2022 Transfer Portal Discussion

Donate To GopherHole
Just saw the Llewelyn to Michigan Commit
 

eker0016 said:
I'm saying I'm not sure Ben wants that, possibly because of a promise he made to Carrington about playing time. Obviously I'm guessing, but the fact that all our guard recruiting dried up as soon as Cooper committed tells me he wants to get meaningful minutes to Carrington.

As a teacher over the years I've learned that a key to keeping students and parents happy is about managing expectations. Don't overpromise or underdeliver. If he wants to build relationships in MN and the first thing he does is bring in somebody to push his prize recruit Mr. Basketball to the bench, how does that come off?
Click to expand...

Right now we have 3 guards on the roster. That's simply not enough especially since two of them are freshmen. The coaching staff seems intent on getting a backup point and I think the two they are reported to be recruiting are suitable candidates. Recruiting a veteran off guard would give only 12 players on the roster with five guards (if you don't count Battle). That doesn't seem like too many. Injuries or some other mishaps should be expected. If Carrington ends up starting, that shouldn't be by default. There could be enough minutes for him whether he starts or not. Get a veteran if for no other reasons than competition and insurance.
 

cjbfbp said:
Right now we have 3 guards on the roster. That's simply not enough especially since two of them are freshmen. The coaching staff seems intent on getting a backup point and I think the two they are reported to be recruiting are suitable candidates. Recruiting a veteran off guard would give only 12 players on the roster with five guards (if you don't count Battle). That doesn't seem like too many. Injuries or some other mishaps should be expected. If Carrington ends up starting, that shouldn't be by default. There could be enough minutes for him whether he starts or not. Get a veteran if for no other reasons than competition and insurance.
Click to expand...
Carrington or Henley may not have to start. Ben has a lot of flexibility and may start Cooper, Battle, Ihnen, and Garcia together all playing on the perimeter. That lineup can guard other teams and would be difficult to defend. That provides four more perimeter players in Carrington, Henley, Ola-Joseph (athletic and will be able to defend from day one at this level), and Samuels (if he commits). Fox can also defend on the perimeter as well as play inside, and Payne is another inside player. He has a lot of flexibility with current players.

He isn't looking for a 2 guard like people here like to talk about, he is looking for guys who can play on the perimeter and defend on the perimeter. He has a lot of perimeter players to give minutes to. I would love it if he found a super strong perimeter player who is clearly going to get minutes ahead of what he has, but there isn't a lot of that out there where they are good enough that Ben can promise minutes, which transfer kids want. A lot to balance in putting together a lineup looking at short-term and future years.
 

cjbfbp said:
Except for California, those programs have had better records lately. We've had three losing seasons in a row. Going back to NCAA tournament appearances nine years ago isn't relevant to the state of the program now.

I'm not tied to any narrative. I'm just calling what I see. Failures are failures; the reasons are not that important when it comes to evaluating the tenure of coaches. Monson, Tubby, and Pitino all had their reasons but in the end only their records mattered (although a record like Tubby's would look much better now).

This is a tough program to sell right now but Ben is going to have to find a way to do that or he'll follow the fates of his predecessors eventually. I haven't given up hope that Ben can land a decent transfer off guard for the upcoming season. I just hope he keeps trying.
Click to expand...

Why are you being so overly critical of assumptions made by others when you are making assumptions yourself? Go read the Athletic article that BleedGopher posted recently. It's very clear that if the player isn't on the same page as Ben, then they aren't becoming a Gopher. We will probably never know which players Ben 'failed' to get vs which players he simply told no thanks. Stop busting everyone's balls just because they have a different opinion then you. If you think every player that doesn't come here is a failure on Ben, so be it. Some others like to debate on why it happened, and there's many reasons tied to those decisions.
 
Last edited:

WriterGoph said:
Because some people are tied to a narrative of failure and bad roster construction by Ben because of the way last year played out.
Click to expand...
And probably will be until something concrete happens to prove otherwise. I'm with the crew that believes we need another shooter who has the potential to get starter minutes. Ben may believe the incoming freshmen can fill that role. He certainly knows his players than I do. But until we see a complete roster that has perceived needs met on the floor, we won't know. Until then, forgive us for being a bit skeptical. We're still here and not giving up, but not quickly giving the staff the clear benefit of the doubt. I suspect the staff is probably okay with that. They know this business.

Fans can be both supportive and ask a few questions.
 


gopherguy15 said:
Stop busting everyone's balls just because they have a different opinion then you.
Click to expand...

I don't "bust" anyone's balls any more than a host of others around here. I just don't like the ceaseless spin where failure is turned to a virtue. In fact, you're busting mine right now because you don't like my opinion.

