Discussion in 'LSU RECRUITING' started by artichokes, May 20, 2007.
Trent's recruiting can't be judged yet. Judge it after this year.
Let's look at it this way. In some ways, THIS year may be a better testament in some ways of whether Trent is really a good coach and perhaps more importantly, a program builder. I, for one, am very interested in this year, win or lose. B/c as the article alludes, how does Chris Bass (a Trent recruit) develop? What do we see out of Dennis Harris, Storm Warren, as players who have had a year under Trent's system. What can Trent do with newbie recruits like Dotson and Ludwig, or what can he do with long-timers like Alex Farrer?
Things may seem bleak given lack of recruiting firepower, but let's not forget that a coach has to condition and coach up players, and we do have reasons to be hopeful. We could still go two deep at every position, and if the young players develop, this team with new recruits in 2010 will only get better and better. Hence, the test of true program building. Which Trent was pretty good at in his prior stops. :thumb:
seems many are starting to get worried. i am not, because i have always wanted a coach to recruit the best players they can get THAT WILL STICK AROUND. you dont need recruits like carmello anthony, greg oden and derrick rose to win NC.
last year is strong evidence of that. lsu had no players that were potential one-and-done recruits, and really only tas was a recruit of note and even he was always a tweener. you add a handful of players like tas, gt and mt to that team and they could win the whole thing. seriously, add jabari smith, jaime lloreda, darrell mitchell and clarence ceasar to that team.
all 3 went to the NC in their one year of college
thats why i named them. it wouldnt have made much sense if i named players you never heard of.
Hate to drudge up the '09 thread, but this is an interesting statement on hoops recruiting, the what ifs and whether Trent's philosophy in the long run makes the best sense for the state of college ball today.
Many on this board and throughout this thread, promoted the name Latavious Williams. A super athletic 6'7" SF/PF who was from the south, played ball on Brandon Bass's AAU team and at some points of his recruitment listed LSU. Another potential "top" player who dropped LSU at some point during 2009 (or sooner) recruiting...
Of course, after a sweepstakes run of visits to Georgetown, FIU, and then committing to Memphis, Williams has decided that he's likely to play ball in Europe professionally. Wow.
You add this to the sideline stories of Sidney, Riek (both at MSU), and the flight of other top players who create such a commotion and you begin to see why perhaps Trent stays away from these guys.
Anyway, perhaps recruiting that "near-top flight" tier of players is just the way to go these days... :yelwink2:
Another example is how Tenn just got screwed by top PG Josh Selby decommiting from them in the 2010 class. They went for a top guy, and ignored the local guys who are really good, but not quite elite. Now, they likely won't sign a good PG in this class, which is a huge setback for their program. They'll likely make a run at Stringer, but it'll be too late for him.
What is the recruiting philosophy of Mainieri in baseball. Those recruits aren't even "one and done"...they can just be "done". I know because of the small team size in basketball as opposed to baseball, the basketball recruits are more important and have more impact.
Well, I know this is going to be a slight cop out, but make no bones about it, football and baseball, are different than basketball. First, the pro eligibility/rules are different. Second, the number of signees is very different--thus recruiting strategy is different. Third, the history, recent tradition and particular "state of the union at LSU in that sport" is different.
I think most people would say that Mainieri has the benefit of being able to recruit more players, and also has the benefit of a NC caliber program, team and facilities. Because of the number of players signable in baseball, perhaps a "mutual fund" analogy is appropriate. His team signs a certain number of players who are local, good enough and love LSU to be here as long as they can. They also take enough calculated risks, where they go after enough "impact" players to try to hit that home run, but also know that if they miss those guys, there are folks to fall back on. They do miss out on these folks, but they also have gotten the recruiting down to a science where the "impact" players are either going to get signed b/c the money's too good, or they'll be on the "cusp" and make the difficult decision (more often than not, they spend time at LSU).
But, the rules really have an interesting impact. Obviously in college football, you can't go until you turn 20. That's good for college and college coaches (who don't have to worry about pro scouts and teams), good for college kids that have to mature and get physically ready for the NFL--that you could argue is appropriate given the sport. I see the NBA's one and done rule as sort of this weird (and now proving out to be somewhat disjointed) attempt to move in the right direction, but not quite ideal, b/c of the way negotiations around the rule went a few years back. I'd almost rather move into a baseball rule, which is you can get drafted right out of high school, but if you go to college, you've got to be there a while like until you're 20. That way, colleges can go after kids knowing that if they come, they are coming to your school for a while, but the kids who are truly good enough can test the waters and go to the NBA (or NBDL) if they're drafted. You've got a loophole right now anyway, b/c kids can go play pro ball still, just in Europe or China, so you're sort of forcing the kids that have no interest in college overseas right away.
If nothing else, I'd say go to a "two and done" rule at least. But, as a result, I think Trent has figured out that for the sake of his program, the academic requirements, and just overall consistency, it may be better off ignoring (at least for now) the one and done players. You can build a program to a pretty high level, if you can convince pretty talented (as upposed to ultra talented) players to come into your program, stay in school, get a degree and get better each year--they have as good a chance to make the NBA in due time under Trent's program, b/c they get better. I also think that Trent wants a foundation to build on--as his teams get deeper, more academically responsible, and there's less attrition, he can gamble on the unique one and done situations every so often when the right player comes around in years to come.
You look at who he's going after, Stringer, Courtney, Derenbecker, and Turner, and they all have the potential to be in the NBA, but they'll all have to get better to get there--which means LSU will have a deeper team for a longer period of time. :thumb: