Recent GU recruiting & the RSCI…

[prhoya]

Here's a good tool if you follow recruiting or not:
www.rscihoops.com/ (it's self-explanatory)

It also has recruiting tables by year. Here's the one for 2010:
www.basketball-reference.com/awards/recruit_rankings_2010.html

According to RSCI, our current roster went like this:
Guards:
D. Smith-Rivera - #37 (2012)
Jabril Trawick - #125 (2011)
Markel Starks - #90 (2010)
Aaron Bowen - #141 (2010)

Forwards:
Reggie Cameron - #86 (2013)
Stephen Domingo - #105 (2012)
Mikael Hopkins - #91 (2011)
Nate Lubick - #44 (2010)
John Caprio - NR

Centers:
Bradley Hayes – NR in 2012
Moses Ayegba - #105 (2010)
Josh Smith - #20 (2010)

Others injured/departed who would have been on this year's roster:
Otto Porter - #34 (2011)
Greg Whittington - #138 (2011)
Brandon Bolden –NR in 2012 (or I couldn’t find him)
Tyler Adams - #90 (2011)

Obviously, the biggest misses are the top center prospects. For the last two seasons, BigManU has had to fill in with Hayes, Moses and Josh (plus PFs Hopkins and Lubick). Whatever recruiting strategy the staff had been using in regards to true centers needs to change. With the change in staff, it’s encouraging to see, or at least it seems, that the net has been cast far and wide. The lesson should have been learned: the staff cannot focus on just one or two of the top bigs. But, yet again, the staff at BigManU has whiffed on bigs for 2014 and finds itself needing to scramble.

Bradley committed on May 9, 2012. A news article on that same date mentions GU missing out on Nerlens Noel and then grabbing Hayes. The kid grew 9 inches from freshman to junior year and was sidelined while his body was adjusting. Then, in his senior season, he averaged around 13 pts and 12 rbs. Expect next year’s roster to not be set until May.

I’m a big Reggie fan, but is #86 the best we could do in a one-man class in 2013? BTW, Nik Stauskas was #80 in 2012. Maybe next year Reggie breaks out!

The biggest mysteries? 1. HAL’s rankings vs. their lack of development/regression; 2. Domingo never figuring out how to shoot in college; and 3. Brandon Bolden, period. Was it due to the coaching staff, the players or both? I’ll say a little bit of both, but we need more info to answer properly (for example, what if anything was discussed between the coaching and Domingo to correct his shooting form).

The final RSCI for 2014 is not out.

[SFHoya99]

Any RSCI over 100 from basketball reference is pretty sketchy. The person running the RSCI numbers doesn't release players over 100 for a reason -- because different sources have different depth of rankings. That makes mostly everything over 100 reliant on a small number of rankings -- and that's exactly what the RSCI is trying to avoid.

www.rscihoops.com is the original site. Harder to use, but it doesn't have this glitch.

[SFHoya99]

Actually, quickly checking, you really shouldn't use Basketball-reference at all. For example in the 2010 you linked, basketball reference used only 5 sources. In the real RSCI, the RSCI used 6 different sources. The lists even under 100 aren't the same.

So small differences under 100. Over 100, though, it's pretty much way over-reliant on Rivals, which is the only one doing a 150.

[MCIGuy]

Apr 16, 2014 19:03:44 GMT -5 prhoya said:

Obviously, the biggest misses are the top center prospects. For the last two seasons, BigManU has had to fill in with Hayes, Moses and Josh (plus PFs Hopkins and Lubick). Whatever recruiting strategy the staff had been using in regards to true centers needs to change. With the change in staff, it’s encouraging to see, or at least it seems, that the net has been cast far and wide. The lesson should have been learned: the staff cannot focus on just one or two of the top bigs. But, yet again, the staff at BigManU has whiffed on bigs for 2014 and finds itself needing to scramble.

The staff never did this despite how many times folks on this board would love to spread that revisionist bit of history. Sure I guess in some years their nets were not spread as wide as they could have been, but to suggest the staff only targeted a couple of guys and left it at that is absurd. What some don't seem to accept is that the Hoyas had a couple of relatively "bad" years in recruiting in which they whiffed on the vast majority of their primary targets. Period. End of story. Let it go already.

[michaelgrahmstylie]

Speaks volumes for our recruits coming in. If only we can get three years out of them.

[vv83]

If we get three years out of Copeland, it means he has not developed as well as he should. His size/skill combination, from an NBA positional perspective, creates an expectation of spending only 2 (and maybe only 1) year in college. If copeland has a good (not even necessarily very good or great) season next year, there is a reasonable chance he'll be our first "one and done" player.

Peak is a lot harder to predict. If his skill level develops quickly (particularly his handle and outside shot), he could possibly be a 2 year player as well. He has the size/athleticism combo to play the 2 in the NBA if he shoots pretty well and if he handles the ball well enough to play guard in the NBA

White is really tricky - super high skill level, good size to play the 3 in the NBA. But not an explosive athlete, so he might not be as immediately attractive as an NBA prospect. But there is a good chance that he could be the best college player of the group during their first year or two. Tough to guess how the NBA will view White as a prospect.

Good problems to have - but I don't think we should be expecting to keep Copeland for more than 2 years, and we should be prepared for the possibility that he will be "one and done" if he has a good freshman season.

[MCIGuy]

I agree with everything from the previous post except for the fact that I think it there is an even smaller possibility of of Copeland being a one-and-done than w83 believes. Copeland is so off the radar right now of NBA scouts he will have to make a huge impression for them to notice and that usually requires a lot of scoring. But with DSR, a likely Josh Smith and perhaps even an improving Trawick, Copeland may not be anything more than the 4th leading scorer of the team. And that is if he starts which is not set in stone no matter how talented he is. Copelad may be the most talented of anyone on the team, he may have the most upside. But it could take him two years to get that killer instince of demaning the ball and putting up big points. I suppose it is not out of the question he does this in season one, however I do feel it is very remote.



Btw if Domingo RSCI raking after his junior season was above 100 then maybe what we saw is actually what we were supposed to get.

[DFW HOYA]

Apr 17, 2014 9:52:13 GMT -5 vv83 said:

If we get three years out of Copeland, it means he has not developed as well as he should. His size/skill combination, from an NBA positional perspective, creates an expectation of spending only 2 (and maybe only 1) year in college. If copeland has a good (not even necessarily very good or great) season next year, there is a reasonable chance he'll be our first "one and done" player...Good problems to have - but I don't think we should be expecting to keep Copeland for more than 2 years, and we should be prepared for the possibility that he will be "one and done" if he has a good freshman season.

Georgetown should not be seeking one-and-dones, and while that may not be popular in some fan circles, know that Georgetown, the institution, does not want to be in the one-and-done business and can impose its will should it choose to do so.

It's always a balancing act for the staff to recruit on talent versus academic commitment, but an offer of admission from Georgetown does not come unfettered and if prospects don't get this, or don't care, they shouldn't be offered in the first place.

[TBird41]

Apr 17, 2014 10:10:14 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

I agree with everything from the previous post except for the fact that I think it there is an even smaller possibility of of Copeland being a one-and-done than w83 believes. Copeland is so off the radar right now of NBA scouts he will have to make a huge impression for them to notice and that usually requires a lot of scoring. But with DSR, a likely Josh Smith and perhaps even an improving Trawick, Copeland may not be anything more than the 4th leading scorer of the team. And that is if he starts which is not set in stone no matter how talented he is. Copelad may be the most talented of anyone on the team, he may have the most upside. But it could take him two years to get that killer instince of demaning the ball and putting up big points. I suppose it is not out of the question he does this in season one, however I do feel it is very remote.



Btw if Domingo RSCI raking after his junior season was above 100 then maybe what we saw is actually what we were supposed to get.

The other way for him to get noticed, of course, is to play really well during a Final Four (or deeper) NCAA run.

[Deleted]

I think there is less than a 2% chance Ike is a one and done. He’s a smart kid, his family unit is well grounded, I don’t see him leaving until he is absolutely ready.

[deacon]

Apr 17, 2014 10:10:14 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

I agree with everything from the previous post except for the fact that I think it there is an even smaller possibility of of Copeland being a one-and-done than w83 believes. Copeland is so off the radar right now of NBA scouts he will have to make a huge impression for them to notice and that usually requires a lot of scoring. But with DSR, a likely Josh Smith and perhaps even an improving Trawick, Copeland may not be anything more than the 4th leading scorer of the team. And that is if he starts which is not set in stone no matter how talented he is. Copelad may be the most talented of anyone on the team, he may have the most upside. But it could take him two years to get that killer instince of demaning the ball and putting up big points. I suppose it is not out of the question he does this in season one, however I do feel it is very remote.



Btw if Domingo RSCI raking after his junior season was above 100 then maybe what we saw is actually what we were supposed to get.

Copeland is on NBA radars, trust. Also, if he simply flashes NBA level athleticism along with solid ball handling and shooting skills, he could be one and done easy. For an example in this year's draft, look at a kid like Zach Lavine. Top-50 player coming in, no real hype, but he simply flashed elite athleticism and despite just putting up 9 ppg, he'll be taken in the first round.

I don't think Isaac is there yet skill wise, but whether or not he's ready to contribute immediately at the NBA level doesn't have anything to do with whether a team(s) will be intrigued enough to take him in the first round if he simply shows flashes of what he's capable of skill wise with his elite athletic ability.

[michaelgrahmstylie]

Apr 17, 2014 9:52:13 GMT -5 vv83 said:

If we get three years out of Copeland, it means he has not developed as well as he should. His size/skill combination, from an NBA positional perspective, creates an expectation of spending only 2 (and maybe only 1) year in college. If copeland has a good (not even necessarily very good or great) season next year, there is a reasonable chance he'll be our first "one and done" player.

Peak is a lot harder to predict. If his skill level develops quickly (particularly his handle and outside shot), he could possibly be a 2 year player as well. He has the size/athleticism combo to play the 2 in the NBA if he shoots pretty well and if he handles the ball well enough to play guard in the NBA

White is really tricky - super high skill level, good size to play the 3 in the NBA. But not an explosive athlete, so he might not be as immediately attractive as an NBA prospect. But there is a good chance that he could be the best college player of the group during their first year or two. Tough to guess how the NBA will view White as a prospect.

Good problems to have - but I don't think we should be expecting to keep Copeland for more than 2 years, and we should be prepared for the possibility that he will be "one and done" if he has a good freshman season.

See, I think this is where college basketball may be loosing its way. While I don't necessarily disagree with you, I wish these guys eyes would light up by the prospect of winning the championship just as much as going pro. I don't have all the answers, but I do know, that the programs that are making the deepest runs are the teams like UConn and Luisville where players stay and develop. Could you imagine if Porter had stayed this year instead of sitting on the Washington's bench

[MCIGuy]

Apr 17, 2014 10:24:30 GMT -5 TBird41 said:

Apr 17, 2014 10:10:14 GMT -5 MCIGuy said:

I agree with everything from the previous post except for the fact that I think it there is an even smaller possibility of of Copeland being a one-and-done than w83 believes. Copeland is so off the radar right now of NBA scouts he will have to make a huge impression for them to notice and that usually requires a lot of scoring. But with DSR, a likely Josh Smith and perhaps even an improving Trawick, Copeland may not be anything more than the 4th leading scorer of the team. And that is if he starts which is not set in stone no matter how talented he is. Copelad may be the most talented of anyone on the team, he may have the most upside. But it could take him two years to get that killer instince of demaning the ball and putting up big points. I suppose it is not out of the question he does this in season one, however I do feel it is very remote.



Btw if Domingo RSCI raking after his junior season was above 100 then maybe what we saw is actually what we were supposed to get.

The other way for him to get noticed, of course, is to play really well during a Final Four (or deeper) NCAA run.

Yes, I forgot to mention that myself. If the Hoyas have a great tourney run then all bets are off.

[MCIGuy]

Apr 17, 2014 10:15:06 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Apr 17, 2014 9:52:13 GMT -5 vv83 said:

If we get three years out of Copeland, it means he has not developed as well as he should. His size/skill combination, from an NBA positional perspective, creates an expectation of spending only 2 (and maybe only 1) year in college. If copeland has a good (not even necessarily very good or great) season next year, there is a reasonable chance he'll be our first "one and done" player...Good problems to have - but I don't think we should be expecting to keep Copeland for more than 2 years, and we should be prepared for the possibility that he will be "one and done" if he has a good freshman season.

Georgetown should not be seeking one-and-dones, and while that may not be popular in some fan circles, know that Georgetown, the institution, does not want to be in the one-and-done business and can impose its will should it choose to do so.

It's always a balancing act for the staff to recruit on talent versus academic commitment, but an offer of admission from Georgetown does not come unfettered and if prospects don't get this, or don't care, they shouldn't be offered in the first place.

What is Georgetown going to do? Hold a gun to the kid's head if he wants to go? It is 2014. If the Hoyas want to try to compete in high D1 athletics, then it has to deal with the fact that these annoying modern trends may one day arrive on their doorstep. If the school can't accept that then by all means step away from competing in D1 athletics. I'm sure many alum will finally be happy anyway to see the honor of Georgetown University restored when they finally close the doors to big tme college basketball.

That being said I think the vast majority of D1 schools, including Georgetown, do not intentionally recruit one-and-done players. One can't 100% predict all of those who will be one-and-done anyway. A school and its program can hope that a much heralded player will stay two or more years; they may even get assurances from the player himself that he will stay for the long haul and thus require that he attendfs classes like all the other student. But in the end that player still may find himself in circumstances that leads to him concluding that he can not turn down the opportunity to take the money. You wil begrudge a player for that? You will begrudge the program?

[hoyasaxa2003]

Apr 17, 2014 10:15:06 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Georgetown should not be seeking one-and-dones, and while that may not be popular in some fan circles, know that Georgetown, the institution, does not want to be in the one-and-done business and can impose its will should it choose to do so.

It's always a balancing act for the staff to recruit on talent versus academic commitment, but an offer of admission from Georgetown does not come unfettered and if prospects don't get this, or don't care, they shouldn't be offered in the first place.

I do not think I agree with this, and I do not think the staff agrees with philosophy given some of the targets we have had (and missed on), like Nerlens Noel or Kyle Anderson (who turned out not to be a one-and-done, but many figured he would be).

One of the reasons I disagree is because it's often difficult to know who will be a one-and-done player (as the Kyle Anderson example shows). There are plenty of guy who could go after one year, like Greg Monroe, who choose to stay for a second year for a variety of reasons. Thus, there's really no way to avoid recruiting these guys, even if you wanted to do so.

Second, if Georgetown wanted to be in the "one-and-done business," I think it would fail. While we can recruit well, our recruiting is not on the level of a place like Kentucky or Duke, where we can land a ton of top 20 recruits who are almost certain NBA one-and-done players. Despite all our success, the only player we have arguably had who could have fit this mold was Greg Monroe. Sure, we may purposely avoid some of the guys who have no interest in college and are simply using it as a pass-through to the NBA (and I am okay with that), but the reality is that most of those guys would never choose us to begin with.

Third, this philosophy basically puts Georgetown on a different playing field. We don't want to turn this into Georgetown football, where everybody else has an advantage (scholarships) that we do not have. As I said, there is no fear of turning into the next Kentucky since we cannot recruit like them even if we desired to do so. I do not see a problem with having a one-and-done player if they are a good person, and if they meet the characteristics we look for in all of our players.

[vv83]

One possible factor in Copeland perhaps being more likely to leave after 2 years than some other NBA prospects- he did the post-grad year at Brewster, so he'll be a bit older than some others in his class. Given how much emphasis the NBA seems to put on player age in the draft evaluation process, Copeland may not want to wait until the end of his junior year to leave for the NBA, as the age issue could become more of a draft factor the longer he stays in college.

I agree that Copeland is pretty unlikely to be "one and done". But the Zach Levine example is part of what led to my original comment. Levine was pretty erratic in terms of performance, this year, but he displayed his athleticism and potential. If Levine ends up being a lottery (or close to lottery) pick, that will send an interesting message to future players. But as DFW points out, kids that come to Georgetown do likely have a different perspective on the education/athletics balance. But we should not be naive - any player, anywhere that is a good positional size/athleticism/skill fit for the NBA is going to think seriously about leaving college after their first good college season.

[ColumbiaHeightsHoya]

Are we talking about succeed and proceed (Calipari's verbage that helps him sleep at night)? The problem with one and done is you have to back fill quickly and we can't do that. I also think the model with a mix of role players, veterans and maybe one marquee one or two year player is the way to go.

[dreamhoya]

i think Peak's 3pt shot is fine; I'm not so sure a kid being smart and being one and done is analagous. all of this year's recruits may be 3 and done or less...except Tre

[justsaying]

Apr 17, 2014 11:22:41 GMT -5 hoyasaxa2003 said:

Apr 17, 2014 10:15:06 GMT -5 DFW HOYA said:

Georgetown should not be seeking one-and-dones, and while that may not be popular in some fan circles, know that Georgetown, the institution, does not want to be in the one-and-done business and can impose its will should it choose to do so.

It's always a balancing act for the staff to recruit on talent versus academic commitment, but an offer of admission from Georgetown does not come unfettered and if prospects don't get this, or don't care, they shouldn't be offered in the first place.

I do not think I agree with this, and I do not think the staff agrees with philosophy given some of the targets we have had (and missed on), like Nerlens Noel or Kyle Anderson (who turned out not to be a one-and-done, but many figured he would be).

One of the reasons I disagree is because it's often difficult to know who will be a one-and-done player (as the Kyle Anderson example shows). There are plenty of guy who could go after one year, like Greg Monroe, who choose to stay for a second year for a variety of reasons. Thus, there's really no way to avoid recruiting these guys, even if you wanted to do so.

Second, if Georgetown wanted to be in the "one-and-done business," I think it would fail. While we can recruit well, our recruiting is not on the level of a place like Kentucky or Duke, where we can land a ton of top 20 recruits who are almost certain NBA one-and-done players. Despite all our success, the only player we have arguably had who could have fit this mold was Greg Monroe. Sure, we may purposely avoid some of the guys who have no interest in college and are simply using it as a pass-through to the NBA (and I am okay with that), but the reality is that most of those guys would never choose us to begin with.

Third, this philosophy basically puts Georgetown on a different playing field. We don't want to turn this into Georgetown football, where everybody else has an advantage (scholarships) that we do not have. As I said, there is no fear of turning into the next Kentucky since we cannot recruit like them even if we desired to do so. I do not see a problem with having a one-and-done player if they are a good person, and if they meet the characteristics we look for in all of our players.

[hoyasaxa2003]

Apr 17, 2014 11:40:38 GMT -5 ColumbiaHeightsHoya said:

Are we talking about succeed and proceed (Calipari's verbage that helps him sleep at night)? The problem with one and done is you have to back fill quickly and we can't do that. I also think the model with a mix of role players, veterans and maybe one marquee one or two year player is the way to go.

I agree that the one-and-done situation creates recruiting problems since you need to continually recruit new comparable guys to maintain quality. I don't think we ever have to worry about Georgetown relying too much on one-and-done players because we do not land enough of those guys for it to be a problem.

Sure, if we got Ivan Raab or some of the one-and-done 2015 targets, it might create a gap the following year, but we normally do not have somebody of that talent level on our bench at all. I would rather occasionally have a talent like that to complement everybody else on the team for a year, than never have that person at all. Teams with those types of players are usually the ones who make Final Fours and win championships.