View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7404 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 03/07/18 9:45 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
Durantula wrote: |
I know she has the reputation of a great recruiter but from what I hear she is not a very active recruiter, does not recruit much, her assistants carry a huge load. So when you are not winning as much as you used to then it becomes hard to recruit well. So Duke's decline in recruiting is not that surprising. |
100 percent true.
In general, McCallie prefers to have two of her assistant coaches handle recruiting on a full-time basis.
The one exception was Elizabeth Williams, as McCallie was very active in her recruitment (in part because of her status as a high profile recruit). |
Which makes it highly significant that EWilliams is the player who became the most publicly vocal about her issues with JPM. She wanted recruits to know the truth about what they would be signing up for. And her speaking out has been extremely effective in deterring top recruits who are also academically oriented from signing at Duke.
I've also heard mention of Azura' Stevens as being an example of McCallie 1) identifying an unheralded recruit and 2) developing her into a top player. Both of these claims are absurd. Azura' lived locally and was injured during a key recruiting and rating period. She also grew significantly between junior year of high school and freshman season at Duke. When she arrived at Duke, she was healthy, taller and with wing skills she developed when she was wing height. When her talent, skill and height blew out everyone's eyeballs, she made the move to UConn so she could develop from elite talent to super elite (high earning) talent, something she knew she wouldn't get at Duke.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9667
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 1:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Duke is ranked #20 in the Associated Press poll and #18 in the USA Today coaches poll. Top 25 ranking is very familiar territory for a McCallie coached team.
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 1058 Location: PA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 2:56 am ::: |
Reply |
|
If McGraw, Walz, Moore, or Semrau were coaching Duke with the talent they've had the last few years, they would have been a Final Four team pretty much every year. You might even be able to add Meier to that list.
Also, as someone who is familiar with Kevin White as an AD, I agree that McCallie isn't likely to be going anywhere. Sorry AIM
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 1058 Location: PA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 3:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Fighting Artichoke wrote: |
That she was continuously able to recruit top notch talent despite Duke's on-court performance is actually a testament to her recruiting prowess. |
Or Duke's reputation as a Basketball school.
|
|
Shades
Joined: 10 Jul 2006 Posts: 63841
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 4:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CBiebel wrote: |
If McGraw, Walz, Moore, or Semrau were coaching Duke with the talent they've had the last few years, they would have been a Final Four team pretty much every year. You might even be able to add Meier to that list.
Also, as someone who is familiar with Kevin White as an AD, I agree that McCallie isn't likely to be going anywhere. Sorry AIM |
Injured talent? They were down 3 this year and still beat FSU. Shows they have a lot of heart.
Last year they were the healthiest they have been for years. They did well, even beating eventual national championship South Carolina. Their injury luck ran out during the NCAA tournament when they lost their PG Lambert.
_________________ Nnekalonians 1:14 - Thou shalt not accept that which is not earned
|
|
Durantula
Joined: 30 Mar 2013 Posts: 5223
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 7:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CBiebel wrote: |
If McGraw, Walz, Moore, or Semrau were coaching Duke with the talent they've had the last few years, they would have been a Final Four team pretty much every year. You might even be able to add Meier to that list.
Also, as someone who is familiar with Kevin White as an AD, I agree that McCallie isn't likely to be going anywhere. Sorry AIM |
I don't believe this to be true. You can't live off HS rankings, Duke is not as good as you think. Greenwell multiple injuries, not the same player as before. Lambert out for the year. Belton medical issues ended her career. Gorecki now has serious hip issues. Boykin out for the year. Brown is very good but her supporting cast is not that good. Suggs is not an impact player, neither is Shubert or the two bigs who transferred there.
Moore, Semrau and Meier have never been to the final 4 but they would have made it with Duke the past couple of years. They recruit good players too so why haven't they made it before?
|
|
Queenie
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18043 Location: Queens
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 4:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Wait, Stevens was supposed to be an unheralded recruit? What the? What parallel universe was that in?
_________________ Ardent believer in the separation of church and stadium.
|
|
GlennMacGrady
Joined: 03 Jan 2005 Posts: 8236 Location: Heisenberg
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 5:53 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
So the topic is to defend JPM?
Okay, she annually fields a team that is better than about 340 of the 350 D1 coaches. She's a top three-percenter. If Duke fans greedily want better than this, good luck.
She keeps herself in very good shape for her age.
She's good with numbers.
She has good intentions.
Here she is alone at the 2014 Hoophall Classic in Springfield, Mass. -- not a pleasant place to be in January -- just to show her presence to Sierra Calhoun, who had already committed to Duke.
|
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 6:50 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
In April 2007, Joanne P. McCallie took over a truly elite Duke program. Under Gail Goestenkors, Duke had made 4 Final Fours and 7 Elite Eights in the previous 10 seasons.
Coach P - The Good
-- Coach P's record at Duke is 273–71 (.794) (her first ten seasons; not counting this year), with a record of 121–33 (.786) in the ACC. Those are tremendous marks. Any time a coach wins 80 percent of her games, it is a good thing.
-- From 2010-2013, Duke had an overall record of 122-19 (.865) and an ACC record of 56-6 (.903), with four ACC regular season titles, three ACC Tournament titles, and four Elite Eight berths.
-- Coach P has made four Elite Eight appearances in ten seasons (this is her eleventh year). Her teams have made the Sweet Sixteen six times.
Coach P - The Not-So-Good
-- The record of Coach P in the 10 previous seasons at Duke (not including this current season) is not as good as her predecessor's last 10 seasons, in terms of W/L record against elite competition, number of ACC regular season and tournament titles, Final Four/Elite Eight appearances, and the overall national presence.
-- Coach P is 0-8 against UConn and 0-11 against Notre Dame (again, not counting this year).
-- From 2014-2017, Duke had an overall record of 99-36 (.733) and an ACC record of 44-20 (.6875), with zero ACC titles (and two years not finishing in the top three in the ACC).
-- In the last four years, the team made one Sweet 16, lost twice in the Second Round (both games at home), and missed the NCAA Tournament altogether, for the first time in two decades.
Coach P - The Big Questions
-- Duke is losing a lot when this senior class graduates and does not have highly touted recruits replacing those players. There is some talent left (PG - Lambert; PG/SG - Boykin; G/W - Gorecki; F - Odom; P - Williams), but there will be very little depth (in terms of talent and experience) behind them next year. And Lambert, Boykin, and Gorecki are all coming off major injuries. What does this mean for next year?
-- Is the trend of 2013-2017 the likely state of the program? Or is the record of 2010-2013 a realistic possibility for which Duke can return?
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9667
Back to top |
Posted: 03/08/18 10:20 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do.
|
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004 Posts: 16368 Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
Coyotes
Joined: 28 Jan 2018 Posts: 1467
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9667
Back to top |
|
CamrnCrz1974
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 18371 Location: Phoenix
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 12:41 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
CamrnCrz1974 wrote: |
In April 2007, Joanne P. McCallie took over a truly elite Duke program. Under Gail Goestenkors, Duke had made 4 Final Fours and 7 Elite Eights in the previous 10 seasons.
Coach P - The Good
-- Coach P's record at Duke is 273–71 (.794) (her first ten seasons; not counting this year), with a record of 121–33 (.786) in the ACC. Those are tremendous marks. Any time a coach wins 80 percent of her games, it is a good thing.
-- From 2010-2013, Duke had an overall record of 122-19 (.865) and an ACC record of 56-6 (.903), with four ACC regular season titles, three ACC Tournament titles, and four Elite Eight berths.
-- Coach P has made four Elite Eight appearances in ten seasons (this is her eleventh year). Her teams have made the Sweet Sixteen six times.
Coach P - The Not-So-Good
-- The record of Coach P in the 10 previous seasons at Duke (not including this current season) is not as good as her predecessor's last 10 seasons, in terms of W/L record against elite competition, number of ACC regular season and tournament titles, Final Four/Elite Eight appearances, and the overall national presence.
-- Coach P is 0-8 against UConn and 0-11 against Notre Dame (again, not counting this year).
-- From 2014-2017, Duke had an overall record of 99-36 (.733) and an ACC record of 44-20 (.6875), with zero ACC titles (and two years not finishing in the top three in the ACC).
-- In the last four years, the team made one Sweet 16, lost twice in the Second Round (both games at home), and missed the NCAA Tournament altogether, for the first time in two decades.
Coach P - The Big Questions
-- Duke is losing a lot when this senior class graduates and does not have highly touted recruits replacing those players. There is some talent left (PG - Lambert; PG/SG - Boykin; G/W - Gorecki; F - Odom; P - Williams), but there will be very little depth (in terms of talent and experience) behind them next year. And Lambert, Boykin, and Gorecki are all coming off major injuries. What does this mean for next year?
-- Is the trend of 2013-2017 the likely state of the program? Or is the record of 2010-2013 a realistic possibility for which Duke can return? |
Some additional research and information:
Notre Dame has been in the ACC for five full seasons.
Since joining the ACC, Muffet McGraw's ACC record is 77-3 with five regular season titles and four tournament championships.
Louisville has been in the ACC for four full seasons.
Since joining the ACC, Jeff Walz's ACC record is 54-10, with one regular season title and one tournament championship.
Since Muffet McGraw's teams joined the ACC, Joanne P. McCallie's ACC record is 55-25 (it was 56-6 in the four years before Notre Dame joined the ACC).
Since both Muffet McGraw and Jeff Walz have been in the ACC, Joanne P. McCallie's ACC record is 43-21.
|
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 6883 Location: Home
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 1:30 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
One might also look at what JPM did as a coach and educator for Azura Stevens.
Azura wasted two years of eligibility to learn nothing at Duke. Going to UConn, she was still like a freshman.
With a good coach and education/training she's remarkably better already and still has a ways to go.
Some coaches like JPM and Warlick who perennially have a stable full of McDonald All-Americans and top players simply produce warm milk.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7404 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9667
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 9:48 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
RavenDog wrote: |
One might also look at what JPM did as a coach and educator for Azura Stevens.
Azura wasted two years of eligibility to learn nothing at Duke. Going to UConn, she was still like a freshman.
With a good coach and education/training she's remarkably better already and still has a ways to go.
Some coaches like JPM and Warlick who perennially have a stable full of McDonald All-Americans and top players simply produce warm milk. |
Stevens lead the ACC in rebounds at 9.6 per game and was second in points at 18.9 per game. Hard to see how that performance is "wasting her eligibility". Now she comes off the bench and scores less and rebounds less. Her per minute numbers are up around 15%, but she is in a crummier league (#7 conference RPI versus #1 conference RPI) on a massively dominant team and is fresher from playing around ten fewer minutes a game. The numbers don't appear to show her developing at all. She was the best player in the #1 conference per scoring and rebounds, and now she plays 21.3 minutes a game off the bench in the #7 conference. What is it you have seen that has you so excited about her development?
|
|
Davis4632
Joined: 14 Jul 2014 Posts: 861
Back to top |
Posted: 03/09/18 10:51 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
Queenie wrote: |
Wait, Stevens was supposed to be an unheralded recruit? What the? What parallel universe was that in? |
I wouldn't said he was unheralded either. She was ranked #25 by Hoopgurlz, #41 by Prospects Nation, and #51 by Blue Star.
Stevens issues at UConn has mostly been of the defensive end because she's adjusting from playing zone to man to man. Everybody knew she was a 6'6 finesse player that loves to take threes.
|
|
readyAIMfire53
Joined: 20 Nov 2004 Posts: 7404 Location: Durham, NC
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 1:58 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
RavenDog wrote: |
One might also look at what JPM did as a coach and educator for Azura Stevens.
Azura wasted two years of eligibility to learn nothing at Duke. Going to UConn, she was still like a freshman.
With a good coach and education/training she's remarkably better already and still has a ways to go.
Some coaches like JPM and Warlick who perennially have a stable full of McDonald All-Americans and top players simply produce warm milk. |
Stevens lead the ACC in rebounds at 9.6 per game and was second in points at 18.9 per game. Hard to see how that performance is "wasting her eligibility". Now she comes off the bench and scores less and rebounds less. Her per minute numbers are up around 15%, but she is in a crummier league (#7 conference RPI versus #1 conference RPI) on a massively dominant team and is fresher from playing around ten fewer minutes a game. The numbers don't appear to show her developing at all. She was the best player in the #1 conference per scoring and rebounds, and now she plays 21.3 minutes a game off the bench in the #7 conference. What is it you have seen that has you so excited about her development? |
LOL. Nice try. Even the dimmest of WNBA scouts knows she'll be a way better player in the WNBA now.
_________________ Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.
~rAf
|
|
CBiebel
Joined: 23 Dec 2004 Posts: 1058 Location: PA
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 3:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do. |
1. Muffet McGraw might disagree with this. ND isn't exactly easy on the academic requirements either.
2. While UConn might not technically have the academic requirements of either Duke or Stanford, it isn't like Auriemma is relying on players who are academically questionable. I can't think of many (if any) UConn players who would not be accepted to either school. In fact, you could argue that the UConn system kind of requires smart players.
3. Since 2007-08 only 5 teams have beaten UConn: MSU (once), SJU (once), Baylor (twice), ND (7 times), and, oh yeah, Stanford, TWICE.
4. Stanford has also knocked off ND in each of the last two NCAA Tournaments. Grrr!
5. Stanford has made the Final Four in 7 of the last 10 NCAA Tournaments.
The last 3 facts above suggest that the "Stanford has declined" is a bit of an exaggeration (in fact, except for their 2 NCs in the 1990s, you could argue that Stanford has done better recently. They have 7 Final Fours since the 2008 Tournament while they had 6 Final Fours prior to the 2008 NCAA Tournament). They've only missed 3 Elite Eights since 2004.
