2011 recruiting needs

[Bearcat_DF]

Just looking over the 2011 returning players (see below) which made me realize the this year's recruiting is as bad as it appears on first glance - we need to fill 5 spots! But we really only have one urgent need - a SF.

Here are my priorities.

1 blue chip SF
1 big man (depending on Gaines and Jackson's development, we may want a JUCO)
best available pg (opportunity to start sophomore year)
last two - SF and best available

PG - Wright, Parker
SG - Dixon, Kilpatrick
SF -
PF - Gates, Jackson
C - Gaines

[bearcatbret]

You point out exactly why MC will still be here next year. We need to tie down this recruiting class with so many graduating. If MC leaves early, we could lose a whole class.

[Bearcat_DF]

Bret,

I don't think we need to be held hostage by the recruiting issue.

If MC has a good season, then he deserves to stay, but if we continue to see some of the bone headed play that we have been subjected to over the past 4 years . . .

We will have a veteran team. While the class is big, we only need to pick up a couple of recruits to be competitive.

The bigger reason to keep MC in my mind is I'm not sure we can do better. We wouldn't be able to attract a big name coach because of what we pay. We won't be able to compete with other schools for the top emerging coaches. Who do we get?

[Brian H.]

This thread makes me depressed to be a bearcat fan. We have to keep the coach even if he loses because it could hurt recruiting or we can not hire anyone better. It's like a married couple that hates each other but is staying together for the kids.

[McMickenKid]

Considering we're in good shape with guys like Shaq Thomas and Jermaine Sanders, I think there's a great chance we fill that SF need.

[Deaf_Bearcat]

Sigh..... .... ...... ...

[BearcatAlum1]

Considering we're in good shape with guys like Shaq Thomas and Jermaine Sanders, I think there's a great chance we fill that SF need.

I tend to agree. That is the one HUGE void on our roster.

[Thewhiteboy]

PG--Wright--Parker
SG--Dixon--Smith--Guyn
Sf--Kilpatrick--(1)
PF--Jackson--Ellis(1)
C--Gaines--(1)

Gates is leaving after his Jr. year......

[subflea]

Gates is leaving after his Jr. year......

To where? Singapore, Turkey, or Poland?

Leaving for the NBA draft early after the 2010-2011 season would be a stupid move for any player since there is a very good chance there is no 2011-2012 NBA season.

[bearcatbret]

Gates has to prove the talking heads and more importantly the NBA scouts that he has heart and desire. I think that we can all agree that he has the body to be an NBA player but he has not yet shown that he has the drive. Maybe with this "new" make up of players this year, he will demand the ball like Fortson.

[Carthage World]

We could use some guys that can legitimately shoot the ball

[Thewhiteboy]

[QUOTE=subflea;157128]To where? Singapore, Turkey, or Poland?

You just answered your own question

[subflea]

[QUOTE=subflea;157128]To where? Singapore, Turkey, or Poland?

You just answered your own question

He isn't leaving early to play overseas.

[Bcatfan08]

We won't be held hostage by Mick. That would be the same situation as with Huggins. He brought in a huge freshmen class and got canned and they all still ended up leaving. Recruiting won't matter with Mick. If he's going to get canned, the recruiting class will only keep him here if it's filled with top 100 players.

[CincyEngGrad02]

One hole has been filled with the verbal of Ellis.

[bearcatbret]

We won't be held hostage by Mick. That would be the same situation as with Huggins. He brought in a huge freshmen class and got canned and they all still ended up leaving. Recruiting won't matter with Mick. If he's going to get canned, the recruiting class will only keep him here if it's filled with top 100 players.

The difference is that they all left before their first season began and prior to the beginning of school. I think if you get a good class in, you keep them for one year and then can the coach.

[Bcatfan08]

The difference is that they all left before their first season began and prior to the beginning of school. I think if you get a good class in, you keep them for one year and then can the coach.

