In the next 5 years who makes the most trips to the dance, Pitino or Stollings?

Donate To GopherHole
R

ruppertflywheel

Banned
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
12,226
Reaction score
0
Points
36
With what's in the cupboard, definitely Stollings. That being said, I think Pitino will be right in there with her by the third year. I can't remember a time when both the men's and women's basketball
programs have such high potential. It's going to be a fun ride.
 

Excuse my irrational exuberance but it wouldn't shock me if Stollings goes 5 for 5. Highly unlikely Richard will get more than 3 in the same period.
 

Ruppert, I assume you're not counting this season? Even so, Howeda nailed it. Hard not to take Stollings knowing that she has AZB with hopefully a healthy Banham next year, then another year of AZB, and two more of Wagner after that. Stollings has two or maybe three (if Wagner continues to develop) returning future WNBA players on her current roster. If we start with the 2015-16 season, I'd put the over-under at Stollings 3.5, Pitino 2.5.
 

FWIW, i was counting this year. But probably the same answer either way. 5 and 3.
 

Wouldn't that be cool if we had 1 future NBA player on our mens team? Like once?
 


For whatever reason, it seems easier for the women's team to attract top athletes than it is for the men's program. Plenty of possible reasons why, but until that changes...talent is the biggest factor. Richard is a very good recruiter, but it may take a while to get pipelines built.
 

Bad Gopher said:
For whatever reason, it seems easier for the women's team to attract top athletes than it is for the men's program. Plenty of possible reasons why, but until that changes...talent is the biggest factor. Richard is a very good recruiter, but it may take a while to get pipelines built.
Click to expand...

Nail on the head there Bad. Comparing the two situations is apples and oranges. I just think you are way, way more likely to get local recruits with women's basketball than with men. The allure of the big time programs is much greater in men's basketball and you have the handlers, the whole bit.
 

howeda7 said:
FWIW, i was counting this year. But probably the same answer either way. 5 and 3.
Click to expand...

If we count this season, would tweak the men's over-under to 1.5. More than likely next season's a rebuild and 0-for-2 NCAA-wise, so that'd give Richard three years to surpass the over.
 

SelectionSunday said:
If we count this season, would tweak the men's over-under to 1.5. More than likely next season's a rebuild and 0-for-2 NCAA-wise, so that'd give Richard three years to surpass the over.
Click to expand...

Not saying you are wrong, but we really think it will be March 2017 at the earliest until we see an NCAA tournament game with the Gophers as a participant? That's depressing.
 



golfing18now said:
Not saying you are wrong, but we really think it will be March 2017 at the earliest until we see an NCAA tournament game with the Gophers as a participant? That's depressing.
Click to expand...

Hope not, but certainly possible barring a major turn-around this season. Of course, there's always the possibility 2015-16 could be the complete opposite of this season, a pleasant (NCAA) surprise instead of a major disappointment (to this point).
 






Winasota Gopher said:
No.
Way.

Edit: I doubt it I should say.
Click to expand...

Trey Burke Freshman Year
pts/40min - 16.4 ast/40min - 5.1 Reb/40min - 3.8 TO/40min - 3.1 FG% - 43.3 3pt% - 34.8 FT% - 74.4

Nate Mason Freshman year so far
pts/40min - 15.6 ast/40min - 4.8 Reb/40min - 5.3 TO/40min - 1.6 FG% - 42.8 3pt% - 43.5 FT% - 63.6

Really not that far off on the numbers/40min played. Get that free throw percentage up and keep that TO down and you have yourself an NBA player so long as one of these years we make a NCAA run. both of them are roughly 6 foot guards. Maybe he wont be drafted in the lottery like Burke was but potential... Both 3 stars on rivals Burke just inside top150 mason just outside.
 

SelectionSunday said:
If we count this season, would tweak the men's over-under to 1.5. More than likely next season's a rebuild and 0-for-2 NCAA-wise, so that'd give Richard three years to surpass the over.
Click to expand...

I agree, that's depressing. This year is a severe long shot, but I hope next year is just as suprising in the other direction. Either way, by 2017 we should be in, so 3 out of 5 by 2019 doesn't seem unreasonable.
 


Probably a safe bet on Stollings. Her roster is just further along than Richard's.
 

