trueblue32

FWIW, using the 247 class calculator, if UB lands John we would have the #42 recruiting class in the country between Clemson and Nebraska. I used Nickelberry and Mballa's pages coming out of high school, and Gallion doesn't have a 247 page so we might be slightly higher.

9 hours ago, Ubbulls84 said:

Would be a huge land. Set us up really nicely and put us in position this coming year to compete to win Mac again. Also, would be clear our focus next year would be to replace Davonta Jordan, which is no easy task at all, as I think he’s one of the best all around pg’s UB has ever had (minus free throw shooting lol)

Hopefully Segu is ready by then. He's shown flashes. I think Nickelberry will be capable of playing a Blake Hamilton-esque  point forward role, but with more talent around him he'll have less weight on his shoulders. I also have a good feeling about Gallion, although he might be more of a combo guard. I think it says a lot that the staff has landed 3 3-stars (maybe 4 with John) and scooped up Gallion in the middle of them. I think they feel that they found a diamond in the rough with him.

I posted a paraphrase from a third party website because I figured people in a college basketball recruiting forum had a basic understanding of college recruiting lol. Here's the official NCAA rulebook. Tweeting someone is absolutely not private between sender and recipient.

5 minutes ago, 961819 said:

Adding on to that, it specifically says that coaches are allowed to market and promote their school and their respective program on their social media accounts that they personally set up

Not while contacting individuals publicly. Find me a single tweet at a recruit prior to them signing.

Uhh no you can't post about recruits until the LOI is signed. even if he could why would he create a burner to do something he's allowed to do? 

There's no way Jenkins got a D1 job and the first thing he did was commit public NCAA violations and tell people about it lmao

I think they just tweet at everyone the coaches follow lol

Eric Hamilton committed to Pitt, sucks but maybe that helps with the Nigel John recruitment.

They used this line in the NIT (smaller sample size) 3 point % dropped by 1.4% and % of shots from 3 dropped by 0.6%. I wouldn't expect any major changes but we'll see. https://watchstadium.com/news/examining-the-effects-of-nit-rule-changes-extended-3-point-line-wider-lane-04-12-2019/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

45 minutes ago, skrabukes said:

It will be interesting to see how it affects our play. In theory, we are a pretty guard based team for next year, and I'd assume that we planned on many 3s. I am sure that we will still take them, but I wonder the % change that it will make. It's a pretty large distance back, so that may change philosophies over time. Everyone is in the same boat, and will have all summer to get those shots up at the new distance. Let's put up a thousand a day!

This had been rumored for a while and I saw Whitesell say somewhere that they took about 30 3s per game last year and will look to continue to do that even if the rule changed.

6 minutes ago, UB92 said:

I would be interested in reading your long form take.  Please do share.  I feel I am one of the very few who post here that doesn't see everything through blue-colored glasses.

Several posters on here are saying things like "It's great we kept the team together", "Whitesell is doing a good job", "We have a chance to win the MAC next year".  Etc. 

Did you forget that earlier this year  there was talk (by the coach, even) as being the "Gonzaga of the East".   That's what I want.  I want that sort of bold mindset...to think big.   Instead, we are likely losing recruiting battles to Georgia State and the comments are:

• Trust the process
• There are still a lot of good players left
• Is he really a three star player?
• Are coaches are doing just fine
• Patience
• Etc., etc.

1.)  We're not losing recruiting battles to Georgia State, we offered Jones 4 years ago, and Thomas 2 years ago.  Not everybody that we've ever offered is actively being recruited.  I didn't see a single thing about us hosting them for visits or otherwise showing interest, it was just speculation here.

2.) We definitely have a chance to win the MAC next year, and realistically that would be outstanding with the graduation of seniors, and loss of staff and recruiting class.  If you think we're above hoping for say a 13 seed in a transition year because we were an at-large team one year, then you are the one wearing "blue-colored glasses".

3.) What were you realistically hoping for beyond keeping the team together and signing two 3 stars, with a limited timetable and talent pool at this point in the year?

He redshirted as a freshman which is interesting because

1.) I believe he'd have to burn a year of eligibility to transfer.

2.) I wonder if he's really 3 star caliber redshirting at North Dakota.

27 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Here are all of the events that this event organizer hosted last year that got TV coverage (notice our tournament that they put on in Belfast isn't listed since it didn't get TV): http://www.hoophall.com/news/basketball-hall-of-fame-announces-television-schedule-for-upcoming-college-basketball-events1

Since UB already offers video streaming of home games, it is really only national television that is better.  The worst is if you end up with FloSports coving the event.  It is an expensive subscription service with poor quality.

If they don't put all three games on TV and only go with one or two games, who do you think is left out?  Rutgers is a big market team that actually has fans watch even when they aren't good. And Washington/Tennessee will get TV.   I see UB/Harvard being the game that is snubbed.

Our tournament in Ireland was on national TV though? If they were only to broadcast two, I'd imagine Buttgers and South Carolina's replacement (Bona) are the ones on the outs.

4 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Attendance is significant because that shows the reach in that community.  If this is about reaching the Toronto Community then the attendance is important.

Sure, the game against Harvard is a good game.  But that should be a game that UB should be able to land.  We knew Harvard was going to be good this year before last season started.  Oats could have scheduled a home/home with them. 

The Charleston event is the only notable event.  Everyone plays in events these days. 

If UB gets a nationally televised game then the event is a success.  I agree with that point 100%.  But I don't think it will happen.

My big problem with UB is that they keep telling us that they are looking to build the program and they are always looking to games off campus.

Has anyone got a copy of the contract for the Toronto game to know how much they are making for playing in the event?

-Attendance: I agree but it doesn't happen overnight, that's why I see value in going there and starting to build that reach.

-Schedule: Sure we should be able to land it but we haven't been able to land it so I see no problem in locking it up anyway you can.

-Events: in name sure but this Toronto event is in addition to our exempt tournament, I don't recall ever being invited to something like this (not the Big 4 classic).  Aside from name it shows our program is travelling and playing good teams.

-Television: They explicitly state "Game times and television broadcast information will be released at a later date." which leads me to believe something is in the works. http://www.hoophall.com/news/torontos-scotiabank-arena-to-host-first-ever-james-naismith-classic-presented-by-citi-on-november-16/

-Scheduling, again: I'm sure they'd love to be playing good games at home, however that isn't realistic with where we're at, maxing our OOC schedule is our best shot at the program reaching it's potential, and it may cost some home games here and there.

3 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Well, in that case, I am sure the students will be flocking to Toronto!

1) I had no problem recruiting 4 friends, 3 of which are still in school.

2) Students sit baseline usually anyway and aren't typically known for spending up for nicer tickets anyways ($36 for 3 games is not bad).

3) It remains to be seen if there will be any free tickets available to them like there are for other big events.

5 minutes ago, BrooklynBull said:

Only $85.84 in US Dollars today.

I got mine for $36 USD + fees, I think it came out to $45.

Edit: oops misread, mine are behind the baseline.  I'm used to it, s/o True Blue haha

You're too hung up on the attendance number, and I won't continue to speculate on that point.  Even if there are 5 fans in the stands (me and the group I'm bringing), and nobody else, we still get:

-a neutral court game (NBA arena, like Cleveland and tourney) vs. a tourney team.

-More material to point at when recruiting, "In the past 4 years we've been invited to events in Toronto, Dublin, Cayman Islands, Charleston, etc."

-Some degree of brand recognition from any marketing/buzz around the event (whether the average Canadian knows or cares is besides the point, D1 caliber kids in the area will know/care).

-Potentially a national TV game?  Television info hasn't been released yet.

To me that is worth giving up one middling weekend game, sucks for the people that wanted to see Dartmouth but they can 1) go to Toronto 2) watch it on TV 3) go to one of the 14 other home games this year.

The major difference between the New Jersey event you pointed out and this one is that New Jersey basketball fans can watch it any time they want.  I know we're not Duke, but Duke was packing places with Canadian fans for exhibitions against D2 tier Canadian teams.  I can't provide a realistic prediction at this point without knowing how much it's promoted in the city but that would be the majority of the attendance I'd imagine and why I'm not hung up on how many UB fans travel.  If I'm wrong then so be it but I don't see how it could possibly be worse than a Saturday afternoon game against Dartmouth or whoever that would likely replace this game if we weren't to be invited to this event.

30 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Well, that proves it.  We should schedule MIT in Toronto.  That will be a huge win for UB and will draw all of the Canadians out!  https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=CA&q=MIT,%2Fm%2F02cttt,%2Fm%2F03ksy

 

Or maybe look basketball searches and not ones for a research institution...  How about we compare the other three teams in the two games and how UB compares in Canada... https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today 5-y&geo=CA&q=%2Fm%2F0288nr7,%2Fm%2F05h09hj,%2Fm%2F05gjcbh,%2Fm%2F04q6rqw

Harvard basketball doesn't draw interest. 

You completely missed the point, being associated with Harvard is good for the UB academic brand and playing in Toronto against anybody imo, but especially a team that may have a 25 next to their name is good for the basketball program.  Toronto is a growing basketball fanbase with no clear rooting ties, you showed that the Buffalo brand is higher than the other 3 there, so why would we not want to play one game there to hopefully increase that even more?  So we can get one worse game at home in front of the fans that already see them there 15 times per year?  In that case you should probably ask Whitesell to cancel the Charleston Classic so us fans can watch us play Marist at home.

Pros: 

-Increase UB academic brand.

-Increase UB basketball brand to a booming basketball talent hotbed.

-Get a good game vs. a potential top 25 team on a neutral (potentially pro-UB) floor.

-Play in a large showcase event that will draw more fans than a single UB home game.

Cons:

-Two hour roadtrip (I see this as a plus because Toronto is a fun city and you get two more games with your ticket).

13 minutes ago, dutchcountry7 said:

Oh, I totally get that.  Harvard is going to be good.  But they are not a big brand name team.  I would rather play Harvard at Harvard with a future game at Alumni than go to Toronto to play them. 

They're not a big name basketball school, but they've been on the rise recently, however in general they have to have one of the biggest University brands in the country [1]. Of course for us viewers it'd be nice to have it at home but getting a game against a top academic school and potentially a top 25 basketball team in another country is big for the university's brand academically and basketball wise. This game would be an ESPN+ game with a crowd of 5000 if this is played at Alumni. Buffalo instead gets to play in front of a city that is a growing local basketball hotbed (flip on the NBA finals lol), and now gets to say to recruits "look at the cool events we're being invited to play in".

[1] https://www.educationdive.com/news/what-are-the-worlds-top-10-university-brands/107305/

Edit: Brand comparison per Google Trends in Canada in the last 5 years

Skogman and Nickelberry are our 4th and 5th highest rated recruits of all time per 247 behind Williams, Harris, and Segu.  Our recruiting is fine.  There's no imminent rush to sign anybody and I wouldn't be shocked to see us pocket one of the scholarships.  Recruiting takes time and we're not going to get every single one of our targets.  What they've done in the period of time they've had has been great and I don't think they're done yet.  I'd rather they take their time finding impact recruits than sign the first dudes that wanna go to school for free for the sake of having 13 scholarships.

Meh rated lower than Skogman is. Only played 8% of mins on a team that would've been rated 3rd lowest in the MAC per KenPom last year.

1 hour ago, 961819 said:

Coach Jenkins is in Miami, any significance to this or do you think it’s just a vacation?

I doubt he's on vacation with two open scholarships still. Maybe he's there for 6'8" F DeAndre Pinckney, averaged 18 and 9 in JUCO as a freshman, but I think he went under the radar because he committed to a D2 early. He since Decommited and has offers from FIU, New Mexico and Florida Gulf Coast.

6 hours ago, Gxtrex said:

Is it true that as a grad transfer you can only play one year, but their scholarship would count against the school for 2 years? I think I read that on Reddit.

There was a proposed rule change to this effect but I believe it was already shot down.