If I remember right, a couple of them didn't ever come to the team because of legal issues or grade issues. Then the rest of them left because we decided to get rid of Huggins so late that we couldn't get a coach. We had 5 in the class and Downey was the only one to last the year. We probably could have kept more of those players if it weren't for having the interim coach for a year. Everyone can argue all day long whether it was good or bad to get rid of Huggins, but one thing that is certain is that the situation was handled horribly. The timing was awful. You just can't get rid of a coach right before a season. This program was set back years because of that timing.

[BearcatAlum1]

One hole has been filled with the verbal of Ellis.

Absolutely.


2011-2012

PG: Cash (Jr.), Parker (Jr.), BJ Young
SG: Kilpatrick (R-So.), Guyn (Fr.), Ced McAfee/Aaron Thomas,
SF: Khristian Smith (Fr.), Shaq Thomas, Jermaine Sanders
PF: Gates (Sr.), Jackson (So.), Gaines (So.), Ellis (Fr.)


With the signing of Ellis, it does appear we'll get to a full 6 man class. I'm not for that, but we cannot refuse certain players (any player underlined above)

[Best Body]

what UC needs: a top 20 recruiting class that includes 3 "blue chips", with one of which being a top 10 type player, capable of being first team big east almost right away. I think it's being undersold how wide the talent gap is between our team and the top teams in the league. I apologize for being the negative poster, when it comes to recruiting issues, but the program really needs more than a "solid" class. Another class ranked 12th or so in the Big East could really cement UC's position as a second tier Big East program that typically misses the NCAA tournament. The longer a program goes without being a relevant, the harder it is to dig out of the situation.

[BearcatAlum1]

what UC needs: a top 20 recruiting class that includes 3 "blue chips", with one of which being a top 10 type player, capable of being first team big east almost right away. I think it's being undersold how wide the talent gap is between our team and the top teams in the league. I apologize for being the negative poster, when it comes to recruiting issues, but the program really needs more than a "solid" class. Another class ranked 12th or so in the Big East could really cement UC's position as a second tier Big East program that typically misses the NCAA tournament. The longer a program goes without being a relevant, the harder it is to dig out of the situation.

3 blue chips would make the class top 3-4 in the country, ala UK/UNC/Duke.

That's unrealistic at this stage, unfortunately.

What we need is to add top 100 SG and SF.

Give me any of the players still on our bullseye: Aaron Thomas, Shaq Thomas, Ced McAfee, Jerome Seagers, Jermaine Sanders, BJ Young, Mo Harkless, Jeremiah Davis, and some surprise.

Land 3 of those mentioned above and we have a top 15-20 class, easy.

[Best Body]

3 blue chips would make the class top 3-4 in the country, ala UK/UNC/Duke.

That's unrealistic at this stage, unfortunately.

What we need is to add top 100 SG and SF.

Give me any of the players still on our bullseye: Aaron Thomas, Shaq Thomas, Ced McAfee, Jerome Seagers, Jermaine Sanders, BJ Young, Mo Harkless, Jeremiah Davis, and some surprise.

Land 3 of those mentioned above and we have a top 15-20 class, easy.


Perhaps I am not correct on what I consider a bluechip. When I said 3 blue chips I meant 3 guys with 4/5 stars (not 3 top 10 recruits - I agree that isn't attainable). Several schools accomplish 3 top 50-75 players, though, and getting 3 of those would give UC a top 15-20 class (if one of the 3 is a 5 star), which shouldn't be unrealistic when you have plenty of playing time in the BE to sell. If it is unrealistic, then we don't have a good enough recruiter to compete in the league.

[BearcatAlum1]

Perhaps I am not correct on what I consider a bluechip. When I said 3 blue chips I meant 3 guys with 4/5 stars (not 3 top 10 recruits - I agree that isn't attainable). Several schools accomplish 3 top 50-75 players, though, and getting 3 of those would give UC a top 15-20 class (if one of the 3 is a 5 star), which shouldn't be unrealistic when you have plenty of playing time in the BE to sell. If it is unrealistic, then we don't have a good enough recruiter to compete in the league.

There are only 15-20 Five Star recruits each year. Sometimes there may be as many as 25.

If playing time was the only sell a 5-star recruited needed, wouldn't every school in the BigEast have a 5 star every year?

Providence? St. Johns? Rutgers? The list goes on and on with BE teams that have immediate openings and can offer 20+ minutes a game.