Myke said:
Why is that? What about his game makes you think he can't play in the NBA one day?
Click to expand...

I think he's a good pg who plays smart. There is very little unique to his game that sets him apart. Not particularly fast, not especially accurate from 3, he's a good defender. We are in the golden age of pgs, and physically he doesn't set himself apart, so he's behind to start.

Don't get me wrong, I love Nate and know he will be a solid guard for us, I just don't think he is going to the nba, and that's not a terrible thing.
 

Myke said:
Mason's probably that guy.
Click to expand...

I refuse to get excited about any NBA prospects till after they graduate. We've had so many future "NBA" players the last 3-4 years and not a single one has actually panned out. Hopefully someone can break in to the league sooner rather than later, but we haven't had very good luck.
 

Myke said:
Why is that? What about his game makes you think he can't play in the NBA one day?
Click to expand...

If guys like CJ Fair, Laquinton Ross, Jordan Taylor, Seth Curry, Taylor Battle, Brandon Paul, Patric Young aren't good enough to be in the NBA, then Nate Mason's chances certainly aren't all that good. I really like him as a player and think he'll become a legitimate scorer over time to go with his defense, but does he project to be a top 35 draft pick when all is said and done? Probably not. As always, I hope I'm wrong.
 

I wouldn't point out his 3-point shooting of all things (he's pretty damn good in that department--though a very limited sample size), but hard to argue with the rest. Really need to be elite at something to make it at that size.

Winasota Gopher said:
I think he's a good pg who plays smart. There is very little unique to his game that sets him apart. Not particularly fast, not especially accurate from 3, he's a good defender. We are in the golden age of pgs, and physically he doesn't set himself apart, so he's behind to start.

Don't get me wrong, I love Nate and know he will be a solid guard for us, I just don't think he is going to the nba, and that's not a terrible thing.
Click to expand...
 

underground629 said:
I wouldn't point out his 3-point shooting of all things (he's pretty damn good in that department--though a very limited sample size), but hard to argue with the rest. Really need to be elite at something to make it at that size.
Click to expand...

Maybe "not especially accurate from 3" was the wrong descriptor. As far as we've seen so far, he isn't going to take over games on a consistent basis because hes a lethal 3 point shooter. Agree?
 

Bad Gopher said:
For whatever reason, it seems easier for the women's team to attract top athletes than it is for the men's program. Plenty of possible reasons why, but until that changes...talent is the biggest factor. Richard is a very good recruiter, but it may take a while to get pipelines built.
Click to expand...

And somewhat related...

By my count:

Men:
351 D1 teams
4,563 D1 players (13 scholarship per team)
30 NBA teams
390 NBA players (13 active per team)

Women:
351 D1 college teams
4,563 D1 players 913 scholarship per team)
12 WNBA teams
144 WNBA players (12 active per team)

Yet, we are able to get more top women from MN into the WNBA than men into the NBA.
 


brucekaupa said:
And somewhat related...

By my count:

Men:
351 D1 teams
4,563 D1 players (13 scholarship per team)
30 NBA teams
390 NBA players (13 active per team)

Women:
351 D1 college teams
4,563 D1 players 913 scholarship per team)
12 WNBA teams
144 WNBA players (12 active per team)

Yet, we are able to get more top women from MN into the WNBA than men into the NBA.
Click to expand...

Think about the Big 3 from last year. If we had three women like that in the state do you think they all leave? I don't think so. Vaughn had a handler, for goodness sakes, that led him to Vegas. You won't see that in women's hoops. There just isn't the same level of hype that builds up around women's players as there is men's. All of that hype and publicity ends up working like a magnet for the blue blood men's programs.
 

bga1 said:
Think about the Big 3 from last year. If we had three women like that in the state do you think they all leave? I don't think so. Vaughn had a handler, for goodness sakes, that led him to Vegas. You won't see that in women's hoops. There just isn't the same level of hype that builds up around women's players as there is men's. All of that hype and publicity ends up working like a magnet for the blue blood men's programs.
Click to expand...

There are also fewer 'elite' programs in Women's CBB. Sure, a great player probably won't turn down UConn or Tennessee to stay home, but she might turn down Maryland or Texas. There are ~ 5 programs that are very clearly above MN, versus 20 or more for the men.
 

brucekaupa said:
And somewhat related...

By my count:

Men:
351 D1 teams
4,563 D1 players (13 scholarship per team)
30 NBA teams
390 NBA players (13 active per team)

Women:
351 D1 college teams
4,563 D1 players 913 scholarship per team)
12 WNBA teams
144 WNBA players (12 active per team)

Yet, we are able to get more top women from MN into the WNBA than men into the NBA.
Click to expand...

Not really surprising considering the success of the women's program compared to the mens. The Women have been to the NCAA tourney 7 times since 2002. The mens team has been there 4 times in that span.

The men's team has had Kris Humphrey's and Kevin Burleson get to the NBA during that time(Joel Przybilla was 2001)

The Womens team has had Lyndsay Whalen and Janel McCarville. (I must be missing some so please fill this in for me as I don't know who has gotten to the pros but there must be more since your comment above stated as much.)

As far as recruiting I picked 2002 to start with as the seniors in HS who are about 18 would start paying attention to basketball when they're about 6 or so... so 2002.
 

Winasota Gopher said:
I think he's a good pg who plays smart. There is very little unique to his game that sets him apart. Not particularly fast, not especially accurate from 3, he's a good defender. We are in the golden age of pgs, and physically he doesn't set himself apart, so he's behind to start.

Don't get me wrong, I love Nate and know he will be a solid guard for us, I just don't think he is going to the nba, and that's not a terrible thing.
Click to expand...

Backup PGs who can simply run the offense, play good defense and score in a pinch are extremely valuable in the NBA. Even with all the freak athletes and great shooters at PG these days there's very few solid backup PGs in the NBA. Could Nate Mason not be a Kirk Hinrich? A Ramon Sessions? A Beno Udrih? Unlike Andre (i'm still a huge fan of his don't get me wrong) who had some NBA hype in his Sophomore season..Mason can actually run an offense as a freshman and thrives in PnR which you see in almost every possession in the NBA. I'm not saying Mason's going to be a star or even a starter in the NBA but I think his maturity on the court could very easily land him a spot on an NBA roster.
 

Bad Gopher said:
For whatever reason, it seems easier for the women's team to attract top athletes than it is for the men's program. Plenty of possible reasons why, but until that changes...talent is the biggest factor. Richard is a very good recruiter, but it may take a while to get pipelines built.
Click to expand...

Gopher Women's basketball has been able to keep a couple of the key nationally sought after in-state recruits over the recent years. Gopher Men's Basketball hasn't. In a sport where one or two players can turn an average team into a great team, just those couple of gets by the women's team has been everything.
 

Myke said:
Backup PGs who can simply run the offense, play good defense and score in a pinch are extremely valuable in the NBA. Even with all the freak athletes and great shooters at PG these days there's very few solid backup PGs in the NBA. Could Nate Mason not be a Kirk Hinrich? A Ramon Sessions? A Beno Udrih? Unlike Andre (i'm still a huge fan of his don't get me wrong) who had some NBA hype in his Sophomore season..Mason can actually run an offense as a freshman and thrives in PnR which you see in almost every possession in the NBA. I'm not saying Mason's going to be a star or even a starter in the NBA but I think his maturity on the court could very easily land him a spot on an NBA roster.
Click to expand...

Guys, come on. Hinrich was a 4 year contributor (not positive he started his freshman year) at KANSAS!. Beno Udrih was a rookie of the year in a Slovanian league before coming over to the states. Both were extremely skilled players to get drafted into the NBA. They weren't drafted to be backup PGs who simply run the offense, that's where they ended up. Sessions, I'm not sure what his path was to the NBA, his Basketball-Reference profile doesn't scream NBA talent, so that might be a decent example of how Nate Mason COULD end up in the NBA, but he's an exception, not the rule.

I'm not tearing Mason down, I just think it's quite the stretch for people to legitimately expect Nate Mason to end up on an NBA roster someday. It just doesn't happen that frequently, especially at the guard position, for a non explosive/super skilled player to get legitimate draft expectations. Could it happen? Sure, crazier things have happened. Am i expecting Nate Mason to be our first NBA guy since ??? Nope. I'd argue Bakary Konate has a better chance at making a team than Nate just based on physical makeup. And I'm not arguing that Bakary Konate will make the NBA, just so we are clear.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom