Future Walk-On
New member
see Lawrence, KS
-
Welcome to BradleyFans.com! Visitors are welcome, but we encourage you to sign up and register as a member. It's free and takes only a few seconds. Just click on the link to Register at the top right of the page, and follow instructions. If you have any problems or questions, click on the link at the bottom right of the page to Contact Us.
Interesting GF Comment Re 2013-14 Recruiting
- Thread starter AZ BU Fan
- Start date
see Lawrence, KS
Ding ding ding!!! Finally someone gets it! If Bradley had been winning championships and getting into the NCAA tourney regularly it wouldn't matter how dumpy Peoria is, kids would want to come here for the winning program.
And in the 80's Bradley was on the verge of doing just that.
tornado
New member
So...
- you have to have a winning program to get the talented kids...
and
- you have to have the talented kids to produce a consistently winning program...
Catch 22...and I have been following Bradley basketball for nearly 50 years - and one observation is hard to deny - except for a fine, winning year here & there - usually coinciding with a talented group of seniors who were brought in as freshmen and developed (1980, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1996, 2006) Bradley hasn't produced consistent winning seasons since the early 1960's...
I guess it could just pop out of the blue next year...maybe, but I wouldn't bank on it...
So you're just kinda hoping we just gonna up and do something we haven't done in 1/2 a century, huh???
I actually think a school can recruit kids capable of winning championships with the right coaching even without doing it because of a string of "winning seasons" - in fact we'd better find a way of doing it because we can't rely on drawing blue chippers due to winning seasons
Molinari did it back in the early 90's - almost all of whom were talented kids out of high school that fit his system and stayed 4 years.
He was on the verge of doing it again in 2001-2002 when he was run off with a stable of extremely talented kids - many of whom were lost because of the ill-advised coaching change that many have now come to regret.
But such a plan always means once in a while - a down year when the seniors leave and we have to reload.
Thus getting impatient like little babies about one down year then running off the head coach and starting over - is enormously self-destructive for a school in Bradley's position where we have to re-stock, re-load, and develop them.
..and I have other thoughts on how we might have possibly been close at other times, too...
- you have to have a winning program to get the talented kids...
and
- you have to have the talented kids to produce a consistently winning program...
Catch 22...and I have been following Bradley basketball for nearly 50 years - and one observation is hard to deny - except for a fine, winning year here & there - usually coinciding with a talented group of seniors who were brought in as freshmen and developed (1980, 1982, 1986, 1988, 1996, 2006) Bradley hasn't produced consistent winning seasons since the early 1960's...
I guess it could just pop out of the blue next year...maybe, but I wouldn't bank on it...
So you're just kinda hoping we just gonna up and do something we haven't done in 1/2 a century, huh???
I actually think a school can recruit kids capable of winning championships with the right coaching even without doing it because of a string of "winning seasons" - in fact we'd better find a way of doing it because we can't rely on drawing blue chippers due to winning seasons
Molinari did it back in the early 90's - almost all of whom were talented kids out of high school that fit his system and stayed 4 years.
He was on the verge of doing it again in 2001-2002 when he was run off with a stable of extremely talented kids - many of whom were lost because of the ill-advised coaching change that many have now come to regret.
But such a plan always means once in a while - a down year when the seniors leave and we have to reload.
Thus getting impatient like little babies about one down year then running off the head coach and starting over - is enormously self-destructive for a school in Bradley's position where we have to re-stock, re-load, and develop them.
..and I have other thoughts on how we might have possibly been close at other times, too...
As I said earlier, Bradley was on the verge of becoming a consistent winning program when they ran off a 32-3 coach, who had almost his entire team returning. Lucky for the program the returning players decided to stay, but it took a season to get used to the new coach's system and the next season they were back in the Big Dance with the previous coach's players.
Buesch N Chips
New member
I've been saying this for years.
All of our recent successful seasons revolved around a kid who overachieved (JJ, Hersey, AP, POB). Take those four guys out of the equation, or just turn them into average contributors, and our ceiling is has been consistently pretty low in the modern era.
BU didn't run him off. He committed NCAA violations. Big difference. All the BU kool-aid in the world doesn't change that. He brought us some great players, but an objective party would put Versace in a league with Sampson or Pearl.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...7_1_ncaa-inquiry-anthony-webster-dick-versace
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ractions-hearing-anthony-webster-dick-versace
That's a matter of opinion. What DV supposedly did was minor compared to what other coaches have been accused of, or IMO we would have heard more about what all be was accused of. When he told the truth after the 1982 selection Sunday, also IMO and many others, the NCAA was looking for an excuse. Worst thing he could have done was go 32-3. Too bad BU's administration didn't have the guts to fight it.
tornado
New member
ha - the worst allegation was that they didn't think he was being upfront with the NCAA investigators...that and he told them to kiss his whatever -- plus an alleged taxi ride for Webster's father which maybe never happened given the only source was the disgruntled Webster and his dad who probably didn't get the taxi ride --
the whole thing was a phony NCAA attack drummed up because of someone's dislike for Versace & Bradley crashing the party with talented kids in the 80's
Versace was a lily white saint compared to Sampson, Pearl, and plenty of others nowadays..
the whole thing was a phony NCAA attack drummed up because of someone's dislike for Versace & Bradley crashing the party with talented kids in the 80's
Versace was a lily white saint compared to Sampson, Pearl, and plenty of others nowadays..
I know fans? who wouldn't have given Versace credit if he went undefeated. They never got over the fact that he replaced the previous coach. Only allegation I ever heard was the Webster allegation.
tornado
New member
anyway - the persona that goes with winning is generally a persona that some don't like --
coaches like Versace are considered brash and arrogant - but the kids WANT TO PLAY for him and he landed some of the best talent this campus has ever seen.
Calipari has the same kind of personality - pushing the limits, turns some people off......but odd how he's bringing in about eight 5-STAR kids this year....
coaches like Versace are considered brash and arrogant - but the kids WANT TO PLAY for him and he landed some of the best talent this campus has ever seen.
Calipari has the same kind of personality - pushing the limits, turns some people off......but odd how he's bringing in about eight 5-STAR kids this year....
Kids want to play for winning programs. PERIOD. I would say the 80's were consistent success, after Albeck Molinari had pretty consistent success. A winning season is technically winning more games than you lose. So Bradley actually has had very many winning seasons, by the straight definition of a winning season. Statistics are funny.... You can spin them any way you want to fit your agenda.
Also in my bolded portion are you claiming then that the players were run off by the coach that replaced the previous coach that was let go?
On the Calipari comment in the other post you made, im too lazy to go back and quote it: Its alot easier to freaking recruit to Kentucky which has the 2nd most NCAA basketball championships in history than Bradley. Are you really trying to compare john Calipari at Kentucky to recruiting to Bradley?!
tornado
New member
I am, as is evident, comparing Calipari's personality to Versace's....and if it's as easy as pie to land the 5-Star Blue Chippers just because it's Kentucky, then how come Gillispie couldn't?
and no on the MO players who left.....but they unarguably left as a direct result of the coaching change
and of course there are "kids who want to play for winning programs" but half of all D-I programs are in the bottom half in any given year - yet plenty of them STILL land fine players - so how do you explain that?
Gobs of players are looking for factors OTHER THAN just a winning program - Nate Taphorn was....
- One kid we had as our top priority last spring, Tymell Murphy, spurned Bradley to go to FIU where they had just fired their coach and were rebuilding...they are NOT a "winning program"..
- and we've lost recruits to DePaul (perennial losing, last place team in their conference), Northwestern (perennial losing, bottom-dweller in their conference), and even occasionally to bottom dwellers in weaker conferences.
so the desire to play right away even if it is at a non-winning program clearly is the top criteria for some kids...
BTW - when St. John's was coming off their 3rd and 4th horrible year in a row they were still signing and landing 4-Star & 5-Star kids...
I think the personality of the coach can overcome a lot..that's how Versace got it done....and I believe we were on the verge here until a couple years ago.
lastly - is this proclamation that we MUST BE a winning program in order to get the talented kids - just another way to find an excuse in a few years to say - well you can't expect much and we need to give a few more years because he's only now getting to where he can land the players he wants...
and no on the MO players who left.....but they unarguably left as a direct result of the coaching change
and of course there are "kids who want to play for winning programs" but half of all D-I programs are in the bottom half in any given year - yet plenty of them STILL land fine players - so how do you explain that?
Gobs of players are looking for factors OTHER THAN just a winning program - Nate Taphorn was....
- One kid we had as our top priority last spring, Tymell Murphy, spurned Bradley to go to FIU where they had just fired their coach and were rebuilding...they are NOT a "winning program"..
- and we've lost recruits to DePaul (perennial losing, last place team in their conference), Northwestern (perennial losing, bottom-dweller in their conference), and even occasionally to bottom dwellers in weaker conferences.
so the desire to play right away even if it is at a non-winning program clearly is the top criteria for some kids...
BTW - when St. John's was coming off their 3rd and 4th horrible year in a row they were still signing and landing 4-Star & 5-Star kids...
I think the personality of the coach can overcome a lot..that's how Versace got it done....and I believe we were on the verge here until a couple years ago.
lastly - is this proclamation that we MUST BE a winning program in order to get the talented kids - just another way to find an excuse in a few years to say - well you can't expect much and we need to give a few more years because he's only now getting to where he can land the players he wants...
bradleyfan20
New member
Let's get the FACTS straight. Tymell Murphy didn't "spurn" Bradley. He wanted to come to Bradley. Bradley couldn't get him into school because he would have ended up needing more than 9 summer hours, which is not possible with current NCAA rules. Thus, WEEKS after the Bradley situation played out, Murphy landed at FIU.
Interesting GF Comment---
Interesting GF Comment---
AMCKillip---I don't know what your problem is but you are way off base on the Versace situation.You are obviously anti DV and apparently unaware or misinformed on what really happened. So---In an effort to straighten you out(If that's possible), here goes:
First, DV did violate certain NCAA rules---However, the violations were very minor based on NCAA rules at that time, and not even close to what you have characterized as "Samson" and "Pearl" violations. The major problem was that the BU President at that time was 100% anti DV and deathly afraid of the possibility of some kind of controversy which he abhorred. He didn't like DV(Who was outspoken and at times controversial) and he didn't like the Chiefs Club who he thought would help DV cheat in recruiting. The violation was that a booster on his own accord, paid for a telephone in a recruits house and another booster on his own accord, paid for a dinner during the State tournament with DV and a recruit and his Father. In those days that was not considered a major violation since boosters were allowed to help in recruiting. The NCAA was looking for something to "Nail" Dick with. I personally paid for many dinners for recruits and that was never considered a violation at that time.
DV was not especially well liked by the NCAA due to highly publicized comments he had made during BUs run to the NIT Championship in a prior year.
Since the BU President wanted to get rid of DV , he literally "served him up" to the NCAA and did nothing to back him up in any way. He then fired DV after the NCAA over- did it with a much more severe penalty than the violations merited.
Had the President supported DV, he very likely would have stayed at BU and the BU program would have grown to great heights nationally and we would have been at least at a Butler/Gonzaga level if not even better, IMO.
Thanks to the BU Presidents fear and lack of support, DV was fired and the rest is history.
Next time you criticize AMCK, I suggest you do your homework and try to maintain some semblance of accuracy in your comments.
Interesting GF Comment---
AMCKillip---I don't know what your problem is but you are way off base on the Versace situation.You are obviously anti DV and apparently unaware or misinformed on what really happened. So---In an effort to straighten you out(If that's possible), here goes:
First, DV did violate certain NCAA rules---However, the violations were very minor based on NCAA rules at that time, and not even close to what you have characterized as "Samson" and "Pearl" violations. The major problem was that the BU President at that time was 100% anti DV and deathly afraid of the possibility of some kind of controversy which he abhorred. He didn't like DV(Who was outspoken and at times controversial) and he didn't like the Chiefs Club who he thought would help DV cheat in recruiting. The violation was that a booster on his own accord, paid for a telephone in a recruits house and another booster on his own accord, paid for a dinner during the State tournament with DV and a recruit and his Father. In those days that was not considered a major violation since boosters were allowed to help in recruiting. The NCAA was looking for something to "Nail" Dick with. I personally paid for many dinners for recruits and that was never considered a violation at that time.
DV was not especially well liked by the NCAA due to highly publicized comments he had made during BUs run to the NIT Championship in a prior year.
Since the BU President wanted to get rid of DV , he literally "served him up" to the NCAA and did nothing to back him up in any way. He then fired DV after the NCAA over- did it with a much more severe penalty than the violations merited.
Had the President supported DV, he very likely would have stayed at BU and the BU program would have grown to great heights nationally and we would have been at least at a Butler/Gonzaga level if not even better, IMO.
Thanks to the BU Presidents fear and lack of support, DV was fired and the rest is history.
Next time you criticize AMCK, I suggest you do your homework and try to maintain some semblance of accuracy in your comments.
This is hilarious. Why would I be anti-DV? What is it with some people that if someone disagrees with them, they have an agenda. I am not anti-DV I am not pro anyone. When DV was coaching I was barely even alive.
Maybe it's because the winner writes history, but all the objective information I can find points to DV committing violations and that being the ultimate reason he was allowed to walk. I understand many BU fans say it was because he criticized the NCAA and so they were out to get him. But to me this sounds just like the Memphis fans who say Calipari didn't know Derrick Rose cheated on his ACT's etc.
I would love to be able to say it's the NCAA or BU Pres' agenda that kept BU from being a powerhouse, but without the contextual background many on here have, the objective accounts of the events don't seem to support that.
AZ BU Fan
New member
Man, has this thread been re-directed! ;-)
All I really wanted to know was, if BU is still recruiting for 2013-14, where would the scholly come from (returning player leaving or new recruit not qualifying)...
On the plus side, this is now the most viewed/replied thread I have started in a while! :lol::lol::lol:
All I really wanted to know was, if BU is still recruiting for 2013-14, where would the scholly come from (returning player leaving or new recruit not qualifying)...
On the plus side, this is now the most viewed/replied thread I have started in a while! :lol::lol::lol:
tornado
New member
getting back to the topic...
seems we constantly have people who claim Peoria & Bradley are easy places to recruit to....I guess you can think whatever you want but if you ask the people who know the answer to that question they will all tell you it is very hard. Peoria & Bradley have very little name recognition outside Central IL.
How many times do you go to Chicago wearing a Bradley T-shirt - and have someone ask "Bradley? Where is that?"...or when we went to Auburn Hills, Michigan and Bradley made it to the Sweet Sixteen, hundreds of people, Kansas fans, Pitt fans, and others....all asked "Bradley - where's that?"...
..and if you wear a Bradley shirt in Florida, California, or New York - most people don't care but the few who are curious ask - "Bradley? WHAT is that? Is it a college?"...then when you tell them they always respond - "You gotta be kidding - I have never even heard of it, and I have heard of Peoria but never knew where it was - is it a suburb of Milwaukee or Chicago?"
You can use the UNI argument but lots of kids from Iowa, southern MN, etc...are extremely loyal and want to stay local - Bradley does NOT have that phenomenon....sorry but we just don't - even most of the D-I talent right here in Peoria, Washington, etc....looks elsewhere - a lot don't even talk to Bradley...
and the rest of the state - hardly even know where Bradley is.... If Chin can land some talent that pays off (still yet to be determined) then it'll be helpful.
But Peoria is not a typical college town - in fact Peoria has the reputation of being a slow, podunk, hick-town....
To compare Peoria to college towns like Urbana, Lincoln, NE, Madison, WI, is hilarious...
S0 - believe what you want but our coaches have obstacles like this & others that are not of their doing nor choosing....to overcome.
If Peoria had a big state university, or if it was on the Gulf Coast, or if if was a major metro/media hub like St. Louis or Chicago, recruiting would be easier.
we giggle whenever ESPN or someone shows Peoria as a city in Indiana or Iowa but it is NOT so funny when it comes to recruiting because that's a fact - people either don't know where Peoria/Bradley is or they really have an already built-in mindset as to not care.
seems we constantly have people who claim Peoria & Bradley are easy places to recruit to....I guess you can think whatever you want but if you ask the people who know the answer to that question they will all tell you it is very hard. Peoria & Bradley have very little name recognition outside Central IL.
How many times do you go to Chicago wearing a Bradley T-shirt - and have someone ask "Bradley? Where is that?"...or when we went to Auburn Hills, Michigan and Bradley made it to the Sweet Sixteen, hundreds of people, Kansas fans, Pitt fans, and others....all asked "Bradley - where's that?"...
..and if you wear a Bradley shirt in Florida, California, or New York - most people don't care but the few who are curious ask - "Bradley? WHAT is that? Is it a college?"...then when you tell them they always respond - "You gotta be kidding - I have never even heard of it, and I have heard of Peoria but never knew where it was - is it a suburb of Milwaukee or Chicago?"
You can use the UNI argument but lots of kids from Iowa, southern MN, etc...are extremely loyal and want to stay local - Bradley does NOT have that phenomenon....sorry but we just don't - even most of the D-I talent right here in Peoria, Washington, etc....looks elsewhere - a lot don't even talk to Bradley...
and the rest of the state - hardly even know where Bradley is.... If Chin can land some talent that pays off (still yet to be determined) then it'll be helpful.
But Peoria is not a typical college town - in fact Peoria has the reputation of being a slow, podunk, hick-town....
To compare Peoria to college towns like Urbana, Lincoln, NE, Madison, WI, is hilarious...
S0 - believe what you want but our coaches have obstacles like this & others that are not of their doing nor choosing....to overcome.
If Peoria had a big state university, or if it was on the Gulf Coast, or if if was a major metro/media hub like St. Louis or Chicago, recruiting would be easier.
we giggle whenever ESPN or someone shows Peoria as a city in Indiana or Iowa but it is NOT so funny when it comes to recruiting because that's a fact - people either don't know where Peoria/Bradley is or they really have an already built-in mindset as to not care.