Evaluating Mick's Recruiting

[Bearcat_DF]

Since there has been some debate about how good Mick's recruiting has been, as well as, a debate about what criteria to use when evaluating his recruiting; I suggest we develop the Bearcat News Recruiting Index.

I believe the recruiting index should take a long view of recruiting so that some of the evaluation won't be known till after a player completes his eligibility. For example, a lower ranked player who makes the All-BE team should earn Mick more points than a player who is highly ranked and makes the All-BE team. It demonstrates that Mick is able to evaluate talent independent of the recruiting industry's judgment. It may also indicate that Mick is able to develop talent well, but that is another topic.

So what criteria should go into the index?

Players Ranking - (top 100 1 point; top 50 2 points, top 25 3 points)
Top player from outside of the region (1 point)
Player who is eligible and makes it to the team in the fall of their class (1 point/ -1 for a player who does not make it)
graduation (1 point)
All-BE team (1 point)
player ranked outside of the top 100 who makes All-BE (1 point)
part of a conference championship (1 point for each championship - league - tournament)
NCAA appearance (1 point)
Sweet Sixteen (1 point)
Final Four (1 point)
Championship Game (1 point)
National Championship (1 point)
[note I recognize that all those points for NCAA accomplishment weight it heavily on NCAA tournament success. We might want to debate this criteria, but given some of the comments on BN - most people want NCAA success. A side benefit of this and the BE championship points is that it recognizes that basketball is a team sport and it rewards players who may be role players.]
character (1 point for no off court incident / -1 for every off court incident)
Commitment during early signing period (1 point)
HS player (1 point)

If people are interested in creating a more objective way to talk about Cronin's recruiting, then let's hammer out the criteria. Then, I'll start a spreadsheet to track the points.

Note - we all know that Mick's first recruiting class will have a fairly low score. Then we can debate if the score was the best he could do given the circumstances . . .

Cronin's Recruits
Jamual Warren
Tim Crowell
Deonta Vaughn
John Williamson
Marvin Gentry
Hernol Hall
Adam Hrycaniuk
Marcus Sikes
Mike Williams
Larry Davis
Darnell Wilkes
Rashad Bishop
Jason Henry
Kenny Belton
Anthony McClain
Alvin Mitchell
Danny McElroy
Nick Aldridge
Yancy Gates
Cashmere Wright
Dion Dixon
Steve Toyloy
John Riek
Chane Behanan

[jeffto]

Looks good, but you left off Bud Mackey and Tyreke Evans.

But seriously, giving points for championships makes this more a success scale rather than a pure recruiting index. Mick (and staff's) coaching and teaching is a big factor in on-the-court success.

One could argue that a one-and-done should accrue additional points.

[MikeInClifton]

Some replys after looking this over once time . . .
May have more thoughts later.

I suggest we develop the BearcatNews Recruiting Index.
- your concept actually could be used for any coach, not just Mick!

It demonstrates that Mick is able to evaluate talent independent of the recruiting industry's judgment.
- the recruiting industry didn't exist at all until Brick Oettinger and Bob Gibbons hit the map in the late 80's. It exploded with the advent of the internet, of course. Just an FYI.

So what criteria should go into the index?
- this is a great list for starters. Would imagine it may be close to 'complete'.

Top player from outside of the region (1 point)
- this would be a challenge to define as Texas is definitely in the Bearcats "region" on a recruiting map, but not on a regular map.

HS player (1 point)
- I guess this means that no points are awarded for JUCO's? What if the player is a JUCO All American and every major program was after the player?

Then, I'll start a spreadsheet to track the points.
- this may be the craziest sentence you typed. It looks like a lot of work.

This idea is good enough and logical enough that I wonder if it already exists somewhere? I wonder if some colleges have a proprietary database to track exactly this - for them and their competitors?

[Cincinnatisportsfanatic]

Can you give us an example of scoring? Rate for us Deonta Vaughn, Mike Williams and Marvin Sykes. Looks like you put some thought into it, i'd like to know what your highest rating for any one player would be?

