The unofficial online home for fans of the University of Cincinnati Bearcats. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

There are not a lot of sons who follow their fathers to the same schools. It's usually when they have no where else to go. Kid was raised in Cleveland.

Hopefully they could sell Tandy and try to get him on board early with a LOI in Nov. Calipari may want to bring him on board in the Spring if he misses out on some of his A and B options. He is probably getting pressure to bring in more in-state guys.

(04-16-2018 09:35 PM)Tymanh99 Wrote:  greg gantt update:

He would be a huge get...kid is exactly the type of player we need. If I had to guess, we're going to be fighting Xavier, Louisville, and Va Tech till the end for him.

oops wrong year ...nm

Kinda weird, all of sudden we're going after big name targets again

Mick and his staff have been reading the message boards.

(04-17-2018 06:32 PM)ThinkBigPine Wrote:  Mick and his staff have been reading the message boards.

Good thing we are here to teach them how to recruit!

(04-17-2018 04:46 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Kinda weird, all of sudden we're going after big name targets again

Who we're battling for each of those above:

-TOP TARGETS-

Gantt (4* Top 100) - Louisville, VT, Xavier, Clemson, and Florida
Cockburn (4* Top 100) - Pitt, UConn, St. Johns and Syracuse
Williams (4* just outside of Top 100) - Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi State, and Xavier

-BIG DROP-

Etienne (unrated on any site) - Minnesota, Hofstra, Iona, and Central Connecticut
Mills (no profile on any site) - High Point and Western Carolina
Hugley (unrated on any site) - Akron, Kent State, and Buffalo
Harris (unrated on any site) - Grand Canyon, Central Arkansas, Oakland, and Houston Baptist...
Dial (unrated on any site) - Kent State and Cleveland State

(04-18-2018 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:46 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Kinda weird, all of sudden we're going after big name targets again

Who we're battling for each of those above:

-TOP TARGETS-

Gantt (4* Top 100) - Louisville, VT, Xavier, Clemson, and Florida
Cockburn (4* Top 100) - Pitt, UConn, St. Johns and Syracuse
Williams (4* just outside of Top 100) - Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi State, and Xavier

-BIG DROP-

Etienne (unrated on any site) - Minnesota, Hofstra, Iona, and Central Connecticut
Mills (no profile on any site) - High Point and Western Carolina
Hugley (unrated on any site) - Akron, Kent State, and Buffalo
Harris (unrated on any site) - Grand Canyon, Central Arkansas, Oakland, and Houston Baptist...
Dial (unrated on any site) - Kent State and Cleveland State

I'm not worried about the -big drop- Mick does have history of being able to identify talent early on. Closing on that talent however is a different story.

(04-18-2018 08:14 AM)Intimidate Dominate Celebrate Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 07:37 AM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-17-2018 04:46 PM)Cataclysmo Wrote:  Kinda weird, all of sudden we're going after big name targets again

Who we're battling for each of those above:

-TOP TARGETS-

Gantt (4* Top 100) - Louisville, VT, Xavier, Clemson, and Florida
Cockburn (4* Top 100) - Pitt, UConn, St. Johns and Syracuse
Williams (4* just outside of Top 100) - Auburn, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi State, and Xavier

-BIG DROP-

Etienne (unrated on any site) - Minnesota, Hofstra, Iona, and Central Connecticut
Mills (no profile on any site) - High Point and Western Carolina
Hugley (unrated on any site) - Akron, Kent State, and Buffalo
Harris (unrated on any site) - Grand Canyon, Central Arkansas, Oakland, and Houston Baptist...
Dial (unrated on any site) - Kent State and Cleveland State

I'm not worried about the -big drop- Mick does have history of being able to identify talent early on. Closing on that talent however is a different story.

For sure...I mean, look at Gary for instance. His offer list was a ghost town until we came calling, and he only received an offer from NC State (the only other "big" offer he had) on the eve of his commitment to us if memory serves me correctly.

Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

This makes a lot of sense.

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

(04-18-2018 12:50 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

Agreed. I've said it time and time again. UA has been very bad for UC basketball. And yet that still doesn't totally excuse the poor job most of this staff has done in recruiting.

(04-18-2018 12:56 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:50 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

Agreed. I've said it time and time again. UA has been very bad for UC basketball. And yet that still doesn't totally excuse the poor job most of this staff has done in recruiting.

Not to get too off topic, but was the move to UA at least helpful for football or not so much?

(04-18-2018 01:07 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:56 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:50 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

Agreed. I've said it time and time again. UA has been very bad for UC basketball. And yet that still doesn't totally excuse the poor job most of this staff has done in recruiting.

Not to get too off topic, but was the move to UA at least helpful for football or not so much?

I really don't think it's been beneficial for football either, I don't think shoe companies have near the impact in football recruiting that they do basketball and it's been especially bad for UC basketball.

(04-18-2018 01:07 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:56 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:50 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

Agreed. I've said it time and time again. UA has been very bad for UC basketball. And yet that still doesn't totally excuse the poor job most of this staff has done in recruiting.

Not to get too off topic, but was the move to UA at least helpful for football or not so much?

Apparel doesn't have nearly as big of an impact on football outside of the "cool" factor. Basketball recruitment is basically owned by the apparel companies, in that they own, operate, or sponsor so many AAU teams with high level talent and form connections with these kids to funnel them to specific schools. Football doesn't have an AAU system, so that entire scheme is removed from the equation and it's just about looking good on the field at that point.

(04-18-2018 02:59 PM)BearcatMan Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 01:07 PM)stpnum4 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:56 PM)Marcus Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 12:50 PM)robertfoshizzle Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I often wonder if the pay raise was worth the switch to UA for this very reason. That brand carries a lot of weight in football, but still doesn't have a lot of traction on the AAU circuit.

Agreed. I've said it time and time again. UA has been very bad for UC basketball. And yet that still doesn't totally excuse the poor job most of this staff has done in recruiting.

Not to get too off topic, but was the move to UA at least helpful for football or not so much?

Apparel doesn't have nearly as big of an impact on football outside of the "cool" factor. Basketball recruitment is basically owned by the apparel companies, in that they own, operate, or sponsor so many AAU teams with high level talent and form connections with these kids to funnel them to specific schools. Football doesn't have an AAU system, so that entire scheme is removed from the equation and it's just about looking good on the field at that point.

Part of me wishes under armour is bought out by Nike or adidas. Out of business works too. The fan gear alone has been average at best but the brand has no juice right compared to nike. I just wish uc could get out of the deal and run back to nike.

(04-18-2018 11:11 AM)UCbball21 Wrote:  

(04-18-2018 09:24 AM)JFlight21 Wrote:  Mick is one of the best in the business at identifying talent early. It's just his ability to close when the big boys come calling. I mean he was all over Kemba Walker, Trey Burke, Malik Beasley, etc early and they all blew up. More recently, he was one of the first to recruit Nassir Little when he was a top 100 guy. He ended up #2 overall on rivals.

I have to think a lot of it comes down to the shoe companies in terms of Mick's inability to close on top tier prospects despite getting in early. The Under Armour AAU circuit doesn't have nearly as many top level players as Nike or Adidas. Once a prospect blows up, the $hoe companies' handlers are much more "involved" in the recruiting process.

I agree with the premise that UA isn't as visible with college basketball recruits as Nike and Adidas. But if we apply that same logic, why wasn't recruiting better all those years UC was with Adidas while competing in the best basketball conference in the country?

UC fans are tiring of losing recruits--not to Duke or Kentucky, but to places like X or Butler. Two years ago we were told the problem was the arena. This year it's UA. There are major (P5) programs with UA.

I'll reserve judgment until the '18 recruiting wraps up and the '19 early signing day. But given the success and visibility of the Bearcats the past two seasons, there should be more high profile players wanting to be here.