GTMO -
Wouldn't a plausible explanation be that as the staff acclimates to recruiting more "big time" players that their certainty of success or their acceptance rate would be much lower than we've seen in the past?
By targeting a number of these higher level players at positions of need, we might be happy with first come first served unless we have a strong indication that #1 on our list is a strong possibility.
We certainly don't expect everyone we offer to accept, but I certainly would be awfully happy with almost anyone on that "offered" list.
Go Blue
Available roster spots
Re: Available roster spots
by Ethanfor3 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 4:24 pm
- Ethanfor3
- Posts: 439
- Joined: Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:45 pm
Re: Available roster spots
by Jet915 » Tue Jun 11, 2013 5:10 pm
gtmoBlue wrote:All is not kosher on the Hilltop...
We have approx 25-27 offers on the table for 2 to 3 spots on the roster. If our friend Joe Coleman (after his visit yesterday) decides to come aboard, there are 2 available spots. I will be happy to see HillTopAlum's (HTA) new breakdown when it comes out (today or tomorrow), to narrow down the prospective candidates for the available openings. I also agree with HTA's prior opinion that the coaches are looking to bring in 3-5 new recruits for 2014.
Coleman and 2 Frosh = no problems.
3 Frosh = no problems.
more than 3 recruits = problems.
2014 - We are looking at 6 Bigs (3 offers) and 5 SFs (5 offers) and wildcard (Keion Alexander - 2014 or 2015?)
2015 - 6 Bigs (4 offers) and 1 SF (offered) and the wildcard.
What gives? The coaches and players have had their annual chats. There had to have been some concerns voiced regarding longevity and continuing to be on the team. Were the players told what "they wanted to hear"? Were they given a realtime assessment of their status? Are the Jays only bringing aboard 3 recruits for 2014? WTHeck is going on up there?
Does Coleman take guards off the table? Still go for a PG?
If Coleman says no...does an SG take precedence over a PG?
We're going hard for a SF - seems the top priority?
Turner/Dastrup/Chukwu/Miller/Omara? We have 3 centers already.
Inquiring fans want to know...
Why the panic GTMO? Seems obvious the staff is looking for a PG, SG and forward (assuming 3 open scholies). The centers are high level top 50 centers, types of players that you take even if it's not a need....
- Jet915
- Posts: 7442
- Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2011 4:11 pm
Re: Available roster spots
by TrueBlueJay » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:34 pm
I have a favor to ask everyone. Please do not use the quote feature when responding to gtmo....I do great not seeing any of his posts, but when you quote him I am drawn into reading his ramblings. Thank you in advance.
-
TrueBlueJay - Posts: 2810
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 4:26 am
- Location: Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood
Re: Available roster spots
by gtmoBlue » Tue Jun 11, 2013 6:38 pm
Ethanfor3
Wouldn't a plausible explanation be that as the staff acclimates to recruiting more "big time" players that their certainty of success or their acceptance rate would be much lower than we've seen in the past?
We have targeted "bigtime" recruits most years, albeit a few less than this year, our acceptance rate can't get much lower than it already is historically.
By targeting a number of these higher level players at positions of need, we might be happy with first come first served unless we have a strong indication that #1 on our list is a strong possibility.
Agreed. Except that the lower level recruits are the most apt to be the "1st come, 1st served" recruits. Upper tier recruits have the luxury of baiting and waiting schools, with several universities on the edge of their seats. We do want to get commits from the best recruits available, who have interest in CU.
We certainly don't expect everyone we offer to accept, but I certainly would be awfully happy with almost anyone on that "offered" list.
The process is designed to offer kids we reasonably think we can get. Happiness is a relative notion that I equate with the recruits in the Top 100
It's not panic, but concern that we not have seen the end of current players leaving the program. If we get commits/sign 4 (or more) a current player (or players) will be asked to leave. That has not been our modus operandi previously. I certainly hope that as a program, we do not aspire to using such tactics.
That is all.
Wouldn't a plausible explanation be that as the staff acclimates to recruiting more "big time" players that their certainty of success or their acceptance rate would be much lower than we've seen in the past?
We have targeted "bigtime" recruits most years, albeit a few less than this year, our acceptance rate can't get much lower than it already is historically.
By targeting a number of these higher level players at positions of need, we might be happy with first come first served unless we have a strong indication that #1 on our list is a strong possibility.
Agreed. Except that the lower level recruits are the most apt to be the "1st come, 1st served" recruits. Upper tier recruits have the luxury of baiting and waiting schools, with several universities on the edge of their seats. We do want to get commits from the best recruits available, who have interest in CU.
We certainly don't expect everyone we offer to accept, but I certainly would be awfully happy with almost anyone on that "offered" list.
The process is designed to offer kids we reasonably think we can get. Happiness is a relative notion that I equate with the recruits in the Top 100
It's not panic, but concern that we not have seen the end of current players leaving the program. If we get commits/sign 4 (or more) a current player (or players) will be asked to leave. That has not been our modus operandi previously. I certainly hope that as a program, we do not aspire to using such tactics.
That is all.
"This is our time. This is our great opportunity... Standing strong - for a great, great future." - Fr Timothy Lannon, SJ
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Nicholas Klein (1918)
“First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.” - Nicholas Klein (1918)
-
gtmoBlue - Posts: 4322
- Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2011 11:43 am
- Location: Canal Zone, Panama
Re: Available roster spots
by mredle » Tue Jun 11, 2013 8:04 pm
GTMO my friend
You have outlined your recruiting strategy. In order to assess its merit properly I have one question for purposes of validation. I assume that back in the day you used a similar strategy where women were concerned. While you were at Creighton did you ever have a date?
You have outlined your recruiting strategy. In order to assess its merit properly I have one question for purposes of validation. I assume that back in the day you used a similar strategy where women were concerned. While you were at Creighton did you ever have a date?
- mredle
- Posts: 1625
- Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2012 4:06 pm
35 posts
• Page 4 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests