Is Recruiting Improving?

I have been reading how many people think our future is brighter because recruiting is the best it has ever been. I thought it would be a good idea to look at whether this is in fact true.
I pulled all of my rankings from this site. They use a point system to combine top 100 recruits from many different “experts”.
Here are the recruits and their compiled rankings by year.

1998 – Adam Harrington (25) and Keith Bean (64)
1999 – Damien Wilkins (11), Marshall Williams (33) and Cliff Crawford (61)
2000 – Scooter Sherril (38), Mike Bell (95) and Marcus Melvin (98)
2001 – Julius Hodge (7), Levi Watkins (60), Josh Powell (65)
2002 – Cameron Bennerman (84)
2003 – None
2004 – Cedric Simmons (34), Andrew Brackman (60) and Gavin Grant (78)
2005 – Brandon Costner (19) and Courtney Fells (35)
2006- Larry Davis (60)

I am comparing strickly recruit rankings because the assumption is that we are recruiting better and we can all use hindsight to see who was actually better or worse than their rankings.

My observations:
1) The rankings for the 2004/2005 classes are in line or below what we have seen in the past (except of course 2002 and 2003).

2) There is an erie similarity in the makeup of the 2000/2001 and the 2004/2005 classes. There is one guard, one forward that plays guard, 3 (or 4) forwards and one center in each set of classes.

3) Five of the seven payers from the 1998-2000 classes tranferred or were asked to leave. That trend seems to have changed for the better.

4) 2002 and 2006 have a simliar drop in recruit rankings. In 2002 many said it was because of Herb’s shaky job status.
5) We went five years with two McD AAs on our team at the same time.

My Conclusions:
1) There is a strange correlation between keeping your recruits and post season appearances.
2) Our recruiting now is not any better than what we have had in the past, so to expect improved performance based on improved recruiting is not realistic. Based on our talent level it is realistic to expect similar results.
3) We seem to have down years after two succesful years of recruiting.
4) We recruit alot of forwards while college basketball is a guard’s game.

About Rick

1992 and 2002 graduate from NCSU. Born and raised an NCSU fan. I remember the good ol' days and they weren't in the last 20 years.

Basketball Recruiting General NCS Basketball

17 Responses to Is Recruiting Improving?

  1. Class of '74 11/30/2005 at 4:56 PM #

    I agree totally with conclusion #1 & #4. Evaluating high school talent is imprecise at best and once you go beyond the top 20-25 players it’s really a crap shoot. If I have beef with Herb it is we don’t get the in state talent like we did in the Sloan/Valvano years. We were successful with largely in state talent during those eras.

  2. VaWolf82 11/30/2005 at 5:26 PM #

    “There is a strange correlation between keeping your recruits and post season appearances.”

    Who would have thought? Thanks for compiling these rankings in one place for future discussions.

  3. Mr. O 11/30/2005 at 6:40 PM #

    Would our improved results suggest that our recruiting has improved? If it isn’t our improved recruiting, then what would attribute the improved results from the last 4 years?

    I think there is a lot more to recruiting than recruiting highly ranked players. I think Herb figured it out during the painful years of 4 and 5. He figured out what he wanted to do at NC State and the mixture of players he would need to be successful. Specifically, he started recruiting guys who can shoot the basketball (Sherrill, Melvin, Guidry, Bell followed by Hodge, Watkins, Evtimov, Powell, and Collins) in those two years.

    He struggled in the next class, but did a get a definite impact player in Bennerman and the next year he got Atsur who is essentially a 4 year starter.

    Then Herb needed definite impact players in his next two classes. With Grant, Brackman, and Simmons I would say he did pretty well. We haven’t seen much of this year’s freshman, but the talent certainly seems to be there.

    Next year’s class is the strange one to me. However, with Herb’s success of the last 4 years I am more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on signing two players not in the top 100.

  4. Sam '92 11/30/2005 at 7:00 PM #

    Great analysis.

    At the end of the day Herb is a smart guy but short on personality, and that holds him back both in recruiting and player motivation during the game (like digging deep to pull out a close one).

    Remembering a year or two ago in the ACC tournament when Maryland beat us — by coming out of the locker room at half time and turning up the heat — I felt like those (Maryland) guys would have run down the floor for Gary Williams with broken legs if they had to.

    For both recruiting and motivation, it seems like coaches need something like televangelist-type charisma — something Jimmy V had but Herb doesn’t.

    Herb is a solid guy who doesn’t over-promote himself or the team (i.e., talking bigger than results) — we’re not going to have truly great teams under Herb but he’s doing his job pretty well.

  5. itravel 11/30/2005 at 7:05 PM #

    Excellent write up! It seems to me that Coach H. is improving at selecting who to recruit. Although their H.S. rankings may not indicate it, I believe that the players the last few years have been far superior to the earlier years… esp. the last couple years.

  6. SaccoV 11/30/2005 at 7:17 PM #

    You are leaving one huge piece of evidence that would have put Herb’s recruiting classes definitely a notch above most and that’s the Shea Cotton fiasco. Not to mention, he was by all recruiting analysts and trackers, the number 1 player in the country regardless of position. Because of a situation where the timed-SAT hurt Cotton’s eligibility, Herb lost out on what would have been a top-notch recruit and a huge coup in the recruiting world. It definitely would have put State closer the top of the recruiting map in college basketball. I believe that Cotton @ State would have compared closely to Barnes’ top recruiting steals, like P.J. Tucker and T.J. Ford. Had Cotton played though, we never would have changed to Hunter’s offense, which has been successful at times. You also must factor in a few very close misses like Eric Williams and John Gilchrist, both of whom are/were all-conference players. Given all these, I think Sendek’s overall recruiting record is somewhat tarnished.

  7. Mr. O 11/30/2005 at 8:06 PM #

    Shea Cotten number 1 recruit in the nation? I used to follow it pretty closely and I remember him more like a consensus top 10-15 guy.

    That was one of those Adidas deals. He couldn’t go to UCLA because of recruiting improprieties IIRC (the site below says it was because of SAT issues). UCLA was an Adidas school and Cotten was an Adidas kid. After he couldn’t go to UCLA, then at the time Herb was a young up and coming coach at NC State with an Adidas contract and close to Sonny Vaccaro’s

    I did a google search on Shea Cotton and this blog came up:

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=shea+cotton+basketball&spell=1

    Also, here is another site on him:

    http://www.hoopsvibe.com/college_hoops/college_hoops_articles/made_with_100_cotton-ar4720.html

  8. Jim 11/30/2005 at 11:37 PM #

    Recruiting is in a straight line but when you string several of those straight-line classes together (and keep them) you hit a critical mass and have a good team. Recruiting may seem to have gotten better just due to volume on the team.

  9. Rick 12/01/2005 at 9:41 AM #

    If it isn’t our improved recruiting, then what would attribute the improved results from the last 4 years? ”

    I would attribute our improved results to keeping our players. I would attribute the stagnation we are to signing the same types of players. I would attribute our future stagnation to the same thing.

  10. Cardiac95 12/01/2005 at 10:39 AM #

    Rick….great analysis. I’ve done similar studies over the last 10 years & reached the same general conclusions……1) Herb’s classes have always ranked pretty well (Top 25) with a few exceptions above & below the curve……2) there is no correlation to class or player rankings & our on-court success. That’s why I don’t follow recruiting as closely any more. Its just a poor predictor of future success.

    A couple of things I’d suggest to include in your class listing are the scholarship players that were not consensus Top 100:

    2000 – Guidrey & Grundy (although I could swear Grundy was Top 100, I could not find him on the lists from your site)
    2001 – Evtimov, Collins
    2002 – Flatt, Mejia, Simons
    2003 – O’Donnell, Atsur, Bethel

    I’d also submit Herb’s 1997 class with approximate rankings:
    >100 – Anderson, C. Williams, Thomas
    Top 100 – Inge, Kelley
    Top 50 – Miller

    And on the subject of transfers…..congrats to Herb for recently passing one calendar year without one for the first time during his tenure! (late Nov 2004 – Adam Simons)

  11. Cardiac95 12/01/2005 at 10:42 AM #

    One more footnote…..although Atsur wasn’t ranked because he didn’t play in the US….one service ranking incoming ACC Freshmen would have put him approximately in the Top 50.

  12. Mr. O 12/01/2005 at 12:38 PM #

    “I would attribute our improved results to keeping our players. I would attribute the stagnation we are to signing the same types of players. I would attribute our future stagnation to the same thing.”

    Isn’t part of improving your recruiting better identifying players that will fit your system and those that will enhance team chemistry instead of those that are detrimental to the team and overall state of the program?

    I certainly consider that “improved recruiting”. Part of recruiting isn’t just getting highly ranked players. It is getting kids that will be successful at NC State as a part of a successful team. Inge was more like a consensus top 65 guy. Kelly was a consensus top 50 player and Archie was a top 40 player. Herb got some good players initially, but not a collection of players that made up a successful team.

  13. Rick 12/01/2005 at 3:08 PM #

    Cardiac,
    I would have liked to but I could not find a way to get consensus rankings on them. That site compiles the rankings from about 15 experts and only does top 100.
    Besides, except for IE and Atsur what other players above 100 have made a difference.
    I was surprised Grundy was not on the list as well.

  14. Cardiac95 12/01/2005 at 4:54 PM #

    Rick…..I think it just gives a more complete picture of the class to show those that were essentialy not ranked. But you’re right….most were non-factors that ended up transferring.

  15. brian cuddington 12/03/2005 at 8:45 PM #

    IF YOU CANT SEE THAT RECRUITING HAS IMPOVED I DONT KNOW WHAT TO SAY TO SOMEONE LIKE THAT.THIS IS THE MOST TALENTED TEAM THAT STATE HAS HAD SINCE 1989, I MEAN COME ON GUYS.HE HAS TWO TOP 30 PLAYERS IN BRANDON COSTNER AND COURTNEY FELLS WHO, BARRING INJURY DONT EVEN HAVE TO BE MUCH OF A CONTRIBUTOR.A FAR CRY FROM WHEN DAMIEN WILKINS ARRIVED ON CAMPUS, WHERE HE WAS EXPECTED TO BE THE NEXT DAVID THOMPSON OR EVEN WHEN JULIUS HODGE ARRIVED. AND WHO TRANSFERRED FROM THE PROGRAM THAT MATTERED AT ALL, PLEASE TELL ME. WAS IT ROULDRA THOMAS, TREY GUIDRY, MIKE ODONNEL, MEJIA,MARSHALL WILLIAMS, ADAM SIMMONS, WHO?

  16. VaWolf82 12/07/2005 at 12:24 PM #

    “IF YOU CANT SEE THAT RECRUITING HAS IMPOVED”

    I don’t generally read posts from people that can’t figure out how to turn the CAPS LOCK off, but I made an exception in your case. As usual, my internal screening rules would have saved me some time by keeping me from reading something with no actual content.

    There are two ways to evaluate recruiting. Rick did an outstanding job rounding up the recruiting rankings based on the high school results. There will always be “sleepers” and “busts”, but overall, the recruiting services do a good job at evaluating talent….otherwise people wouldn’t pay to read their opinions.

    The second way would be to evaluate the individual results at the college level. This technique would identify sleepers and busts, but would still have some problems. For example, Scottie Pippen looked alot better playing with Jordan than he ever did without.

    Rick’s data collection clearly shows that the only way to conclude that recruiting is improving is if you start measuring with the Bennerman/Atsur classes. These two years had six scholarships awarded with four transfers. Since then, recruiting has improved. But they key point is that over a longer, more complete picture, Sendek’s recruiting has stayed about the same level.

    The only peoplet that are disturbed by actual facts are those whose predictions are based on something other than real data. Many people prefer dreams and wishes to cold, hard reality.

  17. bcudd17 12/19/2005 at 8:19 AM #

    IS THAT THE BEST THIS GUY CAN DO IS CRITICIZE PUNTUATION.JUST LOOK AT THIS YEARS TEAM. THEY DONT EVEN HAVE TO PLAY 2 ALL AMERCICAN FRESHMAN. 5 YEARS AGO THEY WOULD HAVE BE COUNTED ON TO CARRY THE TEAM.THE LAST 2 RECRUITING CLASSES ARE TOP 15 CLASSES,ANOTHER COACH COULD HAVE SIMILIAR RECRUITING SUCCESS AT STATE AND WOULD BE REVERED. GIVE ME A BREAK GUYS

Leave a Reply