Where we were and where we are now, some thoughts

[Chicagojayfan]

One thing that I think really indicates where we were and where we are now is the number of top 100 guys we get (Personally I don't see a huge amount of difference between a 25+ guy to the ones in the 50 - 100 range. The top 25 are pretty clear cut most years and include many sure fire NBA guys, after that, it's less clear cut, but a top 100 to top 150 range indicates that we're getting the kind of athletes we need to compete in the BE

When we joined the BE we had ZERO top 100 recruits (Doug in hindsight should have been, but wasn't). For reference Echinique was listed at 94 by someone, but he'd graduated by the time we started the BE

Harrell was 75th and joined us in 15/16. Didn't work out, but you can see the projection there
16/17 added Patton along with Harrell
17/18 Had Harrell, Joseph as a transfer, Epperson, Alexander, and Ballock
18/19 had Joseph, Epperson, Alexander and Ballock (and Marcus depending on which rating we look at)

another way to look at it is the top 150. I like that because it stretches the grouping a bit, but you also see more variability.

Classes from 247rankings (but I have to add in Rivals to get some of the signings):

2019: Jones was 106 as a Frosh recruit, Mitchell was 206 (but our success with Omaha kids speaks for itself. Thomas was 326 on 247sports!), Windham was a late riser who is listed at 284, but likely not re-evaluated due to his early commit elsewhere)

2018: Marcus 110, Froling 142, Bishop 162 (really a pretty nice class. Froling's gone, but he had the raw talent to compete and Bishop and Marcus may have been too low, IMO)

2017: Epperson 77, Ballock 94, Alexander 113 (other list Alexander as top 100)

2016: Mintz 410 - Lowest ranked guy in recent memory, but has turned into solid contributor: Paras 137 and previously committed to UCLA -- goes to show that recruiting is an art and not a science!

2015: Patton 85, Stewart 292, Thomas 326, Martin (not even listed on 247) Obviously Thomas wasn't correctly evaluated. Stewart was. One miss and 2 NBA guys in this class +Martin

2014: Harrell 84, Gilmore 136 (Wow, two good athletes, but both guys were both evaluated way too high),

2013: Hegner 385 with some good offers, Hanson 524, Harris 580, Milliken 93, Brooks 94 (were Milliken and Brook just in JUCO rankings?) In retrospect a good valley recruiting class with 2 JUCO's tossed in for the move to the BE

2012: Zierden 269, Yates 294 (barely remember Yates). Zierden was a solid guy

2011: Dingman 170, Nevin Johnson, Chatman, Groselle (very good MVC class)

2010: Doug McDermott 155 (nice!), Manigat, Artino (good MVC class, Doug made it a great class)

Didn't list our transfers, but obvious MO was the big one, but Huff was good, Jefferson showed promise prior to the ankle injury as well. We've done good work there. For HS recruits, we still have to depend more on player evaluation than some of the big programs we go up against.

Personally, I like the trend... I think we've come a long way since our first days in the BE and it shows in the type of national rankings most of our kids have these days. We now have numbers in the top 100 and top 150 that look like BE programs in general and are better than some of our peers.

[REALITY]

Shouldn't we have expected this to happen naturally by moving up from the MVC to the BE? Being in the BE opens door to kids we'd never had been able to get interested in us before. We traded playing Bradley, Illinois State, and Evansville in conference for Georgetown, Marquette, and Villanova. We traded the occasional ESPNU game and the few channel 3 games for having almost every game on national tv. We traded St. Louis and Scottrade Center for New York and MSG.

It's obvious that the advantage of the BE over the MVC is substantial. Whereas we used to have competed for 2/3 star (150+ ranked) players with offers from our MVC peers or schools from conferences like C-USA and MWC, plus interest but no offer from P5 schools, we now should expect to get those types of kids upon an offer without much deliberation from them. (Of course, now we aren't really on that type of player - we're competing for top 150 players with offers from other P5 schools. Again, this is a product of the move up)

I guess what I'm getting at is, while the trend is certainly positive, it's not particularly exceptional. It's about what one could have theorized should have happened. A high major team in a high major conference should be expected recruit like one, especially after 5 years in the new conference.
So I'm not sure that this deserves significant praise.

I wanted to quantify this a bit more so I looked for and found a non-paywalled metric. This "talent" rating is calculated by weighing recruiting rankings for minutes played. It's not going to be perfect, as we know from Doug, Khyri, etc. kids can outplay their rank. But it's something.
Here's just us: http://barttorvik.com/program-maps.php?tvalue=Creighton&year=2020&sort=&top=0&quad=4&venue=All&type=All&xax=99&yax=33
The jump in the last 4 seasons is pretty significant, as we should have expected. 2016-17 was 3 BE recruiting cycles in so nearly the entire team recruited for the MVC was replaced over that time by BE recruits. Since then we've gotten guys you've noted like Epperson, Alexander, and Ballock who were well regarded.

But how are we doing in comparison to the BE and other high majors? I set talent for both X and Y axis on the following charts to find out.

Here's 2013-2014 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2014&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20131101&end=20140501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2013-14 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2014&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20131101&end=20140501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
This was Doug's senior year team. Incredible year despite being ranked last in BE in talent and 3rd from last of high major programs.

2014-15 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2015&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20141101&end=20150501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2014-15 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2015&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20141101&end=20150501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
This was the rough transition year. Ranked last in BE in talent. 4th from last of high major programs. But the American added really bad Tulsa and Tulane teams that season from C-USA. Also, notice which team was near us that has emerged as a national contender in the last 2 years.

2015-16 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2016&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20151101&end=20160501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2015-16 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2016&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20151101&end=20160501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
First Mo team. Finished 9-9 and went to the NIT. Ranked last in BE in talent, but much closer to DePaul. 5th from the bottom of high major programs.

2016-17 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2017&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20161101&end=20170501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2016-17 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2017&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20161101&end=20170501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
What could have been. We passed DePaul for 9th in BE in talent and nearly got by Butler, too. I'd guess we were in the 25-30th percentile of high major teams, so better but in the bottom half.

2017-18 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2018&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20171101&end=20180501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2017-18 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?year=2018&top=0&conlimit=Himajor&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
What could have been, II. We were still 9th in the BE, again ahead of DePaul and behind Butler. Probably in the 30th-40th percentile of high major teams.

2018-19 just BE: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2019&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20181101&end=20190501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
2018-19 High Majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?year=2019&top=0&conlimit=Himajor&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
This last year. We pushed up to 7th in the BE now ahead of DePaul, Butler, and Seton Hall. Again in the 30th-40th percentile of high major teams.

For reference next season we're pegged at 7th in the in talent BE ahead of DePaul, Butler, and now St. John's. http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?show=1&tvalue=All&year=2020&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=BE&begin=20191101&end=20200501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
Here's us isolated: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?tvalue=Creighton&year=2020&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20191101&end=20200501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
Here's all high majors: http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?tvalue=All&year=2020&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=Himajor&begin=20191101&end=20200501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
We're in the 40-50th percentile in talent, here.

TL;DR we're indeed now recruiting like an average high major team. As one would expect 6 years into being in a new conference. To you're point, chicago, We definitely look more like a BE program in terms of talent (top 100, top 150), but we're still in the bottom half of the conference. Can we move up further? I don't know.

To finish, since I can I decided to pull data on Sweet 16 teams and compare them to us, talent-wise, going back to 16-17 when we really noticed our improvement in recruiting.

In 2016-17 we were ahead of 2 Sweet 16 teams (Baylor and WVU). http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?year=2017&top=0&conlimit=S16&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
In 2017-18 we were ahead of 4 teams (Loyola, Texas Tech, WVU, and, ugh, K State). http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?year=2018&top=0&conlimit=S16&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33
In 2018-19 we were ahead of 3 teams (Houston, Texas Tech, and Gonzaga). http://barttorvik.com/team-maps.php?tvalue=All&year=2019&sort=&t2value=None&conlimit=S16&begin=20181101&end=20190501&top=0&quad=4&mingames=0&toprk=0&venue=All&type=All&xax=33&yax=33

What does this mean? We're in the neighborhood in terms of talent on teams in the Sweet 16. We already knew that, however, since we've been competitive against several of those teams, plus Villanova, in the last few years. Why haven't we gotten there? We've had plenty of discussions on this that aren't relevant nor worth rehashing, but it's clear that having more talent (read better recruiting) would give us a greater chance. An absolute 'duh' point, but verified by data.

[Chicagojayfan]

Without digging into each individual year and the different teams, I would suggest that one factor here is that recruiting rankings in basketball are biased toward the coasts, and the east coast in particular. So that many of our counterparts are recruiting top 100 guys from around their home cities and not really getting guys with that much greater talent (if any) than what we are getting. Two teams with different circumstances than most BE teams woudl be Oklahoma and Gonzaga.