I also don't buy insinuations that Ben and the coaches brought someone to campus and decided that he wasn't a "good fit." First of all, I've heard that too many times. Secondly, if that's true, that would be an incredibly inefficient way of recruiting. Those issues should be mostly decided before you bring someone to campus. For whatever reasons, we're simply not getting any of the off guards that were reported as targets.
 

A post I made prior to Cooper/Garcia coming on board that is still fitting after reading all the back and forth posts, including myself, about forming next years roster. In comparison, the football board is pretty much silent about PJ's roster building. Clearly this board lacks confidence in Ben in comparison to PJ, which can be justified.

"Come on Ben. Do your job! This GH crowd is really getting anxious and very nervous. To the point of needing psych help and a boatload of meds to maintain our sanity. Unveal your findings stat so we can stop this craziness, angst and gnashing of teeth and get on with all the dissecting, over analyzing, criticizing and complaining about all the new Gophers. Or maybe even get excited and be happy about the newcomers.

Its what we do."
 

cjbfbp said:
I'm a Ph.D. so I know a little about higher education, thank you very much. In fact, I said (on a number of occasions) that institutional pedigree could be a factor for someone who spent four years at Davidson. I do read your posts, but obviously you don't read mine unless you see something that feeds your compulsion to jump on any questioning or criticism.
Click to expand...
Lol you sound insufferable.
 

cjbfbp said:
I also don't buy insinuations that Ben and the coaches brought someone to campus and decided that he wasn't a "good fit." First of all, I've heard that too many times. Secondly, if that's true, that would be an incredibly inefficient way of recruiting. Those issues should be mostly decided before you bring someone to campus. For whatever reasons, we're simply not getting any of the off guards that were reported as targets.
Click to expand...
Have you ever taken a test drive and decided not to buy the car? You researched the car, you thought it would be a good fit and liked it enough to go to the dealership to drive it. But in the end you decided not to buy it.

Transfer recruiting is done over a super short window. You aren't establishing a relationship over multiple years and really getting to know a player inside and out like you do with high school recruits. I can totally understand how you could bring a player in for a visit and decide they weren't a good fit.

Tough to say why we haven't landed any of the off guards we have gone after to this point. Guessing the reason is different with every kid. Sure there were some we wanted that went elsewhere and bet there were also others we thought we wanted but decided we ultimately didn't.
 



cjbfbp said:
I don't "bust" anyone's balls any more than a host of others around here. I just don't like the ceaseless spin where failure is turned to a virtue. In fact, you're busting mine right now because you don't like my opinion.

I also don't buy insinuations that Ben and the coaches brought someone to campus and decided that he wasn't a "good fit." First of all, I've heard that too many times. Secondly, if that's true, that would be an incredibly inefficient way of recruiting. Those issues should be mostly decided before you bring someone to campus. For whatever reasons, we're simply not getting any of the off guards that were reported as targets.
Click to expand...

McIntosh, Strong and Thompson came and visited and we made a decision to go with Cooper. Do you think Ben was oblivious to the fact that taking one guard would likely impact other guards' decisions?

Its all tied together. Most of these guys aren't transferring away to go be a backup somewhere else. That doesn't mean we don't welcome multiple possible options to come visit. This is not that difficult to understand.
 

cjbfbp said:
Right now we have 3 guards on the roster. That's simply not enough especially since two of them are freshmen. The coaching staff seems intent on getting a backup point and I think the two they are reported to be recruiting are suitable candidates. Recruiting a veteran off guard would give only 12 players on the roster with five guards (if you don't count Battle). That doesn't seem like too many. Injuries or some other mishaps should be expected. If Carrington ends up starting, that shouldn't be by default. There could be enough minutes for him whether he starts or not. Get a veteran if for no other reasons than competition and insurance.
Click to expand...
I agree that we need more guards. I would like two more personally.

We are not in the running for a McIntosh/Strong/Jones, though I would love to have one of those guy at our lead guard spot. And it's not because McIntosh/Strong did not want to come here, it's because they wanted to come here for a certain role. We heard that visits were happening for two of them and then radio silence, which is a pretty good indicator that their "spot" dried up when Cooper committed. Not in the sense that we still have scholarships, but the big minutes role that Ben wanted to give to a veteran guard.

We will hopefully get a backup caliber veteran guard like Samuel/Watkins for a small role, IMO 10-15 mpg.
 


MNVCGUY said:
Have you ever taken a test drive and decided not to buy the car?
Click to expand...

Yes. Did you ever hear of Zoom or Skype or various other sorts of meeting software? You have a multi-person interview/meeting and you ask those sort of questions before you have campus visits. There are hardly any students in the United States who haven't had a class using some package like these so they're all used to it.
 



cjbfbp said:
Yes. Did you ever hear of Zoom or Skype or various other sorts of meeting software? You have a multi-person interview/meeting and you ask those sort of questions before you have campus visits. There are hardly any students in the United States who haven't had a class using some package like these so they're all used to it.
Click to expand...
Maybe they didn't like what they saw when the worked the kid out.....maybe the player was rude the receptionist or just a pompous jerk in person....there are any one of a million reasons for why it might not be a good fit.

