2018 Recruiting Class Could Be The Best Yet

[Xavier4036]

Temple to me hasn't been a Great BB school. They're on that next level. they got to the elite 8 5 times from 88-01, but never could break thru. They're a really good program, and really haven't had much of a decline.

.

You honestly don't think Temple has had much of a decline?

That's not even debatable

[Xavier4036]

It's really not shown itself in the freshmen recruiting. I mean, this year only 5 top 50 recruiting classes. Good, but not great.

.

So the Big East having 4 teams (or 40% of their conference) in the Top 25 "good, but not great", I am curious what you would classify the AAC having ZERO teams as?

[GoldenWarrior11]

[GoldenWarrior11]

Pointing out facts that show the AAC as being not as good as the Big East...

[stever20]

It's really not shown itself in the freshmen recruiting. I mean, this year only 5 top 50 recruiting classes. Good, but not great.

.

So the Big East having 4 teams (or 40% of their conference) in the Top 25 "good, but not great", I am curious what you would classify the AAC having ZERO teams as?

The Big East has exactly 2 teams in this years(2017) recruiting top 25. Xavier at 12 and Providence at 23(using the composite). Using ESPN, it's only 1 as Providence is only 31 there. So not sure where the hell you got 4 top 25 classes, but that's just not reality. Butler I think was 28 before they lost Kyle Young.

[stever20]

UConn really has had 1 bad class. Kind of hard to make broad generalizations about them just off of that.

Temple to me hasn't been a Great BB school. They're on that next level. I mean, they remind me somewhat of Xavier in that they got to the elite 8 5 times from 88-01, but never could break thru. They're a really good program, and really haven't had much of a decline.

AS far as your supposition about guys wanting to be top dogs. I think that's part of why the transfer market has been so strong for the Big East. It's really not shown itself in the freshmen recruiting. I mean, this year only 5 top 50 recruiting classes. Good, but not great.

I think the AAC this season gets a huge boost with Wichita. They took Kentucky to the wire last year. And with how much better the AAC is than the MVC- not to mention that Wichita will see the bad teams only once- they're going to be so much more battle tested going into the tourney- along with the vastly improved SOS.. And the AAC is able to schedule where top teams all get to avoid the bottom teams. Getting 4 or 5 teams in the tourney next year is very possible. they're going to be able to have the final standings where you have 7 or 8 teams finishing with winning records.

Just when I thought you and I were having a reasonable conversation... So yet again, everything is going to magically fall in place for the AAC and you feel that the BE has not done as well recruiting. WTF are you talking about? In the Rivals, Scout and ESPN Top 25 Team Recruiting rankings the BE has 4 teams included. The AAC has ZERO!!!! How about players? In the last 4 recruiting cycles the AAC has brought in 14 Top 100 players for 12 programs (that includes WSU). Or 0.29 recruits per school per year. Good, right? The BE, who has not been able to "show itself in the freshmen recruiting" has brought in 32 for 10 teams or 0.80 per team. So you can say that the BE is 2.75x more effective recruiting those freshmen than the AAC is. Wow. That's not even close.

RE: Temple. From 1984 to 2001 they made the tournament 17 out of 18 years and won 23 tournament games. Show me a team not named UNC or Duke that came close to that over that same period of time. They are also top 10 all-time in wins. The 7 years prior to the AAC they made it 6 times. But since they've gotten to the AAC: once--a quick first round exit. So maybe you need to reconsider what "decline" means.

What else you got?

Has the Big East recruited better than the AAC? Sure. Is it mopping up other conferences? No way. 2 top 25 teams in recruiting- compared to 6 ACC, 1 B12, 1 B10, 7 P12, and 6 SEC. If you go top 50, ACC 9, B12 6, BE 5, B10 8, P12 10, SEC 10. If you go by percentages- ACC 60% top 50, B12 60% top 50, BE 50% top 50, P12 83% top 50, SEC 67% top 50. I absolutely love how folks here want to use the AAC to compare themselves to in recruiting, and not the P5, but in the season, they only want to be compared with the P5. That's all I'm saying.

I don't think you realize how much of a benefit it's going to be not having to have the top teams see 3 bottom teams in the AAC. That's going to help teams like Wichita, Cincy with their SOS so much. That's not everything magically falling into place for the AAC. They were smart in picking up a really strong Wichita program. Who has everyone returning next year. It is making a very proactive move. Something they absolutely needed to do. I mean- ECU, Tulane, and USF don't get to play this year either Wichita or Cincy 2x. ECU doesn't get to see UCF or Temple 2x, Tulane doesn't get to see UCF or UConn 2x, and USF doesn't get to see Temple or UConn 2x. Meanwhile, teams like Memphis, Houston, SMU, and Tulsa all get to play all 3 of the bottom teams 2x, fattening up their records, which will make their records better for when they see those other teams. Folks here don't want to hear that because they think the round robin is all mighty, but that's how bigger conferences can get in a lot easier bigger numbers into the tourney.

As far as your thing from 1984-2001.
Just going really quickly.
Arizona- made it 16 of 18 years. they won 30 tourney games, and a title in that period. oh and made it to 4 final 4's. I'll take Arizona over Temple 18 year run any day.....
Syracuse- made it 16 of 18 years. they won 28 tourney games, and made it to 2 final games. I'll take Syracuse there any day.
Georgetown- made it 14 of 18 years. they won 29 tourney games, and made it to 2 final games(winning 1). Yeah, Georgetown there.
Kentucky- made it 15 of 18 years. they won 44 tourney games, and 2 titles. Oh, and 5 final 4's. Yeah, Kentucky beats them there.

So there's 4 plus the 2 you gave me- for a real easy 6. And here's the problem. If you expand the time frame from 84-01 to 80-07- you would have the exact same numbers for Temple.

[GumbyDamnit!]

The BE on a per team basis probably stacks up well against the other P6 conferences.... How come he never speaks of the A10 even though they outperform the AAC every year.

The last 4 years recruiting cycles ESPN Top 100 players (# of top 100 players per school per year on average):

1. SEC - 1.42
2. ACC - 1.33
3. PAC12 - 1.20
4. B1G10 - 0.98
5. B12 - 0.88
6. BE - 0.80
7. AAC - 0.29
8. A10 - 0.14

The one thing that skews the # is the one-and-done phenomenon. Duke and UK, as examples, attract a lot of the one and done guys. Of the 28 guys they collectively brought to campus in classes 2014-16, 18 of them have already turned pro. So there is this misconception that year after year class rankings is the end all, be all.

The best case I can make for the anti-1&done is the 2016 Nova Wildcats vs the 2016 UK Wildcats. Nova had 4 classes in the 15-25 range one after the other. UK had 4 classes in the top 2. But the Nova guys (Hart, Jenkins, Arch & Ochefu) stayed for 3 and 4 years while the UK guys were mostly Frosh. The effectiveness of recruiting strategy does not factor in length of stay of the athlete. Looking at a 4 year class recruiting rankings and making a determination of overall team strength is a mistake IMO, and it is the key metric that Stever keeps looking at. If the one-and-dones are mostly going to the UK, Duke, Arizona, UCLA, Kansas, TX, LSU, etc. teams, those conferences are going to have inflated recruiting team rankings b/c there is a need to replenish the shelves every year. The BE and every other school not willing to get into a one-&-done arms race with the blue bloods, have found a way to compete against these teams that can pluck 5 start players right off the tree: mature balanced teams that have developed their talent over a # of years. I love what this conference is doing with talent acquisition and development.

[stever20]

The BE on a per team basis probably stacks up well against the other P6 conferences.... How come he never speaks of the A10 even though they outperform the AAC every year.

The last 4 years recruiting cycles ESPN Top 100 players (# of top 100 players per school per year on average):

1. SEC - 1.42
2. ACC - 1.33
3. PAC12 - 1.20
4. B1G10 - 0.98
5. B12 - 0.88
6. BE - 0.80
7. AAC - 0.29
8. A10 - 0.14

The one thing that skews the # is the one-and-done phenomenon. Duke and UK, as examples, attract a lot of the one and done guys. Of the 28 guys they collectively brought to campus in classes 2014-16, 18 of them have already turned pro. So there is this misconception that year after year class rankings is the end all, be all.

The best case I can make for the anti-1&done is the 2016 Nova Wildcats vs the 2016 UK Wildcats. Nova had 4 classes in the 15-25 range one after the other. UK had 4 classes in the top 2. But the Nova guys (Hart, Jenkins, Arch & Ochefu) stayed for 3 and 4 years while the UK guys were mostly Frosh. The effectiveness of recruiting strategy does not factor in length of stay of the athlete. Looking at a 4 year class recruiting rankings and making a determination of overall team strength is a mistake IMO, and it is the key metric that Stever keeps looking at. If the one-and-dones are mostly going to the UK, Duke, Arizona, UCLA, Kansas, TX, LSU, etc. teams, those conferences are going to have inflated recruiting team rankings b/c there is a need to replenish the shelves every year. The BE and every other school not willing to get into a one-&-done arms race with the blue bloods, have found a way to compete against these teams that can pluck 5 start players right off the tree: mature balanced teams that have developed their talent over a # of years. I love what this conference is doing with talent acquisition and development.

6 of 12 guys that were brought into the Big East in 2014 have already left the school. 1 of 5 guys in 15 already gone. And I believe 0 of 8 for '16. So in 3 years of the 25 guys the entire Big East brought in 7 left already.

The thing that will be really interesting is if the NBA does change to a 2 and done rule. That would be a real game changer IMO.

Also, I love how EMT said that the A10 outperforms the AAC every year when in 3 of the 4 years the AAC has been around, the AAC has had the better year. Only 2015 did the A10 beat the AAC. And now, the A10 has it's 2 top programs- Dayton and VCU- going thru some rebuilding.

[FriarJ]

I'm not sure what we are arguing about here. It's obvious to everyone that the AAC is solidly positioned to be a Top 3 Mid major conference fighting it out with the A10 and the Mountain West.

[stever20]

I'm not sure what we are arguing about here. It's obvious to everyone that the AAC is solidly positioned to be a Top 3 Mid major conference fighting it out with the A10 and the Mountain West.

Fighting it out with the A10 and the MWC?

first off, the MWC is completely and totally out of the running. last 4 years- their KP rating was 10,10,9,9. They've had 7 tourney bids in the last 4 years, including only 1 in the last 2 years. 1 of their 7 bids was a bid thief.

Then by a lot of metrics, the AAC even minus Wichita has been stronger than the A10. Their KP rating in the 4 years was 7,9,7,7. They've had 12 bids in the 4 years, and that doesn't include Wichita going 4/4 in that period.

Folks here want to act like the A10 is so incredible, but it's not. The impact of losing Temple, Butler and Xavier has been really felt.
Look at the actual KP rating last 4 years-
2014- 9.29
2015- 5.61
2016- 5.48
2017- 3.95

You say- same thing could be said about the AAC. Nope
2014- 9.97
2015- 3.42
2016- 8.16
2017- 5.90

With Wichita, they are the unquestioned #7 conference, and in some years, they will beat some P6 conferences. in some years, only those 7 conferences will get multiple teams in the tourney.

All that I was saying here initially is folks here want to talk about the AAC in recruiting, but don't want to use them in any in season comparisons in the winter. How many posts on this thread has Jet said without me posting before that the AAC has zero recruits? So folks want to use the AAC in recruiting comparisons, but in season? Hell no.