The “ZERO sum game” of basketball in the northeast and RU

[Scarlet Shack]

Guys

For years, I have maintained that for RU to make its rise in basketball, it has to because someone else is falling in our region. There are only so many players to go around and everyone competes for them. Climbing the later means someone else is falling

I know we are in the big ten. But we are competing more for players from our former bjg east rivals in our region now in other conferences.

Finally, the landscape for Rutgers basketball to rise, with the proper support being given and the right coach staff, is here

Let’s look at what’s going on
-Pitt....clearly a program that the bottom dropped out
-UConn ...clearly a program that has fallen way down and the next hire is critical. Program could go either way now,

-Syracuse and WVU are still a great programs, but their coaches that made those programs great are quickly approaching retirement and their program could at a crossroads. Especially Syracuse.

-providence has it going and loooks good for the foreseeable future.

-Maryland is kinda in that boat too. Is it an off year or is the program moving somewhat south. Depends who you ask.

-SHU is about to have a major do over and their future is gojng to be Tested on how well they can reload, and if they can

-st Johns, Georgetown...both are in major rebuilds with uncertain future

Villanova is clearly the power program of the region

Point is...as Rutgers has just completed the second year of a build under coach P..and I like our progress, but without proof that it will get done...the same can pretty much be said about the state of northeast basketball.

It’s certajnky not filled with the big number of power house guaranteed programs that even five years ago dominated the landscape. Lots of uncertainly.

Can RU rise is the climate of so many programs being in a crossroads?

As each and every recruiting battle occurs, keep this in mind that it’s a zero sum game. Every player we got is someone else’s miss. We had this for years

These next two recruiting classes are huge for the program. The relationships have been built for years now with the class of 2019 and 2020 kids.

We have a real shot to build this thing...as the landscape finally gives us a chance to worm our way into the equation, one player at a time, one year at a time

Time to pay attention ...

 

[rufeelinit]

Should the primary focus be on our relative strength versus other schools in the region or in our conference? The conference schools are who we will be measured against every year. The comparisons with schools in other conferences will be subjective unless we play head to head OOC. UConn's issues are conference related, I would assume Pitt is committed to getting back to being a contender given the quick and expensive hook to Stallings. WVU and Maryland have a history of success that go much further back than Huggins and Turgeon. If Syracuse and Pitt do struggle, it will be a function of competing in the ACC and being a bit of a geographical outlier.. Look how long it has taken BC to field a respectable team and who knows if that is sustainable.

From a recruiting perspective, while it would be great and seemingly natural to have a better chance to get the top regional players, our recruiting efforts go well beyond the northeast region. Bottom line for me is an improved conference standing. I don't think this is mutually exclusive of your rationale but us passing Uconn, does not guarantee conference success.

 

[RUBigFrank]

Revisionist history looking forward.

We could not get any GREAT momentum from a final four appearance.

We were the top dog in the EAST and declined a Big East bid - thought we could catch up once invited to the Big East. Bad coaching choices over the years.

Point being - we are in a power five conference and should be recruiting both locally and nationally. The local comparisons are not as important as our current conference comparisons.

 

[RUChoppin]

Agree with rufeelinit here. For us to improve, it has to be against teams ahead of us in our conference, not against those in our region.

When RU Football rose up in 2005-06, it wasn't due to PA St or Maryland going up or down.... it was because of changes in our conference schedule (Miami/VTech out, Syracuse falling, etc). For us to get back to the dance, we need more conference wins (likely going .500 in conference) - and the strength of SHU, SJU, Nova, UConn, Cuse, or G'Town doesn't affect that.

With just 11 OOC games now, we really need to be at least 10-10 in conference to have a shot at the postseason. That means finding 7 more conference wins.

From a recruiting standpoint, it's not like we're in regular fights with these schools, either. Tons of talent to go around in the NY/NJ area, and the best are already going to the Dukes/etc of the world as it is.

 

[bowlgoal]

Guys

For years, I have maintained that for RU to make its rise in basketball, it has to because someone else is falling in our region. There are only so many players to go around and everyone competes for them. Climbing the later means someone else is falling

I know we are in the big ten. But we are competing more for players from our former bjg east rivals in our region now in other conferences.

Finally, the landscape for Rutgers basketball to rise, with the proper support being given and the right coach staff, is here

Let’s look at what’s going on
-Pitt....clearly a program that the bottom dropped out
-UConn ...clearly a program that has fallen way down and the next hire is critical. Program could go either way now,

-Syracuse and WVU are still a great programs, but their coaches that made those programs great are quickly approaching retirement and their program could at a crossroads. Especially Syracuse.

-providence has it going and loooks good for the foreseeable future.

-Maryland is kinda in that boat too. Is it an off year or is the program moving somewhat south. Depends who you ask.

-SHU is about to have a major do over and their future is gojng to be Tested on how well they can reload, and if they can

-st Johns, Georgetown...both are in major rebuilds with uncertain future

Villanova is clearly the power program of the region

Point is...as Rutgers has just completed the second year of a build under coach P..and I like our progress, but without proof that it will get done...the same can pretty much be said about the state of northeast basketball.

It’s certajnky not filled with the big number of power house guaranteed programs that even five years ago dominated the landscape. Lots of uncertainly.

Can RU rise is the climate of so many programs being in a crossroads?

As each and every recruiting battle occurs, keep this in mind that it’s a zero sum game. Every player we got is someone else’s miss. We had this for years

These next two recruiting classes are huge for the program. The relationships have been built for years now with the class of 2019 and 2020 kids.

We have a real shot to build this thing...as the landscape finally gives us a chance to worm our way into the equation, one player at a time, one year at a time

Time to pay attention ...

I get your point but besides other schools in the area being good, there’s talent that has left the area and Rutgers was never on their radar and I truly think it is now. Gary Waters and Mike Rice we’re recruiting for a program that was just not financially supported like it is now. And there were questions around what was going to happen to the big east and a lot happened when we suddenly found ourselves in the AAC. The hire of Eddie, which I won’t get into was icing on the cake. How he got Sanders was beyond me? I will credit him with that.

But now the tide is turning and unfortunately it doesn’t happen overnight. It’s a 5 year building process of piecing together Big 10 student athletes. If it takes you 5 years to start to see light at the end of the tunnel, the coach is trouble. You have to see the light going into year 3 and that’s exactly where we are. We may pause at the yield sign because of the point guard situation, but it’s a brief pause imo.

Kids come because you can win. We’ve showed that Pikiell can do it. Wins in the league and not many blowout loses with less talent on the floor. They also come because there’s money to treat them like they would be treated at any other big time schools. New weight room, new practice facility, new academic center. Top that off with a very likeable coach who you want to play for and you got it.

Maryland, Seton Hall, Pitt and All the rest are not going away. But there’s a new sheriff in town and his name is Steve Pikiell!

 

[TDIrish27]

I'm a believer that you occasionally get a guy out of Region who can help you but the strength of your recruiting has to be within a 4-5 hour radius when you're a large State University .

Within 250 miles of here there are plenty of guys you can win with you just have to sell them on coming.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

Few thoughts....NJ has an all star game of seniors North vs South. Almost every kid invited to play has not picked a school or the school is not P5. Very little talent in NJ at least this year.

I sort of disagree with SHACK here. Pikiell has done the single most important thing in building an infrastructure/culture to the program. We are where we need to be on the defensive end right now. That is 1/2 the game (opponent's score is 1/2 of the equation). He needs to plug the right players and not necessarily the best players who can shoot and run the offense.

Watching games of postseason teams the last few weeks it is clear teams have 4 players that are threats from the perimeter. We have been rolling with 2 and it has to stop. Unfortunately next year looks like 2 or 3. Might need to bulk Issa up a bit and move him to the 3.5 (3/4).

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Revisionist history looking forward.

We could not get any GREAT momentum from a final four appearance.

We were the top dog in the EAST and declined a Big East bid - thought we could catch up once invited to the Big East. Bad coaching choices over the years.

Point being - we are in a power five conference and should be recruiting both locally and nationally. The local comparisons are not as important as our current conference comparisons.

Sorry Shack I’m with Frank here: this “recruit local” thing is a monster of a pre-social media past IMHO, hence, how the teams you listed are doing, good or bad, doesn’t mean nearly as much as it once did. Look at the current roster that we're building things on: ONLY 3 NJ kids and another 3 from the Mid-Atlantic region (2 NY/1MD). Now...do I think it'll be a HUGE plus, to recruit well locally, once we have some success and THEY are knocking on OUR doors? Absolutely but, for now, wherever!

 

[RUChoppin]

I'm a believer that you occasionally get a guy out of Region who can help you but the strength of your recruiting has to be within a 4-5 hour radius when you're a large State University

Nonsense. Most successful large public universities do not have a majority of their core rotation coming from a 4-5 hour radius of campus.

I looked at the following 26 large public universities in the NCAA field: Alabama, Arizona, ASU, Arkansas, Auburn, Cincy, Florida, FSU, Kansas, KSU, Kentucky, Michigan, MSU, Missouri, NC State, Nevada, UNC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas, Texas Tech, UVA, VTech, WVU

Of the 156 players among the top six scorers on each team... just 39 were from a team's home state (25%), and 29 more were from a neighboring state. So, 68 of 156 players (44%) were recruited from a school's home state or a state that bordered it.

Interestingly, of these 156 players, 90 came from just 10 states (TX, OH, GA, NC, AL, IL, VA, FL, CA, IN).... and only the NE portion of VA is within 5 hours of us. Just 4 were from NY, 3 from PA, and 0 from NJ.

 

[blockm2]

I'm a believer that you occasionally get a guy out of Region who can help you but the strength of your recruiting has to be within a 4-5 hour radius when you're a large State University .

Within 250 miles of here there are plenty of guys you can win with you just have to sell them on coming.

that's true, but if Rutgers can establish themselves as a regular contender for NCAA tournament appearances, they should have no problem being able to get at least 1 kid every year from outside the northeast to supplement their recruiting. It isn't necessarily a zero sum game in hoops recruiting in their backyard. Even if others are doing well, there are plenty of fish in the sea that want to play for a good program. You just gotta get to being a good program. Recruiting from far off lands is a lot tougher when those kids have never seen you have success.

 

[Scarlet Shack]

Interesting takes for sure ...

I just don’t think we can win big in basketball (or even football) without a good chunk of our players coming from within our region.

Not exclusively... but a good chunk. Certainly I don’t expect our roster to be build exclusively on lock players

Can we win for a short period with most players out of our region...yes.

Sustained? Not sure about that at all.

And, by the way, I say this from the fact I think NJ-N.Y. high school basketball players, on average, are over ranked relative to other parts of the country.

And it certainly doesn’t hurt that the programs in the northeast that we compete for these players are, as a whole, weaker than usual

Time will tell.

 

[anon_0k9zlfz6lz9oy]

basketball programs future is incredibly bright. I will be buying season tickets for the upcoming season

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

The perception of Rutgers is much higher outside this area then inside it.

 

[AreYouNUTS]

Nonsense. Most successful large public universities do not have a majority of their core rotation coming from a 4-5 hour radius of campus.

I looked at the following 26 large public universities in the NCAA field: Alabama, Arizona, ASU, Arkansas, Auburn, Cincy, Florida, FSU, Kansas, KSU, Kentucky, Michigan, MSU, Missouri, NC State, Nevada, UNC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas, Texas Tech, UVA, VTech, WVU

Of the 156 players among the top six scorers on each team... just 39 were from a team's home state (25%), and 29 more were from a neighboring state. So, 68 of 156 players (44%) were recruited from a school's home state or a state that bordered it.

Interestingly, of these 156 players, 90 came from just 10 states (TX, OH, GA, NC, AL, IL, VA, FL, CA, IN).... and only the NE portion of VA is within 5 hours of us. Just 4 were from NY, 3 from PA, and 0 from NJ.

WOW! NJ hoops??!! Sad!

...and GREAT work!

 

[RUsojo]

I think what Shack was getting at was the local schools that recruit against us have fallen to a point that Pikiell has more than a punchers chance. BECAUSE Pike has built a better culture, he is making Rutgers more attractive than it was, but part of that is the local schools’ brands are not at the height they were.

Here’s the gist of what I think Shack wasn’t getting at:

Even if Pikiell proved what he has to date at Rutgers, do we sign Mathis and beat out UConn if this was 2015 and they just won the National Championship? Would there have been too much logic in favor of UConn to take the chance on Pikiell and Rutgers?

I agree with this sentiment if that’s what Shack meant. Or I’m making the point if it’s not what he was thinking...

 

[TODDB33]

I think what Shack was getting at was the local schools that recruit against us have fallen to a point that Pikiell has more than a punchers chance. BECAUSE Pike has built a better culture, he is making Rutgers more attractive than it was, but part of that is the local schools’ brands are not at the height they were.

Here’s the gist of what I think Shack wasn’t getting at:

Even if Pikiell proved what he has to date at Rutgers, do we sign Mathis and beat out UConn if this was 2015 and they just won the National Championship? Would there have been too much logic in favor of UConn to take the chance on Pikiell and Rutgers?

I agree with this sentiment if that’s what Shack meant. Or I’m making the point if it’s not what he was thinking...

I agree in that I thought the gist of his post was the schools in our region are either in a downward slope or are treading water and we are on an uperward slope. Combining those two assessments can lead one to state we are in a position now to recruit more favorably against those schools. That said I do disagree with Shack on his statement that Nj, NY and regional kids are overrated compared to rest of country. Don’t really know about talent this year but in years past our area was a gold mine for ALL the top teams regarding recruiting

 

[NewJerseyHawk]

There are two items that are at play....

A) RU is finally recruiting better, which means one or two less players land elsewhere.

B) RU is building infrastructure, which means we are not as reliant on the immediate region BUT, it gives RU a chance every other year to land a player that perhaps went to Seton Hall, Temple, Virginia, or some other school.

I can only simplify it this way.....Mathis, Baker, Doucoure and a lesser extent Harper Jr and perhaps Strickland (even if he doesn't commit here) are all pieces that over a 2 year recruiting cycle, strengthen someone elses roster, or provide the depth to develop and sustain the success elsewhere.

So while Pitt and UConn may be down or the assumption is others may cool off, it's really not a matter of one program needing to cool off as much as it just makes RU more of an option as we close the gap.

A lot of the negative recruiting surrounds lack of facilities, lack of a staff over the years. Those items are being eroded and put to bed...So there are options for Aundre Hyatt, Paul Mulcahy, Tai Strickland, Ismael Massoud to pick RU, just as much now as ever before. And while RU would like to land all of the choices mentioned above, realistically, it just needs one or two or two of the four to make the RU selection each and every cycle. (I would not say all 4 because of overlap and some of the prospects play the same potential position).

The key is whether RU can properly recruit and provide depth at a time when a player doesn't have an immediate path to playing time....So that means if Sanders comes back, can we still land Tai Strickland, with him knowing that he may not be an immediate starter right away, but has the ability to play and potentially earn a larger role after his freshman season?? Because the depth chart is just as crowded in Minnesota, Wisconsin, DePaul as it would be at RU...

The difference between a lot of these schools is literally 3 points or less on a neutral floor.....then we get past the conversation of talent and focus on strategy, rotations and get to argue why other players don't play more or less, which becomes a bigger discussion.

 

[SirScarlet]

I didn't take Shake's premise to be that we need local players to be good. In fact, the programs that Shack is referring to aren't necessarily built exclusively on local players.

In general. I agree that much like in Football (where we rose as Pitt and SU fell), there is a limited supply of recruits...so unless we had a staff pulling in 5* players, Shack's theory makes sense.

 

[RUinFla]

Nonsense. Most successful large public universities do not have a majority of their core rotation coming from a 4-5 hour radius of campus.

I looked at the following 26 large public universities in the NCAA field: Alabama, Arizona, ASU, Arkansas, Auburn, Cincy, Florida, FSU, Kansas, KSU, Kentucky, Michigan, MSU, Missouri, NC State, Nevada, UNC, Ohio State, Oklahoma, Purdue, Tennessee, Texas, Texas Tech, UVA, VTech, WVU

Of the 156 players among the top six scorers on each team... just 39 were from a team's home state (25%), and 29 more were from a neighboring state. So, 68 of 156 players (44%) were recruited from a school's home state or a state that bordered it.

Interestingly, of these 156 players, 90 came from just 10 states (TX, OH, GA, NC, AL, IL, VA, FL, CA, IN).... and only the NE portion of VA is within 5 hours of us. Just 4 were from NY, 3 from PA, and 0 from NJ.

