Can anyone comment on the engineering programs at those listed schools? If I remember correctly Cliff is a very smart kid and was looking to be a part of an engineering program in college. Maybe this gives us a chance????
I’m not sure if I’m qualified to answer, but I’ll give it a shot. I have a Rutgers chemical engineering degree and I’m in a PhD program at a top 10 school. If the quality of the degree is as important as we’ve been led to believe, we should be in a very good position compared to those other schools.
Most student-athletes that want to major in some type of engineering quickly learn how difficult it is to pursue that degree with the time demands of their chosen sport and typically end up switching majors.Can anyone comment on the engineering programs at those listed schools? If I remember correctly Cliff is a very smart kid and was looking to be a part of an engineering program in college. Maybe this gives us a chance????
The relationship between winning and recruiting shows a high correlation.Rutgers has continually shown the ability to identify recruits that could have helped the program but when it came down to crunch time they have usually chosen other schools.In the rare case where a high rated recruit came to Rutgers they have usually transferred after 2 years.
Coach Pikiell and staff are hard workers attending recruiting events throughout the country.They are putting Rutgers name out there for consideration.Closing the deal requires over coming negative recruiting that has been used successfully against Rutgers for decades.Having a winning season would be the best selling point for future recruiting.
What we really need is a bag man with no connection to the University. That’s how you score with big recruits.
What we really need is a bag man with no connection to the University. That’s how
Gotta crawl before you walkI’m on it. Bags of pennies ok?
If you are talking about high four star or five star recruits then I would agree. But this staff has landed five (5) Rivals 150 players in three classes (Doucoure, Mathis, Harper, Mulcahy, Young) so I find it tough to argue this staff has had trouble closing on high level kids.
True. Everyone knows that the best way to measure recruiting is on how good a prospect looks in his mixtape.Measuring recruiting based on Rival 150s is a complete waste of time.
True. Everyone knows that the best way to measure recruiting is on how good a prospect looks in his mixtape.
LOL yes. It is all good. I have read/heard much worse comments about rankings. At the end of the day it is all opinions so I don't sweat it much.Yikes. Are you involved in making a 150 list? I didn't quite mean it like i said it.
Apologies. Obviously you don't need to respond to me....
I know you can't quantify things (or shouldn't)...
Have you done any type of analysis on the "hit rate" on Rivals 150 for top schools vs. schools like Rutgers. "Hit rate" meaning ultimately living up to the rating.
Does character get factored in to the rankings at all?
My thesis...which you will probably refute, and probably be right...Schools like Rutgers (at least circa 2018 and before) when they land a Rivals 150 they got the player because the better schools didnt view them as a top 150.
When you go back and look at the past 4 star or better players Rutgers got the history of those players "playing to their rating" is ridiculously low.
Apologies. Obviously you don't need to respond to me....
I know you can't quantify things (or shouldn't)...
Have you done any type of analysis on the "hit rate" on Rivals 150 for top schools vs. schools like Rutgers. "Hit rate" meaning ultimately living up to the rating.
Does character get factored in to the rankings at all?
My thesis...which you will probably refute, and probably be right...Schools like Rutgers (at least circa 2018 and before) when they land a Rivals 150 they got the player because the better schools didnt view them as a top 150.
When you go back and look at the past 4 star or better players Rutgers got the history of those players "playing to their rating" is ridiculously low.
You have brought this up several times and it is simply not true. I would venture to say that we hit at the same rate as any other school. Duke and Kentucky have 5 star busts all the time. The problem is we don’t land as many so when they do t hit hey seem to stand out more. I guess you also have to define “hit”.Russ’s response kind of supports my hypothesis.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
Russ’s response kind of supports my hypothesis.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
Russ’s response kind of supports my hypothesis.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
You have brought this up several times and it is simply not true. I would venture to say that we hit at the same rate as any other school. Duke and Kentucky have 5 star busts all the time. The problem is we don’t land as many so when they do t hit hey seem to stand out more. I guess you also have to define “hit”.
Most of the programs that backed off of Cory during his recruitment did so because of off the court things not because of his basketball abilities.
Eli Carter, Myles Mack and Kadeem Jack I believe played to their rankings or talent level. Mike Rosario didnt and I believe Corey Sanders did, if you look at his overall 3 years. It didn't mean he left a complete player but he matched his rankings. It's very difficult to not expect strides of development from Montez Mathis and Ron Harper in the next 3 years and Jacob Young was also a Top 150 player recruited to Texas.
Corey set the program backwards?!?!? He was the only player keeping fans in the RAC for 3 otherwise dreadful seasonsRuss’s response kind of supports my hypothesis.
Does Rutgers get credit for good recruiting Corey Sanders or Mike Rosario?
Both players were talented, but both set the programs backward. It is obvious in hindsight why both players ended at Rutgers and not better schools.
When schools look at what players fit character is a very important part of the equation. When Rutgers (or the old Rutgers) lands a Too 150 player you can say with confidence that the player is a disrupter OR the player is really flawed.
NJH says it is because our program was not equipped to make players better....i dont buy that as the primary reason.
My point has been that we need to stop worrying about recruiting rankings. Maybe in a few years that changes. Facility helps, but we need to win 1st.
We're trying to rank the best players not the 150 highest character guys. I doubt any coaches, any good coaches, use player rankings when they decide to offer and recruit a kid.and respectfully that is where evaluating recruiting by using rankings is flawed.
A few out of state recruits said they didn’t know much about Rutgers but they did know of Corey Sanders.
In 3 years with Corey we won 7 B1G games. He leaves and all of a sudden we win 7 in 1 year. Our offensive efficiency rockets up.