I do agree (and expect) that we bring in 2-3 of the players mentioned above.

[Best Body]

There are only 15-20 Five Star recruits each year. Sometimes there may be as many as 25.

If playing time was the only sell a 5-star recruited needed, wouldn't every school in the BigEast have a 5 star every year?

Providence? St. Johns? Rutgers? The list goes on and on with BE teams that have immediate openings and can offer 20+ minutes a game.

I do agree (and expect) that we bring in 2-3 of the players mentioned above.

Hopefully there is more to sell than only playing time (like the coach, program etc).

If we are going to measure UC against Providence, Rutgers, etc., then UC will never return to relevance. UC should be fighting for players (and winning some of the battles) with Syracuse, Georgetown, Villanova, etc. - not the bottom feeders of the conference.

Let me rephrase our needs to get back on topic: "A top 3 or 4" Big East recruiting class is the minimum that should be acceptable, given the talent need for the team, and how critical it will be for the class to contribute immediately. I don't think 1 of the 20 five star players should be considered a fantasy. And I don't think 3 top 50-75 players is too much to ask, when a starting spot is all but guaranteed for kids of that level. Of course it's not a slam dunk, but UC will need a great recruiter to go from where it is to the top of the league. If it is completely out of the question for UC to get a top 20 player and a top 3 BE recruiting class, then UC will never win a BE championship, until we are in a completely different recruiting reality (which may mean a different guy recruiting).

[Mr. Bearcat]

I think Cronin has had some nicely rated recruiting classes, but once they have gotten here, he hasn't done all that great "coaching them up". Therefore, his results thus far have been below average to average. With a sustained period of average to below average results, it seems like we're not getting as much interest from the top recruits anymore. If I was a top recruit, what would be attracting me to come and play for Cincinnati? The coach...probably not! The wild and loyal fan base...definitely not! The arena...definitely not. Postseason play...definitely not! The tradition...maybe! The education...maybe! Playing in the Big East...definitely!
There are some attractive things about us, but far too many negative things right now.

We have allowed the program to slip into mediocrity and now it will take someone or something special to pull us out of the abyss. This 2011 recruiting class, so far, isn't getting me real excited yet, so I fear that we are in store for more of the same results over the next few years as we have been seeing the last few.

[juckerrules]

If I remember right, a couple of them didn't ever come to the team because of legal issues or grade issues. Then the rest of them left because we decided to get rid of Huggins so late that we couldn't get a coach. We had 5 in the class and Downey was the only one to last the year. We probably could have kept more of those players if it weren't for having the interim coach for a year. Everyone can argue all day long whether it was good or bad to get rid of Huggins, but one thing that is certain is that the situation was handled horribly. The timing was awful. You just can't get rid of a coach right before a season. This program was set back years because of that timing.

Amen...people don't realize the impact of a full year of a lame duck coach (Huggins), and on top of that, another year of an announced one year coach (hence another lame duck). Who wants to go to a school where the coach who recruited you will be gone next year? By the third year, no one wants to go there because you now have a new coach, hired late in the game, who is not "in" on any recruit and had to recruit whatever he can get (Adam H.etc.)

Look at reality.....Mick has done a really good job! I mean, i wish we had progressed faster, but under the circumstances, I don't think anyone could have done much better.

[ME80]

Amen...people don't realize the impact of a full year of a lame duck coach (Huggins), and on top of that, another year of an announced one year coach (hence another lame duck). Who wants to go to a school where the coach who recruited you will be gone next year? By the third year, no one wants to go there because you now have a new coach, hired late in the game, who is not "in" on any recruit and had to recruit whatever he can get (Adam H.etc.)

Look at reality.....Mick has done a really good job! I mean, i wish we had progressed faster, but under the circumstances, I don't think anyone could have done much better.

After reading your email (agreeing with most of what you said) I started to shutter thinking about where the upcoming responses would take this thread.

[BearcatAlum1]

Hopefully there is more to sell than only playing time (like the coach, program etc).

