MBB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[AndOne]

In the past, you have been very focused on what is good for the recruits from a playing time standpoint...as opposed to what is good for the school, from a standpoint of overall program depth, ability to field a competitive JV team, having good options in the event of injuries, etc.  

As I think you will agree, the most players from any one class who end up playing significant varsity minutes is about 7 (and that might be a stretch).  So if North Central brings in as many as 15 recruits, aren't there as many as 8 kids who, in your mind, are making "poor decisions"?

As you know, I never agreed with you (about players making "poor decisions").  My stance has obviously always been that kids should decide where they want to go to school, irregardless of how many other guards or forwards or centers are around them.  I think bringing 15 kids is absolutely fine.  But based on your posts over the years, I was just wondering if you'd have concern with this NCC class.  Your explanation today suggests that you've changed your stance. I'm happy to hear that as it should mean no more questioning of kids who decide to go to a school where playing time on the basketball team is not a given.  It sounds like we are both on the same page finally -- that kids should go where they want to go, even if that means they will have to compete vs other very good player for playing time.

Mark's perfectly capable of defending himself, but I have to say that I think you're comparing apples to oranges here, Bob. First of all, let's be fair to him in terms of what he was actually saying. He never said anything about playing time being a given at any school, or about not competing for playing time. His words were, "have a better chance of playing sooner rather than later," which is an altogether different thing than playing time being a given with no competition implied.

Secondly, he's been going on all along about recruits choosing schools whose teams already have mostly- or fully-intact returning rotations, or an already-stacked depth chart at the recruit's position. Not that I've agreed with his reasoning -- I'm more in your camp when it comes to the issue of whether or not to choose a school based upon the possibility of attaining immediate varsity playing time on a sports team -- but I recognize the conditions that he describes at Illinois Wesleyan (it exists at other schools as well; North Park, for example, has a large roster loaded with juniors-to-be who have logged extensive varsity minutes already, and Carthage and Augie have similar rotation logjams in place at most or all of the five positions, but since IWU is the school whose recruiting seems to have drawn the most ire from Mark, that's who we'll go with here).

Here's the thing: Illinois Wesleyan meets Mark's description of a school whose basketball team has a mostly- or fully-intact returning rotation. North Central, on the other hand, doesn't. Aside from Derek Raridon and Brian Evans, and perhaps Kevin Gillespie, I don't see anyone on the NCC roster who is a lock to be in the 2010-11 rotation. That means that as many as six of those 13-to-15 newbies might find their way into the 2010-11 Cardinals rotation. That's a staggering amount of immediate opportunity, especially for a team in one of D3's premier basketball conferences. Beyond that, none of them have appeared on campus yet and taken part in practices. Nothing is written in stone with them yet. Todd Raridon hasn't sorted them out into the wheat and the chaff with regard to who will be getting significant varsity minutes and who will be depth-chart fodder. For all we know, the guys whom Mark is touting the most right now could be bypassed by the guys whom he's touting the least. They aren't high-schoolers anymore, they're collegians now, which means that they're all unknowns at this point.

I don't see any inconsistency in what Mark has been saying all along. As I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's not contradicting himself.

Thank you Greg.
One slight modification--Wesleyan hasn't really drawn my "ire." They are recruiting hard just as they should. Its just I'm familiar with them and I believe they they have fit my description of an "intact roster" for some time now due to the fact many of the 10-11 Wesleyan starters and primary subs have been established/entrenched for 2 or 3 years.

Bob--I really haven't changed my stance about thinking that from a basketball standpoint only, a kid does indeed make a poor decision when he goes to a school where all the starters have been starting for 2 or 3 years, and there are also a large number of subs already seeing significant minutes.

And therein lies the difference between being one of 13-15 new players at a school such as North Central where 4 out of the 5 starting positions and all 5 1st sub spots are completely open vs being one of 8-10 newbies at a school such as Wesleyan where all 5 starters are basically predetermined plus there are 6 more players who averaged at least 10 minutes the previous season returning. In most instances this year at North Central, the majority of the new players will have a real opportunity to compete for both 4 of the 5 starting positions or for significant minutes as the 1st in sub at all 5 positions. Whereas at Wesleyan, the newbies will face long odds going up against as many as 11 veteran players who have already started or played major minutes.
NCC will likely start 3 freshman, possibly 4. Even Brian Evans who emerged in about the 12th game of the season, and played brilliantly is not guaranteed a starter's role. The 6th-10th spots are completely open. Accordingly, there very realistically exists the chance that of the 1st 10 spots, 8 will be filled by newcomers.

Lastly, I have NEVER advocated that a kid make a college choice based solely on basketball playing time. Thats idiotic. 
And for the hater or haters out there, I hope you're having fun.

[Titan Q]

Bob--I really haven't changed my stance about thinking that from a basketball standpoint only, a kid does indeed make a poor decision when he goes to a school where all the starters have been starting for 2 or 3 years, and there are also a large number of subs already seeing significant minutes.

And therein lies the difference between being one of 13-15 new players at a school such as North Central where 4 out of the 5 starting positions and all 5 1st sub spots are completely open vs being one of 8-10 newbies at a school such as Wesleyan where all 5 starters are basically predetermined plus there are 6 more players who averaged at least 10 minutes the previous season returning.

I guess I just don't see much difference between the two.  In a class of 13-15 recruits, 6-8 kids probably will never play significant (or any) varsity minutes...just as that reality exists in a class of 6-7, where there is another talented, deep class one or two years ahead.  In both cases, several kids will never get in the mix at all.  (The same kind of kids you've been telling us make poor decisions from a basketball standpoint.)  I don't see much difference between the situation facing whoever NCC's 3rd and 4th best post recruits end up being (with F Derek Raridon, F/C Landon Gamble, and F Brad Hallstein on the roster) and the situation facing, say, Andrew Ziemnik at IWU.  

I just think your perspective has changed now that North Central is the school with large class.  

[AndOne]

Bob--I really haven't changed my stance about thinking that from a basketball standpoint only, a kid does indeed make a poor decision when he goes to a school where all the starters have been starting for 2 or 3 years, and there are also a large number of subs already seeing significant minutes.

And therein lies the difference between being one of 13-15 new players at a school such as North Central where 4 out of the 5 starting positions and all 5 1st sub spots are completely open vs being one of 8-10 newbies at a school such as Wesleyan where all 5 starters are basically predetermined plus there are 6 more players who averaged at least 10 minutes the previous season returning.

I guess I just don't see much difference between the two.  In a class of 13-15 recruits, 6-8 kids probably will never play significant (or any) varsity minutes...just as that reality exists in a class of 6-7, where there is another talented, deep class one or two years ahead.  In both cases, several kids will never get in the mix at all.  (The same kind of kids you've been telling us make poor decisions from a basketball standpoint.)  I don't see much difference between the situation facing whoever NCC's 3rd and 4th best post recruits end up being (with F Derek Raridon, F/C Landon Gamble, and F Brad Hallstein on the roster) and the situation facing, say, Andrew Ziemnik at IWU. 

I just think your perspective has changed now that North Central is the school with large class. 

Derek can always play the 2.

Several of this year's freshman at NCC will have a chance to play NOW. Few, if any of the IWU freshmen will have that opportunity. Yes, they will great a great education which is always the primary reason to go to school, but several have made a poor basketball decision. You mentioned Andrew Ziemnik specifically. I think Andrew knows that he could have come to NCC and have a legitimate shot at either starting or being a primary sub this year on top of getting a great education. In choosing Wesleyan, he made a great academic decision. Not so much as far as a basketball decision.

[Titan Q]

You mentioned Andrew Ziemnik specifically. I think Andrew knows that he could have come to NCC and have a legitimate shot at either starting or being a primary sub this year on top of getting a great education. In choosing Wesleyan, he made a great academic decision. Not so much as far as a basketball decision.

And I've heard what you did at the IWU @ NCC game this year to convince Mr. Ziemnik of that...circling the names of IWU's forwards on the roster and writing, "where will you play?" and handing it to him.  (He gave it to Ron Rose after the game and said, "Uh, that guy over there gave this to me.")  Pretty intense stuff, Mark!  Everyone at IWU was good with it as it seemed to seal the deal for the Titans.

Let's not write Andrew's career off before he even walks in the door, huh?  As Dan Sand reminded you earlier today, you had Brandon Kunz dead an buried at Augie a year ago...and he started both conference tournament games.  Let's let a few seasons play out why don't we? 

[Titan Q]

Unofficial list of CCIW recruits (5/8/10)...


Augustana
* Sam Calcagno (5-10 PG, Mayo H.S., Rochester, MN) - 11.2 ppg, 2.4 apg
* Sean Finn (6-2 PG, Assumption H.S., Davenport, IA) - 10.0 ppg, 2.5 rpg, 5.0 apg
* P.J. Killean (6-3 G, Maine South H.S.) - 10.6 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 4.1 apg
* Austin Lusson (6-1 G, Lyons Township) - 8.2 ppg, 2.4 apg
* Sam Savaglio (6-1 G, Tremper H.S., Kenosha, WI) - 12.9 ppg, 5.6 rpg, 3.0 apg
* Kevin Schlitter (6-8 C, Maine South H.S.) - 13.6 ppg, 7.1 rpg (JR season)


Carthage
* Nick Bauch (6-7 F/C, Rockford Boylan H.S.) - 11.4 ppg, 5.4 rpg
* Nick Kladis (6-0 SG, Hinsdale Central H.S.) - 18.7 ppg  
* Marlon Senior (6-4 SF, Niles North H.S.) - 14.3 ppg, 5.5 rpg   
* Scott Suchy (6-1 G, Genoa-Kingston H.S.) - 21.5 ppg, 6.2 rpg
* Kevin Sykes (6-2 G, Lincoln-Way North H.S.) - 8.9 ppg, 2.4 rpg  


Elmhurst
* Sam Ficker (6-0 G, Jerseyville H.S.) - 17.7 ppg, 3.8 rpg, 3.6 apg
* Andy LePard (6-7 C, Beecher H.S.) - ? 
* Raphael Oglesby (6-3 F, Prairie State JC) - 13.9 ppg, 6.3 rpg   
* Justin Phipps (6-5 C, Lyons Township H.S.) - 8.7 ppg, 7.4 rpg 
* Nick Sanford (6-5 F, Decatur St. Theresa H.S.) - 18.3 ppg, 9.6 rpg   


Illinois Wesleyan
* Nick Anderson (6-9 F/C, Edwardsville H.S.) - 3.0 ppg, 3.2 rpg
* Victor Davis (6-5 F, Galesburg H.S.) - 17.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg
* Eric Dortch (6-4 F, Wilbaham & Monson Academy, Evanston H.S. '09) - ?
* Joe LaTulip (5-10 PG, Prospect H.S.) - 15.5 ppg, 4.2 rpg, 3.0 apg
* Mike Mayberger (6-5 SF, St. Louis U. High, Mo.) - 12.1 ppg, 5.5 apg
* Kyle Miklasz (6-3 SG, Hersey H.S.) - 13.2 ppg   
* Andrew Ziemnik (6-4 F, Oswego H.S.) - 18.5 ppg, 11.3 rpg
* Brady Zimmer (6-4 G, Delavan H.S.) - 29.3 ppg, 8.7 rpg, 2.4 apg


Millikin
* Matt Merrigan (5-11 PG, Glenbrook North H.S.) - ?   


North Central
* Mortell Flowers (6-4 F, Oak Park-River Forest H.S.) - ?   
* Landon Gamble (6-5 F/C, Lockport Township H.S.) - 9.2 ppg, 4.5 rpg 
* Brad Hallstein (6-8 PF, Normal West H.S.) - 16.4 ppg, 7.1 rpg
* Adam LeTourneau (6-4 G, Batavia H.S.) - 6.9 ppg, 3.4 rpg, 2.3 apg
* Kyle Pembrook (6-2 SG, Neuqua Valley H.S.) - ?   
* Brock Pezanoski (6-3 SF, LaSalle-Peru H.S.) - 11.2 ppg, 7.4 rpg
* Charlie Rosenberg (6-6 F, Fremd H.S.) - 8.1 ppg   
* Tyler Smeltzly (5-10 PG, Riverdale H.S.) - 13.1 ppg, 2.8 rpg, 4.1 apg 


North Park
* Josh McNaughton (5-11 PG, McHenry H.S.) - 11.1 ppg   new


Wheaton
* Billy Berglund (6-3 F, Elkhorn H.S., NE) - 13.5 ppg, 9.7 rpg
* Jonathan DeMoss (6-4 SG, St. Charles North H.S. '09) - 10.0 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.8 apg ('08-09) 
* Mickey DeVries (6-7 F, Lansing Christian H.S., MI) - 19.1 ppg, 10.3 rpg
* Tad Fisher (6-0 G, San Romano Valley H.S., CA) - ? 
* Nathan Haynes (6-6 F, Normal Community H.S.)  - 11.0 ppg, 7.0 rpg
* Phillip James (6-7 F, Trinity School, NC) - ? 
* Kyle Krogh (6-4 F, Jenison H.S., MI) - 7.3 ppg, 4.2 rpg 
* Michael Kvam (6-3 G, Cherokee H.S., GA) - 21.2 ppg, 4.5 rpg, 3.7 apg 
* Spencer McCreary (6-3 G/F, Red Lion H.S., PA) - 22.4 ppg, 8.3 rpg, 4.2 apg
* Tyler Peters (6-3 G, Medina H.S., OH) - 15.5 ppg, 6.0 rpg, 5.5 apg 

[AndOne]

You mentioned Andrew Ziemnik specifically. I think Andrew knows that he could have come to NCC and have a legitimate shot at either starting or being a primary sub this year on top of getting a great education. In choosing Wesleyan, he made a great academic decision. Not so much as far as a basketball decision.

And I've heard what you did at the IWU @ NCC game this year to convince Mr. Ziemnik of that...circling the names of IWU's forwards on the roster and writing, "where will you play?" and handing it to him.  (He gave it to Ron Rose after the game and said, "Uh, that guy over there gave this to me.")  Pretty intense stuff, Mark!  Everyone at IWU was good with it as it seemed to seal the deal for the Titans.

Let's not write Andrew's career off before he even walks in the door, huh?  As Dan Sand reminded you earlier today, you had Brandon Kunz dead an buried at Augie a year ago...and he started both conference tournament games.  Let's let a few seasons play out why don't we? 

1. A very valid question given the Titans return Sexauer, Koschnitzky, O'Callaghan, Schouten, Lawson, Schick, Walker, Reed, Radliff, and Bontemps. Thats TEN forwards, not to mention 3 other incoming freshmen one of which you, identified as the Titans top target at the forward spot in this year's class!
Given Andrew's abilities, its not impossible that he see a little varsity time, but you must admit chances of that happening at slim at best. On the other hand, he could have possibly started at NCC (or many other schools) or, at minimum, been in the regular rotation. Just trying to assist the young man in seeing the realistic opportunity or, in Wesleyan's case, the lack thereof! 
2. Stop putting words in my mouth, i.e. "lets not write Andrew's career off." I only said he could play sooner at another school. Not that he would never play at Wesleyan.
3. As far as Kunz at Augie, I said I was wrong. He gained starter status last in just his 1st year. But going in the odds were against it. And, of course there are going to be exceptions. However, nobody can argue Ziemnik's chances of playing this year at Wesleyan are slim. And, if Mr. Davis is as good as Ron Rose seems to think he is, Andrew may well never see significant time.

I stand by my statement--A wonderful academic decision. A poor basketball decision. Especially in light of the fact he could have had it both ways!   

However, if he absolutely loves Wesleyan, and will be happy there if he never plays a minute of basketball, then thats where he should be. And thats what I think I also told Andrew.

[Titan Q]

However, if he absolutely loves Wesleyan, and will be happy there if he never plays a minute of basketball, then thats where he should be. And thats what I think I also told Andrew.

If you would stop personally recruiting all these kids from the suburbs, we might not have this "problem" (IWU having too many players)...every time I hear you're on a kid, he ends up down in Bloomington!

The Admissions department at my alma mater thanks you though.

[Mr. Ypsi]

However, if he absolutely loves Wesleyan, and will be happy there if he never plays a minute of basketball, then thats where he should be. And thats what I think I also told Andrew.

If you would stop personally recruiting all these kids from the suburbs, we might not have this "problem" (IWU having too many players)...every time I hear you're on a kid, he ends up down in Bloomington!

The Admissions department at my alma mater thanks you though.

ZING!  AndOne - secret Titan?

If I was a recruiter, I'd be concerned if an athlete DIDN'T think he would be a 'Kunz exception'.  Simple math says most are incorrect, but they oughta think that way to get my attention.  (And I wouldn't be prescient enough to know which were 'Kunz' and which were incorrect.)

[Gregory Sager]

I don't see any inconsistency in what Mark has been saying all along. As I said, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he's not contradicting himself.

Except that...

No doubt Brandon Kunz is getting a good education at Augie, but from a basketball standpoint, he is one of those kids who should have gone with his 2nd choice, where he could have also gotten a good education and played a lot more sooner rather than later.

Last year, when Brandon came on board, Augie was replacing eight players who either graduated or left the program.

IIRC, I think that Mark's original point in the case of Brandon Kunz was position-specific. Augie had lost a lot of players due to graduation or attrition, true, but it still had a lot of depth at the big-man spots -- which meant a potential roadblock for Kunz.

As Mark has gone on to admit, he wasn't inconsistent at all in the case of Kunz ... he was just wrong.

(The factors that nobody has discussed re: Kunz are how the foot injury to his fellow freshman, All-Milky-Way-Galaxy prospect Luke Scarlata, and the mid-season departure of senior center Terence Green from the roster may have paved the way for Kunz to move up Giovanine's depth chart last season. And, correct me if I'm wrong, Dan, but wasn't George Dexter sidelined for awhile with a bum knee, too?)

Bob--I really haven't changed my stance about thinking that from a basketball standpoint only, a kid does indeed make a poor decision when he goes to a school where all the starters have been starting for 2 or 3 years, and there are also a large number of subs already seeing significant minutes.

And therein lies the difference between being one of 13-15 new players at a school such as North Central where 4 out of the 5 starting positions and all 5 1st sub spots are completely open vs being one of 8-10 newbies at a school such as Wesleyan where all 5 starters are basically predetermined plus there are 6 more players who averaged at least 10 minutes the previous season returning.

I guess I just don't see much difference between the two.  In a class of 13-15 recruits, 6-8 kids probably will never play significant (or any) varsity minutes...just as that reality exists in a class of 6-7, where there is another talented, deep class one or two years ahead.  In both cases, several kids will never get in the mix at all.  (The same kind of kids you've been telling us make poor decisions from a basketball standpoint.)  I don't see much difference between the situation facing whoever NCC's 3rd and 4th best post recruits end up being (with F Derek Raridon, F/C Landon Gamble, and F Brad Hallstein on the roster) and the situation facing, say, Andrew Ziemnik at IWU. 

I just think your perspective has changed now that North Central is the school with large class. 

You're still missing the point, Bob. You continue to look two or three years down the road to examine the motivations of the incoming Cardinals freshmen. But that's not the issue at hand here, which is that in the here-and-now (if we can refer to the fall of 2010 as the "here-and-now") those Cardinals freshmen have an optimum chance to earn their way into a CCIW rotation, a chance that their green-clad counterparts do not have.

Yes, there will be members of the North Central class of 2014 who will never see the floor during a varsity game, or who will see it only rarely, or who will fall by the wayside for one reason or another. But the point is that the identities of those scrubs-to-be are not yet set in stone. Likewise, contrary to what you're implying, the identities of NCC's freshmen varsity starters (if there will be any at all, since it's not a given that Todd Raridon can't and won't fashion a starting lineup out of his son, Brian Evans, Kevin Gillespie, and two other returnees, if, say, Brandon Stanciel and Mike Winans progress sufficiently in the off-season) aren't set in stone, either. Todd Raridon is too good of a coach to simply tell Landon Gamble or Brad Hallstein or any other freshman that he will be in the starting lineup in NCC's opener in mid-November before the kid has even donned a red practice jersey for the first time. The destinies of all of North Central's freshmen are in their own hands this coming fall in a way that the destinies of IWU's freshmen (with the possible exception of Davis, according to your insider info) are not.

All of NCC's frosh will get a shot at earning varsity playing time right away. Few or none of IWU's frosh can say the same thing, no matter how good they are or how hard they work to earn it. And that's the bottom line here.

[devildog29]

Seems to me the argument basically comes down to who do you want to compete against for playing time as a freshman?  Would you rather compete against (relatively) established upperclassmen on an already successful team?  Or, would you rather compete against other freshmen on a team that isn't as established and not as successful in the prior year (or years)?  Bob seems to be saying that it's competition either way, while AO is making a distinction in the LEVEL of competition.  Both are valid points, though the chances of earning time obviously would seem better if competing against other freshmen rather than those already "in the system." 

That being said, I was 4 year scout team all-universe on the Titan football team when I was there and very rarely saw the playing field.  I'm quite sure I could have earned some more PT at a different institution at the time, but I wouldn't trade my decision for anything, even in hindsight.  I loved being a part of the winning program and the school more than I cared about the PT.  I wasn't going to the NFL, so it didn't really matter to me.  Just being a part of the team and putting on pads for 4 years more than any of my friends back home was enough for me.  I don't in any way, shape, or form consider this a bad FOOTBALL decision because the winning team was more important to me than the playing time.  I don't know that this makes anyone else wrong for their decisions if they chose differently, but that's how I felt and still feel. 

[Titan Q]

I don't in any way, shape, or form consider this a bad FOOTBALL decision because the winning team was more important to me than the playing time.  I don't know that this makes anyone else wrong for their decisions if they chose differently, but that's how I felt and still feel.  

AndOne's evaluation of "good basketball decision" vs "poor basketball decision" is extremely narrow.  It basically comes down to whether or not you have a great chance to play varsity as a freshman.  Accordingly, the following kids made poor decisions...

* Keelan Amelianovich (1 year JV)
* Chris Simich (2 years JV)
* Brent Niebrugge (2 years JV)
* John Camardella (1 year JV)

The problem is that all 4 won CCIW championships, and all 4 went to Salem.  And knowing each, I can promise you none would tell you he made a "poor basketball decision."

Saying Andrew Ziemnik has made a "poor basketball decision" because he could start next year at NCC and can't next year at IWU is really quite silly.

[dansand]

At the risk of further flogging the expired equine, let me try to explain what irks me about this. It's one thing to simply say a kid could play sooner at School A than School B as AndOne did here:

If you are a good high school big man and want to play sooner rather than later in a highly rated DIII conference at a great school, North Central is where you will have a much better opportunity to earn PT at an early point in your college career than at Augie who already has established bigs on the screen for next year.

I'm fine with that, and maybe I'm reading too much into it from a semantic standpoint, but it seems more than a little arrogant to suggest a kid made a bad decision because he decides to go somewhere that's not your school. As disappointed as I am when Augie loses a recruit, I have a tough time imagining the circumstances that would make me think that I know better than the young man where he should be going to school.

Augie was replacing four frontcourt players last year, so there was no reason to think that Kunz or Scarlata or Norton or Dexter wouldn't be able to compete for playing time. As it turned out a string of injuries allowed three of them to get pretty significant minutes.

Injuries are part of the equation also (it was actually two separate ankle injuries for Dexter last year). Augie has lost a double figure scorer for the rest of the year early in three of the last four seasons (Rorer, Delp & Voiles). Where would they be if they hadn't recruited some depth.

A lot of fine players have come through this league and had excellent careers without playing a lot immediately. Did Keelan Amelianovich or Rick Harrigan make bad decisions "from a basketball standpoint" because they didn't play immediately?

Like I said, sorry for beating the dead horse and it looks like Q was covering some of the same points while I was typing. I just wanted to clarify where I was coming from.

I feel like I need a shower now after agreeing with the Illinois Wesleyan folks. 

[Titan Q]

I feel like I need a shower now after agreeing with the Illinois Wesleyan folks. 

Recruiting talk makes for strange bedfellows.

[cardinalpride]

Dan, I don't want to put words in Mark's mouth we all know he doesn't need me to but I believe he was using NCC, IWU, and Augie as examples. I didn't take it as arrogance. I also believe you all make good points. However, some kids do make "bad decisions" or shall I say "not the best decision" when deciding schools. Augie had a Harrigan but they also had a Demoss. Iwu had a Carmadella but they also had a Tolliver. It would be naïve for us to think kids always make the best decisions when choosing an educational institution.

[Titan Q]

Dan, I don't want to put words in Mark's mouth we all know he doesn't need me to but I believe he was using NCC, IWU, and Augie as examples. I didn't take it as arrogance. I also believe you all make good points. However, some kids do make "bad decisions" or shall I say "not the best decision" when deciding schools. Augie had a Harrigan but they also had a Demoss. Iwu had a Carmadella but they also had a Tolliver. It would be naïve for us to think kids always make the best decisions when choosing an educational institution.

Examples?  These are direct quotes...

No doubt Brandon Kunz is getting a good education at Augie, but from a basketball standpoint, he is one of those kids who should have gone with his 2nd choice, where he could have also gotten a good education and played a lot more sooner rather than later.

Regarding Andrew Ziemnik...

I stand by my statement--A wonderful academic decision. A poor basketball decision. Especially in light of the fact he could have had it both ways!   

That is about as arrogant as it gets, isn't it?