Trust me, as a ND alumnus I'm well aware of the "We can't win due to academics!" BS argument. I don't buy it for ND Football, and I don't buy it for Duke Women's Basketball.
|
|
tfan
Joined: 31 May 2010 Posts: 9667
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 6:52 am ::: |
Reply |
|
CBiebel wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do. |
2. While UConn might not technically have the academic requirements of either Duke or Stanford, it isn't like Auriemma is relying on players who are academically questionable. I can't think of many (if any) UConn players who would not be accepted to either school. In fact, you could argue that the UConn system kind of requires smart players.
|
The only athletes that don't get into Stanford or Duke on athletic scholarships are the ones who were "academically questionable" in high school? That is a much different standard than is applied to the non-athlete students. If true, it would mean that Stanford and Duke don't face that big hurdle getting enough jocks to come there.
One thing I forgot about Stanford is that it is supposed to be both hard to get into, and hard to flunk out of. They are said to try very hard to keep you passing your classes. What I was thinking about with regard to jocks not choosing schools with high academic reputations was that they wouldn't want to have a harder curriculum to deal with. But maybe that isn't even true, particularly for the athletes.
But as I said in another post, Stanford hasn't won the Pac-12 regular season in 4 straight years which is what I was thinking about when I said they have declined. But, there are alternative reasons for that happening besides them not being able to recruit top jocks.
|
|
dtsnms
Joined: 23 Sep 2004 Posts: 18815
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 9:17 am ::: |
Reply |
|
It is hard to flunk out of any school that takes the academics seriously. As Geno said they set you up to succeed; you have timed study halls, tutors, etc etc to keep you on the right path
|
|
cthskzfn
Joined: 21 Nov 2004 Posts: 12851 Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.
Back to top |
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 6883 Location: Home
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 9:43 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
RavenDog wrote: |
One might also look at what JPM did as a coach and educator for Azura Stevens.
Azura wasted two years of eligibility to learn nothing at Duke. Going to UConn, she was still like a freshman.
With a good coach and education/training she's remarkably better already and still has a ways to go.
Some coaches like JPM and Warlick who perennially have a stable full of McDonald All-Americans and top players simply produce warm milk. |
Stevens lead the ACC in rebounds at 9.6 per game and was second in points at 18.9 per game. Hard to see how that performance is "wasting her eligibility". Now she comes off the bench and scores less and rebounds less. Her per minute numbers are up around 15%, but she is in a crummier league (#7 conference RPI versus #1 conference RPI) on a massively dominant team and is fresher from playing around ten fewer minutes a game. The numbers don't appear to show her developing at all. She was the best player in the #1 conference per scoring and rebounds, and now she plays 21.3 minutes a game off the bench in the #7 conference. What is it you have seen that has you so excited about her development? |
If you haven't seen or understood the significant advancements she's made at both ends of the court, I'm certainly not the person to try to enlighten you. Watch all of the UConn games from beginning of the season, the Geno show, the postgame shows and interviews - it's quite easy and clear to see.
Last edited by RavenDog on 03/10/18 10:25 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
RavenDog
Joined: 19 Feb 2007 Posts: 6883 Location: Home
Back to top |
Posted: 03/10/18 10:18 am ::: |
Reply |
|
tfan wrote: |
CBiebel wrote: |
tfan wrote: |
Stanford has declined as well. We may have entered an era where you cannot field as good a team with top students (assuming that you have to be one to get into these two schools) than what you used to be able to do. |
2. While UConn might not technically have the academic requirements of either Duke or Stanford, it isn't like Auriemma is relying on players who are academically questionable. I can't think of many (if any) UConn players who would not be accepted to either school. In fact, you could argue that the UConn system kind of requires smart players.
|
The only athletes that don't get into Stanford or Duke on athletic scholarships are the ones who were "academically questionable" in high school? That is a much different standard than is applied to the non-athlete students. If true, it would mean that Stanford and Duke don't face that big hurdle getting enough jocks to come there.
One thing I forgot about Stanford is that it is supposed to be both hard to get into, and hard to flunk out of. They are said to try very hard to keep you passing your classes. What I was thinking about with regard to jocks not choosing schools with high academic reputations was that they wouldn't want to have a harder curriculum to deal with. But maybe that isn't even true, particularly for the athletes.
But as I said in another post, Stanford hasn't won the Pac-12 regular season in 4 straight years which is what I was thinking about when I said they have declined. But, there are alternative reasons for that happening besides them not being able to recruit top jocks. |
It's not always about the school's higher reputations and curriculums but what the athlete/student majors in. It is acknowledged that some athlete/students major in more intensive science, engineering, medicine etc. programs and do/did quite well in them, but the majority of the scholar-athletes pursue other majors.
Obviously, there are some majors/courses you really have to not try or screw up badly to not get at least a B or C grade in. I'm not going to list them all but if you've gone to any college/university you should have knowledge of them.
It's not that the majority of the athletes are not intelligent or unable to pass the more difficult programs, it's just their prerogative choices for educational and athletic advancement must coincide with their focused/hoped-for needs/wants and, as such, their chosen educational paths have greenery but with less thorns on them.
|
|
|
|