|
Post by spikerthemovie on Dec 16, 2013 17:20:28 GMT -5
And I, for one, will be disappointed if they don't run a 5-1 next year. I like the option of strategically switching to a 6-2, but I really want to see what Schau can do. Schau needs to step it up on defense, however. That's not guaranteed. That's the odd thing about her. You'd look at her and think, "Good setter. Probably a liability in the front row." But, in fact, it's in the back row, where the Gophers need her more, where she's a liability (thus far).
|
|
|
Post by sulo on Dec 16, 2013 18:35:09 GMT -5
I would like to remind Ruffda, that,in reality, "battling for third" is actually the commonplace for the program. Do you want proof? Next time you go to the Pavillion look up and count the Big 10 Championship banners hung from the ceiling. You will find exactly one. In other words, for as good and consistent as the program has been for a long time on a national basis, Minnesota has won only one Big Ten championship in 30 plus years. Now that certainly may be attributable to the strengh of the Big 10, but "fighting(settling) for third is actually the norm. Look at this year. Minnesota was nationally ranked in the top 12 all year, and we made it to the sweet 16, but we did finish 3rd in the conference 3 full games behind the champions. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Minnesota fan and it kind of pains me to point this out, but sometimes facts are difficult things to deal with.
|
|
|
Post by sulo on Dec 16, 2013 18:35:27 GMT -5
I would like to remind Ruffda, that,in reality, "battling for third" is actually the commonplace for the program. Do you want proof? Next time you go to the Pavillion look up and count the Big 10 Championship banners hung from the ceiling. You will find exactly one. In other words, for as good and consistent as the program has been for a long time on a national basis, Minnesota has won only one Big Ten championship in 30 plus years. Now that certainly may be attributable to the strengh of the Big 10, but "fighting(settling) for third is actually the norm. Look at this year. Minnesota was nationally ranked in the top 12 all year, and we made it to the sweet 16, but we did finish 3rd in the conference 3 full games behind the champions. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Minnesota fan and it kind of pains me to point this out, but sometimes facts are difficult things to deal with.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2013 18:55:37 GMT -5
Not sure you've read my posts, but I've pretty consistently pointed out that the program has NOT advanced from the level it was at when Hebert was coaching. But I'm making two points in my recent posts:
1) The Gophers will not challenge Nebraska and Penn State with the talent they have and have coming in. Will this change (the recruiting)? Is that an unreal expectation? Is it Hugh's expectation?
2) The Gophers will not STAY at the level they are at without significant player improvements, primarily (in my opinion) in ball control. They will still be good, don't get me wrong. But Purdue, Illinois, Wisconsin, etc. are going to be right there with them (at least).
So far, Hugh has managed to keep the program where it was, although it did make 3 FFs and win a championship prior to his arrival, so that may be a little generous. I am concerned that there is going to be a dropoff. "Battling for 3rd" was a best-case scenario.
|
|
|
Post by ggopher on Dec 16, 2013 20:04:29 GMT -5
What bothers me about the recruiting situation is that Minnesota is a difficult place to get outsiders to commit to. All opposing coaches have to keep saying is how cold it is in the winter (even if they are coaching at places not much warmer). It's all a perceived issue. What has saved the program is the wonderful JO programs and the great local support by JO players to the University. Hebert never had huge rosters, so if he recruited you, it was fairly likely that you were going to get a shot at playing,especially if you were a local player. Now the pressure seems to be for Hugh to go after better players, because everyone is tired of finishing 3rd, so the local players get ignored because there may be some defect in their games, or they don't measure up to the ideal player that he is used to coaching. Hugh then ends up missing the out of state blue chip player he tries to recruit because they went somewhere else, and the local player gets tired of sitting by the phone and signs with someone else, and then you have nothing for your efforts. Start losing too much and then you are in real trouble because now you are also perceived as a loser as well as being in a bad climate. I think that can have a pretty bad snowball effect, as the national championship gives the big name programs a huge advantage in the recruiting process year after year because they are perceived as being a "winning" program, even if they underperform with the talent they recruited (happens all the time, but people still perceive those teams as "winners"). I don't know if Hugh just didn't try very hard to recruit local players this year, or they just wanted to go somewhere else, but what he is doing is not going to continue even the fairly good success the program has had. I don't care what your coaching credentials are, because teenagers have short memories. What is most important about a program to them is the perceived image the team had last season. The recruits he has to focus on are the best in state players, but at the same time put out feelers for any interest by the out of state blue chip players, especially ones that are not scared off by a little cold weather (the Pav is heated and we play inside).
|
|
|
Post by ggopher on Dec 16, 2013 20:07:12 GMT -5
Battling for third may be a realistic goal given who you are trying to compete with.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2013 20:30:28 GMT -5
Ironically, Coach Hebert may have been infinitely more relatable to recruits than Mccutcheon will ever be. Warm, engaging, intimate doesn't appear to be in Hugh's natural repertoire. Only time will tell, but the Olympic aura fades quickly and he may have already missed the best recruiting opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Dec 16, 2013 20:55:24 GMT -5
Prospects for next year are a function of several things:
1. What everyone else has lost. No doubt Minnesota will greatly miss its two all-americans and its starting setter. Other teams are going to miss their seniors too: Mich loses Cross, Toon, and Ervin; Ohio State loses Leary; Purdue loses Cramer; MSU loses Wincinski and Matthews; Nebraska, Robinson. Isn't Wisconsin's Chapman a senior, too? Even mighty PSU loses McClendon, Scott, and Slay, although it also has a stockpile of top recruits waiting in the wings. Lot of holes to fill in this conference.
2. Player development. Minn had no room this year for the #14 recruit at her usual position on the left side, or the #30 recruit in the middle. They'll surely have their chances to show what they can do next year.
3. New recruits/transfers. The latter half of that remains to be seen.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Dec 16, 2013 21:02:52 GMT -5
Ironically, Coach Hebert may have been infinitely more relatable to recruits than Mccutcheon will ever be. Warm, engaging, intimate doesn't appear to be in Hugh's natural repertoire. Only time will tell, but the Olympic aura fades quickly and he may have already missed the best recruiting opportunity. I don't know why some coaches are better recruiters than others, all other things being equal, and I also don't know the gentlemen personally, but "warm, engaging, and intimate" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of Cook, Rose, and Haley. Rob Patrick is another coach who recruited well (keeping 'em happy was a different matter), despite a less than warm image. Elliot and Dunning, yes. It takes all types, I think.
|
|
|
Post by Wiswell on Dec 16, 2013 21:02:57 GMT -5
Chapman is a junior. Badgers only lose Hickey, which is a big loss defensively. If Crystal Graff and/or Mikaelsen is healthy, they should be in good shape. They could even have a bench for once. They will have 6 or 7 seniors on the roster.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2013 21:41:21 GMT -5
Ironically, Coach Hebert may have been infinitely more relatable to recruits than Mccutcheon will ever be. Warm, engaging, intimate doesn't appear to be in Hugh's natural repertoire. Only time will tell, but the Olympic aura fades quickly and he may have already missed the best recruiting opportunity. I don't know why some coaches are better recruiters than others, all other things being equal, and I also don't know the gentlemen personally, but "warm, engaging, and intimate" aren't the words that come to mind when I think of Cook, Rose, and Haley. Rob Patrick is another coach who recruited well (keeping 'em happy was a different matter), despite a less than warm image. Elliot and Dunning, yes. It takes all types, I think. The comparison was directed at Hebert mainly, but with the exception of Patrick, the others probably have a stronger product to sell, and are likely to be much better salesmen of their programs and history. Russ can be pretty engaging if you're not easily offended, and Mick's wife is a hoot and a half after a few drinks.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Dec 16, 2013 22:40:06 GMT -5
This is kind of tautological. Those who recruit exceptionally well have a strong product and therefore don't have to be "warm" to recruit exceptionally well. But if you don't have a strong product, you have to be warm to recruit exceptionally well. I'm confused.
I would guess most top recruits are looking for a coach, not a pal: someone who runs a top program, someone who can train, someone who can help them grow as a player and a person, and someone who seems honest, free from bs, someone with integrity. I don't see the evidence for the proposition that a nice guy, engaging, intimate persona is what makes top recruiters top recruiters.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Dec 16, 2013 22:52:42 GMT -5
What bothers me about the recruiting situation is that Minnesota is a difficult place to get outsiders to commit to. All opposing coaches have to keep saying is how cold it is in the winter (even if they are coaching at places not much warmer). What place isn't, for one reason or another, difficult to get outsiders to commit to? Just a scant few programs get top recruits from hither and yon. Even a recruiting powerhouse like PSU recruits from east of the Mississippi almost exclusively. Even a Washington relies on Pac 12 area girls, if not from Washington itself. The rest of the world relies mostly on talent from in-state or neighboring states. Do we really know that Minn has lost top recruits because the recruits thought it too cold, or some opposing coach said it was too cold? I doubt it. Minn's problem is that it can't furnish a compelling reason for that top recruit from far away not to go to some other school closer to her. Minn has therefore relied on the local talent, which has thankfully been plentiful. Minn has twin advantages in having a strong club program to draw from and no other Div I team in-state to compete with. If, as alleged, McCutcheon is turning up his nose at the locals, in the hopes of snagging even bigger prizes from far away, he is indeed gambling and going for broke.
|
|
|
Post by gogophers on Dec 16, 2013 23:00:30 GMT -5
Russ can be pretty engaging if you're not easily offended, and Mick's wife is a hoot and a half after a few drinks. I don't doubt for a second that Rose can be great company to someone meeting him on the same level, but if you're a recruit meeting him for the first or second time I would think "completely intimated" would be the typical reaction. And I doubt any recruit is going to be trading shots with Haley's missus.
|
|
|
Post by volleyguy on Dec 16, 2013 23:23:32 GMT -5
Perhaps you are confused, because you managed to confuse me. It's true that success breeds success, but it's not so much a tautology as a leveraging of a strength. Have you ever bought a box of girl scout cookies or a candy bar outside the grocery store because the kid was polite, sincere or simply cute or enthusiastic? That's a form of salesmanship, and some coaches are very good at that approach, which is more personal and somewhat independent of the product. Others are good at "selling" the product of tradition, history, promise and potential of a program (or campus). Certainly, choosing a college is a much more serious decision than a candy bar, but both approaches to recruiting exist and can work either independently or in concert (in fact, if you don't have a traditionally successful program, you have to rely on creating a personal connection to the athlete). The question being raised about Hugh's recruiting seems to be whether he has the ability or attributes to recruit successfully enough. I'm saying his strength may not be the personal connection, and it remains to be seen if he can articulate the appeal of his program.
|
|