If we are going to measure UC against Providence, Rutgers, etc., then UC will never return to relevance. UC should be fighting for players (and winning some of the battles) with Syracuse, Georgetown, Villanova, etc. - not the bottom feeders of the conference.

Let me rephrase our needs to get back on topic: "A top 3 or 4" Big East recruiting class is the minimum that should be acceptable, given the talent need for the team, and how critical it will be for the class to contribute immediately. I don't think 1 of the 20 five star players should be considered a fantasy. And I don't think 3 top 50-75 players is too much to ask, when a starting spot is all but guaranteed for kids of that level. Of course it's not a slam dunk, but UC will need a great recruiter to go from where it is to the top of the league. If it is completely out of the question for UC to get a top 20 player and a top 3 BE recruiting class, then UC will never win a BE championship, until we are in a completely different recruiting reality (which may mean a different guy recruiting).

Unfortunately, we do not have the brand to recruit like 'Cuse, Gtown, Nova, etc. right now. Our coaching staff fears no one, hence why we offer about 25 guys in the top 150, but we don't some of the attributes of other programs.

UC does offer some things that other programs can't, but it takes a kid that really buys into what UC is offering to come to our school.

Please don't make it sound as if I think it is a fantasy to land 5-star players (Mick has landed 3: Gates, Mike Williams, Lance).

I think it is reasonable to get 3-4 top 100-125 type guys. I think we'll end up with 3 in the top 125, assuming Jermaine Sanders continues his assent up the rankings.

[Mr. Bearcat]

After reading your email (agreeing with most of what you said) I started to shutter thinking about where the upcoming responses would take this thread.

The "Mick started at Ground Zero" argument is fading off into the sunset. Has he been great? Absolutely not! Has he been horrible? Absolutely not! He's been ok. Nobody he has signed this year will quickly upgrade us above where we have been hanging out thus far in the Big East. I think we are still 2, 3 or 4 years away from moving to the next level. I don't think the fan base, or the administration, will give him that much time to inch his way up the ladder. Too many fans are are leaving the program.

His 2011 class thus far is two 3-stars and an unrated player....certainly nothing that will push us up the Big East ladder quickly. If I were Mick, I would hope the football program has a three-peat and continues to divert attention away from me until I can put the pieces together finally. It should be interesting and certainly will make for lively debate in here for the forseeable future!

[Best Body]

Unfortunately, we do not have the brand to recruit like 'Cuse, Gtown, Nova, etc. right now. Our coaching staff fears no one, hence why we offer about 25 guys in the top 150, but we don't some of the attributes of other programs.

UC does offer some things that other programs can't, but it takes a kid that really buys into what UC is offering to come to our school.

Please don't make it sound as if I think it is a fantasy to land 5-star players (Mick has landed 3: Gates, Mike Williams, Lance).

I think it is reasonable to get 3-4 top 100-125 type guys. I think we'll end up with 3 in the top 125, assuming Jermaine Sanders continues his assent up the rankings.

Unfortunately, I think the "brand" to sell in college basketball is largely the coach. In UC's case, I think the problem with the 2010 and 2011 classes is that Mick is unable to market himself well enough to consistently land high impact kids. I fear he lacks the charisma to ever really do so.

Signing Gates locally, and laning Stephenson seem to be the 2 exceptions to what Mick has typically recruited, which are guys without enough talent to be recruited heavily by the Villanovas and Syracuses. Those 2 allow me to have hope that Mick can start to recruit well enough to challenge for the Big East, but we need to see much more of that more often. I think trying to sell Mike Williams transferring after busting at his old school as Mick "landing a 5 star player" is misleading.

Getting 3-4 guys at the bottom end of the "top" 100-125 is only going to let UC tread water around the 8th-13th position in the conference. It's not horrible recruiting, but it's certainly not going to get UC to the top of the league or even close to it. There are 400 (roughly) players in college basketball better than the average player ranked 100th in his class.

Mick needs to do better than getting 3 star kids and hoping they overachieve.

[CincyEngGrad02]

Nick also landed McClain and Mitchell, who were both 4 stars according to Scout.

[BearcatAlum1]

Unfortunately, I think the "brand" to sell in college basketball is largely the coach. In UC's case, I think the problem with the 2010 and 2011 classes is that Mick is unable to market himself well enough to consistently land high impact kids. I fear he lacks the charisma to ever really do so.

Signing Gates locally, and laning Stephenson seem to be the 2 exceptions to what Mick has typically recruited, which are guys without enough talent to be recruited heavily by the Villanovas and Syracuses. Those 2 allow me to have hope that Mick can start to recruit well enough to challenge for the Big East, but we need to see much more of that more often. I think trying to sell Mike Williams transferring after busting at his old school as Mick "landing a 5 star player" is misleading.

Getting 3-4 guys at the bottom end of the "top" 100-125 is only going to let UC tread water around the 8th-13th position in the conference. It's not horrible recruiting, but it's certainly not going to get UC to the top of the league or even close to it. There are 400 (roughly) players in college basketball better than the average player ranked 100th in his class.

Mick needs to do better than getting 3 star kids and hoping they overachieve.

Let's not go down this path.

Gates and Stephenson had MANY coaches hounding them. Both were GREAT recruits. There is no "if" "ands" or "buts" about it. Period.

I used Mike Williams as a reference. I'm not trying to sell anything.

If we consistently recruited players between 100-125, we would be in the top 3-4 of the BE every year, IMO. Those are typically 4 year players that improve greatly over their career and always have upperclassmen to lead.

I can't tell if you trying to subjectively dog Mick, or objectively blasting his recruiting. Not everything has to be qualified (i.e. Yancy was a big-time recruit, but he was local...so it doesn't count.).

Don't look at the stars. Look at the schools that also recruited the players. If a guy has offers from Uconn, Miami FLA, Oklahoma and Memphis....he is a solid recruit (Gaines). That is just an example. He will take a few years to become a consistent player that can produce 10 and 8 on a consistent basis, but that is the same with most big men across the country.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Mick also landed Wilks, Wright, and Jason Henry who were 4-stars (Henry ended up not coming). In his 1st three years, he was landing plenty of 4 and 5 star players. Unfortunately, after those highly rated players got here, most became busts, indicating either that the coaching staff did a poor job of developing and coaching them, or they were just overrated...take your pick.

He came here with the reputation of being a great recruiter. He signed quite a few 4 and 5 star guys those first three years. Now it seems like we're getting 3 star players, with some unrated players mixed in. That is a downward trend in my opinion.

[Best Body]

If we consistently recruited players between 100-125, we would be in the top 3-4 of the BE every year, IMO. Those are typically 4 year players that improve greatly over their career and always have upperclassmen to lead.



I think I had indicated that I thought Gates and Stephenson were the 2exceptions to the lack of recruiting results. I don't think I said anything to indicate either was not a great signing. Pointing out that Gates was local is relevant, as the home town school has a built in advantage. Local Media wrote up the subject as Mick landing a "must get" local recruit - it's not a concept I invented. Still, I give Mick credit for signing him.

On the issue of signing 3-4 guys at the bottom of the top 125 players: if you look at the recruiting classes of the Big East Schools, the numbers would not back up your argument that this type of class would typically help us to the top 3-4 of the Big East. Generally, at least a half dozen Big East schools get better classes than that. My point is that their classes include players rated much higher. If you are generally out recruited by 6-11 teams in your conference (2010 class was 12th in the conference), it can't add up to being in the top 3-4 teams. Mick has not yet had a class ranked in the top 3-4 of the conference or the top 25 nationally. This is why we were in the NIT last year.

There are things in your posts that I don't disagree with. But, UC has not had nearly enough talent to compete for the Big East yet. Simple logic would lead me to see this as evidence of inadequate recruiting.

[bearcatbret]

Keep in mind that recruiting class rankings often are also rated based on the number of recruits. There are only two this year for UC. It is hard for the experts to put UC any higher than they did.

[westsidecat]

Mick also landed Wilks, Wright, and Jason Henry who were 4-stars (Henry ended up not coming). In his 1st three years, he was landing plenty of 4 and 5 star players. Unfortunately, after those highly rated players got here, most became busts, indicating either that the coaching staff did a poor job of developing and coaching them, or they were just overrated...take your pick.

