Assistant Coach

[#RollJays]

I think more HC experience would be good for him, but who knows.

For the record, I don’t see it happening. He very well may be the next HC on the hilltop but I don’t think he leaves having a HC job now. 1620 made some comment that I caught in passing on the afternoon n shows along the lines of would you rather being a big south HC or the HC in waiting at CU? Also saw on the boneyard that some poster referenced the possibility as well

I agree that it seems unlikely to happen but it would be absolutely awful trying to recruit as a low major right now.

[cu8493]

I don't know if the recruiting of HS kids to a low major is much more frustrating today than it was ten years ago. Back then, recruits with offers from P6 schools weren't coming to your school anyway. Same as today. I don't think the fact that those top recruits are now getting large NIL deals changes that. In the vast majority of cases, a low major was never in the running for the kids with major conference school offers (except maybe over the lowest of the P6 schools). The kids you are realistically recruiting to a low major are not getting big dollar offers that you have to compete with.

It is retaining your better players, whether a diamond in the rough the high majors overlooked, a late bloomer, or a kid you developed into a high-major level talent with several years of hard work, that has to be absolutely maddening. IMO, you maintain your sanity as a low-major coach only if you accept that your job is now to develop your kids sufficient that they get the chance to move up. Similar to how a measure of a major coach might be how many kids get drafted into the NBA, the low major coach might be measured on how many of his kids land good high major NIL deals in 2 or 3 years. Bring them in, coach them up, watch them move on to bigger schools/NIL deals, be happy for them and go get another batch to do it all over again.

[SDJay]

I don't know if the recruiting of HS kids to a low major is much more frustrating today than it was ten years ago. Back then, recruits with offers from P6 schools weren't coming to your school anyway. Same as today. I don't think the fact that those top recruits are now getting large NIL deals changes that. In the vast majority of cases, a low major was never in the running for the kids with major conference school offers (except maybe over the lowest of the P6 schools). The kids you are realistically recruiting to a low major are not getting big dollar offers that you have to compete with.

It is [u]retaining your better players, whether a diamond in the rough the high majors overlooked, a late bloomer, or a kid you developed into a high-major level talent with several years of hard work, that has to be absolutely maddening.[/u] IMO, you maintain your sanity as a low-major coach only if you accept that your job is now to develop your kids sufficient that they get the chance to move up. Similar to how a measure of a major coach might be how many kids get drafted into the NBA, the low major coach might be measured on how many of his kids land good high major NIL deals in 2 or 3 years. Bring them in, coach them up, watch them move on to bigger schools/NIL deals, be happy for them and go get another batch to do it all over again.

+1
Jays have benefited bigly from this scenario, with Hawk, Baylor etc..

[#RollJays]

I don't know if the recruiting of HS kids to a low major is much more frustrating today than it was ten years ago. Back then, recruits with offers from P6 schools weren't coming to your school anyway. Same as today. I don't think the fact that those top recruits are now getting large NIL deals changes that. In the vast majority of cases, a low major was never in the running for the kids with major conference school offers (except maybe over the lowest of the P6 schools). The kids you are realistically recruiting to a low major are not getting big dollar offers that you have to compete with.

It is retaining your better players, whether a diamond in the rough the high majors overlooked, a late bloomer, or a kid you developed into a high-major level talent with several years of hard work, that has to be absolutely maddening. IMO, you maintain your sanity as a low-major coach only if you accept that your job is now to develop your kids sufficient that they get the chance to move up. Similar to how a measure of a major coach might be how many kids get drafted into the NBA, the low major coach might be measured on how many of his kids land good high major NIL deals in 2 or 3 years. Bring them in, coach them up, watch them move on to bigger schools/NIL deals, be happy for them and go get another batch to do it all over again.

Yes sir. I was referring to your 2nd paragraph. Having your best players poached every year and then having to reload them doesn't create much stability for your program. So happy we aren't in the MVC anymore and can actually retain our players.

[Savannah Jay]

I don't know if the recruiting of HS kids to a low major is much more frustrating today than it was ten years ago. Back then, recruits with offers from P6 schools weren't coming to your school anyway. Same as today. I don't think the fact that those top recruits are now getting large NIL deals changes that. In the vast majority of cases, a low major was never in the running for the kids with major conference school offers (except maybe over the lowest of the P6 schools). The kids you are realistically recruiting to a low major are not getting big dollar offers that you have to compete with.

It is retaining your better players, whether a diamond in the rough the high majors overlooked, a late bloomer, or a kid you developed into a high-major level talent with several years of hard work, that has to be absolutely maddening. IMO, you maintain your sanity as a low-major coach only if you accept that your job is now to develop your kids sufficient that they get the chance to move up. Similar to how a measure of a major coach might be how many kids get drafted into the NBA, the low major coach might be measured on how many of his kids land good high major NIL deals in 2 or 3 years. Bring them in, coach them up, watch them move on to bigger schools/NIL deals, be happy for them and go get another batch to do it all over again.

Yes sir. I was referring to your 2nd paragraph. Having your best players poached every year and then having to reload them doesn't create much stability for your program. So happy we aren't in the MVC anymore and can actually retain our players.

This is a two way street for mid-majors. For every guy that gets poached to a power school, there is a roster spot open for someone at a power school looking for playing time. Mason would be a classic example...he's been developed by very good coaches and practicing against high major players for 4 years. He should do well wherever he lands because of that time at CU. Marlon Stewart was a first team all league player for North Dakota. He was only at CU for a year so that may or may not have been the impetus for success but he found a place he could excel. Shereef has had a couple very nice years at Ohio.

[NYC-bluejay]

I don't know if the recruiting of HS kids to a low major is much more frustrating today than it was ten years ago. Back then, recruits with offers from P6 schools weren't coming to your school anyway. Same as today. I don't think the fact that those top recruits are now getting large NIL deals changes that. In the vast majority of cases, a low major was never in the running for the kids with major conference school offers (except maybe over the lowest of the P6 schools). The kids you are realistically recruiting to a low major are not getting big dollar offers that you have to compete with.

It is retaining your better players, whether a diamond in the rough the high majors overlooked, a late bloomer, or a kid you developed into a high-major level talent with several years of hard work, that has to be absolutely maddening. IMO, you maintain your sanity as a low-major coach only if you accept that your job is now to develop your kids sufficient that they get the chance to move up. Similar to how a measure of a major coach might be how many kids get drafted into the NBA, the low major coach might be measured on how many of his kids land good high major NIL deals in 2 or 3 years. Bring them in, coach them up, watch them move on to bigger schools/NIL deals, be happy for them and go get another batch to do it all over again.

Yes sir. I was referring to your 2nd paragraph. Having your best players poached every year and then having to reload them doesn't create much stability for your program. So happy we aren't in the MVC anymore and can actually retain our players.

This is a two way street for mid-majors. For every guy that gets poached to a power school, there is a roster spot open for someone at a power school looking for playing time. Mason would be a classic example...he's been developed by very good coaches and practicing against high major players for 4 years. He should do well wherever he lands because of that time at CU. Marlon Stewart was a first team all league player for North Dakota. He was only at CU for a year so that may or may not have been the impetus for success but he found a place he could excel. Shereef has had a couple very nice years at Ohio.

Cmon, you can’t possibly believe that mid majors aren’t harmed by this just because they can pick up some benchwarmers from P5 programs. A team of P5 washouts is not gonna be an improvement on a cohesive team of developed players. All you need to do for evidence is look at the tournament: chalk, chalk, chalk. The team of experienced juniors and seniors that have spent 3+ years playing together is not a thing anymore, because all the top players have left.

[brianjay1317]

Cmon, you can’t possibly believe that mid majors aren’t harmed by this just because they can pick up some benchwarmers from P5 programs. A team of P5 washouts is not gonna be an improvement on a cohesive team of developed players. All you need to do for evidence is look at the tournament: chalk, chalk, chalk. The team of experienced juniors and seniors that have spent 3+ years playing together is not a thing anymore, because all the top players have left.

i think that's been the biggest change. mid majors could go on runs because they'd have a team of seniors and maybe they'd go against a high major of young one and dones. now the high majors are getting old and staying old. for example, auburns average age was only a year younger than the okc thunders average age.

[TrueBlueJay]

Cmon, you can’t possibly believe that mid majors aren’t harmed by this just because they can pick up some benchwarmers from P5 programs. A team of P5 washouts is not gonna be an improvement on a cohesive team of developed players. All you need to do for evidence is look at the tournament: chalk, chalk, chalk. The team of experienced juniors and seniors that have spent 3+ years playing together is not a thing anymore, because all the top players have left.

i think that's been the biggest change. mid majors could go on runs because they'd have a team of seniors and maybe they'd go against a high major of young one and dones. now the high majors are getting old and staying old. for example, auburns average age was only a year younger than the okc thunders average age.

But most of their “good” players will be juniors and seniors on other teams.

[JacobPadilla]

Yes sir. I was referring to your 2nd paragraph. Having your best players poached every year and then having to reload them doesn't create much stability for your program. So happy we aren't in the MVC anymore and can actually retain our players.

This is a two way street for mid-majors. For every guy that gets poached to a power school, there is a roster spot open for someone at a power school looking for playing time. Mason would be a classic example...he's been developed by very good coaches and practicing against high major players for 4 years. He should do well wherever he lands because of that time at CU. Marlon Stewart was a first team all league player for North Dakota. He was only at CU for a year so that may or may not have been the impetus for success but he found a place he could excel. Shereef has had a couple very nice years at Ohio.

Cmon, you can’t possibly believe that mid majors aren’t harmed by this just because they can pick up some benchwarmers from P5 programs. A team of P5 washouts is not gonna be an improvement on a cohesive team of developed players. All you need to do for evidence is look at the tournament: chalk, chalk, chalk. The team of experienced juniors and seniors that have spent 3+ years playing together is not a thing anymore, because all the top players have left.

Two years ago, Furman, Princeton, FDU and FAU upset high-majors in the first round, while FAU made a Final Four and SDSU made it to the title game. Last year, Yale, Duquesne, James Madison and Oakland all upset high-majors. Colorado State was a travel call or a few tenths of a second away from making the Sweet 16 this year (with a high-major drop-down in Nique Clifford as its best player).

Going to need a bigger sample size to declare what we've seen this season as the future of the tournament and not just a one-off based on shooting variance (there were a lot of good mid-major shooting teams that just didn't hit 3s in their games this year).Is it harder with the current landscape? Sure. But the reverse flow of talent is very real, and the ability to properly identify and develop talent both from the HS ranks and out of the portal is more valuable than ever before.

[Savannah Jay]

Cmon, you can’t possibly believe that mid majors aren’t harmed by this just because they can pick up some benchwarmers from P5 programs. A team of P5 washouts is not gonna be an improvement on a cohesive team of developed players. All you need to do for evidence is look at the tournament: chalk, chalk, chalk. The team of experienced juniors and seniors that have spent 3+ years playing together is not a thing anymore, because all the top players have left.

Two years ago, Furman, Princeton, FDU and FAU upset high-majors in the first round, while FAU made a Final Four and SDSU made it to the title game. Last year, Yale, Duquesne, James Madison and Oakland all upset high-majors. Colorado State was a travel call or a few tenths of a second away from making the Sweet 16 this year (with a high-major drop-down in Nique Clifford as its best player).

Going to need a bigger sample size to declare what we've seen this season as the future of the tournament and not just a one-off based on shooting variance (there were a lot of good mid-major shooting teams that just didn't hit 3s in their games this year). Is it harder with the current landscape? Sure. But the reverse flow of talent is very real, and the ability to properly identify and develop talent both from the HS ranks and out of the portal is more valuable than ever before.

A "cohesive team of developed players" in this day means the coach is capable of operating in the current state of college basketball. Which high major still playing started the season with a "cohesive" group? Today's transfer climate is a challenge for all coaches, not just mid majors. How well and how quickly you can get your group cohesive, knowing that some may be transfers, some may be freshman, and some may be in their 2nd or 3rd year in the program will determine success. I think we're considered a high major and yet, when the season started, none of us were quite sure what we had because we had so many new pieces.

Duke starts 3 freshman (albeit a generational talent included). They are cohesive now because of coaching. Half of Florida's team came from somewhere else, with little guarantees they'd be this good (ranked 21 preseason, top 4 now). Kansas, with well-publicized transfers from Michigan, Wisky, Alabama, Miss St, and South Dakota State (the only mid major transfer), was preseason #1. Even with a good coach, it just didn't happen for them.

Let's talk when this year's "chalk, chalk, chalk" happens 3 or 4 years in a row. I think a much bigger issue is the "football schools" wanting to take over the NCAAT. 29 of the 68 teams came from 3 conferences. If the "chalk, chalk, chalk" does continue in the future, is it the result of player movement or fewer opportunities for mid-major upsets?