Dave Paulsen

[Cedric Dempsey]

Yes this is football, but same principles apply.

By comparing the number of incoming signees from 2008 to 2012 to the number eventually honored at the highest level, we can arrive at these odds:
Odds of Becoming an All-American, by Recruiting Ranking
5–Star: 1 in 4.
Top 100: 1 in 6.
4–Star: 1 in 16.
3–Star: 1 in 56.
2–Star: 1 in 127.
http://www.bruinsnation.com/2014/2/...between-recruit-rankings-and-on-field-success

Apples to orangutans. Your data and the variables involved in two tremendously different sport dynamics make this moot. Far more fringe program success has occurred in March Madness and is more likely to with the tremendous parity based on low roster numbers. A supposed 3 star at age 18 can easily mature to be a tremendous value at age 20. I submit that DP is doing the correct thing by focusing on incremental program growth. History shows that great shit doesn't just happen.

 

[DAK]

Apples to orangutans. Your data and the variables involved in two tremendously different sport dynamics make this moot. Far more fringe program success has occurred in March Madness and is more likely to with the tremendous parity based on low roster numbers. A supposed 3 star at age 18 can easily mature to be a tremendous value at age 20. I submit that DP is doing the correct thing by focusing on incremental program growth. History shows that great shit doesn't just happen.

Yeah, it's definitely not apples-to-apples but the principle is still the same. Basketball is way more volatile though, no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

Yeah, it's definitely not apples-to-apples but the principle is still the same. Basketball if way more volatile though, no question.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Principle schminciple. In my line of work small market success in pro sport is a beautiful thing. The Green Bay Packers and the Cincinnati Reds are examples. The job that the Royals have done is amazing. Why? Because of excellent talent assessment that is centered upon player development. Can't afford to buy 5 star contracts so they build it thru player appraisal. Everybody in the organization is going to the same happy hour. I'm back as a fan at Mason because your new AD appears to get this in a significant way. DP seems to be all about this because that is the way he developed his career. Me likey.

 

[Falco]

I am so tired of the lazy narrative from people on this forum, that the recruiting rankings are meaningless. You keep pointing to the “evidence,” but anyone with a basic understanding of statistics would call your "evidence" “outliers.”

 

[Cedric Dempsey]

I am so tired of the lazy narrative from these forum, that the recruiting rankings are meaningless. You keep pointing to the “evidence,” but anyone with a basic understanding of statistics would call your "evidence" “outliers.”

I apologize for my lazy narrative and I realize you're tired so I'll take my basic lack of statistical understanding to bed while you sharpen up on your air quotes. ""

 

[gmutom]

...while you sharpen up on your air quotes. ""

 

[Herndon]

I am so tired of the lazy narrative from people on this forum, that the recruiting rankings are meaningless. You keep pointing to the “evidence,” but anyone with a basic understanding of statistics would call your "evidence" “outliers.”

I actually get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree with one thing, which is that a team that isn't winning has nothing to sell a recruit. A team that isn't winning has early playing time to sell to a recruit.

Further, Paulsen has demonstrated in his first year that he's willing to live up to his word and play guys early. So it's VERY feasible to imagine a recruit that could either sit for a couple years at a different program, or play right away here would choose Mason.

Further, while recruiting rankings are a valuable tool, certain coaches do more with less, and certain coaches to less with more. Jim Larranaga's recruits routinely outperformed their rankings, because he had a better eye for talent than the recruiting "experts" (""), but also because he was a very good teacher of the game.

Frankly, I don't think that Paulsen has proven that at this level yet, but it HAS been his model at his previous stops, so I'm willing to give him the time to get and teach his guys and see if he can make it work here.

 

[DAK]

I'm not 100% sure where the disconnect is. We're currently looking for steals, nothing has changed. That's George Mason Basketball. Maybe in a couple years we'll have a little more pull and get more sought after players, but for now, in Dave we trust! He already uncovered a few gems and I'm looking forward to seeing what's in the next class.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[GSII]

According to the GMU BBALL GOD (OCM), he wouldn't be surprised if we win the A10 next year. Carry on.

 

[Falco]

I actually get where you're coming from, but I have to disagree with one thing, which is that a team that isn't winning has nothing to sell a recruit. A team that isn't winning has early playing time to sell to a recruit.

Further, Paulsen has demonstrated in his first year that he's willing to live up to his word and play guys early. So it's VERY feasible to imagine a recruit that could either sit for a couple years at a different program, or play right away here would choose Mason.

Further, while recruiting rankings are a valuable tool, certain coaches do more with less, and certain coaches to less with more. Jim Larranaga's recruits routinely outperformed their rankings, because he had a better eye for talent than the recruiting "experts" (""), but also because he was a very good teacher of the game.

Frankly, I don't think that Paulsen has proven that at this level yet, but it HAS been his model at his previous stops, so I'm willing to give him the time to get and teach his guys and see if he can make it work here.

I 100% agree with Paulsen hasn't proven himself to be the answer, and he hasn't proven not to be the answer, so in my opinion we should of held of on a contract extension, because we just don't know for sure what kind of coach we have.

Remember we saw great things from Hewitt in his first year. He recruited Copes, and we al thought that was great. He had a 20 win season despite loosing Hancock. It wasn't until the following years that we saw what a real mess we had.

 

[Herndon]

I 100% agree with Paulsen hasn't proven himself to be the answer, and he hasn't proven not to be the answer, so in my opinion we should of held of on a contract extension, because we just don't know for sure what kind of coach we have.

Remember we saw great things from Hewitt in his first year. He recruited Copes, and we al thought that was great. He had a 20 win season despite loosing Hancock. It wasn't until the following years that we saw what a real mess we had.

Meh, I think the recruiting good will engendered by the extension is worth more than the financial savings of one contract year. If you don't extend, it sends a message that the coach isn't on as solid footing as he could be, and that hurts recruiting. Hurting recruiting hurts results, so it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Paulson's not making a fortune, so one year of contract isn't a bank breaker.

Further, Hewitt had a lot more warts coming in than Paulsen does (at least in my opinion). Some of us wer e already soured on Hewitt the first day he showed up, while I think Paulsen has more rope (because he has no record of failure, unlike Hewitt)

 

[JimP]

I 100% agree with Paulsen hasn't proven himself to be the answer, and he hasn't proven not to be the answer, so in my opinion we should of held of on a contract extension, because we just don't know for sure what kind of coach we have.

Remember we saw great things from Hewitt in his first year. He recruited Copes, and we al thought that was great. He had a 20 win season despite loosing Hancock. It wasn't until the following years that we saw what a real mess we had.

If I remember correctly, between the quality of the roster, weakness of the schedule and unfulfilled expectations in the CAA that may have been the least impressive 24 win coaching job ever. All those wins and still couldn't make the NIT.

 

[GMUSig03]

If I remember correctly, between the quality of the roster, weakness of the schedule and unfulfilled expectations in the CAA that may have been the least impressive 24 win coaching job ever. All those wins and still couldn't make the NIT.

Only solid wins that year were ironically due to Sherrod's Valentines Day miracle against vcu and against Dave Paulsen led Bucknell, after terrible losses to FIU and FAU to start the year.

 

[Five Two]

The job that the Royals have done is amazing. Why? Because of excellent talent assessment that is centered upon player development. Can't afford to buy 5 star contracts so they build it thru player appraisal. Everybody in the organization is going to the same happy hour. .

The Royals GM, Assistant GM and 2 others high in the org are all Mason alums. Maybe they can help with basketball recruiting too???

 

[JimP]

As far as Copes - it means very little if we were excited about the signing at the time. Look how it turned out.

The only time I had any degree of hope during Hewitt's time is when the team played reasonably well in the CBI. I somehow believed the team may have turned the corner. Quite foolhardy.

 

[Patriotsince81]

I appreciate the fact that Paulsen has recruited position players, seemingly with skills, rather than all 6'7" "athletes." Time will tell how it all ends up but I like the direction we are headed. I have said that it is the 17 -18 season that will show if we are truly headed back to winning ways. I am not counting out some surprises this coming year. I also doubt we will have to suffer through any more suspensions of players, unlike the deluge during the Hewitt years. Some may leave because they don't rise to the top but healthy competition is good for the program as a whole.

 

[Old Man]

Remember we saw great things from Hewitt in his first year. He recruited Copes, and we all thought that was great. He had a 20 win season despite loosing Hancock. It wasn't until the following years that we saw what a real mess we had.

Let's at least get out facts right. Hewitt didn't recruit Copes, Hewitt recruited Copes' uncle and made him an assistant coach. And Copes' uncle wouldn't have been available had Hobbs (I think that was his name) not been fired at GW, which is what made Copes available.

And as for a 20 win season his first year, with the players left, the recruits on that team, and in the CAA, I could have coached a twenty win season. (Ok, maybe not, but anyone who really had any kind of basketball resume who came in to coach should have won 20 games, and maybe even Jolly, too.)

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

 

[MasonFanatic]

The regular season was cause for optimism, but I would have to think that anyone who was at Hewitt's first CAA tournament came home from Richmond with an ominous feeling about how that team fell flat on its face on the big stage, and how empty the season actually was, in hindsight. I know I did.

Edit: It was too soon to know if our problems were coaching, or simply personnel woes at the PG position, but there were red flags.

 

[GSII]

I 100% agree with Paulsen hasn't proven himself to be the answer, and he hasn't proven not to be the answer, so in my opinion we should of held of on a contract extension, because we just don't know for sure what kind of coach we have.

Remember we saw great things from Hewitt in his first year. He recruited Copes, and we al thought that was great. He had a 20 win season despite loosing Hancock. It wasn't until the following years that we saw what a real mess we had.

Speak for yourself, I knew and said from day one, Hewitt was a disaster. Really?!!! "He recruited Copes.." got you excited??? Gotta read between the lines on that signing. ie Coach Houston. Sure we won 24 games that year with OCM's guys, but we also got a** raped in the fist 10 mins vs vcu in the caa tourney. And alot of those wins were ugly and could of gone either way. Please, stop giving any credit to that bastard Hewitt. He set us back beyond belief.

 

[GSII]

The regular season was cause for optimism, but I would have to think that anyone who was at Hewitt's first CAA tournament came home from Richmond with an ominous feeling about how that team fell flat on its face on the big stage, and how empty the season actually was, in hindsight. I know I did.

Edit: It was too soon to know if our problems were coaching, or simply personnel woes at the PG position, but there were red flags.

Any fan should of seen the red flag in his first game as Mason's HC when we lost to FIU in Blacksburg.