Courtney Ramey

[gocards1987]

[

You're changing the narrative from being a 5 star to distinguishing the rating within the 5 star community.

The poster challenged your premise with the REC league comment because you've shared in all these threads a lack of desire to recruit 5 star players and the coveted 4 star players because they may not be clean and may not be program first. As if ANYBODY can confirm such a thing prior to their arrival.

75% of the rotation from the recent title team had players you wouldn't want based on your premise - they were highly touted.

You seem to think UofL can win a title without any highly coveted recruits, nobody agrees, no matter how many threads you say it in.

You responded to my "five star" post with a remark about "rec league" players. Presumably, you think everyone below five stars is "rec league".

That made most of our 2013 players "rec league" because most were not five stars.

If that's not what you mean, feel free to clarify...

As ipartied stated, I took issue with you saying that we shouldn't recruit any 5 star or 4 star players. Its untrue that we took a bunch of guys that nobody wanted and won the 2013 title. I don't think you need all 5 stars to win a title. Its been shown that experienced teams tend to win titles more than ones full of OADs. I think that coach K did better on average before he started going after one and dones. 5 star players aren't the only ones we are going to beat others out for. If we want to compete for titles we are going to have to beat out good programs for players.

 

[zipp]

You're changing the narrative from being a 5 star to distinguishing the rating within the 5 star community.

The poster challenged your premise with the REC league comment because you've shared in all these threads a lack of desire to recruit 5 star players and the coveted 4 star players because they may not be clean and may not be program first. As if ANYBODY can confirm such a thing prior to their arrival.

75% of the rotation from the recent title team had players you wouldn't want based on your premise - they were highly touted.

You seem to think UofL can win a title without any highly coveted recruits, nobody agrees, no matter how many threads you say it in.

You're posturing that all five-star players are the same; they are not. They all have individual ratings. And different services rate them differently. Behanan was not a unanimous five-star kid, for example. I quoted you two of the four services I looked at specifically that did not have him at five stars. That makes him marginal or borderline or fringe or (you pick the word). Most of the five star kids in 2011 were rated higher than Behanan was. Those are facts.

Mack is paid 80% of what U of L paid Pitino to do his job. Pitino wasn't cut any slack for "not knowing," nor should Mack. I can tell either of them for free that most of the dirty kids are five-star and high four-star. You know what they're rated before you recruit them.

Hancock, SVT, Wichita, Russ Smith... That's four of the "rotation from the recent title team." Unless we had 16 guys in the rotation, 75% were not "highly touted." You're exaggerating again. And among the rest, Montrezl was rated 82nd nationally (Rivals), and his best offer besides U of L was Florida. Gorgui's best offer besides U of L was Marquette. I doubt most posters here would associate those stats with "highly touted."

Make that REALLY exaggerating...

 

[zipp]

...I took issue with you saying that we shouldn't recruit any 5 star or 4 star players. Its untrue that we took a bunch of guys that nobody wanted and won the 2013 title...

You can't even start a post without misquoting me... I never said EITHER of those things. Once you understand what I'm saying, you won't be so confused...

 

[gocards1987]

You can't even start a post without misquoting me... I never said EITHER of those things. Once you understand what I'm saying, you won't be so confused...

And you are confused on what I've been saying. I explained where I thought we should be recruiting players and it wasn't all 5 stars. Players up and down the top 100 were implicated in some sort of corruption. Nearly any school that has had any sort of bball success had a player or players on the list. In order to avoid that you are looking outside the top 100 and getting into 3 star range.

 

[gocards1987]

You're posturing that all five-star players are the same; they are not. They all have individual ratings. And different services rate them differently. Behanan was not a unanimous five-star kid, for example. I quoted you two of the four services I looked at specifically that did not have him at five stars. That makes him marginal or borderline or fringe or (you pick the word). Most of the five star kids in 2011 were rated higher than Behanan was. Those are facts.

Mack is paid 80% of what U of L paid Pitino to do his job. Pitino wasn't cut any slack for "not knowing," nor should Mack. I can tell either of them for free that most of the dirty kids are five-star and high four-star. You know what they're rated before you recruit them.

Hancock, SVT, Wichita, Russ Smith... That's four of the "rotation from the recent title team." Unless we had 16 guys in the rotation, 75% were not "highly touted." You're exaggerating again. And among the rest, Montrezl was rated 82nd nationally (Rivals), and his best offer besides U of L was Florida. Gorgui's best offer besides U of L was Marquette. I doubt most posters here would associate those stats with "highly touted."

Make that REALLY exaggerating...

Henderson wasn't really part of the rotation. He hit 2 3s against WSU but he scored a total of 22 pts the entire year. Had Ware not gotten hurt he might not have seen the floor against Wichita St. Harrell was committed to an Acc school and we jumped in on him before the others. He was getting way more interest than just Florida though I consider Fla a pretty good offer. Dieng was the same way. He had more interest than just us and I'm pretty sure uk took a run at him.

 

[nccardfan]

Henderson wasn't really part of the rotation. He hit 2 3s against WSU but he scored a total of 22 pts the entire year. Had Ware not gotten hurt he might not have seen the floor against Wichita St. Harrell was committed to an Acc school and we jumped in on him before the others. He was getting way more interest than just Florida though I consider Fla a pretty good offer. Dieng was the same way. He had more interest than just us and I'm pretty sure uk took a run at him.

Cmon dude. This is the age of google. You can’t just make a statement like that without doing your homework. Gorgui was recruited and offered by 5 other teams besides us:
Colorado
Marshall
Maryland
Marquette
Memphis

No kitties, Duke, UNC, Michigan St., and not even Xavier..

PS - Harrell committed to Virginia Tech, not Duke or Carolina for Seth Greenberg who is not even coaching now..

 

[gocards1987]

Cmon dude. This is the age of google. You can’t just make a statement like that without doing your homework. Gorgui was recruited and offered by 5 other teams besides us:
Colorado
Marshall
Maryland
Marquette
Memphis

No kitties, Duke, UNC, Michigan St., and not even Xavier..

PS - Harrell committed to Virginia Tech, not Duke or Carolina for Seth Greenberg who is not even coaching now..

For Dieng, that isn't every school that showed interest. Its every school that made an official roster.

Vatech is an Acc team. When Harrell decommitted from them other teams showed interest.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

You're posturing that all five-star players are the same; they are not. .

In the context of your argument in every thread - wrong - the 5 star players are all the same. You have no interest in any of them regardless of if they are top tier 5 star or lower ring 5 star. Distinguishing their level of skill compared to each other is pointless and adds nothing to your ongoing argument. You don't want any 5 star.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Hancock, SVT, Wichita, Russ Smith... That's four of the "rotation from the recent title team." Unless we had 16 guys in the rotation, 75% were not "highly touted." You're exaggerating again. ...

Of course they contributed, I just only mentioned the top 8 guys that played over 15 MPG that produced statistics.

Henderson played 3 MPG and was a CD DNP in 13 of the 40 games. That's not a rotation guy sorry. If you want to incorporate his under 1 PPG average into the conversation okay.

He averaged under 1 PPG. .8 PPG.

SVT averaged under 2 PPG in 11 MPG.

They combined for 2.5 PPG of the 79 PPG the team averaged. Great practice players, hard workers, and good guys to have on a team. Never said I wouldn't want guys like that toward the end of the bench.

However....

Highly coveted players from the title team that you would not want to recruit today (Chane, Trez, Siva, Dieng, Blackshear, Ware, and Price) played 72% of the minutes on the season. So now you're squeezing me on 3% oh my. They accounted for 65% of the points.

You're trying to rewrite history but the facts just aren't there for you.

 

[zipp]

A couple of you guys aren't going to accept anything but rigorous analysis, and that's fine...