Chop, by looking at so many programs you gave us a real cross section. Not just the programs that can recruit nationally like Duke, UNC, Kansas, but other programs in their shadow like NC State and K State--plus others not normally basketball powerhouses. Surprised that more than half of the aggregate key players came from out of area--bearing in mind that the rosters of schools like Duke, UK, etc, skew the results a little. Yeah, we know the NY-NJ area has lots of BB players, but we are close enough to poach on the talent-rich DC-Baltimore area, not to mention Pennsylvania. But first, we have to win. Next two years are critical.
TL

 

[RUJMM78]

Rutgers has been a down trodden basketball program for decades because their recruits simply weren't at the same level as rival opponents in the Big East,AAC and now the B1G.The small number of talented players that Rutgers attracted often transferred after two years leaving squads full of project or complementary type players who were clearly over matched .
The sustained patterns of losing seasons made Rutgers a easy target for negative recruiting and Rutgers coaches had no counter argument to change recruits perception as to where they should go to college.

Right now Villanova is the dominant basketball school in the northeast.They compete with the elite schools to cherry pick the best recruits in the 250 mile radius of Rutgers .They have the cache,the coaching staffs and the support of high school coaching staffs to perpetuate the status quo and leave schools like Rutgers battling for the leftover recruits.

Until Rutgers finds some way to at least win 8-10 league games the odds that they can ever get a NCAA bid is very low.The talent on the current roster won't get the job done because there aren't enough shooters/scorers to match league rivals.When a team is a constant bottom tier basketball program its very difficult to move upward in league rankings because the competition isn't standing still.Rutgers needs to recruit a couple players in the 1-100 ranking level to make a significant step forward.

 

[RUnTeX]

The perception of Rutgers is much higher outside this area then inside it.

Ha....we've heard that similar sentiment before with respect to Rutgers overall. Perception can be reality sometimes.

 

[RUChoppin]

Chop, by looking at so many programs you gave us a real cross section. Not just the programs that can recruit nationally like Duke, UNC, Kansas, but other programs in their shadow like NC State and K State--plus others not normally basketball powerhouses. Surprised that more than half of the aggregate key players came from out of area--bearing in mind that the rosters of schools like Duke, UK, etc, skew the results a little. Yeah, we know the NY-NJ area has lots of BB players, but we are close enough to poach on the talent-rich DC-Baltimore area, not to mention Pennsylvania. But first, we have to win. Next two years are critical.
TL

It was just the public universities, so Duke wasn't included. These were just big public schools (excluded Wichita St, because it was under 15k enrollment, for instance). Was also interesting that there was about 10% foreign students in the list (15 of 156).

Might try to look at a bigger net than just public universities - maybe going by kenpom or something.

 

[blockm2]

Until Rutgers finds some way to at least win 8-10 league games the odds that they can ever get a NCAA bid is very low.The talent on the current roster won't get the job done because there aren't enough shooters/scorers to match league rivals.When a team is a constant bottom tier basketball program its very difficult to move upward in league rankings because the competition isn't standing still.Rutgers needs to recruit a couple players in the 1-100 ranking level to make a significant step forward.

I'd say you actually don't need any top 100 players to make it to the tournament, you just need to get some good solid players and coach them up and see them develop by the time they are juniors and seniors. A roster stock full of nothing but 3 star kids can still be an NCAA tournament team with a good coach that has had time to develop them. They just have to be talents that fit with what the coach wants to do and kids that get better every year on campus.

 

[RUChoppin]

I'd say you actually don't need any top 100 players to make it to the tournament, you just need to get some good solid players and coach them up and see them develop by the time they are juniors and seniors. A roster stock full of nothing but 3 star kids can still be an NCAA tournament team with a good coach that has had time to develop them. They just have to be talents that fit with what the coach wants to do and kids that get better every year on campus.

Though it's much easier to go this route in a conference that doesn't routinely get 7-8 NCAA bids per year.

 

[RUJMM78]

I'd say you actually don't need any top 100 players to make it to the tournament, you just need to get some good solid players and coach them up and see them develop by the time they are juniors and seniors. A roster stock full of nothing but 3 star kids can still be an NCAA tournament team with a good coach that has had time to develop them. They just have to be talents that fit with what the coach wants to do and kids that get better every year on campus.

Such a strategy that you cite hasn't worked at Rutgers for the last 3 decades because the competition was more talented and the horrendous road record almost guaranteed losing seasons.

 

[RUChoppin]

Okay, took a look at all 65 P5 schools and the 10 Big East schools, taking the top 6 scorers for each school who didn't have their seasons shortened. That's 450 players.

I compared the hometown listed on sports-reference.com to the state of their school. For "neighboring states" in the Northeast, I included those that were within a 5 hour drive... so, I considered NJ a "neighbor" of Maryland, because we're so close. I did not consider Canada a neighbor of northern border states.

Overall: 450 players... 114 in-state (25%), 205 in-state or neighboring state (46%), 49 international (11%)

ACC: 90 players... 12 in-state (13%), 26 in-state or neighbor (29%), 14 international (16%)
B12: 60 players... 17 in-state (28%), 28 in-state or neighbor (47%), 9 international (15%)
B1G: 84 players... 21 in-state (25%), 37 in-state or neighbor (44%), 7 international (8%)
BE: 60 players... 11 in-state (18%), 34 in-state or neighbor (57%), 6 international (10%)
P12: 72 players... 23 in-state (32%), 34 in-state or neighbor (47%), 7 international (10%)
SEC: 84 players... 30 in-state (36%), 46 in-state or neighbor (55%), 6 international (7%)

Top States (195 of 450 kids... 43%)
36 - TX (16 stayed home, 7 went to neighboring state)
28 - GA (4 home, 4 neighbor)
27 - CA (9 home, 7 neighbor)
23 - OH (3 home, 8 neighbor)
21 - NY (2 home, 6 neighbor)
21 - NC (6 home, 4 neighbor)
20 - IL (5 home, 4 neighbor)
19 - FL (3 home, 2 neighbor)

New Jersey had 11 (5 of which were in the Big East)

Regional schools (Pittsburgh, PA St, Nova, G'town, SJU, Providence, Cuse, SHU, MD) accounted for:
19 of 44 total players from NY/NJ/PA
13 of 35 total players from DE/MD/VA/DC

 

[blockm2]

Such a strategy that you cite hasn't worked at Rutgers for the last 3 decades because the competition was more talented and the horrendous road record almost guaranteed losing seasons.

It says something about something when Gary Waters and Mike Rice are the 2 most accomplished coaches elsewhere that Rutgers has employed since Tom Young (prior to hiring Pikiell).

It has to be a good coach. Not just any coach is going to the tourney with 3 star players. And at this point even if Pikiell fails, Rutgers should have enough conference money rolling in that they can afford to pay a good coach from a mid major.

 

[Greene Rice FIG]

I can only simplify it this way.....Mathis, Baker, Doucoure and a lesser extent Harper Jr and perhaps Strickland (even if he doesn't commit here) are all pieces that over a 2 year recruiting cycle, strengthen someone elses roster, or provide the depth to develop and sustain the success elsewhere.

Such a strategy that you cite hasn't worked at Rutgers for the last 3 decades because the competition was more talented and the horrendous road record almost guaranteed losing seasons.

Or maybe we tried to fish from the talented pool and just ended up with duds and players with warts. Our top 150 players almost all were in that category.

 

[LotusAggressor]

Rutgers has been a down trodden basketball program for decades because their recruits simply weren't at the same level as rival opponents in the Big East,AAC and now the B1G.The small number of talented players that Rutgers attracted often transferred after two years leaving squads full of project or complementary type players who were clearly over matched .
The sustained patterns of losing seasons made Rutgers a easy target for negative recruiting and Rutgers coaches had no counter argument to change recruits perception as to where they should go to college.

Right now Villanova is the dominant basketball school in the northeast.They compete with the elite schools to cherry pick the best recruits in the 250 mile radius of Rutgers .They have the cache,the coaching staffs and the support of high school coaching staffs to perpetuate the status quo and leave schools like Rutgers battling for the leftover recruits.

Until Rutgers finds some way to at least win 8-10 league games the odds that they can ever get a NCAA bid is very low.The talent on the current roster won't get the job done because there aren't enough shooters/scorers to match league rivals.When a team is a constant bottom tier basketball program its very difficult to move upward in league rankings because the competition isn't standing still.Rutgers needs to recruit a couple players in the 1-100 ranking level to make a significant step forward.

This is interesting (from an ESPN article)

This current golden era of Villanova basketball looked like it was going to arrive almost a decade ago.

The Wildcats earned a 1-seed in 2006 and then reached the Final Four in 2009. They also were finally making their mark on the recruiting trail, landing two five-star prospects in the 2007 class and three five-star prospects in the 2009 class, finishing with the No. 3 recruiting class in the country in '09.

The core of highly touted recruits Corey Fisher, Corey Stokes, Mouphtaou Yarou, Maalik Wayns and Dominic Cheek was expected to help Villanova take the next step in the college basketball hierarchy.

Instead, what followed was the worst stretch of Wright's tenure at Villanova since his opening three seasons.

The Wildcats started 16-1 in the 2010-11 season before going 5-10 the rest of the way -- including a five-game losing streak to close the regular season. They were bounced in the first round of the NCAA tournament by George Mason. It bottomed out the next season, as Villanova finished 13-19 and missed the NCAA tournament for the first time since 2004.

Everyone in the program knew something was wrong.

It went back to recruiting and suddenly trying to outgun the established blue bloods for highly ranked prospects.

Wright had early success at Villanova by getting tough-minded, hard-nosed kids who were mostly local products from Pennsylvania, New Jersey, the D.C.-Maryland-Virginia region and the surrounding areas. More often than not, those players weren't ranked in most recruiting services.

Despite the on-court success under Wright, Villanova has had just one top-20 recruiting class since the ESPN recruiting database started in 2007. Villanova has been consistently ranked between 20 and 40, but it also had three unranked recruiting classes from 2010 to 2012. In 12 classes, Villanova has signed 21 ESPN 100 prospects and eight five-star players.

The rest of the article is quite instructive.
http://www.espn.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/22436614/inside-villanova-epic-five-year-run

 

[LotusAggressor]

I'd say you actually don't need any top 100 players to make it to the tournament, you just need to get some good solid players and coach them up and see them develop by the time they are juniors and seniors. A roster stock full of nothing but 3 star kids can still be an NCAA tournament team with a good coach that has had time to develop them. They just have to be talents that fit with what the coach wants to do and kids that get better every year on campus.

The fundamental reason this strategy hasn't worked is because player development has been non-existent at RU for over 30 years. That's the biggest thing that has to change. It works at Virginia and Villanova because players actually get better in those programs, and they stay 3 or 4 years.

 

[e5fdny]

Aren’t you guys (the more BB leaning ones) always saying basketball is different than football? Rebuilding-wise.

Some of the stuff @Scarlet Shack is laying out describes that. Same with what @TDIrish27 says too.

But I disagree with what their current definition of “region” is. As @NewJerseyHawk says with regard to our better recruiting and better infrastructure, think we need to broaden the borders of our region as we move forward.

 

[TDIrish27]

RUC

You have to take certain teams out of your equation.

Kansas , UK , UNC , Arizona go National because they can.

WVU goes all over because they have to.

Some schools go the juco route----that sku's your analysis

In the Boston to Baltimore corridor there are plenty of players to feed a successful program and maintain it.

Having seen a decent amount of HS Basketball in Florida during winters I can tell you it isn't even close to up here.

 

[RUChoppin]

RUC

You have to take certain teams out of your equation.

Kansas , UK , UNC , Arizona go National because they can.

WVU goes all over because they have to.

Some schools go the juco route----that sku's your analysis

In the Boston to Baltimore corridor there are plenty of players to feed a successful program and maintain it.

Having seen a decent amount of HS Basketball in Florida during winters I can tell you it isn't even close to up here.

Take out whoever you want, but the point still stands that the majority of schools go out of region for their best players.

1 school had all 6 core scoring players from their home state or a neighboring state: Oklahoma.
8 schools had 5 of 6 from their home or neighboring states (Arkansas, Georgetown, Miss St, Oklahoma St, Oregon St, Seton Hall, Texas A&M, Villanova)
13 schools had 4 of 6 from their home or neighboring states (Auburn, Butler, Georgia, Iowa, Marquette, Michigan St, Missouri, PA St, Tennessee, Texas Tech, USC, Washington, Wisconsin)

That's 22 of 75 (29%) that had the majority of their core 6 scoring players from either in-state or from a neighboring state. 12 of the 22 were from either the SEC or Big East.

20 schools had 3 of their core 6 scoring players coming from their home or neighboring states
21 had just 2 of 6
5 had just 1 of 6 (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa St, Providence)
7 had none (Boston College, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Pitt)

Another interesting thing: only 20 of the 75 schools (27%) saw their leading scorer come from in-state. Only 38 of 150 (25%) the Top Two scorers at each of the 75 schools came from in-state. The clear majority of schools go out of state to find the best talent.

Given that only 10 of those 150 players hailed from NJ/NY (and 7 of those went to Catholic programs), it makes sense for us to look outside of this area, too.

 

[RUBigFrank]

Take out whoever you want, but the point still stands that the majority of schools go out of region for their best players.

1 school had all 6 core scoring players from their home state or a neighboring state: Oklahoma.
8 schools had 5 of 6 from their home or neighboring states (Arkansas, Georgetown, Miss St, Oklahoma St, Oregon St, Seton Hall, Texas A&M, Villanova)
13 schools had 4 of 6 from their home or neighboring states (Auburn, Butler, Georgia, Iowa, Marquette, Michigan St, Missouri, PA St, Tennessee, Texas Tech, USC, Washington, Wisconsin)

That's 22 of 75 (29%) that had the majority of their core 6 scoring players from either in-state or from a neighboring state. 12 of the 22 were from either the SEC or Big East.

20 schools had 3 of their core 6 scoring players coming from their home or neighboring states
21 had just 2 of 6
5 had just 1 of 6 (Arizona, Colorado, Indiana, Iowa St, Providence)
7 had none (Boston College, Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, Nebraska, Notre Dame, Pitt)

Another interesting thing: only 20 of the 75 schools (27%) saw their leading scorer come from in-state. Only 38 of 150 (25%) the Top Two scorers at each of the 75 schools came from in-state. The clear majority of schools go out of state to find the best talent.

Given that only 10 of those 150 players hailed from NJ/NY (and 7 of those went to Catholic programs), it makes sense for us to look outside of this area, too.

Based on this analysis if there are 21 in state for Big Ten schools that's an average of 1.5 in state on the roster for each school - which lends credence recruit nationally theory

 

[RUChoppin]

Based on this analysis if there are 21 in state for Big Ten schools that's an average of 1.5 in state on the roster for each school - which lends credence recruit nationally theory

The only teams with more than 2 in-state players in their top 6 scorers were PA St (4) and Ohio St (3).

 

[e5fdny]

The only teams with more than 2 in-state players in their top 6 scorers were PA St (4) and Ohio St (3).

Are the ones on State Penn from Philly or near by the Philly area?

 

[RUChoppin]

Are the ones on State Penn from Philly or near by the Philly area?

3 from Philly, 2 from Philly neighbors (Chester and North Wales). But the Chester/North Wales guys went to the same HS as Carr and Bostick from Philly (Roman Catholic). So, 4 of their top 6 guys all came from one Philly HS.

 

[e5fdny]

3 from Philly, 2 from Philly neighbors (Chester and North Wales). But the Chester/North Wales guys went to the same HS as Carr and Bostick from Philly (Roman Catholic). So, 4 of their top 6 guys all came from one Philly HS.

Then I count them in our region. ;)

The State of Rutgers thing should work for MBB too, right?

 

[RUChoppin]

Then I count them in our region. ;)

The State of Rutgers thing should work for MBB too, right?

I would count them in our region, too. There were just 12 PA players in those 450 I looked at. 6 of them stayed home in PA (5 at PA St, 1 at Nova) and 6 went further afield (2 to Miami, 1 to Kentucky, Michigan, UNC, and UVA).

 

[RUChoppin]

A slightly different look at some of the numbers.

# of players per state from our region, and where they went (regional schools in bold):
21 - NY (Minnesota - 2, SHU - 2, SJU - 2, Arizona, Butler, Gtown, GTech, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Providence, Rutgers, South Carolina, Texas, UCLA, Nova, UVA, Washington)

13 - MD (Maryland - 2, Clemson, Gtown, KState, Miami, Nebraska, Ohio St, SJU, Cuse, Nova, Wake, WVU)

12 - PA (PA St - 5, Miami - 2, Kentucky, Nova, UVA, Michigan, UNC)

11 - NJ (Notre Dame - 2, SHU - 2, Ole Miss, Cuse, South Carolina, Gtown, Xavier, DePaul, Maryland)

4 - CT (Cuse, Pitt, Auburn, LSU)
3 - NH (Kentucky, Michigan, Rutgers)
3 - DE (Duke, Nova, SHU)
3 - DC (Gtown, Iowa, NC State)
1 - RI (Pitt)

So, of the 71 players from our loose "region", we got 2 (Williams, Baker), other regional schools got 33, and schools outside the region got 36.

Regional kids by conference:
20 - Big East
19 - Big Ten
18 - ACC
8 - SEC
3 - P12
3 - B12