Wow. That could be a game changer. Hopefully not.
2 Likes
Unfortunately this mentality is because seemingly too frequently we get everyone’s leftovers or sloppy seconds
Or because Kansas has one of the top 3-4 programs in the country.
2 Likes
Yep – that’s it. Not because it is a blue blood offer. 
That being said, we’ll have to see what kind of offer this is and what kind of priority he is for Kansas.
3 Likes
Well we haven’t been losing kids to just the “bluebloods” over the last few years. We’ve also lost kids we recruited very hard to Xavier, Purdue, Illinois, Texas, Cal, Syracuse, Butler, etc.
Don’t get me wrong, we have had some nice pickups in there as well, but let’s not pretend we are only losing kids to Duke, Kentucky, Kansas and NC.
Let’s also not pretend that they (non-blue-bloods) are not losing kids to us. Every top-100-ish kid has double-digit offers. We only keep track of our winners and losers, which have about a 3-1 ratio. It always looks negative if you think we should be batting 1.000. Everybody loses vs everybody. It’s just the nature of the process. Let’s not get so wound up about it.
Edit: meant l/w 3/1. Batting 75% would be redonkulous.
9 Likes
LOL.
First of all, every team you mentioned there gets really good recruits from time to time, and many of those teams have had a lot of NCAA tourney success (like Syracuse - two recent Final Fours, and Butler, back to back title game appearances).
Second, I wouldn’t say we recruited guys like Eric Davis and Trevon Blueitt (after his UCLA decommitment) “very hard.” Same goes for Jalen Coleman - he had his chance to commit, and we moved on from him, not the other way around.
I just want to know why you seem to feel like we’re entitled to win all of those recruiting battles?
On the whole, we are certainly recruiting as good - if not much better - than any of the schools you just mentioned. No one gets every single guy they want. I wouldn’t trade rosters, coaches, or records with any of the programs you mention above over the past five years.
You can’t worry about the guys you don’t get, you have to focus on the guys you land. Our incoming class is Mathews (beat out Xavier), Livers (beat out MSU), Poole (who knows, because he committed to us early and shut out everyone else afterward), and Brooks (beat out OSU, Nova). Those are nice recruiting wins and more importantly, they seem to be talented players.
Our 2018 class, so far, is DeJulius (who knows, but I’d assume plenty of schools would be recruiting him if he was on the market), Johns (beat out MSU, Purdue, Indiana), and Currie (again, who knows, because he loves UM but also looks like a nice talent). It seems like Bingham and especially Gabe Brown really wanted UM offers, but didn’t get them, so they picked MSU.
I mean, just take the four position - we now have Livers and Johns in back-to-back classes. At this point, why on earth would anyone care if Kyle Young picked Butler? It would only matter if, for example, he was a top 25 talent or something (which of course he’s not).
6 Likes
Beilein is great at identifying talent early on, but as the recruitment drags on without securing commitment, the chance of losing them to poachers increases.
1 Like
He Is like the nice guy at the bar that the pretty girl (top 50 recruit) likes until the frat guys show up (Kentucky, UCLA, Arizona, etc). She knows he’s the better option in the long run but almost always ends up going home with the asshole.
10 Likes
You win, sir.
2 Likes
One-and-done night stand? 
2 Likes
Name one recruit other than McGary that we beat the blue bloods for?
Who do you mean by blue bloods? We beat Arizona, which has recruited at the Kansas plus level, for Chatman. We beat MSU, which has made more FFs in the past two decades than anyone else, for Johns and Livers. We beat Villanova, as reigning NCAA champs, for Brooks.
1 Like
Where did I say we were entitled to win any of those battles? Its hilarious how you go bananas any time any one posts anything that looks remotely like a criticism.
My point was hardly controversial. We have lost a LOT of recruits to non blue blood programs so to act like we are only losing kids to Kentucky, Duke NC and Kansas is not an accurate depiction of things.
Recruiting got worse in the three years after the NC run, not better. It has picked up a little bit lately, which is great, but let’s not pretend like there weren’t some bad misses in the 2014-16 classes that had nothing to do with losing kids to blue blood programs.
Stauskas had a Kansas offer and was similarly ranked with Locke at the time, IMO that is the best comparison.
1 Like
Don’t forget that Irvin - and Ibi Watson - had Indiana offers and Vogrich had a UCLA offer. Other teams we have beat in recruitments include OSU, Wiscy, Nova, Illinois, Gonzaga, Oregon, USC, etc.
Ask Dylan- he is the one who used the phrase and implied that we shouldn’t expect to beat out Kansas for Locke because its a “blue blood” program.
Not really. He said we’d have to see how much Kansas prioritizes Locke, suggesting that only then would we know how serious a development in Locke’s recruiting the offer would be. Not acknowledging that Kansas giving Locke a lot of attention might make them a player seems foolish. The inference that we would concede defeat seems to be more on your end.
That’s not germane to my point. I was talking about non-blue-bloods.
You’re wrong. Just about every elite recruit we lost during that time frame was to a blue blood program.