gtmoBlue wrote:geez Tri, you think maybe the coaching staff makes offers to kids who are not a "fit" for CU? Not likely.
I don't recall CU offering any 1 and Done types. The staff always recruits and offers for fit - and should be after the
best recruits available who show reciprocal interest in the Jays.
According to posts above... #30 and #65 are statistically the same kid. Bullsh_t. Many here rooting for recruits in the +120-200 range are the very same hypocrites who will character-assassinate the same kid for 4 years for not meeting that fans' expectation. We should strive to get the highest level recruits we can get. We will not be able to compete in the BE with only top 120 to 200 players.
Whoa, wait just a second.
How do you know ANY of this?
There's no way to know what the threshhold needed to 'compete' will be. In fact I'd argue that if you took our teams from the last 10-12 years and projected them into this conference, we wouldn't have had a single one that would have gone worse than 6-12, and over half of them would have been fourth or better. And that's with almost nothing in the way of bigtime recruiting. So what would happen if we got better examples of the same? There's no way to know until we do it, so I won't even ask you to tell me how you know that one.
Secondly, you want to see someone get character assassinated? Get a top 50 recruit that acts lazily or won't get with the program and he'll get absolutely fried. Which leads me to my next point: top 50 guys open a whole new can of worms. Look at Providence: they went balls to the wall and landed two huge recruits last year. One took a scholarship but couldn't play due to grades, and declared for the NBA this season without ever suiting up. The other was mediocre and still almost went to the pros, only coming back because he had hurt his draft stock somewhat and needed to bounce back. Meanwhile, Providence blew. And as soon as Dunn leaves next year they'll have nothing to show going forward for almost an entire year of recruiting. So 'big names' are no panacea.
Also, I'd love to know how you can be so sure that one guy ranked a few dozen spots above another is better, when often one guy is ranked 70th on one person's list and 125th on another.
And finally I'd like to know how you can be sure where we stand in the minds of ANY of the top 100 recruits, because guess what? It's very possible that our best team we can get is made up of guys from 100-175; after all, finishing second of third with a great player is pretty much the same as not getting a sniff at all, especially if it means there's no fallback plan. Or maybe we should ask Dana how that goes.
So please don't browbeat us for low standards. Unrealistic standards are far more dangerous if you ask me.