2021 Recruiting

[mkaufman1]

So is the consensus that if we miss on all of Reynolds/Darius/Castro this recruiting class will likely bust at this point? Are we tied to any other recruits at that caliber?

I don’t think it’ll be a bust. Plenty of recruits, just not ones that they spent a lot of time going after. It happens and I still think they’ll end up with a good class one way or another.

 

[gmujim92]

Count me in on Folkes. Haven’t seen anything from the other two to make my yard stick move.

Folkes is a damn freak. AJ in a guard’s body. I’d love to see what our staff could do with him.

 

[sleeperpick]

Folkes is a damn freak. AJ in a guard’s body. I’d love to see what our staff could do with him.

Ok but gun to your head you want folkes over Reynolds?

 

[Petey Buckets]

I'm also not sure even the best of recruiters would have an easy time selling Mason right now. What's the pitch? "Come play for a school that has struggled to be relevant since switching conferences, where so few people attend the games that banners had to be put up to cover seats to make it less embarrassing, in an outdated arena, in a community that couldn't care less, in a city thats close enough to a metropolitan area to have traffic but not close enough to have a metro stop or really anything to do, at a school with ok academics, . . . ".

I love the place, but I just don't see how anyone is supposed to recruit here right now.

One thing we fans get wrong all the time is that players shop for schools the same way we shop for cars. Truth is they don't really GAF about bells and whistles like facilities and locker rooms and whatever. They build relationships with coaches and commit to the guys that can sell them the most compelling vision of their basketball future, at the highest level they can reasonably compete. That's why plenty of coaches are successful recruiters at places that shouldn't be easy to sell - Dambrot recruits well at Duquesne and Christian's already doing great at GW - because what we think sells is usually wrong.

Brad is learning the hard way that facilities don't really matter when the staff can't get you into consideration in the first place.

 

[Petey Buckets]

C, some of the best players we've ever had had crap offer sheets (Hancock, Marquise, Otis); some of the most disappointing were more highly ranked/recruited (Copes, Holloway, Mar).

There are a couple simple logical fallacies here. First, the universe of highly ranked George Mason recruits is tiny and the universe of crap offer sheets is vast. The fact that you can name a couple busts from group A and standouts from group B is meaningless and does not refute that recruiting rankings are, directionally, very accurate.

Second, only a highly ranked guy can be disappointing! If Otis never turned into OTIS no one would be disappointed because we never expected it in the first place. If Copes was a 2 star he would have been frustrating and infuriating but not disappointing.

We've had plenty of successful highly ranked recruits. I have no idea where this track that recruiting rankings are worthless comes from. Maybe it's an old CAA mindset we had to adopt to let ourselves get excited about guys no one was talking about? Whatever it is, time to evolve. Pearson, Folarin, Sherrod, Cam, Mike Mo, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some were great recruits and delivered on the hype. Someone should add up all the good recruits and see what the hit rate is, then all the CAA- level recruits and do the same thing. Would bet anything that the variance is wide - like 50% from column A and 15% from column B. I'm not enough of a loser to do it but I definitely might tomorrow.

 

[GMUgemini]

There are a couple simple logical fallacies here. First, the universe of highly ranked George Mason recruits is tiny and the universe of crap offer sheets is vast. The fact that you can name a couple busts from group A and standouts from group B is meaningless and does not refute that recruiting rankings are, directionally, very accurate.

Second, only a highly ranked guy can be disappointing! If Otis never turned into OTIS no one would be disappointed because we never expected it in the first place. If Copes was a 2 star he would have been frustrating and infuriating but not disappointing.

We've had plenty of successful highly ranked recruits. I have no idea where this track that recruiting rankings are worthless comes from. Maybe it's an old CAA mindset we had to adopt to let ourselves get excited about guys no one was talking about? Whatever it is, time to evolve. Pearson, Folarin, Sherrod, Cam, Mike Mo, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some were great recruits and delivered on the hype. Someone should add up all the good recruits and see what the hit rate is, then all the CAA- level recruits and do the same thing. Would bet anything that the variance is wide - like 50% from column A and 15% from column B. I'm not enough of a loser to do it but I definitely might tomorrow.

Our top 10 most highly rated recruits in order: Erik Copes, Patrick Holloway, Sherrod Wright, Andre Cornelius, Vertrail Vaughans, Paris Bennett, Therence Mayimba, Goanar Mar, Jonathan Arledge, Vaughan Gray.

Had CJ Jackson stayed committed he’d probably be in there, but not a single one of these players is first team all-Mason. Scratch that, Jackson was unranked.

Also, granted, this only goes so far back. I don’t know what Kenny Sanders’ ranking was when he committed, for instance, or Rick Wilson.

Also, rankings aren’t meaningless, you just shouldn’t get too excited to see a 3 star guy with some P5 offers or get too down on a player with a bad offer sheet and no stars. Let em come in and compete and see what happens.

 

[tblack33]

One thing we fans get wrong all the time is that players shop for schools the same way we shop for cars. Truth is they don't really GAF about bells and whistles like facilities and locker rooms and whatever. They build relationships with coaches and commit to the guys that can sell them the most compelling vision of their basketball future, at the highest level they can reasonably compete. That's why plenty of coaches are successful recruiters at places that shouldn't be easy to sell - Dambrot recruits well at Duquesne and Christian's already doing great at GW - because what we think sells is usually wrong.

Brad is learning the hard way that facilities don't really matter when the staff can't get you into consideration in the first place.

Are facilities one of those things you just have to have, it really doesn’t matter about all of the bells and whistles at our level? Like essentially a check in the box where it’s really only a big deal if you don’t have any kind of facilities?

Others have recruited well here in the past, with less, so I’ve figured it was a personality/sales pitch thing. When we get our recruited by GW, who I view as very similar program to us in a lot of facets and a good measuring stick at the moment, it keeps me thinking something is wrong.

 

[sleeperpick]

There are a couple simple logical fallacies here. First, the universe of highly ranked George Mason recruits is tiny and the universe of crap offer sheets is vast. The fact that you can name a couple busts from group A and standouts from group B is meaningless and does not refute that recruiting rankings are, directionally, very accurate.

Second, only a highly ranked guy can be disappointing! If Otis never turned into OTIS no one would be disappointed because we never expected it in the first place. If Copes was a 2 star he would have been frustrating and infuriating but not disappointing.

We've had plenty of successful highly ranked recruits. I have no idea where this track that recruiting rankings are worthless comes from. Maybe it's an old CAA mindset we had to adopt to let ourselves get excited about guys no one was talking about? Whatever it is, time to evolve. Pearson, Folarin, Sherrod, Cam, Mike Mo, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some were great recruits and delivered on the hype. Someone should add up all the good recruits and see what the hit rate is, then all the CAA- level recruits and do the same thing. Would bet anything that the variance is wide - like 50% from column A and 15% from column B. I'm not enough of a loser to do it but I definitely might tomorrow.

Really wish I could like this twice... as good of a writer you are for ByGeorge you are also a realist which is appreciated. Since everyone on this board respects your work I hope they actually read this post thru.

 

[gmujim92]

Ok but gun to your head you want folkes over Reynolds?

Yes strictly because of upside. I see Reynolds and Polite as having similar games, but Folkes would be on the short list of most athletically gifted guards in the A-10 Day 1. His potential is enormous.

Unfortunately I don’t think we’re getting him either. He didn’t prep at Putnam to wind up playing at Mason — I’d be pleasantly surprised to be wrong on this one.

 

[gmujim92]

There are a couple simple logical fallacies here. First, the universe of highly ranked George Mason recruits is tiny and the universe of crap offer sheets is vast. The fact that you can name a couple busts from group A and standouts from group B is meaningless and does not refute that recruiting rankings are, directionally, very accurate.

Second, only a highly ranked guy can be disappointing! If Otis never turned into OTIS no one would be disappointed because we never expected it in the first place. If Copes was a 2 star he would have been frustrating and infuriating but not disappointing.

We've had plenty of successful highly ranked recruits. I have no idea where this track that recruiting rankings are worthless comes from. Maybe it's an old CAA mindset we had to adopt to let ourselves get excited about guys no one was talking about? Whatever it is, time to evolve. Pearson, Folarin, Sherrod, Cam, Mike Mo, and I'm sure I'm forgetting some were great recruits and delivered on the hype. Someone should add up all the good recruits and see what the hit rate is, then all the CAA- level recruits and do the same thing. Would bet anything that the variance is wide - like 50% from column A and 15% from column B. I'm not enough of a loser to do it but I definitely might tomorrow.

You know you’re my dude Petey and I’d never try to go toe-to-toe with you on analytics, but the simple truth is 100% of Mason’s success has come from recruiting guys at the 2/3-star level or below.

Will Thomas was a 2/3. So were Lamar, Folarin, Jai, JV, Pearson, Morrison, Andre C, Cam, Sherrod, BA ... all of our best guys from somewhat recent history. None of them were top-100 nationally when they signed with Mason (Sherrod was at one time but he dropped).

The only legit 4-star guy we’ve had was Copes — enough has been said on him.

Nobody is arguing the recruiting guys are pretty damn accurate at identifying the elite top 50-75, but they miss a lot of very good basketball that’s played outside that group. Not their fault — even in a digital age, nobody has time to see everyone.

The reality is our program has never fished in that elite pond, but that doesn’t mean we can’t identify and sign kids capable of winning the A-10. If this current staff isn’t capable of doing that, we’ll need to get one that can.

 

[tblack33]

You know you’re my dude Petey and I’d never try to go toe-to-toe with you on analytics, but the simple truth is 100% of Mason’s success has come from recruiting guys at the 2/3-star level or below.

Will Thomas was a 2/3. So were Lamar, Folarin, Jai, JV, Pearson, Morrison, Andre C, Cam, Sherrod, BA ... all of our best guys from somewhat recent history. None of them were top-100 nationally when they signed with Mason (Sherrod was at one time but he dropped).

The only legit 4-star guy we’ve had was Copes — enough has been said on him.

Nobody is arguing the recruiting guys are pretty damn accurate at identifying the elite top 50-75, but they miss a lot of very good basketball that’s played outside that group. Not their fault — even in a digital age, nobody has time to see everyone.

The reality is our program has never fished in that elite pond, but that doesn’t mean we can’t identify and sign kids capable of winning the A-10. If this current staff isn’t capable of doing that, we’ll need to get one that can.

I'm going to bite on this, because I hate this argument and it's a cop out talking point for the AD to use for why we suck and recruiting at a low level is okay.

The simple fact of the matter is we moved up in conferences, to a conference that year in year out is somewhere between the 6th and 8th best basketball conference in the country year in year out. Pulling in 2-3 star kids is okay in the CAA, it puts you at least on par if not ahead of your conference competition. It puts us at the bottom of the barrel in the A10.

Our best teams would have struggled to compete in the A10. Northeastern wasn't rolling out an Obi Toppin. Drexel didn't have a Hasahn French. William and Mary was never going to trot out Fatts Russel. Those are the guys we go up against every single night in the A10. If we don't start to occasionally (note I say occasionally, I'm not saying we have to have a top 50 recruiting class every year, just every couple of years you've got to land one of these types of kids) land guys of this caliber, then we'll always be at this level if we stay in the A10.

So I hate the "we've always done more with lesser recruited players" because it doesn't take into account the fact that we moved up into a great basketball conference, and it gives our AD an excuse for why we are failing. It's a small mindset. We put our hard earned money into supporting the program, demand more of them and don't settle for this mediocrity.

 

[FreeGunston12]

One thing we fans get wrong all the time is that players shop for schools the same way we shop for cars. Truth is they don't really GAF about bells and whistles like facilities and locker rooms and whatever. They build relationships with coaches and commit to the guys that can sell them the most compelling vision of their basketball future, at the highest level they can reasonably compete. That's why plenty of coaches are successful recruiters at places that shouldn't be easy to sell - Dambrot recruits well at Duquesne and Christian's already doing great at GW - because what we think sells is usually wrong.

Brad is learning the hard way that facilities don't really matter when the staff can't get you into consideration in the first place.

I hear what you're saying, but I think brand name gets you in the door. Mason is not a brand name anymore (we had some momentum that made Hewitt's recruiting job a little easier) so coaches have to work harder to get a foot in the door. When they do, they don't have much to show off right now. Winning fixes a lot of that. Paulsen got a much better recruiting class after a couple #5 finishes. But after a step back last season, the staff has their work cut out for them.

Maybe I'm just apologizing for Paulsen, but I don't think recruiting at Mason is going to be easy, especially for him. Maybe someone else would have better success. I don't know. We are so far removed from tournament appearances and success. I just get the feeling that those on the boards don't have a realistic view of Mason's recrutiting prospects right now. There is no reason that we should be pulling in 4* recruits - unless Mojo has a nephew that I don't know about.

Plus, I'm not really sure what recrutiting success you are referring to with Dambrot. Their current roster's ratings seem pretty comparable to ours. And they have no commits for 2021.

 

[mkaufman1]

I'm going to bite on this, because I hate this argument and it's a cop out talking point for the AD to use for why we suck and recruiting at a low level is okay.

The simple fact of the matter is we moved up in conferences, to a conference that year in year out is somewhere between the 6th and 8th best basketball conference in the country year in year out. Pulling in 2-3 star kids is okay in the CAA, it puts you at least on par if not ahead of your conference competition. It puts us at the bottom of the barrel in the A10.

Our best teams would have struggled to compete in the A10. Northeastern wasn't rolling out an Obi Toppin. Drexel didn't have a Hasahn French. William and Mary was never going to trot out Fatts Russel. Those are the guys we go up against every single night in the A10. If we don't start to occasionally (note I say occasionally, I'm not saying we have to have a top 50 recruiting class every year, just every couple of years you've got to land one of these types of kids) land guys of this caliber, then we'll always be at this level if we stay in the A10.

So I hate the "we've always done more with lesser recruited players" because it doesn't take into account the fact that we moved up into a great basketball conference, and it gives our AD an excuse for why we are failing. It's a small mindset. We put our hard earned money into supporting the program, demand more of them and don't settle for this mediocrity.

Good discussion and I hear what you're saying.

Unfortunately it all comes back to this when I look at it. When Mason was in the CAA, they were recruiting CAA and A10 (so anything "above" CAA level players). Now that they are in the A10, they recruit A10 players, but nothing potentially "above". Sure you'll have players develop into something and others not pan out. But in general Mason was a big fish.

But when you take the same approach to athletics that Mason has always had, the "meh" approach, and you bring in a staff who fits your vision of good clean kids who work hard on the court, you get into this rut of "well we have to be patient" and other excuses.

Has Dave improved the last few years on the recruiting trail? Yes. Is he over his head in general? Probably.

But he has to find a way to get a lot of what he recruits (whatever those guys are ranked) and win on the floor or he's not going to last. The A10 is a rough league because you sometimes have BCS level players lurking around like you mentioned.

I wish I knew what the secret was that guys like Christian/Dambrot/Howard can all get higher ranked recruits to schools who have equivalent or less facilities, haven't been relevant in years nationally, don't need 3 years to "build connections" etc. Is it willingness to take a chance on a BCS transfer who is a knucklehead?

I'm not expecting a class of all top 50 recruits, but at some point one of these kids who are high ranked that Mason spends a lot of energy going after, should come to the school. Its certainly not that they aren't targeting them (which was part of the problem at the beginning). But at the same rate, its never really happened so I don't know why I can expect it. There is definitely improvement, but it would be nice to see Mason get rated better in recruiting rankings. At the end of the day I’d rather win on the floor, of course.

 

[GSII]

Since DP first step foot on campus, I questioned his ability to beat out conference foes for recruits. He signed many Patriot League level guys and squeezed the crap out of them til they limped to graduation or transferred out for various reasons. This Darius and Reynolds mini hype session got me excited that we have turned the corner. Unfortunately, nothing has panned out for us yet. Probably won't. Signing players of this caliber is what we need to prove that we can beat our conference foes for recruits. I don't mind the once in awhile 'diamond in the rough', but you can't build a solid program like that. I'll say again, until we win the recruiting battles vs the top quarter of so of our own league, we will remain mediocre. It's been without question, the one constant of the DP era.

 

[gmujim92]

I'm going to bite on this, because I hate this argument and it's a cop out talking point for the AD to use for why we suck and recruiting at a low level is okay.

The simple fact of the matter is we moved up in conferences, to a conference that year in year out is somewhere between the 6th and 8th best basketball conference in the country year in year out. Pulling in 2-3 star kids is okay in the CAA, it puts you at least on par if not ahead of your conference competition. It puts us at the bottom of the barrel in the A10.

Our best teams would have struggled to compete in the A10. Northeastern wasn't rolling out an Obi Toppin. Drexel didn't have a Hasahn French. William and Mary was never going to trot out Fatts Russel. Those are the guys we go up against every single night in the A10. If we don't start to occasionally (note I say occasionally, I'm not saying we have to have a top 50 recruiting class every year, just every couple of years you've got to land one of these types of kids) land guys of this caliber, then we'll always be at this level if we stay in the A10.

So I hate the "we've always done more with lesser recruited players" because it doesn't take into account the fact that we moved up into a great basketball conference, and it gives our AD an excuse for why we are failing. It's a small mindset. We put our hard earned money into supporting the program, demand more of them and don't settle for this mediocrity.

We moved up to a much better conference and instantly went from a Great White Shark to a guppy. Does that help recruiting? Nope.

I don’t know how old you are, but you must have missed Larranaga’s peak years because we were right there with the top A-10 teams during that period. And he did it without a single 4-star player.

The reality is we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place in recruiting. We need to go after a higher level of player to compete in the A-10, but then you have a class like this one where our top targets have blown up and gotten offers from P5/Big East schools with much more history of recent success to offer. So unfortunately we’re gonna miss on most of those guys.

Maybe we need to hire a coach who will just load up on transfers — there seems to be no shortage of DMV guys who can’t get off the bench at P5s and want to come back home for playing time. Feels like we’re heading in that direction anyhow with free agency coming.

 

[tblack33]

We moved up to a much better conference and instantly went from a Great White Shark to a guppy. Does that help recruiting? Nope.

I don’t know how old you are, but you must have missed Larranaga’s peak years because we were right there with the top A-10 teams during that period. And he did it without a single 4-star player.

The reality is we’re stuck between a rock and a hard place in recruiting. We need to go after a higher level of player to compete in the A-10, but then you have a class like this one where our top targets have blown up and gotten offers from P5/Big East schools with much more history of recent success to offer. So unfortunately we’re gonna miss on most of those guys.

Maybe we need to hire a coach who will just load up on transfers — there seems to be no shortage of DMV guys who can’t get off the bench at P5s and want to come back home for playing time. Feels like we’re heading in that direction anyhow with free agency coming.

My hot take of the day, the 2005-2006 team would have struggled to finish top 3 in the A10 last year, and probably most years that we've been in the A10. I am on the younger side for these boards, I never watched Mason basketball before the final 4 team, and I think the most talented team in Mason history is when I was a student with the 2010-2011 squad. There has been major conference realignment from when Larranaga was in the CAA so I think that's a tough comparison to make.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, if we can't recruit them as incoming freshman, the best course of action is to grab them as transfers from P5s, or snag guys from lower conferences who look like they might blow up after a freshman season in a low major. Transfers are going to just be a part of the game moving forward, deciding we just aren't going to play that aspect of the game is deciding to fight with one hand behind our back, as we've watched some of our better players walk the last few years.

 

[gmujim92]

My hot take of the day, the 2005-2006 team would have struggled to finish top 3 in the A10 last year, and probably most years that we've been in the A10. I am on the younger side for these boards, I never watched Mason basketball before the final 4 team, and I think the most talented team in Mason history is when I was a student with the 2010-2011 squad. There has been major conference realignment from when Larranaga was in the CAA so I think that's a tough comparison to make.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, if we can't recruit them as incoming freshman, the best course of action is to grab them as transfers from P5s, or snag guys from lower conferences who look like they might blow up after a freshman season in a low major. Transfers are going to just be a part of the game moving forward, deciding we just aren't going to play that aspect of the game is deciding to fight with one hand behind our back, as we've watched some of our better players walk the last few years.

My problem with transfers is statistically they don’t work out most of the time and when you miss on one (Reuter) it can mess with the development of your other guys. And unlike freshmen you don’t really have time to let them grow — if they can’t help you right away they’re not worth the scholarship. It’s definitely a gamble.

 

[Herndon]

My hot take of the day, the 2005-2006 team would have struggled to finish top 3 in the A10 last year, and probably most years that we've been in the A10. I am on the younger side for these boards, I never watched Mason basketball before the final 4 team, and I think the most talented team in Mason history is when I was a student with the 2010-2011 squad. There has been major conference realignment from when Larranaga was in the CAA so I think that's a tough comparison to make.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, if we can't recruit them as incoming freshman, the best course of action is to grab them as transfers from P5s, or snag guys from lower conferences who look like they might blow up after a freshman season in a low major. Transfers are going to just be a part of the game moving forward, deciding we just aren't going to play that aspect of the game is deciding to fight with one hand behind our back, as we've watched some of our better players walk the last few years.

Yo that's not a hot take, that's a BLISTERING take. It's one I'm also willing to bet you take back when you think about it

 

[GMUgemini]

My hot take of the day, the 2005-2006 team would have struggled to finish top 3 in the A10 last year, and probably most years that we've been in the A10. I am on the younger side for these boards, I never watched Mason basketball before the final 4 team, and I think the most talented team in Mason history is when I was a student with the 2010-2011 squad. There has been major conference realignment from when Larranaga was in the CAA so I think that's a tough comparison to make.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, if we can't recruit them as incoming freshman, the best course of action is to grab them as transfers from P5s, or snag guys from lower conferences who look like they might blow up after a freshman season in a low major. Transfers are going to just be a part of the game moving forward, deciding we just aren't going to play that aspect of the game is deciding to fight with one hand behind our back, as we've watched some of our better players walk the last few years.

Outside of Dayton, there wasn’t a single team last year that would have hung with that squad. Mason would have probably finished Dayton off at home, too.

Edit: to point out that UNCW took a GW team to OT that went 16-0 in the A-10 that year in the NCAA first round.

 

[mkaufman1]

My hot take of the day, the 2005-2006 team would have struggled to finish top 3 in the A10 last year, and probably most years that we've been in the A10. I am on the younger side for these boards, I never watched Mason basketball before the final 4 team, and I think the most talented team in Mason history is when I was a student with the 2010-2011 squad. There has been major conference realignment from when Larranaga was in the CAA so I think that's a tough comparison to make.

I absolutely agree with you on the last point, if we can't recruit them as incoming freshman, the best course of action is to grab them as transfers from P5s, or snag guys from lower conferences who look like they might blow up after a freshman season in a low major. Transfers are going to just be a part of the game moving forward, deciding we just aren't going to play that aspect of the game is deciding to fight with one hand behind our back, as we've watched some of our better players walk the last few years.

Yeah the Final Four and the 2010-2011 team are two of the best teams Mason has ever had, and I assure you they would have been fine in the A10 in any of the years. And like Jim said they did it without 4 star recruits etc. Just about everything you wanted out of a team (ball handling, rebounding, defense, size, shooters) they had.