recruiting philosophy

[cujaysfan]

i'm wondering (and actually liking very much) if what's going on here is part of a deliberate philosophy - leave one spot available for a HIGH quality transfer.

this current team has really been built that way.

echenique - transfer (redshirt)

gibbs - transfer (redshirt)

(missed) pierre jackson - juco transfer

potential uthoff - (redshirt) transfer

what it does is give us not only guys that are - IIRC - all top 100 HS players - but also gives us immediate experienced HIGH TALENT - guys upon their availability to play. this coupled with our ability to now redshirt other incoming hs recruits really builds an atmosphere of competition and experience. now, the guys that are competing for time, and starting spots are really going to be not only talented basketball players - but also have more experience in most cases. I'm very much a pro-DA guy - but this really is a great improvement over that era in building basketball teams both for the present AND the future.

if this is a deliberate plan - i like it. if we've just sort of lucked into getting to this point - i really hope we consider continuing on this path. we're getting closer and closer on getting top HS talent signing. but now our reputation is again building - and we can be the landing pad for the "right fit" talented transfer kids who see what they can be a part of - instead of settling for plan B or C HS kids - or patchwork juco solutions.

[AttyAlum]

I don't know that it is a deliberate philosophy. I think it is a direct result though of the way McDermott treats kids that initially turn his offer down to go elsewhere. Because of the classy way he handles it (much better than I probably would), kids and their parents remember it if things don't work out at the initial choice.

[hilltopalum]

Only a matter of time until Gesell dons White and Blue

[gtmoBlue]

Agree AA.

Evidently Coach has handled the "ones that got away" well. So they remember him if issues go
"south" at their initial destinations.

I would not want to resort to p/u transfers habitually - as we lose a year of scholie with each,
but on a case-by-case basis, (Echenique, Uthoff), it can be highly beneficial.

[mredle]

GTMO
With all do respect you don't lose anything eligibility wise except where they have already red shirted. We didn't lose any eligibility with Gregory. With grant he may lose a year of playing time or Uthoff will wherever he goes but the question is whether you would favor going after them if they were jucos. You did last year with Pierre Jackson and you did this year with Lockett and he has only one year left.

[gtmoBlue]

GTMO
With all do respect you don't lose anything eligibility wise except where they have already red shirted. We didn't lose any eligibility with Gregory. With grant he may lose a year of playing time or Uthoff will wherever he goes but the question is whether you would favor going after them if they were jucos. You did last year with Pierre Jackson and you did this year with Lockett and he has only one year left.

I never said anything about 'eligibility'. Creighton invests scholie monies - the year these kids 'sit out' is not free. In the case of Gregory...CU paid for his year of riding pine, the same with GG, and any other transfer (provided they are required to sit out a year).
Gregory came at midyear...sat out a year. And had 2.5 years of PT. CU pays 3.5 yrs to get 2.5 yrs of PT
GG came during the off season...sat out a year. Had 2 yrs of PT. CU pays 3 yrs to get 2 yrs of PT
Uthoff...poss offseason acquisition...sits out a year. Has 3 yrs of PT left. CU pays 4 yrs to get 3 yrs of PT
Someone like Lockett, who will be a graduate, is different, as we only pay for the single year. As a graduate Lockett is not required to sit out a year.

I don't have issues with Juco's...as Juco's are not required to 'sit out' for a year. They come in and are allowed to play immediately.

The only transfer (non-juco) that i had questions regarding, was Grant. Primarily due to his history of injury and the fact that he hadn't plyed in over 2 years.
Coach trusted his instincts and his history with Grant and got him. It has been a very good pickup (acquiring Grant Gibbs) for the team. I was concerned that GG
would not be worth the bucks spent, but i was incorrect. He has been worth every cent spent thus far.

My concern is that by paying good scholie monies for a kid to ride pine, while doing a mandatory 'sit out' year... is a crap shoot. That is scholie money which could be used for a new frosh recruit. It seems to me to be an area of diminished returns... Now thus far we have been fortunate, with only the Chadster not providing a high rate of ROI (return on Investment) for our transfer recruiting dollars. We have indeed been fortunate. Hopefully we will not become Transfer U. Hopefully when we take chances such as these, we will continue to receive good ROI on our recruiting and scholie dollars.

[mredle]

So using your rationale we should only recruit juco and players eligible for grad school with a year of eligibility. Most bang for the buck! Wasn't there a team that seemed to do that every year. Oh yeah - ready Doc? Altogether now - There is no place like Nebraska...

[PorkTornado]

The thought of Creighton becoming transfer U is ridiculous. Look at the transfers that Creighton has brought in recently. The Godfather, Grant Gibbs, Gregory Echinique and possibly Uthoff. Three of the four were top 150 guys who just didn't fit where they were and the other has brought us pizza pie piled high on more than one occasion. These are all good kids who didn't get into any trouble but for whatever reason decided the fit wasn't right. They weren't busts, or character issues and all guys we recruited before they transferred. I don't know how much safer we can get than that scenario. They are far safer than a freshman because, with the exception of Uthoff, we've seen them perform at the DI level.

I bet if these guys were coming out of California you'd be singing a different tune Gtmo.

[AttyAlum]

Except in the event of injury, it is pretty hard to give meaningful playing time to 13 guys each year. I think the return is much greater when the person redshirts, giving them a year to adjust to the new system/coaches and perhaps get stronger, rather than waste the year of eligibility by getting only a couple of minutes in blowouts.

If Uthoff comes here (and I really hope that he does), it is Mac himself, not the school, that will be doing the investing. In other words, since signing another player will require Mac to pay for Doug's tuition, I see this as entirely Mac's decision.

Last edited by AttyAlum on Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

[jayball]

Actually Uthoff would be a steal for ROI.

CU isn't paying anything for him while he redshirts and learns the system and develops more physically. Then we would have him for 3 years. Depending on the schollie situation and Greg's willingness to keep footing the bill for Doug, we could end up only "paying" for one year of his time.

in that scenario the ROI potential is pretty high.


In any case the idea of a quality transfer is helping fill the offseason with some banter.

I say we find a way to land both Lockett and Uthoff. Maybe Greg can adopt one of the current scholarship players?