[NorrisHopper30]

-If Vaughn got 1st team Big East the next two years would he get 3 points for being a non-top 100 recruit getting 1st team 3 separate times, or just one for getting the achievement?
-Extra points for keeping a top 10-20 recruit that does very well freshman year (i'm not sure how we can judge this) in college instead of the NBA?

Sounds like a great idea. I'll post more ideas if I can think of them.

[Scheids21]

Can you give us an example of scoring? Rate for us Deonta Vaughn, Mike Williams and Marvin Sykes. Looks like you put some thought into it, i'd like to know what your highest rating for any one player would be?

*******************Marcus

[Mick's Da Man]

I really thought I'd open this open and find this thread has been started by Billy Donger.

[Bearcat Cafe]

This thread has caused me to bleed from the eyes. 39 seconds I will never, ever get back.

[ralph1950]

With Reik the 2008-2009 incoming class is # 1.

[CincyBearcat95]

This thread has caused me to bleed from the eyes. 39 seconds I will never, ever get back.

Are you sure that's not the lysol?:D

[ucjoerat140]

I am bleeding from my butt thats how painful this thread is....

[bearcated]

You're making an NCAA appearance count for as many points as winning an NCAA championship?

[bearcatfanCJ]

I am bleeding from my butt thats how painful this thread is....

May be going out on a limb here but i think that is a bit too much info, LOL. Bearcat DF, can you get me an application to your place of employment because i would love to have the time to do what you plan to do with this chart.

Bottom line, Mick is an unbelievable recruiter.

[tophat]

I didn't try to wade thru the initial post -- just skimmed it, because I know from past experience that recruiting is something that doesn't lend itself to being quantified. Just too many variables. I do think there are certain measuring sticks, but they will only take you so far.

The best thing is simply looking at the Ws and Ls after a reasonable period of time, considering as well what extenuating circumstances exist.

[Cats4Ever]

the total team record after the class graduates should be a factor in their rating.

[Pie Hole]

You should also take into consideration whether or not the player started shaving at an early age. This should at least count for 3 more points. Also, if the player owns a cat his point total will be deducted by 3 points.

[Bearcat_DF]

Bottom line, Mick is an unbelievable recruiter.

Your statement begs the question - on what proof do you base your platitude?

[Scheids21]

You should also take into consideration whether or not the player started shaving at an early age. This should at least count for 3 more points. Also, if the player owns a cat his point total will be deducted by 3 points.

Uhh not funny. Good try though...

[SLMadiCat]

Your statement begs the question - on what proof do you base your platitude?

It was obviously his opinion, but I would agree with him based on his time recruiting as assistants under Huggins and Pitino, his reputation in the basketball professions as being one of the best recruiters in the country (when he was an assistant) and his to-date performance since being head coach at UC.

[Cincinnatisportsfanatic]

*******************Marcus

Yes Marcus.. I tried to conjoin Marcus Sykes and Marvin Gentry into one powerhouse player..

[Mick's Da Man]

You should also take into consideration whether or not the player started shaving at an early age. This should at least count for 3 more points. Also, if the player owns a cat his point total will be deducted by 3 points.

If they are a republican, add 5 points. Deduct 5 points for being a democrat. :D

[Bearcat_DF]

It was obviously his opinion, but I would agree with him based on his time recruiting as assistants under Huggins and Pitino, his reputation in the basketball professions as being one of the best recruiters in the country (when he was an assistant) and his to-date performance since being head coach at UC.

Well, that is all well and good, but you might want to review the thread. The main point was to develop an objective measure to evaluate Cronin's recruiting.

While you point to some interesting components of Cronin's career - can you quantify them in anyway?

Most importantly, what measure of his to-date performance would qualify his recruiting as - unbelievable? Perhaps we have different definitions of unbelievable . . .

[MikeInClifton]

The main point was to develop an objective measure to evaluate Cronin's recruiting.

In order for the process to be "objective" as you say DF, it needs to be able to be useable by many programs, not just Cincinnati's. Then what you will have is an ability to judge any programs recruiting, not just Cronin's. (I'm even tempted to change the name of this thread to drive that point home)

You can create a point system for anything as long as the point value is able to be changed. Once the framework is created, assessing point values for various aspects is a matter of long and heated discussion but when (if?) a decision is made, its easy to plug those in.

I definitely think DF's proposal is valid, just alot of work. I'd even be willing to contribute towards it if he wants to push forward.

[MikeInClifton]

Thread cleanup complete.

Just a tip to all - Users can be temporarily banned when insulting other members.

[JerseySean]

In order for the process to be "objective" as you say DF, it needs to be able to be useable by many programs, not just Cincinnati's. Then what you will have is an ability to judge any programs recruiting, not just Cronin's. (I'm even tempted to change the name of this thread to drive that point home)

You can create a point system for anything as long as the point value is able to be changed. Once the framework is created, assessing point values for various aspects is a matter of long and heated discussion but when (if?) a decision is made, its easy to plug those in.

I definitely think DF's proposal is valid, just alot of work. I'd even be willing to contribute towards it if he wants to push forward.

While I agree that DF's proposal is "valid", the very fact that discussion is happening on what factors to include and how many points to assign these factors demonstrates that the process is not objective. But that's not a problem, in my estimation. Very few things truly are objective. The factors that go into evaluating recruits and providing points are subjective by their very nature. But modeling is still an engaging exercise. I like the fact that DF put the thought into it and is encouraging additional discussion. Fun...

[tophat]

Your statement begs the question - on what proof do you base your platitude?

Mick's prowess as a recruiter is best evidenced by the way he's stockpiled so much talent in this program in such a short period of time. It's true that most of these players have yet to prove themselves in the college game, but there are a number of things to go by: their ranking as recruits (nearly all were top 150 and many were much higher coming out of HS); the fact that he outrecruited major programs for many of them; the large number of players he's been in with and the display of relentless and resourceful recruiting, as further evidenced by the late pick-up of Riek and early commitment of Bohannen.

The signs are all there, and they support the reputation he had when he came here as an ace recruiter. There have been misses as well, but that's to be expected, given he's still an unproven winner as a major head coach and he's having to recruit into a losing program. One can only imagine how successful he'll be when we start winning consistently, which should be this year so long as we can stay healthy.

[CincyBearcat95]

One can only imagine how successful he'll be when we start winning consistently, which should be this year so long as we can stay healthy.

That is an interesting thought and one that we tend to lose sight of. Those who negate his recruiting now, don't even realize what a winning program will do. The fact that he's been able to put together back to back top 20 recruiting classes for a "currently" loosing program says something. Understandibly, he has the reputation of Cincy somewhat behind him, but he himself is still and unproven quantity which also says something about his recruiting. If he can prove himself as a good coach and get us consistently winning, I would think his recruiting would get even better. Less obstacles to the top kids in my opinion.

[Mick's Da Man]

Mick's prowess as a recruiter is best evidenced by the way he's stockpiled so much talent in this program in such a short period of time. It's true that most of these players have yet to prove themselves in the college game, but there are a number of things to go by: their ranking as recruits (nearly all were top 150 and many were much higher coming out of HS); the fact that he outrecruited major programs for many of them; the large number of players he's been in with and the display of relentless and resourceful recruiting, as further evidenced by the late pick-up of Riek and early commitment of Bohannen.

The signs are all there, and they support the reputation he had when he came here as an ace recruiter. There have been misses as well, but that's to be expected, given he's still an unproven winner as a major head coach and he's having to recruit into a losing program. One can only imagine how successful he'll be when we start winning consistently, which should be this year so long as we can stay healthy.

It's kinda like drafting players - mlb or nfl............you bring in a bunch of talent..........some of it doesn't live up to it's potential, others do, and some of the lesser known entities surprise. Just bring it in, and let the cream rise to the top.

[bearcatfanCJ]

Your statement begs the question - on what proof do you base your platitude?

Let me throw a few names at you, Steve Logan, Kenyon Martin. Both recruited to Cincy by Mick. A couple more, Reece Gaines, Fransisco Garcia. Both recruited to Louisville by Mick. He pulled Deonta Vaughn out of a hat at the last minute, 2 classes in the top 20 after throwing together essentially "The Replacements". The proof you are requesting is in the pudding my friend.