https://drexeldragons.com/news/2020/4/15...cPgFzVMIWg

(04-15-2020 04:49 PM)Timer Wrote:  https://drexeldragons.com/news/2020/4/15...cPgFzVMIWg

i wonder how we beat out powerhouses like southeast missouri state, denver (i thought they just had hockey), and central connecticut state for xavier bell. i'm afraid to look at who we beat out for the other guy.

(04-15-2020 05:45 PM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  

(04-15-2020 04:49 PM)Timer Wrote:  https://drexeldragons.com/news/2020/4/15...cPgFzVMIWg

i wonder how we beat out powerhouses like southeast missouri state, denver (i thought they just had hockey), and central connecticut state for xavier bell. i'm afraid to look at who we beat out for the other guy.

Denver has one of the best LAX programs too, but your point is fine. Bell was not highly touted for basketball, he had walk on offers for football for the big 12. He is an unknown mostly for basketball. Not a bad get, but not someone teams were after either. His heart was for basketball, not football, though he was better at football than basketball. He clearly chose us because we were his best offer at D1. The "other" guy is a better recruit by far

so would you think of both of them as "projects"? that's what they look like to me. have we ever recruited anybody who isn't a project?

We are on the low end of the mid major spectrum, and we are in the bottom half of that conference who is at the bottom of mid major. Projects are what you get. You either get low end proven players with little upside, or you get good players who were passed by the bigger programs due to size, athleticism, background or you take projects you can develop that have high upside but are not ready currently. So it should not come to anyone's surprise that programs of our stature take on projects and trust their ability to develop them. It has the most likely highest return on investment.

Under Spiker I would say no we have not gone the route (Cam could be argued that he was not a project). Bruiser mostly took projects too, especially for bigs. He had a better hold on recruiting guards that were not as much projects, they were just shorter or had some flaw that kept them from bigger programs. Bruiser was good at selling his program and getting good recruits. Our conference was in a much better spot to do so though. Higher prestige and more money (from final four runs) as well as higher caliber coaches that stuck around awhile (Larranaga, Taylor, Flint, Coen, Brownell, Shaver etc). We were a premier mid major for a period of time which helped recruits come here. Realignment really killed the conference and mid major basketball in general. Rule changes have no helped either. They have forced the non power teams to recruit a certain way because athleticism wins consistently now. So at our level it forced coaches to go after higher ceiling projects that have athleticism to attempt to have a chance. The rock fight slow style doesnt work any more. It used to be a very viable solution to pulling upsets and winning. That is not the case any more. That is also not Spiker's fault that the rules have changed the entire landscape of what can win and what wont.

i just looked up some of hofstra's recruits and i see schools in the a-10, caa, and c-usa. i don't expect us to be beating out duke...but at least nec or patriot league schools and occasionally an a-10 school. it doesn't matter how he coaches in the games if he can't bring in players.

(04-23-2020 11:07 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  i just looked up some of hofstra's recruits and i see schools in the a-10, caa, and c-usa. i don't expect us to be beating out duke...but at least nec or patriot league schools and occasionally an a-10 school. it doesn't matter how he coaches in the games if he can't bring in players.

Arlen Specter US Squash center not getting it done for top recruits?

Imagine bringing a top player into the DAC and explaining that the guy painting inkblots in the corner is the Athletic Director, that the basketball court is shared with the badminton club, and that the team hasn’t won a conference tournament since joining. Tough sell.

(04-23-2020 11:07 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  i just looked up some of hofstra's recruits and i see schools in the a-10, caa, and c-usa. i don't expect us to be beating out duke...but at least nec or patriot league schools and occasionally an a-10 school. it doesn't matter how he coaches in the games if he can't bring in players.

As you already know Drexel is a tough sell in itself, we are not making it any easier on ourselves either. You argue that the recruits we are going after arent getting big offers, and there is likely some reason behind that. We are not just recruiting basketball players, we are clearly going after players that are solid academically as well. That was a direction Spiker has gone since he go there. So you wouldn't expect to see too many players looking at Drexel and also looking at the A-10 or C-USA. Patriot league players is more of who we look at. We are not investing in being top in basketball, never have and don't see that changing under this leadership. Expect more squash and crew type focus. Keep in mind the president came from UPenn then Franklin & Marshall. Prestige is all he knows so academia will always be the focus pushed down to everyone else, including the AD (not that the AD needed any help doing so).

i wouldn't expect the transfers if guys are coming here for academic reasons. we've also had a few guys come through that didn't seem like the best character guys. so i'm not sure the argument that the basketball program as a philanthropy program works out.

dan10...i read your post as a whole lot of reasons why we shouldn't even bother any more. if an offer from another caa or a-10 school is a "big offer"...that's a problem. there doesn't seem to be any motivation from higher up to help spiker out. i'm worried he took a dead end job and we'll never know whether the guy can actually coach or not.

i had an interview a few weeks ago for the board of governors. no idea how it will turn out because i have no idea what they were looking for. we can all read between the lines about where sports fall in drexel's list of priorities but i'd like to be in a position to hear it myself...and call it out. i made it pretty clear how important i think athletics are for so many reasons while stopping short of calling specific people out. i probably have no chance if they ever read these boards.

this is getting long...but what are the chances we see certain sports go away after the pandemic? it's happening at other schools. seems like the best time to make cuts if that's what we've been steering towards anyway.

(04-28-2020 10:13 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  i wouldn't expect the transfers if guys are coming here for academic reasons. we've also had a few guys come through that didn't seem like the best character guys. so i'm not sure the argument that the basketball program as a philanthropy program works out.

dan10...i read your post as a whole lot of reasons why we shouldn't even bother any more. if an offer from another caa or a-10 school is a "big offer"...that's a problem. there doesn't seem to be any motivation from higher up to help spiker out. i'm worried he took a dead end job and we'll never know whether the guy can actually coach or not.

i had an interview a few weeks ago for the board of governors. no idea how it will turn out because i have no idea what they were looking for. we can all read between the lines about where sports fall in drexel's list of priorities but i'd like to be in a position to hear it myself...and call it out. i made it pretty clear how important i think athletics are for so many reasons while stopping short of calling specific people out. i probably have no chance if they ever read these boards.

this is getting long...but what are the chances we see certain sports go away after the pandemic? it's happening at other schools. seems like the best time to make cuts if that's what we've been steering towards anyway.

That's great that you're interested in the Alumni Board of Governors. I know of a few former members who are long time STH's, but I don't know how many others on the board care about athletics. I'm friendly with the last President, and he never showed up for basketball games before, and only showed up for the big games, like opening night and homecoming while he was President. Being on that board may get some access to the big boys and the opportunity to express your distaste for the current state of the athletic program and express the importance of building winning teams.

(04-28-2020 10:13 AM)hiroshimacarp Wrote:  i wouldn't expect the transfers if guys are coming here for academic reasons. we've also had a few guys come through that didn't seem like the best character guys. so i'm not sure the argument that the basketball program as a philanthropy program works out.

dan10...i read your post as a whole lot of reasons why we shouldn't even bother any more. if an offer from another caa or a-10 school is a "big offer"...that's a problem. there doesn't seem to be any motivation from higher up to help spiker out. i'm worried he took a dead end job and we'll never know whether the guy can actually coach or not.

i had an interview a few weeks ago for the board of governors. no idea how it will turn out because i have no idea what they were looking for. we can all read between the lines about where sports fall in drexel's list of priorities but i'd like to be in a position to hear it myself...and call it out. i made it pretty clear how important i think athletics are for so many reasons while stopping short of calling specific people out. i probably have no chance if they ever read these boards.

this is getting long...but what are the chances we see certain sports go away after the pandemic? it's happening at other schools. seems like the best time to make cuts if that's what we've been steering towards anyway.

With our poor investment into our programs, I can certiainly see some getting the ax post covid-19.

To me it is not that we shouldnt bother, it is we either need to invest and go for it, or stop acting like we are trying. So in a sense, it is a version of why bother. If you dont want athletics to be important, then de-emphasize them and call it a day.

The past regime definitely recruited better and seemingly had more leverage for going after solid players, regardless of their athletic standing. Is that directive for type of player coming from the President? I do not know, but on the surface it certainly appears to be the case. We already know where our AD's stance is, that has not changed under the new regime.

What I am saying is that our focus is not on what others in our league are doing or what players we are going after, our focus is very specific type of player, many of whom likely are not looking at other CAA schools (W&M clearly excluded). It is the difference between focusing on academics and acting like an athletics program and hoping wins come and recruiting players to win regardless of where their ambitions are for academics. I will say under Fry/Zillmer/Spiker Drexel is more out of place than it ever has been as far as conference affiliation. We are acting like we a Patriot league or Ivy wannabe while not being either. It is a tough position to be in.

Good luck with the board of governors if you get it. More people focused on athletics is a good thing. I know Marshall is on it, but not sure how much progress he has made this year from that front. Obviously the more the merrier and having direct inside knowledge will help everyone. Hopefully it is not a lost cause. I think most of us on this board want us to invest in the prominent programs and treat them as more important to Drexel than they currently are treated.

(04-21-2020 07:28 AM)dan10 Wrote:  We are on the low end of the mid major spectrum, and we are in the bottom half of that conference who is at the bottom of mid major.

In Men's Basketball, the CAA was 17th in the Conference NET. Before the NET, the CAA was 9th in the Conference RPI in 2015-2016, 11th in 2016-2017, and 12th in 2017-2018. Even if you consider every conference outside the top six as a mid-major to make 26 mid-majors, the CAA was 11th among them this season, which is in the top half. The CAA isn't in the low end. Even if the CAA doesn't get great recruits originally and has good players transfer, incoming transfers have helped CAA teams win titles (I gave points per game):

2015-2016: Regular season champion Hofstra had Juan'ya Green (17.8), Ameen Tanksley (15.9), Brian Bernardi (12.3), and Denton Koon (11.4). Tournament winner UNCW had Chris Flemmings (16.2), and I don't know if they had any other players who transferred there.

2016-2017: Regular season and tournament winner UNCW had Flemmings (15.8).

2017-2018: Regular season and tournament winner Charleston did not start any transfers. 2 seed and Final loser Northeastern had Vasa Pusica (17.9).

2018-2019: Regular season champion Hofstra had Jacquil Taylor (8.5) and Tareq Coburn (8.4). Tournament winner Northeastern had Pusica (17.4) and Jordan Roland (14.6).

2019-2020: Regular season and tournament winner Hofstra had Isaac Kante (11.4) and Tareq Coburn (10.6).

Including jucos, half of the top fourteen players in points per game were transfers. They were Jordan Roland, Nate Darling, Marcus Sheffield II, Brian Fobbs, James Butler, Andy Van Vliet, and Zach Walton.

I wont argue with the numbers but the talent and play has not been top half. Also the are majors, mid majors and low majors. Not all non majors are mid majors. In either case we agree that transfers has been the reason this conference has not completely tanked. Incoming talent has definitely been way down. Part of what made the CAA o interesting during its peak years was you had players you could hate for a bunch of years. Now there are so many transfers (not just in and out of the CAA) that it seems like 2 years is what you get out of players now. That hurts the league too, because fans just dont "know" the players and teams because they are constantly overhauled.

i have trouble believing spiker is being told what kind of player to recruit. simplest explanation is he's just having trouble finding his footing for a variety of reasons...many of them not his fault. i'm worried our profile has essentially fallen off the map.

bruiser likely benefited from his name brand since i think most people knew who he was when he came to drexel. he was a personality as much as a coach. iona probably wanted a name brand which is why they picked up pitino...and are now in position to suffer the consequences since they keep finding more rules that he broke at louisville. ideally we become a stepping stone type of program for young coaches to move up which avoids this risk...but it requires investment both financially and symbolically and i don't think we're interested in that type of support right now.