the chance they totally flop IMO. These are the kids who are bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter.[/quote]
Are you responding to me? If so, I'd like you to at least acknowledge the entire post I made. Including about the 4 stars who never amounted to anything, and the other 4 stars who gave us headaches.
Why even bring up Jordan? The kid was on his own schedule and traveled between campus and Philly whenever he chose. You want those types of kids in the program?
Pointer yea that's great. Did you read the reaction on this board his first three season? People literally wanted him off the team.
Simon I will admit was a great addition to our program. BUT there is a reason Arizona recruited over him. He wasn't a star player.[/quote]
You're correct that those high level recruits didn't get us anywhere. But that's because Lavin and Mullin could not develop and were bad coaches. CMA is at worst a solid coach and we know he can develop way better than either of those coaches. 4 star talent with his system and his development would mean seriously competing in the Big East. I'm just not sure we really start going to tourneys on the reg until we get better talent. Hope I'm wrong. If this works and CMA turns 2-3 star kids into 4 year beasts, he will be in national headlines.
Last edited:
Good article from 2016 on the rankings and future NBA prospects.
https://n.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft
Granted, we are not specifically looking for kids based on NBA potential, but rather how they fit in to CMA's system, but general rankings (top 100, top 200, top 300, etc) are somewhat of a predictor of future success. Of course, there are always outliers(Steph Curry, Ja Moran, Gordon Haywood, etc). I've always said that rankings only matter(to some degree) until a kid steps foot on the college basketball court for the 1st time. Then you can throw them out the window.
https://n.rivals.com/news/crunching-the-numbers-recruiting-rankings-and-the-nba-draft
Granted, we are not specifically looking for kids based on NBA potential, but rather how they fit in to CMA's system, but general rankings (top 100, top 200, top 300, etc) are somewhat of a predictor of future success. Of course, there are always outliers(Steph Curry, Ja Moran, Gordon Haywood, etc). I've always said that rankings only matter(to some degree) until a kid steps foot on the college basketball court for the 1st time. Then you can throw them out the window.
Last edited:
While I agree,there are many top recruits that can show their skills and play within the team
Since at the next level they will have to play team first basketball with players ,matching or exceeding their skill level I think our brand would not lien towards one and done players of which there are not many but like the players we are getting and we will eventual get higher ranked player if we show we can win
Since at the next level they will have to play team first basketball with players ,matching or exceeding their skill level I think our brand would not lien towards one and done players of which there are not many but like the players we are getting and we will eventual get higher ranked player if we show we can win
JohnnyFever
Active member
Also, yes I totally agree the system hurts recruiting. It's fun for us to watch, but not fun for top kids looking to commit somewhere. If you want to land the Ponds type kids you have to be able to guarantee tons of PT bottom line. Our recruiting strategy at the moment seems to be going to yard sales hoping we find a Mickey Mantle rookie card some old lady is selling for $5.
My view on this continues to be we'll know how good the 2020 recruiting class is after they've played BE basketball this year not based on whether they had a 2, 3, or 4 star next to their name. Results always tell the tale. It quickly becomes apparent when guys were underrated in HS when they start playing college ball.
Last edited:
As much as I'd like 4-5 star recruits associated, they need to be the right ones. No primadonnas, head cases etc.
I want hard nosed kids made up of a solid mix of size, ability, hunger/edge and willing to play as a unit and hope most stick w/o too many transfers.
That's what Anderson is doing. With this, I expect to be competitive with chance of NCAA each year and not in basement. A deep tourney run would be nice but just want good basketball.
I want hard nosed kids made up of a solid mix of size, ability, hunger/edge and willing to play as a unit and hope most stick w/o too many transfers.
That's what Anderson is doing. With this, I expect to be competitive with chance of NCAA each year and not in basement. A deep tourney run would be nice but just want good basketball.
Last edited:
[quote="Mike Zaun" post=401539]Also, yes I totally agree the system hurts recruiting. It's fun for us to watch, but not fun for top kids looking to commit somewhere. If you want to land the Ponds type kids you have to be able to guarantee tons of PT bottom line. Our recruiting strategy at the moment seems to be going to yard sales hoping we find a Mickey Mantle rookie card some old lady is selling for $5.[/quote]
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.
[quote="NCJohnnie" post=401540]My view on this continues to be we'll know how good the 2020 recruiting class is after they've played BE basketball this year not based on whether they had a 2, 3, or 4 star next to their name. Results always tell the tale. It quickly becomes apparent when guys were underrated in HS when they start playing college ball.[/quote]
Indeed the bottom line to me is winning enough to be consistently competitive and making some real noise periodically. CMA has the sideline, player development skills and experience to do that, so as much as I would like to raise the bar reasonably in next recruiting cycle, I suspect he wants to achieve the above goal and let’s see how things come together in reasonable time.
