Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 65

Thread: Welcome Austin McCullough

  1. #16
    Welcome Austin to the greatest University in the world. No qualifiers. Not just the greatest public university nor the greatest research university. Cal is simply the best.

    You made a great choice. Enjoy yourself and make the most of your time in Berkeley.

  2. #17
    Hopefully we are not just getting bodies

  3. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by MoragaBear View Post
    Here's a quick commitment story and senior highlights on the Front Page: http://bearinsider.com/news/story.php?article=2435
    MB, how come he doesn't have a ranking?

  4. #19
    oski- so far I see no listing of his ratings by the services - either on this thread or the site under commits. So maybe you are right.

  5. #20
    aka Kyle campanelli

  6. #21
    He can dunk and shoot 3's
    Done!

  7. #22

    He's doing what he can at this point.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFBearz View Post
    "Keeps getting stronger?" Jones has not yet found good replacements for Moore and Baker. Hopefully Austin improves but Cal needs to bring in talent at least in the neighborhood of the top half of the conference.
    Once Martin left, Moore and Baker were gone. Players of their caliber (alleged, in Baker's case) aren't available this late in the process. At this point, if Jones doesn't get anybody, he's going to be criticized for the short roster, which is primarily Martin's fault for not balancing his recruiting. If these recruits don't work out, he'll be criticized for using scholarships just to add bodies who didn't significantly contribute. Perhaps the negs might want to wait and see what happens on the floor before criticizing? Nah, not much chance of that.

  8. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Once Martin left, Moore and Baker were gone. Players of their caliber (alleged, in Baker's case) aren't available this late in the process. At this point, if Jones doesn't get anybody, he's going to be criticized for the short roster, which is primarily Martin's fault for not balancing his recruiting. If these recruits don't work out, he'll be criticized for using scholarships just to add bodies who didn't significantly contribute. Perhaps the negs might want to wait and see what happens on the floor before criticizing? Nah, not much chance of that.
    I'm not criticizing Jones.

  9. #24
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    In the land of peach blossoms
    Posts
    2,264
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Once Martin left, Moore and Baker were gone. Players of their caliber (alleged, in Baker's case) aren't available this late in the process. At this point, if Jones doesn't get anybody, he's going to be criticized for the short roster, which is primarily Martin's fault for not balancing his recruiting. If these recruits don't work out, he'll be criticized for using scholarships just to add bodies who didn't significantly contribute. Perhaps the negs might want to wait and see what happens on the floor before criticizing? Nah, not much chance of that.
    At this point, I just don't understand the negabears. If Cal is such a mess and you are so jaded and fed up with the AD and sports at Cal, why expend the effort to show up at all. Life is too short and there are so many things that you could do instead.

    I am a pollyanna, and I just have hope. And I love Cal. I think everything is moving up. Progress forever (even if there are setbacks)!


    Sorry to drop that rant in this thread, Austin.
    Last edited by parentswerebears; 05-19-2017 at 09:11 AM. Reason: To add apology to Austin.

  10. #25
    Real Bear
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Location
    East of Tomales Bay; west of Eagle Lake; south of Sauvie Island; north of Pismo Beach
    Posts
    2,097
    Welcome to Cal SG Austin McCullough. You will thrive.

  11. #26
    A lot of times when players don't have D1 offers, they won't be rated but now that he does, the services will probably review his film and decide where he should be rated in the coming weeks.

  12. #27
    Loyal Bear
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Kezar Pavilion
    Posts
    3,418
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeff82 View Post
    Once Martin left, Moore and Baker were gone. Players of their caliber (alleged, in Baker's case) aren't available this late in the process. At this point, if Jones doesn't get anybody, he's going to be criticized for the short roster, which is primarily Martin's fault for not balancing his recruiting. If these recruits don't work out, he'll be criticized for using scholarships just to add bodies who didn't significantly contribute. Perhaps the negs might want to wait and see what happens on the floor before criticizing? Nah, not much chance of that.
    I agree wholeheartedly with you. SFBearz has already prejudged the new players who were recruited to play the spots vacated by Moore and Baker. Even if he had seen these recruits play in person, how could he know whether Winston, Harris-Dyson and Knell would not be as good as Moore and Baker? Moore was a good player for us, but not without his weaknesses, upon which he would have had to improve a good deal to become an outstanding player for us. As for Baker, how would SFBearz know how good a player he is going to be in college, any more than he would know the recruits we now have are not good? There are many college coaches out there who are paid millions of dollars, whose jobs depend on their evaluations of high school players and transfers, and all of them have had their misses, recruits who don’t pan out for one reason or another.

    I posted a spreadsheet on the BI a year or so ago, looking at the top 100 ranked recruits for one year, to see how many of them lived up their ranking, either becoming a good individual college player, or becoming a player who helped his team to win their conference or make a run in the NCAA. What I found was that only 40% of those recruits lived up to those rankings. The majority of those successful players were in the top 30 ranked players. Ranked lower than that, it was basically a crap shoot.

    SFBearz, along with many, or maybe even most Cal fans, probably pin their hopes on the recruit rankings, but how many times do we have to get let down to keep doing this? Wasn’t the failure of two seasons ago, when Cal had a team of highly ranked players, or the failure back in the Leon Powe era when Cal was again loaded with highly ranked players enough to get us to stop placing all our hopes on recruit rankings? Or to go way back in time, the team of all-time great players Truitt, Ridgle, Chenier, CJ, and Coughran? As Amarillo Slim, the great poker player said, “Never bet on anything that eats.”

    What I like to bet on is coaches. Every one of those teams I just mentioned did not have good coaching. Usually you need some thoroughbreds to win, but it takes a special coach to be able to handle these stars, and their egos, to get them to work together. They need special handling, special care. They have always been the best at every level, and they don’t usually know how to share the ball with other great players, nor do they usually work hard on defense. The lower ranked or even unranked players are usually more malleable and coachable.

    Cal fans need to face facts. There are only 40 players recruited each year, give or take a few, who will help your team, and most of those will be snapped up by the big dogs, Kentucky, Duke, Florida, Kansas and so forth. Cal has academic standards higher than the Arizonas of the world, which will always limit recruiting somewhat. So you have to have a coach who has a system, and who will recruit players who might fit, and evaluate a recruit’s ability to be coached so he fits into his system, so they can be better than the sum of their parts, the sum of their recruit rankings. These may include some lower ranked players, or even unranked ones.

    I like the look of these new recruits, and the word “teamwork” seems to be on the radar of at least some of them. Wyking Jones has piqued my interest, and I want to see how he coaches offense and defense. I can hardly wait until the season begins.
    Last edited by SFCityBear; 05-19-2017 at 10:29 AM.

  13. #28
    I'd disagree with the idea that there are only 40 or so recruits each year who will help your team. It might be true that somewhere around that number will have an immediate and significant positive impact on your team as a freshman, but there are a lot of players who develop over the course of 2-4 years into surprisingly good players and most good programs have a fair number of such guys. The trick is spotting them before they've done that. And coaching them up. On that point I agree with you.

    What I like about the newest recruits is that two of three are shooters and we need shooters. What I think we will miss way more than you seem to is Charlie Moore.

    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post

    What I like to bet on is coaches. Every one of those teams I just mentioned did not have good coaching. Usually you need some thoroughbreds to win, but it takes a special coach to be able to handle these stars, and their egos, to get them to work together. They need special handling, special care. They have always been the best at every level, and they don’t usually know how to share the ball with other great players, nor do they usually work hard on defense. The lower ranked or even unranked players are usually more malleable and coachable.

    Cal fans need to face facts. There are only 40 players recruited each year, give or take a few, who will help your team, and most of those will be snapped up by the big dogs, Kentucky, Duke, Florida, Kansas and so forth. Cal has academic standards higher than the Arizonas of the world, which will always limit recruiting somewhat. So you have to have a coach who has a system, and who will recruit players who might fit, and evaluate a recruit’s ability to be coached so he fits into his system, so they can be better than the sum of their parts, the sum of their recruit rankings. These may include some lower ranked players, or even unranked ones.

    I like the look of these new recruits, and the word “teamwork” seems to be on the radar of at least some of them. Wyking Jones has piqued my interest, and I want to see how he coaches offense and defense. I can hardly wait until the season begins.

  14. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by SFCityBear View Post
    I agree wholeheartedly with you. SFBearz has already prejudged the new players who were recruited to play the spots vacated by Moore and Baker. Even if he had seen these recruits play in person, how could he know whether Winston, Harris-Dyson and Knell would not be as good as Moore and Baker? Moore was a good player for us, but not without his weaknesses, upon which he would have had to improve a good deal to become an outstanding player for us. As for Baker, how would SFBearz know how good a player he is going to be in college, any more than he would know the recruits we now have are not good? There are many college coaches out there who are paid millions of dollars, whose jobs depend on their evaluations of high school players and transfers, and all of them have had their misses, recruits who don’t pan out for one reason or another.

    I posted a spreadsheet on the BI a year or so ago, looking at the top 100 ranked recruits for one year, to see how many of them lived up their ranking, either becoming a good individual college player, or becoming a player who helped his team to win their conference or make a run in the NCAA. What I found was that only 40% of those recruits lived up to those rankings. The majority of those successful players were in the top 30 ranked players. Ranked lower than that, it was basically a crap shoot.

    SFBearz, along with many, or maybe even most Cal fans, probably pin their hopes on the recruit rankings, but how many times do we have to get let down to keep doing this? Wasn’t the failure of two seasons ago, when Cal had a team of highly ranked players, or the failure back in the Leon Powe era when Cal was again loaded with highly ranked players enough to get us to stop placing all our hopes on recruit rankings? Or to go way back in time, the team of all-time great players Truitt, Ridgle, Chenier, CJ, and Coughran? As Amarillo Slim, the great poker player said, “Never bet on anything that eats.”

    What I like to bet on is coaches. Every one of those teams I just mentioned did not have good coaching. Usually you need some thoroughbreds to win, but it takes a special coach to be able to handle these stars, and their egos, to get them to work together. They need special handling, special care. They have always been the best at every level, and they don’t usually know how to share the ball with other great players, nor do they usually work hard on defense. The lower ranked or even unranked players are usually more malleable and coachable.

    Cal fans need to face facts. There are only 40 players recruited each year, give or take a few, who will help your team, and most of those will be snapped up by the big dogs, Kentucky, Duke, Florida, Kansas and so forth. Cal has academic standards higher than the Arizonas of the world, which will always limit recruiting somewhat. So you have to have a coach who has a system, and who will recruit players who might fit, and evaluate a recruit’s ability to be coached so he fits into his system, so they can be better than the sum of their parts, the sum of their recruit rankings. These may include some lower ranked players, or even unranked ones.

    I like the look of these new recruits, and the word “teamwork” seems to be on the radar of at least some of them. Wyking Jones has piqued my interest, and I want to see how he coaches offense and defense. I can hardly wait until the season begins.

    Jemari Baker was ranked around 60-75 range in his class. He was our Big Dog recruit. FAR more than 40 recruits a year can help a team immediately!!!

  15. #30
    I don't want to speak for SFCity, but I don't think he means that there are only 40 decent players nationally every year. I assume that he's referring to 40 of the top-ranked players or 40 can't-miss players. Obviously, there are many more nationally who help their teams, even as freshmen. Charlie Moore, for all his faults, helped Cal. He was not a top-40 recruit, to cite but one example. It would be ludicrous to say that fewer than 40 of the 351 D-1 schools had any freshmen who helped them.

    I certainly agree with SFCity that coaching is a crucial variable--maybe even the variable.



Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •