Seen a few posters suggest that we let JWalker go and replace him with a new assistant who's a plus recruiter. Theoretically speaking, would that move the needle, or does it all come down to Underwood at the end of the day?
Illinois Hoops Recruiting Thread (October 2018)
- Status
Let's move away from the word "projects", I think plan B recruits is more accurate to what most of us really mean, or at least what I generally mean when it comes to targeting frontcourt guys. It doesn't need to be a project big, but a recruit that fills in the gap for what we're missing or lacking in depth. They might not move the needle as much as you'd hope but we don't need to have plus recruits (compared to other conference teams) at every position in order for us to be a tournament team. There's a difference between plan B guys that would make our frontcourt average, and plan B guys that put us at the bottom of the rankings.
I don't know, there is a misconception that we are only targeting the highly ranked frontcourt stars. I think there are plenty of frontcourt players we have been going after that would definitely fit the definition of plan B guys and we have not been able to close on those either (Culver, Castleton, Kisunas, Conditt, Thamba, etc.). Targeting and strategy is not the problem IMO.
Last edited:
Mike Mennenga ate Walker's lunch in the Okoro recruitment and, somehow, that reclassification really took us by surprise for some reason?
So, that was bad.
But otherwise, Walker generally gets the kids on campus for officials.
After that, its Underwood's job to close.
Underwood closed on Smith. So, I think credit due there.
Groce closed on Tilmon. So, I think credit is due there too.
Liddell?
Holtmann ate Underwood's lunch on that one. Not Walker's fault.
Not sure who else there is to talk about?
Jordan Goodwin? Car'tare Gordon? Not sure either one could have been admitted here.
Courtney Ramey? Meh.
Watch Caleb Love and Cam'Ron Fletcher.
If either of them eliminate us early, then Walker screwed up.
But, if we make into the top 3 or so and get them on campus, then Walker is doing his job and doing it well.
Good review but I think Jordan Goodwin could not take official visits but he did visit UI unofficially at least a couple of times. I do not think anyone can blame Walker for that.
I had no problem with the targets last year. There seemed to be a better balance between top 50 guys and top 150 guys. Sure we didn’t close on those guys but what would you suggest needs to be changed? I get that it’s our ability to close but what does that even mean when it comes to making adjustments?
Well, we know that targeting is not the problem because we have some evidence (official visits, unofficial visits, offers, etc.) of what is happening. As I said in previous post though, while we can judge that "closing" needs to be fixed based on results, but it is impossible to know exactly what they need to improve on because we have no visibility on visits, interaction, etc. Whether it is tactics or personality/bonding/relationship adjustments, BU has to figure it out himself along with the staff.
Deleted member 746094
D
Guest
I have read pretty much all of your insight on this recruiting thread for some time. I have no coaching background, but played D1 football and am closely acquainted with a few guys that currently coach at the P5 level. You seem to have all the answers to recruiting and it always includes the word “close”.
So I reached out to my acquaintances and they do agree with you. “Closing” is the end game and it typically is the head coach that is responsible for this part of the recruitment. However, they tend to disagree with you in that a program’s recruiting strategy is paramount to its closing rate. Geographic selection, current needs, program fit and the realistic ability to gain a commitment from specific prospects is crucial to a successful college recruiting program.
I think you provide great insight and obviously are closer to the recruitment of high school and high level D1 prospects than many of us on this thread due to the certainty of your posts.
So I ask- how do you “close” these kids and what is BU not doing that these other coaches are to win their commitments? We offer playing time, average+ facilities, top notch education, “tradition”, beautiful campus. What is he missing when it comes to closing these top recruits?
When is the last time you heard a recruit say after committing, "I like both schools, but I chose school A because I like their assistant coach better."
Deleted member 643761
D
Guest
Mario chalmers?
Deleted member 643761
D
Guest
There may be a lot of hyperbole but our staff's job is to make recruits like us "clearly more."
I have noticed that our assistants are the ones going all over the country seeing recruits, taking in-home visits, etc. With the exception of AAU events, I never hear that Underwood is on those trips. Am I right on this? If so, is this a recent phenomenon or has it always been our approach? Is this because of his knee surgery or something else? I'll read about Calipari or another head coach going to see a recruit at their home and then I'll read about Antigua or Walker seeing one of our recruits. If it is our approach, I assume the coaches have discussed it and they think it is the best approach for us. I'm not being critical - just wondered if anyone else observed this.
I have actually answered the same in previous posts but it is an interesting discussion so unfortunately I have to cut-and-paste, apologies if someone has already read it.
I talk about recruiting strategy in the context of what other posters have criticized, specifically targeting specific range of players, the OVs we had scheduled in the fall with highly ranked stars, who are our first priorities, geographic coverage, etc. I really do not think that that there is anything wrong with our recruiting strategy. Even the problem with OVs and Spring recruiting, it is not a matter of intended strategy, it is the result of not being able to close in the Fall.
On the question/discussion on what we are doing/not doing in the context of "closing" the deal, on OVs and otherwise after recruits show interest: I have no idea, because I am obviously not part of the conversations/interactions. If it is something as far as tactics (conversations, presentations, things that we stress, things that we do not emphasize) past the initial point of creating interest, that is easier to fix. If it is something that has to do with personality/bonding/relationship with BU during the visit and interactions once recruits show interest, that would be more difficult to fix although even some aspects of personality can change. Which one it is would be impossible to know.
illini80
- Forgottonia
Really. Did you hear BU's comments about him being "behind" and "kind of lost"? Maybe then you were one of the few who didn't pencil him in as the starter. Will be interesting to see. You see it as a gross exaggeration. It's just my opinion I guess and I will be happily stunned if he makes an impact this year.
You do not hear it very often and at the end players understand that they will play for the head coach. But there have been multiple examples where an assistant coach may have had a strong pre-existing relationships with the recruit, family, and his coaches. On the Illini front, that is obviously the case with Chin-Ayo. From other notable recruitments of the past, the Manual trio (Sergio/Marcus/Frankie) ended up at UI because of the relationship with Rob Judson. They really did not know Kruger, and they had publicly stated that they were not going to play for Henson/UI. They were actually almost ready to commit to Indiana but once Kruger hired Judson, Illinois was able to quickly get back on that recruitment and close.
Last edited:
Michael Porter Jr. and Jontay Porter.
Many players credited Jimmy Collins back in the day...
Pedon was a bigger factor than Holtmann in the Liddell recruitment.
That happens quite a bit actually. Moving away from home and having someone you trust and can talk to is a huge thing. Lead recruiters sometimes develop good relationships with these kids. I myself chose a school based on my relationship with the assistant coach.
Agree wholeheartedly. You can set the table, and have the assistants do the early heavy lifting, but later in the recruitment there has to be a sense that your coach and program are the best place to develop and be rewarded. Unfortunately there's a lot of background noise, influencers, under the table activity, and other complicating factors that make it quite the art. Still, I'm not getting the sense that Underwood has above average aptitude there, or learned enough about that to really hook guys in. Or maybe he's on a leash with regard to some of the questionable areas. I dunno. As far as salesmanship, I think a significant amount of that is emotional intelligence/perception, to pick up on what factors resonate with each individual, and might be tough to improve. I could be completely off though, and I am not in a position to judge his ability other than by results. We can still improve our sell as a program by upgrading the things we can (product on the court, having players develop impressively, upgrading facilities, etc.). And if boosters step up to help (below, gray, or above board), that seems to be an important factor in getting some recruits, especially the higher up the food chain you go.
Joel Goodson
- respect my decision™
Agree w/much of your post. However, it's too soon to properly evaluate Underwood's recruiting acumen. For all we know, his acumen is outstanding. But with where the program is, it's a big leap of faith to jump in. With better results, we should have better recruiting. Hopefully, it happens soon. Pretty darn critical. One or two big commits and there will be a sea change from the fanbase.
- Status