Indeed the bottom line to me is winning enough to be consistently competitive and making some real noise periodically. CMA has the sideline, player development skills and experience to do that, so as much as I would like to raise the bar reasonably in next recruiting cycle, I suspect he wants to achieve the above goal and let’s see how things come together in reasonable time.
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="Moose" post=401508]We’ve gotten our fair share of 5 or high 4 star rated kids lately. Most from transfers. This kids were highly ranked went to a school and jumped ship quick. You don’t build a program that way. When you are Arizona is doesn’t matter if Justin Simon leaves. You took a shot and it didn’t work out. When Heron leaves Auburn same thing. Clark leaves Mich St they didn’t miss a beat. Build up the structure then try and bring in the final piece.[/quote]
This is perhaps the most significant change that prevents SJU from reaching the levels we did 30 years ago. Back then we would nail a stud 4/5 star player through HS or transfer every 3 or 4 years - a Mullin, George Johnson, Reggie Carter, etc. When we did better than that we were in the top 10. Those guys would stick around till their eligibility Today, you have to consider that any of those players have a short shelf life so if you want a championship roster based on those type of players you have to get one almost every year.
This is perhaps the most significant change that prevents SJU from reaching the levels we did 30 years ago. Back then we would nail a stud 4/5 star player through HS or transfer every 3 or 4 years - a Mullin, George Johnson, Reggie Carter, etc. When we did better than that we were in the top 10. Those guys would stick around till their eligibility Today, you have to consider that any of those players have a short shelf life so if you want a championship roster based on those type of players you have to get one almost every year.
beast of the east
Active member
[quote="TheArtest15" post=401534]I think Paultzman had a great post before and I agreed with everything he said. I for one am a realest. I feel like so many posters on here get offended if we speak out against CMAs recruiting. I don't get why? He recruiting so far has been poor. There are a lot of excuses, as listed in posts above: perfect fit for the system, seems like a hard nose player, CMA must have seen something in him, hope he develops a lot under CMA, oh the other program got this 4 or 5 star recruit that we were in on because they have deep pockets and are cheating.....its ridiculous. Everyone seems to agree that CMA is good at developing. So why can't we all agree how much better we would be if he had some 4 star or maybe even better recruits to develop in his system. Don't you think that these more talented kids may put us over the top? Everyone keeps raving about the winning season last year where we went 5-13 in conference. Ive stated that I've seen Pinzon play and he is a very solid good player but he is definitely not a 4 star recruit yet based on his junior year. He could make strides if his senior year happens but not there yet.
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents[/quote]
I think this is a compelling post. The over-arching aspect of a kid's decision to play in a certain place is not so much the system as how much of a showcase a program will be for the NBA. Jay Wright doesn't exactly have a star system where a kid will score a ton of points, but will get a lot of notice and perhaps a ticket to the NBA.
I'm going to guess that Anderson is a little like Mullin in terms of not promising a kid the moon and stars the way other coaches will. He will promise discipline, hard work, will emphasize values and school work, and an opportunity to get serious minutes here if they are that good.
Also, to be honest I think Anderson may be part of the problem with recruiting. I know many of you probably won't agree with this but......I feel like top ranked and talented kids really do not want to play in this sort of system now a days. 4-5 star kids don't want to go to a program that really focuses on defense over offense this much. They want to showcase their skills and not be so system oriented. If i were a very good 4-5 star kid I wouldn't want to commit to a program that relies on playing 10 players and some games my minutes could be down based on my play. Their main goal is making the NBA and it isn't a program that really focuses on that IMO. Also I really think kids now a days are way different and CMAs system is about hard work and defense. A lot of these kids do not have that work ethic and do not want to have to earn playing time. Just my two cents[/quote]
I think this is a compelling post. The over-arching aspect of a kid's decision to play in a certain place is not so much the system as how much of a showcase a program will be for the NBA. Jay Wright doesn't exactly have a star system where a kid will score a ton of points, but will get a lot of notice and perhaps a ticket to the NBA.
I'm going to guess that Anderson is a little like Mullin in terms of not promising a kid the moon and stars the way other coaches will. He will promise discipline, hard work, will emphasize values and school work, and an opportunity to get serious minutes here if they are that good.
I'd much rather have a deep team with a bunch of guys averaging around the same stats rather than a team depending so much on a star or two while everyone else looks like they're deer in the headlights because of a lack of PT, lack of shots or anything that doesn't bring their confidence up.
Anthony Mattia
Well-known member
This is all really simple. There are some here who want 4 and 5 star recruits now and nothing anyone says will change their minds because this is CMAs 3rd recruiting class so he should do better.
There are others who view this as his 2nd recruiting class and see that he put a winner on the floor last year in a flash and look at his career and have some faith that he will continue to win and then get higher ranked kids, and nothing you say will change their minds either.
Bottom line is we do need better recruits, but, CMA has only coached here for 1 season. After the last 3 decades of mediocrity I am of the mindset to give a career coach with a proven track record a little more time. I know it's hard to be patient, but I am trying to be and will be rooting like crazy for coach and the kids we do get, regardless of their star rankings.
There are others who view this as his 2nd recruiting class and see that he put a winner on the floor last year in a flash and look at his career and have some faith that he will continue to win and then get higher ranked kids, and nothing you say will change their minds either.
Bottom line is we do need better recruits, but, CMA has only coached here for 1 season. After the last 3 decades of mediocrity I am of the mindset to give a career coach with a proven track record a little more time. I know it's hard to be patient, but I am trying to be and will be rooting like crazy for coach and the kids we do get, regardless of their star rankings.
[quote="Monte" post=401544][quote="Mike Zaun" post=401539]Also, yes I totally agree the system hurts recruiting. It's fun for us to watch, but not fun for top kids looking to commit somewhere. If you want to land the Ponds type kids you have to be able to guarantee tons of PT bottom line. Our recruiting strategy at the moment seems to be going to yard sales hoping we find a Mickey Mantle rookie card some old lady is selling for $5.[/quote]
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.[/quote]
I'm not even sure Ponds would have come here if CMA were the coach. I absolutely loved Ponds and watching him play. But let's be honest. He wasn't always interested on the defense end nor was he always willing to put in the conditioning work. Both of these are things CMA demands. Now who knows, maybe CMA would have been a great influence on him, we will never know.
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.[/quote]
I'm not even sure Ponds would have come here if CMA were the coach. I absolutely loved Ponds and watching him play. But let's be honest. He wasn't always interested on the defense end nor was he always willing to put in the conditioning work. Both of these are things CMA demands. Now who knows, maybe CMA would have been a great influence on him, we will never know.
[quote="Room112" post=401557][quote="Monte" post=401544][quote="Mike Zaun" post=401539]Also, yes I totally agree the system hurts recruiting. It's fun for us to watch, but not fun for top kids looking to commit somewhere. If you want to land the Ponds type kids you have to be able to guarantee tons of PT bottom line. Our recruiting strategy at the moment seems to be going to yard sales hoping we find a Mickey Mantle rookie card some old lady is selling for $5.[/quote]
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.[/quote]
I'm not even sure Ponds would have come here if CMA were the coach. I absolutely loved Ponds and watching him play. But let's be honest. He wasn't always interested on the defense end nor was he always willing to put in the conditioning work. Both of these are things CMA demands. Now who knows, maybe CMA would have been a great influence on him, we will never know.[/quote]
Agree completely. Just to clarify, when i said a "Ponds type of kid", I meant talent level.
If CMA can land a Ponds type of kid, he's got be able to guarantee him PT. Provided it's a kid who buys in to CMA's system, of course.[/quote]
I'm not even sure Ponds would have come here if CMA were the coach. I absolutely loved Ponds and watching him play. But let's be honest. He wasn't always interested on the defense end nor was he always willing to put in the conditioning work. Both of these are things CMA demands. Now who knows, maybe CMA would have been a great influence on him, we will never know.[/quote]
Agree completely. Just to clarify, when i said a "Ponds type of kid", I meant talent level.
As I've posted before, Coach Anderson's requirements do tend the limit the recruiting pool. He wants players who have good character traits, are unselfish, are willing to work hard, and will commit to playing defense. That is going to take you out of the running for some highly-ranked kids who have had smoke blown up their ass since they were 10.
However, if he is able to establish a program that wins regularly that's in New York City and plays in the Garden - and there is zero reason to believe he won't do exactly that - then that will lead to interest from more highly ranked players. Not all of them, but you don't need all of them. You just need the right ones.
However, if he is able to establish a program that wins regularly that's in New York City and plays in the Garden - and there is zero reason to believe he won't do exactly that - then that will lead to interest from more highly ranked players. Not all of them, but you don't need all of them. You just need the right ones.