Gonzaga has their own recruiting approach, one that would look from the rankings to be a mid tier BE team. Oklahoma would look to be a bottom team in the BE, yet they have a history of success under Kruger and have done well in the tourney as well. This is with some of their best teams having either none or one top 100 player.

I like that we are playing in the same pool as some of the BE teams and while we can think of the top 100 rankings as a bit of a proxy for the kind of talent/athleticism we need, it isn't a perfect correlation.. and beyond that we can't rely on pulling kids from the backyards or our BE competition either. instead we need to develop a mix of midwest kids (in particular Kansas, Mizzou, for instance), national kids, and foreign kids. Our success with Omaha kids has been really phenomenal. Obviously Patton ended up highly ranked, but a 300+ ranked kid like Thomas is in the NBA in large part because we scouted him, sent him for a year of development and then developed him in our system.

[mredle]

I would suggest that contrary to REALITY's hypotheses re a Big East effect, Creighton has only signed one player because it plays in the BE (as opposed to a P6 conference team). That player is MZ of course. He is the only player from a traditional BE location, MZ. Our recruits tend to come from locations Creighton has always recruited from. The difference is we get more P6 talent. But the coaching staff has also found talent from foreign countries, transfers and the cream of the local crop. Our staff does an exceptional job evaluating talent. But the reality is that for every Justin Patton or Khyri Thomas you are bound to sign a couple that don't meet expectations.

[bluejayb13]

Creighton's move to the Big East has absolutely led to them getting higher ranked recruits. Even though MZ is the only one from NE, Creighton would not have been in the running for Jacob, Mitch, Tyshon, MZ, or Bishop had they not been in the conference. As far as foreign talent, the staff has only found one unknown guy (Martin), Froling has left and Epperson was a top 100 recruit playing in Indiana for over a year before he committed to Creighton. This idea that the staff has gone and found unknown foreigners is just the case of Martin, and no one else that has panned out. Personally, I am not going to run on the assumption that because Doug and Khyri did that Mitchell and Windham are going to blossom into NBA talent. It should be obvious but if we want to compete at a high level we have to recruit continuously at a high level. I would like to see us consistently getting classes like the 2017 and 2018 classes and it will be interesting to see what results this staff can yield from them in the next two seasons.

[gtmoBlue]

Creighton's move to the Big East has absolutely led to them getting higher ranked recruits. Even though MZ is the only one from NE, Creighton would not have been in the running for Jacob, Mitch, Tyshon, MZ, or Bishop had they not been in the conference. As far as foreign talent, the staff has only found one unknown guy (Martin), Froling has left and Epperson was a top 100 recruit playing in Indiana for over a year before he committed to Creighton. This idea that the staff has gone and found unknown foreigners is just the case of Martin, and no one else that has panned out. Personally, I am not going to run on the assumption that because Doug and Khyri did that Mitchell and Windham are going to blossom into NBA talent. It should be obvious but if we want to compete at a high level we have to recruit continuously at a high level. I would like to see us consistently getting classes like the 2017 and 2018 classes and it will be interesting to see what results this staff can yield from them in the next two seasons.

good post. Agree that the move has paid off and overall, our recruiting is better. The 2017/2018 classes have us where we need to be (arguably 4 4-star recruits and good support cast). 2019 is a disappointment from the HS recruiting standpoint, although the late pickups in decommit Windham and transfer Jones ease the pain. Agree we need to be consistent in "recruiting at a high level", meaning we cannot afford to have multiple seasons like 2019, where we miss on all of our high level targets. There is room for optimism in looking ahead to the next 2 classes.

[Django]

Awesome thread Chitown, I’d add that we also poached Ballock and Bishop from KU turf, neither would have signed to a MidMajor

[gtmoBlue]

Question? Does the new penalty - Decommits sit out a year - apply to Windham?

[gtmoBlue]

Torvik thinks CU is at the pinnacle of its' talent (shows 11 years)

http://barttorvik.com/program-maps.php? ... x=99&yax=3

[Helmzy]

Torvik thinks CU is at the pinnacle of its' talent (shows 11 years)

http://barttorvik.com/program-maps.php? ... x=99&yax=3

Sweet just a little above our NIT 2015-2016 team