There is a reason Fleck doesn't like to offer players before they see them in a camp or in person. Everything might look/sound great over zoom but it doesn't click in person.

Again, transfer recruiting is done over a short window where the whole process is condensed and rushed.
 

Tre Williams (who I honestly didnt know was in the portal again) is going to Tulane. Interesting, they are a decent mid major and a really good coach in Ron Hunter.
 

leib0039 said:
Tre Williams (who I honestly didnt know was in the portal again) is going to Tulane. Interesting, they are a decent mid major and a really good coach in Ron Hunter.
Click to expand...
Basketball has brought this guy all over the US! High school in Dallas, prep year in Utah, then Minnesota, Oregon, now Louisiana (Tulane is an 8 hr drive from Dallas, so I guess it's close to home?)
 

MNVCGUY said:
Maybe they didn't like what they saw when the worked the kid out.....maybe the player was rude the receptionist or just a pompous jerk in person....there are any one of a million reasons for why it might not be a good fit.

There is a reason Fleck doesn't like to offer players before they see them in a camp or in person. Everything might look/sound great over zoom but it doesn't click in person.

Again, transfer recruiting is done over a short window where the whole process is condensed and rushed.
Click to expand...

Look, these apologist arguments you make just don't make sense. A bunch of you act like Ben & company are very demanding and discriminating coaches with very high standards when it comes to recruiting; like they're the Ivy League of coaches. They go out and recruit reasonably accomplished players but turn them down because they just aren't the right fit. In fact, they're looking for reasons to decline offers. You know, if that really is the case, then they are God damn fools because they simply don't have that kind of market power. Furthermore, they know that because they're now recruiting a second point from Merrimack. I guess Ben & company must have seen the great "fit" of Charlie Daniels, Ogele, and Thiam that the rest of us missed.
 
Last edited:

cjbfbp said:
Look, these apologist arguments you make just don't make sense. A bunch of you act like Ben & company are very demanding and discriminating coaches with very high standards when it comes to recruiting; like they're the Ivy League of coaches. They go out and recruit reasonably accomplished players but turn them down because they just aren't the right fit. In fact, they're looking for reasons to decline offers. You know, if that really is the case, then they are God damn fools because they simply don't have that kind of market power. Furthermore, they know that because they're now recruiting a second point from Merrimack. I guess Ben & company must have seen the great "fit" of Charlie Daniels, Ogele, and Thiam that the rest of us missed.
Click to expand...
Do you not believe this staff is being more selective in recruiting?
 

Gopherfan84 said:
Do you not believe this staff is being more selective in recruiting?
Click to expand...

I'm saying that they can afford to be only so selective in recruiting. Right now, we're not Duke, KY, Michigan, or even a Texas Tech. They can't afford to turn down recruits for reasons other than lack of competency or troublesome character. Furthermore, their record to date doesn't indicate especially strenuous selectivity unless, of course, someone wants to imagine that all of these off guards (like all of them so far) who don't include us among their finalist destinations have omitted us because we rejected them.
 

cjbfbp said:
I'm saying that they can afford to be only so selective in recruiting. Right now, we're not Duke, KY, Michigan, or even a Texas Tech. They can't afford to turn down recruits for reasons other than lack of competency or troublesome character. Furthermore, their record to date doesn't indicate especially strenuous selectivity unless, of course, someone wants to imagine that all of these off guards (like all of them so far) who don't include us among their finalist destinations have omitted us because we rejected them.
Click to expand...
I understand your point because we had some high turnover, but not being selective on some core values in your program when recruiting gets you Pitino all over again. This job isn’t easy and being selective in recruiting, building, and balancing a locker room will be crucial in my opinion. Seems like this staff is honest with guys and it may lead to some losses, but it will reduce friction in the locker room they kills tons of talented teams in college hoops. Ben could’ve sold Strong or someone else a bag of lies and maybe added him. Then he’s here and mad because he was lied too and now is a cancer in the locker room. It can go both ways. It’s fair to be worried about recruiting imo if you want to. If you follow rankings you wont be impressed. I don’t put as much stock in those since Covid. The path they are attempting to take is the ones of Purdue, Virginia, and to a poorer man’s extent extent Baylor.

I’m happy we aren’t just adding guys on talent alone in expense of culture. Then again I think this team is around 8th-11th in the B1G right now. If they had one more combo I’m comfortable going 7th-10th place. Add one more wing or if Carrington progress happens more quickly then we are 5th-8th and a tourney team.
 


Gopherfan84 said:
I’m happy we aren’t just adding guys on talent alone in expense of culture. Then again I think this team is around 8th-11th in the B1G right now. If they had one more combo I’m comfortable going 7th-10th place. Add one more wing or if Carrington progress happens more quickly then we are 5th-8th and a tourney team.
Click to expand...

If guys are doing their jobs (in various respects), playing hard, and not causing problems, then I think their culture is good enough especially if they are only one-year players. I don't like terms like "culture" because they are nebulous and thereby allow users to employ them any way they see fit without challenge (because nobody really knows what the hell it means anyway). It's actually a word that tends to degrade conversational "culture" because it allows users to avoid spelling out whatever the hell they are talking about.
 


cjbfbp said:
If guys are doing their jobs (in various respects), playing hard, and not causing problems, then I think their culture is good enough especially if they are only one-year players. I don't like terms like "culture" because they are nebulous and thereby allow users to employ them any way they see fit without challenge (because nobody really knows what the hell it means anyway). It's actually a word that tends to degrade conversational "culture" because it allows users to avoid spelling out whatever the hell they are talking about.
Click to expand...
What if it means the following to a coach building a program. High character in every player, never compromise on that. Guys that take school seriously. Guys that play together,that are tough mentally. Guys that are mature. Often players host visiting players and provide great insight to fit. Clear message. Dignity. Conduct yourself as you demand of your players..Call it what you want. Some call it culture, some call it a authentic identity.
 


cjbfbp said:
If guys are doing their jobs (in various respects), playing hard, and not causing problems, then I think their culture is good enough especially if they are only one-year players. I don't like terms like "culture" because they are nebulous and thereby allow users to employ them any way they see fit without challenge (because nobody really knows what the hell it means anyway). It's actually a word that tends to degrade conversational "culture" because it allows users to avoid spelling out whatever the hell they are talking about.
Click to expand...
cjbfbp said:
If guys are doing their jobs (in various respects), playing hard, and not causing problems, then I think their culture is good enough especially if they are only one-year players. I don't like terms like "culture" because they are nebulous and thereby allow users to employ them any way they see fit without challenge (because nobody really knows what the hell it means anyway). It's actually a word that tends to degrade conversational "culture" because it allows users to avoid spelling out whatever the hell they are talking about.
Click to expand...
I hear ya. Culture is just your everyday things you require in a program. You can say what you want but you truly can only prioritize a certain number of things. It’s truly one of those things where you can necessarily define it, but you do know it when you see it
 

cjbfbp said:
If guys are doing their jobs (in various respects), playing hard, and not causing problems, then I think their culture is good enough especially if they are only one-year players. I don't like terms like "culture" because they are nebulous and thereby allow users to employ them any way they see fit without challenge (because nobody really knows what the hell it means anyway). It's actually a word that tends to degrade conversational "culture" because it allows users to avoid spelling out whatever the hell they are talking about.
Click to expand...
Remind me what team you coach or coached again? You must be either at the helm of a top 25 program or a Hall of Famer because you, without fail, always have all of the answers. You are a basketball savant.
 

cjbfbp said:
Look, these apologist arguments you make just don't make sense. A bunch of you act like Ben & company are very demanding and discriminating coaches with very high standards when it comes to recruiting; like they're the Ivy League of coaches. They go out and recruit reasonably accomplished players but turn them down because they just aren't the right fit. In fact, they're looking for reasons to decline offers. You know, if that really is the case, then they are God damn fools because they simply don't have that kind of market power. Furthermore, they know that because they're now recruiting a second point from Merrimack. I guess Ben & company must have seen the great "fit" of Charlie Daniels, Ogele, and Thiam that the rest of us missed.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I think I have been very clear is saying I have no clue why it didn't work out with some of the guys we targeted in the portal. Could be the players decision, could be the coaches decision, could have been mutual.

My response was simply to your assertion that they shouldn't have brought a player on campus that they didn't want and my point was that with the shortened window they may not have known they didn't want a guy until they got him on campus.
 

builtbadgers said:
What if it means the following to a coach building a program. High character in every player, never compromise on that. Guys that take school seriously. Guys that play together,that are tough mentally. Guys that are mature. Often players host visiting players and provide great insight to fit. Clear message. Dignity. Conduct yourself as you demand of your players..Call it what you want. Some call it culture, some call it a authentic identity.
Click to expand...

OK, you've given some specifics about what that means to you and even a technique to evaluate those qualities. Good job! If more people did that, I wouldn't have a problem with the word.
 

cjbfbp said:
OK, you've given some specifics about what that means to you and even a technique to evaluate those qualities. Good job! If more people did that, I wouldn't have a problem with the word.
Click to expand...
'More people' have listened to Coach Johnson talk about what and how he is trying to build the program in countless interviews to know that the word 'culture' isn't just some buzz word. 'Some people' just enjoy over analyzing the syntax used by posters on a message board to make themselves feel better about themselves. Good job!
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom