Recruiting: help me understand why UCONN doesn't get more 5s & 4s

[formerlurker]

We just got a four and expect a 5 next year.

 

[Mano]

I think UCONN is a national powerhouse equal to anyone. We are the dominant championship team over the past 15 years. So why do the top 10 recruits repeatedly go to KY, Duke, UNC. Kansas and even AZ.

I think you touch upon one of the more important reasons right in your opening. The perception we have of UConn as fans of our favorite school is probably far different than that of the rest of the country. Just look at all the articles coming out lately asking whether UConn should be considered one of the "blue blood" schools. Perception of us is finally catching up to reality. We, by any metric or standard of performance you could want to apply, are without question one of the absolutely elite schools out there. For whatever reason; ESPN bias, backlash to our headstrong coach (gotta love that guy), or the fact that we exist as part of such a small, overlooked state, probably took on the perception of our longtime leader. That of the plucky underdog who's forcing their way to the head of the pack. Now, we ARE the head of the pack and there will be a recruiting reckoning.

 

[dogfan96]

This is very easy. Calhoun trusted his own eye above all. He also wanted "his guys" tough guys, fighters. He had little use for AAU prima donnas.

It worked out pretty well.

Calhoun recruited the top players just like everyone did. They just (for the most part) decided to go elsewhere.

 

[PAHusky]

I'll try one more time, as politely as I can. The interesting question is why UNC and Kansas and others don't copy our method of only playing lightly in the market for the Top 25 kids, since it is our method -- and not their method -- that is producing more championships. That is the point I -- and others before me I think -- were trying to make.

The answer to the original question, by the way, in my opinion, is that Calhoun wouldn't put up with the BS just because you were a star that other coaches would. And since the Burger AAs were coddled by high school coaches or they'd go elsewhere, and looked forward to playing in the NBA where if they were good enough they would be more powerful than their coaches, most players of that level simply made other choices.

I'll try to explain my position one more time, as politely as I can. The fundamental question is - why don't players ranked incredibly highly, i.e. in the top ten in their respective classes, seem to chose UConn? What those players do once they get to college and our successes with recruiting less heralded kids has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's query. Wondering why other schools don't attempt to copy our methods is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant point when discussing why those kids don't pick UConn. It would be one thing if UConn solely went after kids who were more under the radar and didn't recruit anyone ranked in the top ten. That isn't the case though, as was shown above; UConn offered almost all of the top 10 almost every year. Is it possible that these offers are perfunctory and the staff is really going after less highly ranked kids? Sure. But again, this doesn't do anything to address the OP's original query - why do these highly rated kids year after year fall all over themselves to sign up to play for Kentucky, or UNC, or Arizona, when they have had less success on the court? Is it purely coaching? Like you pointed out, Calhoun's attitude may have had a lot to do with it, but now that KO is the coach, is that going to continue? Is it perception of our program as a whole with the current generation of high schoolers? Who knows, but to dismiss the original question so blithely after its engendered some pretty heated conversation is fairly condescending.

 

[David 76]

Dear OP,
If you replaced "5s & 4s" with "National Championships" in your title thread, would you really give a damn?

Sincerely,
Reality

We are the best. Period. I just want more respect for my school. My question was only about why top 20 kids aren't tripping over themselves to get here. Not about what we've accomplished. Not that we should change our standards about team first and work ethic.

I love UCONN. I'm amazed at what has been accomplished over the years. I want all the best recruits to have UCONN on the top of their list whether we accept them or not. They don't. Many of them don't have UCONN on their long list. I don't get it.
Some posters have mentioned the transitions we've been through as a factor (certainly true) others suggested being less known or geography or that it is changing now.

But for some reason a bunch of you took it as if it were an affront to UCONN or a sacrilegious question to ask.

 

[Leebo]

A month ago were were a 7 seed expected to lose in the first round, in a "dead end" conference with an unproven coach.

How many 5 star recruits since then would be enough to appease you?

Because, that's the reason why they weren't "tripping over themselves" to play here. In that time, the equation has changed.

So I'm assuming your disappointment at the number of 5 star recruits is from the time since the championship.

 

[uconnfan68]

I think UCONN is a national powerhouse equal to anyone. We are the dominant championship team over the past 15 years. So why do the top 10 recruits repeatedly go to KY, Duke, UNC. Kansas and even AZ.

I understand we don't focus on one-and-dones and I understand why. I love the way we find great value in 3 star players (and off the radar players) and are great at developing those players. I understand and appreciate a true team concept.

But that aside, why are most of those kids keeping us on their short list? We've won more championships, have a Coach who is a charisma magnet, and a dozen NBA players. I know the conference is a part of it and that we had a coaching transition and a recent sanction. But this seemed to be going on when we were still ruling the BE with a long-time coach.

But every year KY gets about 5 top ten players, Duke, UNC, & Kansas divide up the rest with an occasional player not going to those top 4 colleges. I don't want to be KY, but I just don't get it.

#1. They pay more.
#2. Classes are optional.

 

[jibsey]

Right after we won the championship KO was getting his life story told to the nation, Durante and LeBron sang his praises, new practice facility Taj Mahal, and I really felt the recruiting game was going to uptick for us big time. I agree that they should be lined up at KO's office door and literally fighting for an opening on our roster . Let's see.

 

[Gurleyman]

Can't remember the last time I cared about recruiting class rankings and things. I mean, thank the heavens that we didn't get Knight, Selby or Joseph and ended up with Bazz. That's perhaps the difference between 2 titles and 4 (would those one and dones have stepped on Kemba's toes? I imagine they might have - not to mention that 3 years of Kemba was better than zero of Jennings).

Or look at it another way - there was a time when we were getting our share of the top, top guys. CV and Rudy were top 5 guys in back to back classes, Rudy was the top guy in his class who actually went to college and CV might have been behind only Luol Deng. Yet CV played behind a lesser-regarded Boone in the same class, the team with both CV and Rudy on it underachieved with a lot of talent (if somewhat mismatched talent), and Rudy's last team was frustrating for some of the same reasons. Put the lightly-regarded Terrence Samuel on either of those last two teams, though, and we might win the whole thing. A little defense and tenacity in the backcourt makes those teams a lot better (although a healthy and enrolled AJP would have been nice, too).

 

[pj]

I'll try to explain my position one more time, as politely as I can. The fundamental question is - why don't players ranked incredibly highly, i.e. in the top ten in their respective classes, seem to chose UConn? What those players do once they get to college and our successes with recruiting less heralded kids has absolutely nothing to do with the OP's query. Wondering why other schools don't attempt to copy our methods is an interesting but ultimately irrelevant point when discussing why those kids don't pick UConn. It would be one thing if UConn solely went after kids who were more under the radar and didn't recruit anyone ranked in the top ten. That isn't the case though, as was shown above; UConn offered almost all of the top 10 almost every year. Is it possible that these offers are perfunctory and the staff is really going after less highly ranked kids? Sure. But again, this doesn't do anything to address the OP's original query - why do these highly rated kids year after year fall all over themselves to sign up to play for Kentucky, or UNC, or Arizona, when they have had less success on the court? Is it purely coaching? Like you pointed out, Calhoun's attitude may have had a lot to do with it, but now that KO is the coach, is that going to continue? Is it perception of our program as a whole with the current generation of high schoolers? Who knows, but to dismiss the original question so blithely after its engendered some pretty heated conversation is fairly condescending.

Part of the answer is that we don't do that badly with top kids. UNC, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky clearly do better. A few other schools do also but I would have to browse the recruiting rankings history to name which ones. But we've gotten a few top players, and most schools don't get any.

A second answer is that UConn has never been about showcasing individuals. We have been about team play, hard work, and self-sacrifice. A kid with an oversized ego, and nowadays the top players have a lot of flatterers whispering in their ears, is not necessarily going to be attracted to that. Whereas a guy ranked maybe 50-75, who knows that maybe 30 players make the NBA each year, realizes he's on the margin of being able to play for money and wants to get coached up and develop into a better player, into a player who improves at every aspect of the game, even the ones that aren't visible in the stat sheet.

A third answer is connections. The very top ranked kids have a lot of handlers and they don't necessarily guide kids to the school that produces the most champions or the most improvement in players. Think about Abu to NC State, for example. What does motivate these influential adults is murky to me, but clearly UConn has not generally been the winner when a self-interested adult has influence. On the other hand, there have been a few cases where parents with relationships to our coaches helped us - eg Sam Cassell's relationship with KO helped with his son; or possibly Rolando Lamb's history beating Jim Calhoun helped us with his son Jeremy.

Other posters have given good answers too. I think it's many factors, and I think it's reasonable to expect that KO will do well in years to come.

 

[partial]

That's an interesting question I think we were actually doing quite well around the time of our second nc and just thereafter. We had a couple of disappointing seasons culminating with a well deserved FF in 2009 the seasons thereafter due to our coaches health, questions of retirement and upcoming sanctions we were not maintaining the same level of recruiting success year in year out even though we won a third nc in 2011, and with JC retiring and not being able to play in the post season it's a testament to how good ollie is that he got anyone to come to UConn let alone the exciting guys we have coming in next season.

I also think towards the end JC's message was maybe not getting through to the top of the recruiting class but his genius was always in identifying that diamond in the rough type guy and just being some sort of savant button pusher in getting people to perform so it didn't really matter.

 

[uconNYC]

Maybe the coaches at those schools just did a better job selling their programs - to recruits and their entourage. Feel KO will definitely take our recruiting up a notch. He was burdened with the AAC, APR and interim label his first two years. 2015 will be his first real class.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

I think we just have had a flat out better coach than these other schools and that's attributable to Calhoun.

No doubt in my mind if he landed more highly rated ( by the services) recruits we'd have won the same if not more.

 

[RyMaN600]

A month ago were were a 7 seed expected to lose in the first round, in a "dead end" conference with an unproven coach.

How many 5 star recruits since then would be enough to appease you?

Because, that's the reason why they weren't "tripping over themselves" to play here. In that time, the equation has changed.

So I'm assuming your disappointment at the number of 5 star recruits is from the time since the championship.

This is an excellent point.

 

[UCweCONN]

"When you look at our #1, you can't really say we have a #1. But if you put our 2, 3, and 4 up against their 1, 2, and 3, I'd like to have 6, 7 or 8 options...."

 

[Sibeerian]

But every year KY gets about 5 top ten players, Duke, UNC, & Kansas divide up the rest with an occasional player not going to those top 4 colleges. I don't want to be KY, but I just don't get it.

I hear you - it feels like we should have more highly ranked players given our success. But on the other hand, on the Duke, UNC, Kansas and Kentucky boards, the threads say "Why don't we win more championships despite getting all these top ten players? I don't get it."

 

[intlzncster]

Or look at it another way - there was a time when we were getting our share of the top, top guys. CV and Rudy were top 5 guys in back to back classes, Rudy was the top guy in his class who actually went to college and CV might have been behind only Luol Deng. Yet CV played behind a lesser-regarded Boone in the same class, the team with both CV and Rudy on it underachieved with a lot of talent (if somewhat mismatched talent), and Rudy's last team was frustrating for some of the same reasons. Put the lightly-regarded Terrence Samuel on either of those last two teams, though, and we might win the whole thing. A little defense and tenacity in the backcourt makes those teams a lot better (although a healthy and enrolled AJP would have been nice, too).

That's what killed those teams really. Planning went properly but the execution fell through.

 

[Bonesbrigade]

In my opinion that's all about to change...an invite to the BIG (much more preferred) and even the ACC (much less preferred) will be the nail in the coffin in you get what I mean.

Ollie + 4 NC in 15 years + new practice facility + successful realignment outcome = An amazing situation to recruit from...really would be hard to beat

 

[zymurg]

Crap, I lost a long involved post. Very short version follows; there are two streams involved in this discussion. They are largely tangential.
The first steam asks the question why with all its success does UConn fail to land more of the most highly recruited players. The second asks
why with UConn's success don't other schools adopt similar recruiting strategies. Remember that there are well over 300 division I men's basketball programs in the country; so even without getting many Mickey D players and even fewer consensus top tens; UConn still has ostensibly a more talented group of players than the vast majority of schools.

UConn has a large number of players who were consensus top 100 players. However, even in the time period we are looking at the recruiting world has continually changed. I can remember back to the era when the one or two recruiting articles a season were the only fresh meat for
UConn fans. Then there were several specialized magazines which covered the area. Eastern Basketball and Blue and White expanded
the universe far beyond such publications as the Sporting News College Basketball Yearly. Additional scouting services started publishing lists and in some cases detailed evaluations of players. Some were only available to coaching professionals; others were available to the general public via subscription.

The assignment of ranks to players by stars or numbers became common. How were the ranks determined? Let's ignore whether or not ranks depended upon perceived ability to be successful in the NBA or in college. Those doing the ranking depended most heavily upon
the AAU circuit rather than by performance in high school. There are several good reasons for this. It made it much easier to see players
from all around the country perform at common venues. Also the level of competition in terms was much higher than in most high schools.
After the completion of the summer circuit of AAU games post a players junior year in high school; the rankings were pretty much fixed.

The most desirable players were identified in the previous summers during the AAU circuit a few camps and some National age group tournaments sponsored by shoe companies. Unless you were on one of the top AAU teams, you were not seen by most of the top
talent evaluators of the various rating services. The summer after the junior year almost codified the most desirable talent; if you
believed in the ranking services.

I mentioned previously Calhoun's disdain for the AAU system. Unlike some of the commentators I think this made it extremely difficult
for UConn to become successfully involved with many of the most highly regarded players. I also believe that Calhoun believed in the judgment of the UConn staff. He had a very sharp ability to see a player in a UConn uniform and playing his part in a UConn team. He went very hard for some players who were highly regarded but were far out of UConn's recruiting area. Brandon Bass was from Louisiana,
but UConn went all in. Stanley Robinson, just outside the most elite players, was from Alabama.

Players are deciding earlier than ever. One and dones are not the type of players who fit well into Calhoun's system. Interestingly enough
Calhoun changed his style of play several times during his coaching career at UConn; this isn't that usual for legendary coaches. In order to succeed using Calhoun's recruiting approach you need a lot of virtues. You have to be able to evaluate talent, see the future, teach for
the future, build a system where player growth equals team growth. This is a lot more work and skill then just identifying the most basketball gifted players on the AAU circuit.

If you are a blue blood program; barring incompetence; you begin with a bedrock area of recruiting gold. UConn has never had that.
This is a case where necessity is the mother of invention. When blue blood programs lose their hold on bed rock areas; this signals problems. Indiana is one case in point. SJU had a connection with what was one of the most powerful AAU programs, Riverside Church.
A huge scandal rocked that program; it has virtually vanished. This has significantly hurt SJU.

Recruiting success is a multibody problem. The universe is in constant upheaval. You need not only a recruiting philosophy, but you have
to continually adapt to changing circumstances. When Calhoun started out he sold membership in the Big East to recruits. Ollie isn't going to be selling membership in the AAC to recruits.

 

[TheChamps990411]

This thread in a sense makes no sense. What do we want top ten recruits and "big time" recruiting classes? Because if you get these players your putting yourself in position to make a final four or win a national title right? We`re winning titles without getting these kids so what does it matter? We`re getting the end result it so its a moot point. We just won our 4th national title and the second in 4 years but i want us to have the #1 recruiting class because itll be cool? I couldnt care less about recruiting because Uconn gets good players year in and year out. id dont need all the bells,whistles and press clippings. ill take a shabazz napier or an emeka okafor over a parker or randle any day of the week and twice on sunday!

 

[TheChamps990411]

I think UCONN is a national powerhouse equal to anyone. We are the dominant championship team over the past 15 years. So why do the top 10 recruits repeatedly go to KY, Duke, UNC. Kansas and even AZ.

I understand we don't focus on one-and-dones and I understand why. I love the way we find great value in 3 star players (and off the radar players) and are great at developing those players. I understand and appreciate a true team concept.

But that aside, why are most of those kids keeping us on their short list? We've won more championships, have a Coach who is a charisma magnet, and a dozen NBA players. I know the conference is a part of it and that we had a coaching transition and a recent sanction. But this seemed to be going on when we were still ruling the BE with a long-time coach.

But every year KY gets about 5 top ten players, Duke, UNC, & Kansas divide up the rest with an occasional player not going to those top 4 colleges. I don't want to be KY, but I just don't get it.

How did having the best recruiting class in the history of college basketball work out for kentucky this year? how about last year? or how about the last 6 #1 rated recruiting classes that squid has had? he has 1 title to show for it while we have 2 and 4 overall in the last 15 years twice as many as all these schools that out recruit us every year.

 

[dogfan96]

How did having the best recruiting class in the history of college basketball work out for kentucky this year? how about last year? or how about the last 6 #1 rated recruiting classes that squid has had? he has 1 title to show for it while we have 2 and 4 overall in the last 15 years twice as many as all these schools that out recruit us every year.

It got them to the NC game this year, won them a NC two years ago, and to the Final Four 3 years ago.. Other than UConn who actually cut down the nets twice in that time, ANY other school would sign up for that run.

 

[mauconnfan]

Look at how many of the "5's" turn out. Many get that brand just because they are going to Duke, UNC etc etc and they turn out to be 3's and 4's………

I'm happy with good kids, 4 of 15 NC's and the focus of our staff. Don't care about the labels just keep winning!

 

[Kitaman]

Having the best basketball program around in the last 20 years disprove that we have a recruiting problem. In addition we still are putting kids in the NBA.

The egos (forget motives) of some of the 5 star top talent can be disruptive to team chemistry. Just maybe that's a reason those teams getting the top talent aren't winning championships.

Its a team sport after all.

 

[tzznandrew]

Having the best basketball program around in the last 20 years disprove that we have a recruiting problem.

The OP never said he had a recruiting problem. He questioned why we don't get a lot of the 4 and 5 star kids we target. I think we do get a lot of the 4 star kids we target, but he has a point that we miss out a ton on those top kids

In addition we still are putting kids in the NBA.

Indeed. Much of that is they have a great eye for undervalued talent, and that they're good at developing talent that comes in.

The egos (forget motives) of some of the 5 star top talent can be disruptive to team chemistry.

True. But it is not like our staff doesn't recruit them. It may be, ultimately, a blessing that we don't get some of those players, but that was never really the OP's question.

Just maybe that's a reason those teams getting the top talent aren't winning championships.

Its a team sport after all.

2005 UNC
2008 Kansas
2009 UNC
2010 Duke
2012 Kentucky

Have all, in the last 10 years, won titles filled with 5* recruits. It's not like these kids don't win.

Look, I get your point. I'm happy with the way things work here. But it's not like the staff has made the method their goal. They consistently go after all the top talent, but miss on a ton. Thankfully, they're good at other aspects of recruiting and coaching which makes the team successful.