Is SG a great recruiter? Or is VT just a better option now....?

[OakHillHokie]

What you are looking for is not going to happen overnight with Roy and Coach K in the conference.

If/when he successfully signs players that Duke/UNC, etc really want, then maybe, but utnil then he probably does better than average given VT's location/tradition, etc. but by any standard that matters (wins, winning season, ACC Championships, ACC Semi Finals, NCAA trips, players drafted by NBA,,,there's no way he is a great recruiter.

[Hokie in NC]

I( have the same feelings. Does anyone have data on who has left and why?

[Pylons]

Better question is how can idiots deny it? We are getting a better class of players than we used to.

I think you missed the point.

Are we getting that better class of players because of SG or because of other factors?

It's certainly not black/white, but I don't know how you could deny that at least part of our success comes from being in an elite conference that jives with our geography along with having nicely upgrade facilities.

[Pylons]

CSG had to run off some early that weren't his type of player.

Players leaving has not been an "early" issue. It's been going on throughout his tenure. An overwhelming majority of players who have left while he's been coach are kids he recruited. If they're not "his type of player," then why'd they end up here? (which is not to say he can't make a mistake...but this happens year after year.)

[Hokie in NC]

What is there to enjoy?

[Hokie in NC]

He is not a great recruiter or coach but it really doesn't matter. Weaver has spoken and will not pursue a better coach. Right now, Weaver holds the trump card. However, if things keep progressing in a downward spiral, look for a correlative decrease in attendance. Despite all of the SG vs. anti-SG rhetoric, the most important determinant will be empty seats in front of the TV cameras.

[Chris Coleman]

He is not a great recruiter or coach but it really doesn't matter. Weaver has spoken and will not pursue a better coach. Right now, Weaver holds the trump card. However, if things keep progressing in a downward spiral, look for a correlative decrease in attendance. Despite all of the SG vs. anti-SG rhetoric, the most important determinant will be empty seats in front of the TV cameras.

You don't want a new coach until we get a new AD. Weaver isn't a basketball guy to begin with, and his health is poor right now. He's not even going to basketball games from what I can tell, and there are strong rumors around town that he can't even put in a full day's work. He has no business doing a coaching search. I'd much rather keep Seth than risk Weaver screwing it up.

[TomTurkey]

Players leaving has not been an "early" issue. It's been going on throughout his tenure. An overwhelming majority of players who have left while he's been coach are kids he recruited. If they're not "his type of player," then why'd they end up here? (which is not to say he can't make a mistake...but this happens year after year.)

I'm sure most coaches have players leave for one reason or another - maybe not as ugly as Robbie Benson in "One On One". And I think Benson's character ended up staying.

[RapmasterAC]

Players leaving has not been an "early" issue. It's been going on throughout his tenure. An overwhelming majority of players who have left while he's been coach are kids he recruited. If they're not "his type of player," then why'd they end up here? (which is not to say he can't make a mistake...but this happens year after year.)

Is there anybody we actually missed on our team prior to the 2009 class? Our recruiting got steadily better under Greenberg, so the players that were coming in as freshmen were better than the people who were leaving. Nigel Munson is the only guy we really missed, and he had issues not related to our coach.

Are we getting that better class of players because of SG or because of other factors?

It's certainly not black/white, but I don't know how you could deny that at least part of our success comes from being in an elite conference that jives with our geography along with having nicely upgrade facilities.

This sort of ties into the first question. If the ACC membership was so important...why weren't we immediately on the radar of top 100 players back in 2004? Why did we have to take so many risks in earlier classes while we built up winning seasons?

The reason of course, is that ACC membership means jack if you're considered the doormat. We were supposed to be THE doormat of the conference, just like we were in the Big East. Players could afford to wait and see what happened at VT. There were so many already-established programs in the country that players could go to and receive national exposure, playing time, develop, and still play ball after college. It's not until Greenberg's teams started to consistently win that players started biting on what we had to sell. And it's not until Greenberg generated enough excitement about VT hoops that we managed to get a new practice facility built.

ACC membership only keeps the door from being slammed in your face with good players. You need something else if you plan on reeling them in.

[wwhokie1]

..