He came here with the reputation of being a great recruiter. He signed quite a few 4 and 5 star guys those first three years. Now it seems like we're getting 3 star players, with some unrated players mixed in. That is a downward trend in my opinion.

Agree with this 100%!

The 2011 class is turning into a joke. Sorry to be so harsh, but sometimes you have to call it how it is.

[Best Body]

My apologies to Bearcat DF for my part in hijacking your thread into a debate on whether Mick is a good enough recruiter, and away from the 2011 needs.

[BearcatAlum1]

I think I had indicated that I thought Gates and Stephenson were the 2exceptions to the lack of recruiting results. I don't think I said anything to indicate either was not a great signing. Pointing out that Gates was local is relevant, as the home town school has a built in advantage. Local Media wrote up the subject as Mick landing a "must get" local recruit - it's not a concept I invented. Still, I give Mick credit for signing him.

On the issue of signing 3-4 guys at the bottom of the top 125 players: if you look at the recruiting classes of the Big East Schools, the numbers would not back up your argument that this type of class would typically help us to the top 3-4 of the Big East. Generally, at least a half dozen Big East schools get better classes than that. My point is that their classes include players rated much higher. If you are generally out recruited by 6-11 teams in your conference (2010 class was 12th in the conference), it can't add up to being in the top 3-4 teams. Mick has not yet had a class ranked in the top 3-4 of the conference or the top 25 nationally. This is why we were in the NIT last year.

There are things in your posts that I don't disagree with. But, UC has not had nearly enough talent to compete for the Big East yet. Simple logic would lead me to see this as evidence of inadequate recruiting.

Tell me how many top 100 players were JRs or SRs for Syracuse last year?

[BearcatAlum1]

Agree with this 100%!

The 2011 class is turning into a joke. Sorry to be so harsh, but sometimes you have to call it how it is.

That is harsh, and uncalled for. Nonetheless, it isn't a surprising comment from you.

That's all I will say on the matter.

[CincyEngGrad02]

Tell me how many top 100 players were JRs or SRs for Syracuse last year?

Probably not many since Harris, Flynn, and Greene all left for the NBA. They would have been seniors and juniors for Syracuse last year.

But of course, that's what's expected when you continue to get 4 and 5 star guys. You have to reload each year.

[Carin's Dad]

That is harsh, and uncalled for. Nonetheless, it isn't a surprising comment from you.

That's all I will say on the matter.Careful. Don't attack the poster - just the post.

[BearcatAlum1]

Careful. Don't attack the poster - just the post.

Didn't mean to attack any poster. I did mean to suggest that these comments have been echoed before from the same poster.

[Mr. Bearcat]

Didn't mean to attack any poster. I did mean to suggest that these comments have been echoed before from the same poster.

The same thing can be said about just about everybody who posts on here (not mentioning any names). It's still a comment about the poster, which is against the rules.

[Lobot]

The same thing can be said about just about everybody who posts on here (not mentioning any names). It's still a comment about the poster, which is against the rules.

I think the point was made.

On a side note, thanks to everyone for the self policing.

[bearcatbret]

Why is this thread not in the BBall recruiting forum?

[Mr. Bearcat]

I think the point was made.

On a side note, thanks to everyone for the self policing.

You are correct. The point was indeed made. But, then there was a counterpoint and my post was directed at the counterpoint. I think the counterpoint cancelled out the point therefore requiring another point/counterpoint. I have now made my point.

[ME80]

You are correct. The point was indeed made. But, then there was a counterpoint and my post was directed at the counterpoint. I think the counterpoint cancelled out the point therefore requiring another point/counterpoint. I have now made my point.

Jane you ignorant ........... :)

[Lobot]

Jane you ignorant ........... :)

Ok that made my day :D

[GoBearcats31]

Guyn and Smith are guards, both listed as SG by Rivals.com
Shaq Thomas is a SF
Octavious "The Ocho" Ellis is a PF.

Do we go for a PG or a Center? I say center if we can land a legit pg for 2012. Well, even if we don't, I don't feel to comfortable with our post game in two years with just Gaines, Jackson and Ellis.