You tell me where you wanna make the cut on how many guys on the 2013 roster were relevant or "in the rotation"...it doesn't matter. The average stars for those guys were below four, and the average national rank was mid 70s or higher (counting NR guys as 150 since Rivals doesn't rank them below that.)

Three guys had offers as good as UNC, Arizona, or LPT, i.e., "highly coveted". Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown...those offers don't indicate "coveted" much at all.

You're trying to lower the goalposts calling the roster below highly talented as far as RECRUITING is concerned. They were not talented or coveted even if you weight them by minutes played...

 

[gocards1987]

A couple of you guys aren't going to accept anything but rigorous analysis, and that's fine...

You tell me where you wanna make the cut on how many guys on the 2013 roster were relevant or "in the rotation"...it doesn't matter. The average stars for those guys were below four, and the average national rank was mid 70s or higher (counting NR guys as 150 since Rivals doesn't rank them below that.)

Three guys had offers as good as UNC, Arizona, or LPT, i.e., "highly coveted". Marquette, St. John's, Georgetown...those offers don't indicate "coveted" much at all.

You're trying to lower the goalposts calling the roster below highly talented as far as RECRUITING is concerned. They were not talented or coveted even if you weight them by minutes played...

Nobody has said that you need all 5 star players to win the title. History clearly shows that isn't true. You do need talented players and guys who are coveted. I would consider Florida, tOSU, and Wisky as good offers. They are atleast as good as offers as Ariz. Ware was a Tenn commit at one point at the time was Tenn was doing well.

Your averages are being brought down because Russ and Hancock's values are so low. Top 100 players on the team outnumber those who aren't 2 to 1 but the guys outside the top 100s values are weighted more. A lot of fans like to act like that team was a bunch of underdogs but we out recruited good programs for most of those guys.

 

[nccardfan]

For Dieng, that isn't every school that showed interest. Its every school that made an official roster.

Vatech is an Acc team. When Harrell decommitted from them other teams showed interest.

Haha fail! Sure VT is an ACC team but this ain’t football. Until this past year, Hokies we’re getting a little restless with buzz. BC is also an ACC team...

 

[zipp]

Nobody has said that you need all 5 star players to win the title. History clearly shows that isn't true. You do need talented players and guys who are coveted...

Then, there's no need to have a recruiting strategy focused on them. You maybe take one by exception esp. now that you don't know which guys are clean. "History shows" you need players who play well, and not necessarily in high school.

...I would consider Florida, tOSU, and Wisky as good offers. They are atleast as good as offers as Ariz. Ware was a Tenn commit at one point at the time was Tenn was doing well...

Ask the average fan whether they think beating out tOSU, Wisconsin, and Tennessee for a basketball player is an accomplishment. Two, maybe all three of those are considered football schools. Generous goalposts once again.

...Your averages are being brought down because Russ and Hancock's values are so low. Top 100 players on the team outnumber those who aren't 2 to 1 but the guys outside the top 100s values are weighted more. A lot of fans like to act like that team was a bunch of underdogs but we out recruited good programs for most of those guys.

Damn, that's the way math and analysis works!... Low rated guys make your recruiting look no so great. Two of your Top Five by minutes played were on no one's radar as high school seniors. And most of your four stars weren't great players...good but not great.

And that's exactly the type of player we have recruited and should be recruiting. Leave the dirty ones alone...

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Then, there's no need to have a recruiting strategy focused on them. You maybe take one by exception esp. now that you don't know which guys are clean.

Look at you!

You went from taking no 5 stars EVER to maybe taking one by exception! If he's clean!

I can just see that exception/clean test from Coach Mack.

Coach Mack - "Hey 5 star are you L1C4?"
5 Star - "What?"
Coach Mack - "Never mind! Welcome to Louisville! You are going to love 4th St Live on Saturday Nights!"

Maybe you don't really want to be Boston College after all Zipp.

I just knew you'd come around man.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Any news on Ramey? This thread has kinda been derailed. @HRTheCard
You seem to be the one in the know on this.

 

[zipp]

Look at you!

You went from taking no 5 stars EVER to maybe taking one by exception! If he's clean!

I can just see that exception/clean test from Coach Mack.

Coach Mack - "Hey 5 star are you L1C4?"
5 Star - "What?"
Coach Mack - "Never mind! Welcome to Louisville! You are going to love 4th St Live on Saturday Nights!"

Maybe you don't really want to be Boston College after all Zipp.

I just knew you'd come around man.

Never said ZERO 5-stars. The problem is you don't know which are clean, if any. We've had ZERO who have come in and added value. Before you say "Behanan", that guy earned you a banner and lost it as well. That nets to ZERO.

Recruiting needs to get you more than that...

 

[Cardinal Cash]

When it comes to the lost banner I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s better to have won and lost than to have never won at all

 

[gocards1987]

Never said ZERO 5-stars. The problem is you don't know which are clean, if any. We've had ZERO who have come in and added value. Before you say "Behanan", that guy earned you a banner and lost it as well. That nets to ZERO.

Recruiting needs to get you more than that...

Wasn't Earl Clark a 5 star and a Mcdaa? Samardo Samuels was a 5 star and though he wasn't dominant he added value to the teams he played on. Behanan's issues weren't because he was a 5 star player. Had McGhee not been trying to play hero Behanan would not have been implicated in anything.

Players up and down the top 100 have been implicated in bball corruption. If you are recruiting guys that are low enough that you know they are low risk you are moving to 3 stars. As much as I loved having Russ Smith trying to find him over and over again to build a team isn't a sound strategy.

 

[gocards1987]

Then, there's no need to have a recruiting strategy focused on them. You maybe take one by exception esp. now that you don't know which guys are clean. "History shows" you need players who play well, and not necessarily in high school.


Ask the average fan whether they think beating out tOSU, Wisconsin, and Tennessee for a basketball player is an accomplishment. Two, maybe all three of those are considered football schools. Generous goalposts once again.



Damn, that's the way math and analysis works!... Low rated guys make your recruiting look no so great. Two of your Top Five by minutes played were on no one's radar as high school seniors. And most of your four stars weren't great players...good but not great.

And that's exactly the type of player we have recruited and should be recruiting. Leave the dirty ones alone...

Who said anything about focusing on 5 stars? I think its a bad strategy to completely ignore them also. History showing you don't need a team of them but it also shows that most champ teams had 1 5 star atleast and was made up of most top 100 guys. You continue to act like once a player isn't a 5 star they are clean like their is a barrier between the 25th guy that is a 5 star and the 26th guy that is a 4 star. There are plenty of 4 star guys implicated. In order to avoid them you'd have to avoid the entire top 100.

I think that fans' opinions and players' opinions differ greatly when it comes to judging programs. Fans tend to believe that the program's tradition and history is super important to players while players judge schools on coaches and facilities. Most players would also consider it a bigger accomplishment to beat the #2 ranked tOSU team rather than a .500 IU simply because IU was great decades ago. In the time frame that recruits have been alive Wisky, Tenn, tOSU, and Florida have as much success as anyone short of a few schools. They have as much as Arizona who you considered a top offer vs the other schools.

Stats can be skewed to prove a point. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but the way its added up skews your numbers. Russ and Hancock's 150 number have a bigger impact on the average than say Siva 39 ranking or even Chane's 21 ranking. If you took the average salary of 1000 people in a profession and 999 of them make $50,000 but 1 person made a billion the average is going to be a huge number but if you are thinking of doing the job almost certainly make a 50,000 that whatever large number the avg. is because the billion is so far much it throws off the average. If you pick a player randomly from the team you are much more likely get one thats a 4 star or higher rather than the unknown player.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

We've had ZERO who have come in and added value. .

Palacios, Clark, Padgett, and Samuels - these 4 were very productive 5 stars for this program, and all played key roles on very good UofL teams.

Your statement above is hilariously incorrect. More sad than funny.

 

[nccardfan]

Palacios, Clark, Padgett, and Samuels - these 4 were very productive 5 stars for this program, and all played key roles on very good UofL teams.

Your statement above is hilariously incorrect. More sad than funny.

Can’t believe you’re using these guys to make a point. Palacios couldn’t stay healthy, Samuels never lived up to a 5 star hype and Clark left too soon. Sorry Padgett was a transfer because Old Roy left. He wasn’t a U of L recruit. Padgett and Palacios were really the ones who were L1C4 in that group.

 

[HRTheCard]

Any news on Ramey? This thread has kinda been derailed. @HRTheCard
You seem to be the one in the know on this.

Visits tomorrow

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Palacios was a key piece of a FF team. Transfers are part of the team, so Padgett's resume of a 5 star is relevant the same as Hancock's status of not being a 5 star is relevant. Samuels started every game for a team that was the overall #1 seed. He produced. You didn't touch Clark. Since these things have to be explained to you, please stop replying to me. You don't grasp obvious talking points.

 

[zipp]

Palacios was a key piece of a FF team. Transfers are part of the team, so Padgett's resume of a 5 star is relevant the same as Hancock's status of not being a 5 star is relevant. Samuels started every game for a team that was the overall #1 seed. He produced. You didn't touch Clark. Since these things have to be explained to you, please stop replying to me. You don't grasp obvious talking points.

Reminiscent of slapd!cks defending Pitno Lite, those accomplishments are only good when you've moved the goalposts. None of our five-star guys could advance their respective teams past the Elite Eight. You certainly expect five-star talent to do better than that.

It simply makes my point that players like Palacios and Padgett are your best examples. AND furthermore, that a guy like Behanan who got you there also brought you down. They're not worth the baggage that most of them carry nowadays unless you find a diamond in the rough. And beware of that "rough"!!...

 

[zipp]

Who said anything about focusing on 5 stars? I think its a bad strategy to completely ignore them also. History showing you don't need a team of them but it also shows that most champ teams had 1 5 star atleast and was made up of most top 100 guys. You continue to act like once a player isn't a 5 star they are clean like their is a barrier between the 25th guy that is a 5 star and the 26th guy that is a 4 star. There are plenty of 4 star guys implicated. In order to avoid them you'd have to avoid the entire top 100.

I think that fans' opinions and players' opinions differ greatly when it comes to judging programs. Fans tend to believe that the program's tradition and history is super important to players while players judge schools on coaches and facilities. Most players would also consider it a bigger accomplishment to beat the #2 ranked tOSU team rather than a .500 IU simply because IU was great decades ago. In the time frame that recruits have been alive Wisky, Tenn, tOSU, and Florida have as much success as anyone short of a few schools. They have as much as Arizona who you considered a top offer vs the other schools.

Stats can be skewed to prove a point. I'm not saying that is what you are doing but the way its added up skews your numbers. Russ and Hancock's 150 number have a bigger impact on the average than say Siva 39 ranking or even Chane's 21 ranking. If you took the average salary of 1000 people in a profession and 999 of them make $50,000 but 1 person made a billion the average is going to be a huge number but if you are thinking of doing the job almost certainly make a 50,000 that whatever large number the avg. is because the billion is so far much it throws off the average. If you pick a player randomly from the team you are much more likely get one thats a 4 star or higher rather than the unknown player.

You evidently don't understand numbers and analysis which is why you dismiss them. I can't help you get beyond where you are. Sorry...

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

Palacios played beyond the Elite 8. You keep proving you are uninformed.

Another thing you're failing to grasp. Your contradiction.

If it's L1C4 that you have screamed for years those 5 stars are not required to carry their teams. They were required to blend in and be part of the system.

You are playing both sides. You want company men then when you are provided examples of 5 stars that were honorable company men you criticize them for being L1C4. You are literally moving the goal posts.

What is even worse is how freely you disparage former players that played here. Not very L1C4 of you. You display hypocrisy in your own agenda.

You can have the last word. That's mine. Until the next debate!

 

[nccardfan]

Palacios was a key piece of a FF team. Transfers are part of the team, so Padgett's resume of a 5 star is relevant the same as Hancock's status of not being a 5 star is relevant. Samuels started every game for a team that was the overall #1 seed. He produced. You didn't touch Clark. Since these things have to be explained to you, please stop replying to me. You don't grasp obvious talking points.

Ha! And you’re trying to grasp anything and everything. Glad you brought up Clark again. Know the difference between Clark and Mitchell who both left early? Mitchell wanted to stay but yet everyone in the know told him he needed to go. Clark on the other hand was told by almost everyone in the know that he would benefit another year, although his NBA career avg of 4.4 points and 2 rebs say otherwise. Clark wanted to go... that’s the difference in what L1C4 means.

 

[gocards1987]

Ha! And you’re trying to grasp anything and everything. Glad you brought up Clark again. Know the difference between Clark and Mitchell who both left early? Mitchell wanted to stay but yet everyone in the know told him he needed to go. Clark on the other hand was told by almost everyone in the know that he would benefit another year, although his NBA career avg of 4.4 points and 2 rebs say otherwise. Clark wanted to go... that’s the difference in what L1C4 means.

Clark left as a junior and a NBA lottery pick. One more season wasn't going to change his NBA career that much one way or the other. Being a pick that high and coming back is a risky thing to do and its not very L1C4 of you to expect him to risk his career to do so. If he got hurt that senior season you weren't going to pay the salary he'd be missing out on. People were complaining about Mitchell not being ready going into the draft last year. He played his way into the 1st round in workouts. Now that he is the NBA rookie of the year (Ben Simmons isn't a rookie) everyone is trying to jump on the bandwagon and say they thought he should have left.

 

[gocards1987]

You evidently don't understand numbers and analysis which is why you dismiss them. I can't help you get beyond where you are. Sorry...

And you are intentionally playing dumb about your stats.

 

[shadow force]

This thread has drifted way off topic.

For the OP's sake, and for those that are interested in the Ramey commitment, let the off topic arguments end here. You all are free to make a separate thread for your discussion.

 

[Cincycard80]

Visits tomorrow

I think we need to start a new thread. This one hasn’t been derailed, it’s been hijacked by pirates of 2013.

Let’s look forward and leave past years behind.

Go Cards

 

[zipp]

Palacios played beyond the Elite 8. You keep proving you are uninformed.

Another thing you're failing to grasp. Your contradiction...

Tell me exactly what Palacios did to "advance our team", any team here? The 2005 team was led by Garcia, Myles, Dean, and O'Bannon. Palacios was nowhere to be found once those guys left or graduated. He had little to do with a Final Four run or any other U of L postseason run.

I have no issue with Palacios, but why go after a guy like that now if he may carry baggage with him? That's the cost-benefit perspective you keep missing.

And basing your argument on Palacios and Behanan, as examples, is exactly what I'm talking about...

 

[shadow force]

Tell me exactly what Palacios did to "advance our team", any team here? The 2005 team was led by Garcia, Myles, Dean, and O'Bannon. Palacios was nowhere to be found once those guys left or graduated. He had little to do with a Final Four run or any other U of L postseason run.

I have no issue with Palacios, but why go after a guy like that now if he may carry baggage with him? That's the cost-benefit perspective you keep missing.

And basing your argument on Palacios and Behanan, as examples, is exactly what I'm talking about...

Zipp, and others, take the off topic discussion to private conversations, or create a new thread to argue about it there.

Any more off topic posts in this thread will be deleted.

 

[nccardfan]

I think we need to start a new thread. This one hasn’t been derailed, it’s been hijacked by pirates of 2013.

Let’s look forward and leave past years behind.

Go Cards

Well Cincy, you better change your avatar because there’s a few posters on here that claim L1C4 is dumb and doesn’t exist.