LethalFang;710287 said:

---

These 4 guys are all in the one great class I talked about. He didn't do much else.
The other guys....... well, Braun has been here for like 10 years! So what he got a couple of good players here and there? We never had a team that is recognized as the top 1 or 2 talented team in the Pac-10. Any Pac-10 team can get a good player every now and then.
To be a good recruiter, you have to get multiple good players every year.

---

You keep ignoring the Anderson, Randle, PC class which is far better than any group Monty has brought in.

SFBearz;710722 said:

---

You keep ignoring the Anderson, Randle, PC class which is far better than any group Monty has brought in.

---

As Sophomores, only Anderson was proven.

SFBearz;710722 said:

---

You keep ignoring the Anderson, Randle, PC class which is far better than any group Monty has brought in.

---

I didn't ignore them. Braun did not recruit nearly enough of them to be considered a good recruiter.
As I've said in a previous post, 9 Pac-10 first-teamers in 12 years is below average.
Even if you count PC and Randle's 4 All Pac-10 selections during Montgomery's tenure, it's still only 13, barely making it to an average level.

LethalFang;711593 said:

---

I didn't ignore them. Braun did not recruit nearly enough of them to be considered a good recruiter.
As I've said in a previous post, 9 Pac-10 first-teamers in 12 years is below average.
Even if you count PC and Randle's 4 All Pac-10 selections during Montgomery's tenure, it's still only 13, barely making it to an average level.

---

Isn't the number of Pac-10 first teamers a reflection of talent development as much as it is of recruiting?

A better measure would be number of top X recruits landed by each coach. This still isn't perfect, as it ignores a coach's ability to spot diamonds in the rough, but at least it serves as a good measure of ability to land highly touted recruits, an important subset of overall recruiting.

A few weeks ago the number of top 100 recruits landed by Braun and Montgomery during their times at Cal was discussed. I will try and dig up the thread.

Mr. Frumble;711639 said:

---

Isn't the number of Pac-10 first teamers a reflection of talent development as much as it is of recruiting?

A better measure would be number of top X recruits landed by each coach. This still isn't perfect, as it ignores a coach's ability to spot diamonds in the rough, but at least it serves as a good measure of ability to land highly touted recruits, an important subset of overall recruiting.

A few weeks ago the number of top 100 recruits landed by Braun and Montgomery during their times at Cal was discussed. I will try and dig up the thread.

---

Yes, but again, you have to compare his results with the other Pac-10 schools during his tenure.
He hasn't had that many top 100 recruits comparing to other Pac-10 schools. And with the exception of the Leon Powe class, his top 100 recruits are in the low end of the top 100.

ayetee11;710716 said:

---

Also, what I heard was Lebron, if went to college, would have chosen Cal in order to be closer to his original agent. His agent was from Oakland.

---

That may be true, but there was a .001% chance lebron was going to college.

As for Braun's recruiting, he brought in some good players (and we are all biased to think that because we generally like most Cal players). He whiffed on some big time players when it might have been better to pay attention to some more attainable players. He also whiffed on a lot of players if you look at how many transferred out. Some were pretty bad, some were not great fit for Cal and some were not a great fit for his coaching style (or lack there of).

ColoradoBear1;711696 said:

---

That may be true, but there was a .001% chance lebron was going to college.

As for Braun's recruiting, he brought in some good players (and we are all biased to think that because we generally like most Cal players). He whiffed on some big time players when it might have been better to pay attention to some more attainable players. He also whiffed on a lot of players if you look at how many transferred out. Some were pretty bad, some were not great fit for Cal and some were not a great fit for his coaching style (or lack there of).

---

The other factor that hasn't been discussed is the level of recruiting given our record, Braun's coaching style and coaching ability. Arizona, UCLA and Stanford were all significantly better than us, yet Braun continued to get the attention of many top recruits. Part of the (even if mild) disappointment with Monty in his recruiting relative to Braun is relative to what he has to offer: our being at the top of the Pac-12 and his great player development. Braun recruited well for a mediocre coach who played a boring style of ball, generally finished in the bottom half of the conference and was a poor teacher of offensive skills (that get one to the NBA).

LethalFang;711686 said:

---

Yes, but again, you have to compare his results with the other Pac-10 schools during his tenure.
He hasn't had that many top 100 recruits comparing to other Pac-10 schools. And with the exception of the Leon Powe class, his top 100 recruits are in the low end of the top 100.

---

I thought the debate was whether Braun was a better recruiter at Cal than Monty has been?

If the debate is re how Braun ranked among Pac-10 coaches during his tenure at Cal, I agree - he was medicore.

From 98 to 08, Cal landed 11 RSCI top 100 recruits. UCLA and Arizona had 26 each, SC had 15, UW had 14, Stanford 13 and then Cal with 11.
The bottom four were Oregon (7), ASU (5), OSU (2) and WSU (1).

(Of those 13 for Stanford, only nine (and only two top 50s) were during Monty's time. What a testament to Monty's other attributes that he was able to compete with, and in many seasons finish ahead of, UCLA and Arizona despite that gap in highly touted recruits).

Looking at top 50 recruits, Cal moves up from 6th to 5th, passing Stanford (5 for Cal vs. 4 for Stanford). (but all four of those Stanford top 50s were top 20 (Jacobsen, Childress, Lopez and Lopez), whereas only Powe was top 20 for Cal).


But as mediocre as Braun was in landing highly touted recruits relative to the rest of the conference, he landed more per season than Monty has. In his four recruiting cycles at Cal, Monty has landed two top 100s (Crabbe and Franklin) (RSCI for 2012 isn't out yet, but Wallace may make the top 100). And zero top 50s.

Of course Montgomery has been much better at player development, in-game strategy and talent evaluation, but if the issue is restricted to whether Braun was a better recruiter, a solid argument can be made that Bruan was better at landing highly touted recruits at Cal than Montgomery has been.

If we have the good fortune of having Monty at Cal for 12 years, thus matching Braun's tenure, let's have a look at the relative recruiting then.

Does anyone imagine that Ben will come out on top, if this happens?

goldfield9;710109 said:

---

Um I forgot Lampley another top 100

---

Lampley was not a Top 100 recruit. He was overlooked and underrated. But he did not show up in anyone's Top 100. Probably not in anyone's Top 200, either. This was probably a result of him being injured his junior or senior year in high school.

I believe that Sean Lampley's only other scholarship offer was from Western Kentucky.

south bender;712008 said:

---

If we have the good fortune of having Monty at Cal for 12 years, thus matching Braun's tenure, let's have a look at the relative recruiting then.

Does anyone imagine that Ben will come out on top, if this happens?

---

If Monty does coach at Cal until he is 73, he will probably bring in more highly rated recruits than Braun, but we will [U]definitely[/U] be more successful than the 12 years under Braun.

The comparison to Braun's recruiting was in response to people feeling they had to defend Monty's recruiting thus far by saying that "it's Cal's fault" Monty hasn't brought in more top rated talent. That somehow there is something inherent in our school, our academics, etc. that makes it impossible to bring in top recruits without cheating (the reason used to dismiss Campanelli/Bozeman). Thus Braun, who is not half the coach Monty is, was offered as a counter-example (and Tedford in football). Braun brought in higher rated recruits (and was in on many others up to the wire) to the exact same school despite being a mediocre coach with a boring style and lackluster record competing against UCLA, Arizona (with Lute) and Stanford (with Monty).

The object isn't to be "better than Braun," that is a very low bar indeed. The object is to take advantage of having Monty, a Hall of Fame coach, while we have him--make deep runs in the tournament and turn Cal into a basketball power while we have him. If during Monty's tenure we remain a "overachieving" well-disciplined team that competes for Pac-12 championships but only has the talent to get as far as the first weekend in the Tournament, the teams will be fun to watch, but when Monty leaves we will likely just fall back to where we were before he came.

calumnus;712892 said:

---

If Monty does coach at Cal until he is 73, he will probably bring in more highly rated recruits than Braun, but we will [U]definitely[/U] be more successful than the 12 years under Braun.

The comparison to Braun's recruiting was in response to people feeling they had to defend Monty's recruiting thus far by saying that "it's Cal's fault" Monty hasn't brought in more top rated talent. That somehow there is something inherent in our school, our academics, etc. that makes it impossible to bring in top recruits without cheating (the reason used to dismiss Campanelli/Bozeman). Thus Braun, who is not half the coach Monty is, was offered as a counter-example (and Tedford in football). Braun brought in higher rated recruits (and was in on many others up to the wire) to the exact same school despite being a mediocre coach with a boring style and lackluster record competing against UCLA, Arizona (with Lute) and Stanford (with Monty).

The object isn't to be "better than Braun," that is a very low bar indeed. The object is to take advantage of having Monty, a Hall of Fame coach, while we have him--make deep runs in the tournament and turn Cal into a basketball power while we have him. If during Monty's tenure we remain a "overachieving" well-disciplined team that competes for Pac-12 championships but only has the talent to get as far as the first weekend in the Tournament, the teams will be fun to watch, but when Monty leaves we will likely just fall back to where we were before he came.

---

I have not a quibble with any of it.

The idea of hiring someone who is a charismatic recruiter, with whom Monty is comfortable, is a good one, and I hope that it happens.