Marquette Gets Top-5 Recruit

[GumbyDamnit!]

EXCELLENT NEWS! Congrats to Marquette!

Well, yes and no. Both sides of that coin are right it seems. The Big East continues to attract recruits, but so do other conferences. Here's 24/7's Top 50 2015 recruiting classes broken out by conference.

9- Big Ten (#6 Ohio State, #7 Illinois, #10 Michigan State, #21 Nebraska, #24 Penn State, #27 Wisconsin, #28 Minnesota, #38 Rutgers, #50 Iowa)
8- Pac-12 (#1 Arizona, #8 Washington, #13 Oregon State, #17 UCLA, #19 USC, #26 Oregon, #29 Stanford, #35 Arizona State)
8- SEC (#9 Auburn, #11 Florida, #15 Texas A&M, #33 Vanderbilt, #36 Mississippi State, #37 Ole Miss, #43 Alabama, #45 LSU)
7- ACC- (#2 Louisville, #3 Florida State, #5 Syracuse, #12 Duke, #20 Wake Forest, #31 Notre Dame, #41 Boston College)
6- Big 12- (#23 Baylor, #30 West Virginia, #40 Oklahoma, #47 Oklahoma State, #48 Kansas State, #49 Texas)
5- Big East (#4 Marquette, #16 Villanova, #22 Georgetown, #34 Providence, #42 Creighton)
4- American (#14 Memphis, #18 UConn, #32 Temple, #44 Cincinnati)
3- Other mid-majors (#25 San Diego State, #39 UTEP, #46 New Mexico)

Admittedly, this is an imperfect science. The Big East has 5 of its ten teams (50%) in the Top 50, while the ACC has 7 of 15 (47%). The Big 12 has 6, but three are worse than Creighton's #42 class. The moral of the story is, in the debate over whether the Big East is just golden, or a toxic wasteland, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I disagree. Of course other elite conferences are going to bring in their haul. No one has ever stated that the ACC or B1G was going to struggle finding recruits. No one made the argument that the BE was the best BB conference. But many questioned if the nBE could still land great players after the split. In 2014 the BE had 5 of the Top 40 classes per ESPN. Xavier and SHU had monster classes picking up a lot of bodies, so you certainly wouldn't expect to see them in the rankings again this year. So in the last 2 years 70% of the league has had very good recruiting classes. Not bad.

[Noonzy]

The recruiting done by the BE has surpassed my expectations in a huge way. The momentum continues to build and even more highly touted players will come to the BE when the league shows results on the court.

[Bill Marsh]

EXCELLENT NEWS! Congrats to Marquette!

I would like those people...cough....cough...Stever....cough... to admit that the Big East will do just fine with recruiting moving forward. I recall many a debate over the impending doom of potential recruits not coming to the BE any longer. Well 2014 was a great year. 2015 is similar. 2016 taking shape. Cue the next argument that "2017 is the real year we have to look towards to see if we can recruit."

Great get Wojo.

Well, yes and no. Both sides of that coin are right it seems. The Big East continues to attract recruits, but so do other conferences. Here's 24/7's Top 50 2015 recruiting classes broken out by conference.

9- Big Ten (#6 Ohio State, #7 Illinois, #10 Michigan State, #21 Nebraska, #24 Penn State, #27 Wisconsin, #28 Minnesota, #38 Rutgers, #50 Iowa)
8- Pac-12 (#1 Arizona, #8 Washington, #13 Oregon State, #17 UCLA, #19 USC, #26 Oregon, #29 Stanford, #35 Arizona State)
8- SEC (#9 Auburn, #11 Florida, #15 Texas A&M, #33 Vanderbilt, #36 Mississippi State, #37 Ole Miss, #43 Alabama, #45 LSU)
7- ACC- (#2 Louisville, #3 Florida State, #5 Syracuse, #12 Duke, #20 Wake Forest, #31 Notre Dame, #41 Boston College)
6- Big 12- (#23 Baylor, #30 West Virginia, #40 Oklahoma, #47 Oklahoma State, #48 Kansas State, #49 Texas)
5- Big East (#4 Marquette, #16 Villanova, #22 Georgetown, #34 Providence, #42 Creighton)
4- American (#14 Memphis, #18 UConn, #32 Temple, #44 Cincinnati)
3- Other mid-majors (#25 San Diego State, #39 UTEP, #46 New Mexico)

Admittedly, this is an imperfect science. The Big East has 5 of its ten teams (50%) in the Top 50, while the ACC has 7 of 15 (47%). The Big 12 has 6, but three are worse than Creighton's #42 class. The moral of the story is, in the debate over whether the Big East is just golden, or a toxic wasteland, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

If we rank order them by percent of schools on the list, it looks a little different:

67% - PAC-12
65% - Big Ten
60% - Big XII
57% - SEC
50% - Big East
44% - ACC
36% - AAC

As we learned from our former Big East experience, there is very little mobility in these huge mega-conferences. That's the problem that these other conferences face regardless of how well they recruit. Once teams get buried at the bottom, there's little hope for them getting out and it gets harder and harder to recruit.

As we also learned from our early Big East experience, there can be lots of mobility in a reasonably sized conference. Providence and Seton Hall both rose from the bottom to go to the Final Four within the league's first decade. Despite being mediocre at best, UConn emerged to build a national power and win a conference championship and an Elite 8 by 1990.

These other conferences are built for football, not for basketball. If the Big East stays at 10, they are in a much better position for all or almost all of their schools to maintain a high profile and to remain an attractive landing spot for a lot of recruits because they will see the potential for any of these schools to challenge for a top spot in the conference and in the NCAA tournament. Look at the changes that have occurred at Providence and Serin Hall already.

In contrast, I foresee a dismal future for the schools in the bottom half of these mega-conferences. It's already been a nightmare for BC in the ACC. That conference in particular is going to be a killer. With North Carolina, Duke, Louisville, and Syracuse at the top of the conference, who else has a shot? The VA Techs of the world are condemned to obscurity.

[stever20]

I don't know how critcial you can be about schools in the bottom half. I mean looking at the old Big East- look at Cincy. They were bottom half the 1st 5 years they were in the Big East(except for 1st year where they were 8th). They built though and now look at the run they went on.

Also you are looking at a 8 year period only. That's not very long at all. Even with that- 6 teams finished in the bottom half 7/8 years of the BE. Of the 6- 3 made the tourney 1 time(SJ, USF, SH). 5 teams were in the bottom half 7/8 years. PC finished 2x at .500, SJ 2 times 1 game under .500, USF 1 time at .500, and SH 1 time at .500 and 1 time 1 game under .500. Those years weren't awful. I think PC probably would have had an easier time making the tourney in the old big east last year than the new big east.

You say look at PC and Seton Hall for the reason. I say PC was already seeing an uptick in recruiting with Cooley before the Big East split. The split wasn't the reason why PC started recruiting better- Cooley is just a good recruiter.

As far as BC- they've finished top half of the ACC 4/9 years. They've been 2nd half of the ACC only 3 years in a row- with one of those years them at 7-11 so not that far sub .500. It's not like they were in the basement 8/9 years.

Also- that conference has a LOT of change coming. Williams, Coach K, Pitino, and Boeheim all will be gone within 5 years.

[notkirkcameron]

The VA Techs of the world are condemned to obscurity.

Good.


HOKIE (HO-kee) also spelled Hokey
1.) n., A turkey
2.) adj., Corny, obviously lacking in sincerity, noticeably contrived, mawkishly sentimental.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't know how critcial you can be about schools in the bottom half. I mean looking at the old Big East- look at Cincy. They were bottom half the 1st 5 years they were in the Big East(except for 1st year where they were 8th). They built though and now look at the run they went on.

Also you are looking at a 8 year period only. That's not very long at all. Even with that- 6 teams finished in the bottom half 7/8 years of the BE. Of the 6- 3 made the tourney 1 time(SJ, USF, SH). 5 teams were in the bottom half 7/8 years. PC finished 2x at .500, SJ 2 times 1 game under .500, USF 1 time at .500, and SH 1 time at .500 and 1 time 1 game under .500. Those years weren't awful. I think PC probably would have had an easier time making the tourney in the old big east last year than the new big east.

You say look at PC and Seton Hall for the reason. I say PC was already seeing an uptick in recruiting with Cooley before the Big East split. The split wasn't the reason why PC started recruiting better- Cooley is just a good recruiter.

As far as BC- they've finished top half of the ACC 4/9 years. They've been 2nd half of the ACC only 3 years in a row- with one of those years them at 7-11 so not that far sub .500. It's not like they were in the basement 8/9 years.

Also- that conference has a LOT of change coming. Williams, Coach K, Pitino, and Boeheim all will be gone within 5 years.

Steve, what are you talking about? Cincy made it out of the bottom half of the Big East only twice in 8 years. You've proven my point that the bottom half could rise up and have a good season once in a while, nudging their way into the top half once or twice but then it was back down. The trend was consistent that the same teams were almost always in the bottom half even when they were good OOC to start the season and the same teams were at the top battling for the championship.

In fact, Cincy is a perfect example. When they final got the program turned around, they finished tied for 9/10, tied for 6/7, and tied for 4/5. Once they had a good run in the tournament. They were simply never able to repeat as one of the top 3-4 teams dominating at the top and were never able to consistently stay in the top half.

Say what you want about PC and SH turning things around while they were in the league, it never happened. And the point is that if they were to get it done, they'd have to move mountains. Not saying no one could have gotten it done from the bottom half, but if they did the other 7 would still be struggling at the bottom. It was a very long road and the conference had very little mobility. Any read of the standings shows that.

As for BC their good years were when they first joined the ACC. After that, they declined. The longer they stayed, the worse it got. The direction for BC was trending downward. With Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame in the conference, it's only going to get worse for them. The previous incarnation of the ACC at least had some mobility behind NC and Duke so that others could challenge the 2 of them, but now it will be a nightmare for anyone after the top 4-5.

[stever20]

I don't know how critcial you can be about schools in the bottom half. I mean looking at the old Big East- look at Cincy. They were bottom half the 1st 5 years they were in the Big East(except for 1st year where they were 8th). They built though and now look at the run they went on.

Also you are looking at a 8 year period only. That's not very long at all. Even with that- 6 teams finished in the bottom half 7/8 years of the BE. Of the 6- 3 made the tourney 1 time(SJ, USF, SH). 5 teams were in the bottom half 7/8 years. PC finished 2x at .500, SJ 2 times 1 game under .500, USF 1 time at .500, and SH 1 time at .500 and 1 time 1 game under .500. Those years weren't awful. I think PC probably would have had an easier time making the tourney in the old big east last year than the new big east.

You say look at PC and Seton Hall for the reason. I say PC was already seeing an uptick in recruiting with Cooley before the Big East split. The split wasn't the reason why PC started recruiting better- Cooley is just a good recruiter.

As far as BC- they've finished top half of the ACC 4/9 years. They've been 2nd half of the ACC only 3 years in a row- with one of those years them at 7-11 so not that far sub .500. It's not like they were in the basement 8/9 years.

Also- that conference has a LOT of change coming. Williams, Coach K, Pitino, and Boeheim all will be gone within 5 years.

Steve, what are you talking about? Cincy made it out of the bottom half of the Big East only twice in 8 years. You've proven my point that the bottom half could rise up and have a good season once in a while, nudging their way into the top half once or twice but then it was back down. The trend was consistent that the same teams were almost always in the bottom half even when they were good OOC to start the season and the same teams were at the top battling for the championship.

In fact, Cincy is a perfect example. When they final got the program turned around, they finished tied for 9/10, tied for 6/7, and tied for 4/5. Once they had a good run in the tournament. They were simply never able to repeat as one of the top 3-4 teams dominating at the top and were never able to consistently stay in the top half.

Say what you want about PC and SH turning things around while they were in the league, it never happened. And the point is that if they were to get it done, they'd have to move mountains. Not saying no one could have gotten it done from the bottom half, but if they did the other 7 would still be struggling at the bottom. It was a very long road and the conference had very little mobility. Any read of the standings shows that.

As for BC their good years were when they first joined the ACC. After that, they declined. The longer they stayed, the worse it got. The direction for BC was trending downward. With Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame in the conference, it's only going to get worse for them. The previous incarnation of the ACC at least had some mobility behind NC and Duke so that others could challenge the 2 of them, but now it will be a nightmare for anyone after the top 4-5.

Their 1st year they were 8th.

One of the years they were in the bottom half(2013)- they made the tournament so I didn't count that. And I'm sorry but a year like St John's 2013- where they were 8-10- finishing 11th- I'm not going to cry about that....

If you look at the 2013 final standings- everyone but Providence, Rutgers, Seton Hall, and DePaul had made the tourney within the previous 3 years. PC 2013 was within 1-2 games of making the tourney that year. That's not struggling. You didn't have to finish in the top 2-3 to make the tourney.

[Bill Marsh]

I don't know how critcial you can be about schools in the bottom half. I mean looking at the old Big East- look at Cincy. They were bottom half the 1st 5 years they were in the Big East(except for 1st year where they were 8th). They built though and now look at the run they went on.

Also you are looking at a 8 year period only. That's not very long at all. Even with that- 6 teams finished in the bottom half 7/8 years of the BE. Of the 6- 3 made the tourney 1 time(SJ, USF, SH). 5 teams were in the bottom half 7/8 years. PC finished 2x at .500, SJ 2 times 1 game under .500, USF 1 time at .500, and SH 1 time at .500 and 1 time 1 game under .500. Those years weren't awful. I think PC probably would have had an easier time making the tourney in the old big east last year than the new big east.

You say look at PC and Seton Hall for the reason. I say PC was already seeing an uptick in recruiting with Cooley before the Big East split. The split wasn't the reason why PC started recruiting better- Cooley is just a good recruiter.

As far as BC- they've finished top half of the ACC 4/9 years. They've been 2nd half of the ACC only 3 years in a row- with one of those years them at 7-11 so not that far sub .500. It's not like they were in the basement 8/9 years.

Also- that conference has a LOT of change coming. Williams, Coach K, Pitino, and Boeheim all will be gone within 5 years.

Steve, what are you talking about? Cincy made it out of the bottom half of the Big East only twice in 8 years. You've proven my point that the bottom half could rise up and have a good season once in a while, nudging their way into the top half once or twice but then it was back down. The trend was consistent that the same teams were almost always in the bottom half even when they were good OOC to start the season and the same teams were at the top battling for the championship.

In fact, Cincy is a perfect example. When they final got the program turned around, they finished tied for 9/10, tied for 6/7, and tied for 4/5. Once they had a good run in the tournament. They were simply never able to repeat as one of the top 3-4 teams dominating at the top and were never able to consistently stay in the top half.

Say what you want about PC and SH turning things around while they were in the league, it never happened. And the point is that if they were to get it done, they'd have to move mountains. Not saying no one could have gotten it done from the bottom half, but if they did the other 7 would still be struggling at the bottom. It was a very long road and the conference had very little mobility. Any read of the standings shows that.

As for BC their good years were when they first joined the ACC. After that, they declined. The longer they stayed, the worse it got. The direction for BC was trending downward. With Louisville, Syracuse, Pitt, and Notre Dame in the conference, it's only going to get worse for them. The previous incarnation of the ACC at least had some mobility behind NC and Duke so that others could challenge the 2 of them, but now it will be a nightmare for anyone after the top 4-5.

Their 1st year they were 8th.

One of the years they were in the bottom half(2013)- they made the tournament so I didn't count that. And I'm sorry but a year like St John's 2013- where they were 8-10- finishing 11th- I'm not going to cry about that....

If you look at the 2013 final standings- everyone but Providence, Rutgers, Seton Hall, and DePaul had made the tourney within the previous 3 years. PC 2013 was within 1-2 games of making the tourney that year. That's not struggling. You didn't have to finish in the top 2-3 to make the tourney.

Now you've changed the subject to whether they made the tournament when the original point you disagreed with was that teams in the old Big Easy had a very difficult time getting out of the bottom half one they got stuck there. The whole league could make the tournament, but the bottom half is still the bottom half. Mick Cronin did an admirable job rebuildin the program, but they've never gotten back to where they were under Hughins and that was the frustration of competing in that league,

It's simply a fact that there was very little mobility in the old Big East. Not none, but very little. IMO, these conferences are too big and sheer size creates that kind of stratification. I think the new big east is better off at 10 and that we will see more mobility in a more reasonably sized conference as we did once before in a smaller Big East. You're free to disagree.

[Bluejay]

EXCELLENT NEWS! Congrats to Marquette!

I would like those people...cough....cough...Stever....cough... to admit that the Big East will do just fine with recruiting moving forward. I recall many a debate over the impending doom of potential recruits not coming to the BE any longer. Well 2014 was a great year. 2015 is similar. 2016 taking shape. Cue the next argument that "2017 is the real year we have to look towards to see if we can recruit."

Great get Wojo.

Well, yes and no. Both sides of that coin are right it seems. The Big East continues to attract recruits, but so do other conferences. Here's 24/7's Top 50 2015 recruiting classes broken out by conference.

9- Big Ten (#6 Ohio State, #7 Illinois, #10 Michigan State, #21 Nebraska, #24 Penn State, #27 Wisconsin, #28 Minnesota, #38 Rutgers, #50 Iowa)
8- Pac-12 (#1 Arizona, #8 Washington, #13 Oregon State, #17 UCLA, #19 USC, #26 Oregon, #29 Stanford, #35 Arizona State)
8- SEC (#9 Auburn, #11 Florida, #15 Texas A&M, #33 Vanderbilt, #36 Mississippi State, #37 Ole Miss, #43 Alabama, #45 LSU)
7- ACC- (#2 Louisville, #3 Florida State, #5 Syracuse, #12 Duke, #20 Wake Forest, #31 Notre Dame, #41 Boston College)
6- Big 12- (#23 Baylor, #30 West Virginia, #40 Oklahoma, #47 Oklahoma State, #48 Kansas State, #49 Texas)
5- Big East (#4 Marquette, #16 Villanova, #22 Georgetown, #34 Providence, #42 Creighton)
4- American (#14 Memphis, #18 UConn, #32 Temple, #44 Cincinnati)
3- Other mid-majors (#25 San Diego State, #39 UTEP, #46 New Mexico)

Admittedly, this is an imperfect science. The Big East has 5 of its ten teams (50%) in the Top 50, while the ACC has 7 of 15 (47%). The Big 12 has 6, but three are worse than Creighton's #42 class. The moral of the story is, in the debate over whether the Big East is just golden, or a toxic wasteland, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don't think it is a totally legit comparison to compare raw numbers of commits. Of course some of the Football 5 are going to have more conference wide - they have more teams in the conference!

To really do an accurate comparison, we should contrast recruits per capita (i.e., based on number of schools in a conference). Phrased another way, what is the average number of top 50 commits per team.

[robinreed]

The gambit of recruiting the older brother to get the star player is smart and I approve of it. I recall back in the 1970's one Big 10 team had a brother and a cousin playing at the same time (football). Also Notre Dame had several brothers who had played at St. Xavier High School in Cincinnati playing during that time period. Good for Marquette! We should instruct our basketball graduates to wed and have triplets in order to secure our future success. Either that or look forward to the perfection of the cloning process.

This may have more to say about the acumen of the coach than the attractiveness of the school however. In any case it is good for the BE and Marquette, that is all we need to know.