I agree with all of this except for the blue chip part. We can't get those guys immediately with the current state of the program. But, if Bucky can build a program, I do think we have the money to compete for blue chip HS guys every few seasons.bobinator said:
I disagree with this. I think we're the kind of program that still needs some HS guys that come in here and stay long term. We're not going to recruit the blue chip guys but the good thing about the kind of guys we can get is they're much more likely to be willing to sit a year and improve than anyone out of the portal would be. I think you need those kind of guys as culture guys if nothing else.
2025-26 Roster Thread
114,074 Views |
537 Replies |
Last: 1 mo ago by JJxvi
Ah - yes. duht - cam said:Charlie Murphy said:Weird take when we need bodies.vander54 said:
Lol. What his 6th school
Think he's talking about the guy that decommited from us.
Welcome to the China Club
"Here's the pitch...POPPED it up! Oh man, that wouldn't be a home run in a phone booth."
-Harry Carey
"Here's the pitch...POPPED it up! Oh man, that wouldn't be a home run in a phone booth."
-Harry Carey
Maybe, but that's where I think you have to be careful from a money standpoint.
I kind of look at it like this:
True blue-chip guys: There's maybe 15-20 of these guys a year. Immediate, instant-impact, high level players. Even among these, there's only a handful that are sure-fire locks to be big time players. Barring one of them having some kind of connection to the program or something, we're probably never recruiting any of these guys.
High level prospects: The next 50-60 players. These are your fringe 4/5 stars and high end four star guys. You're expecting them to come in and contribute right away, but not be your best player if you're hoping to be a protected-seed-level team. There's more risk in this area, but the cost is still really high. This is the area that I generally don't think the cost is worth the risk for a team like us. Now the exception is if you've got a specific role that needs filling and you're very confident one of these players can fill it. (ex: a Tyler Davis vs a DJ Hogg)
Low-risk projects: The 50-60 players after that. Fringe top 100 to top 150 or so guys. This is our money area. These are guys that might be able to contribute some early, but you aren't absolutely counting on it, and they sign knowing that heavy playing time isn't guaranteed. But they have one or two high level attributes already so you know that, at worst, they're likely a long-term role player. You get them in your program without breaking the bank, but then you pay them when they start to produce so they stay.
For a program like us, these are our cornerstone players, the Sloans, Carusos, Taylors, etc. and I don't think that's really changed.
I kind of look at it like this:
True blue-chip guys: There's maybe 15-20 of these guys a year. Immediate, instant-impact, high level players. Even among these, there's only a handful that are sure-fire locks to be big time players. Barring one of them having some kind of connection to the program or something, we're probably never recruiting any of these guys.
High level prospects: The next 50-60 players. These are your fringe 4/5 stars and high end four star guys. You're expecting them to come in and contribute right away, but not be your best player if you're hoping to be a protected-seed-level team. There's more risk in this area, but the cost is still really high. This is the area that I generally don't think the cost is worth the risk for a team like us. Now the exception is if you've got a specific role that needs filling and you're very confident one of these players can fill it. (ex: a Tyler Davis vs a DJ Hogg)
Low-risk projects: The 50-60 players after that. Fringe top 100 to top 150 or so guys. This is our money area. These are guys that might be able to contribute some early, but you aren't absolutely counting on it, and they sign knowing that heavy playing time isn't guaranteed. But they have one or two high level attributes already so you know that, at worst, they're likely a long-term role player. You get them in your program without breaking the bank, but then you pay them when they start to produce so they stay.
For a program like us, these are our cornerstone players, the Sloans, Carusos, Taylors, etc. and I don't think that's really changed.
That's a very well considered and realistic post imo.
The exception might be if Buckyball yields some early high level success and more money pours in for recruiting.
The exception might be if Buckyball yields some early high level success and more money pours in for recruiting.
Should add that I think what has changed is that rather than overpaying for those tier 2 "high level" guys, that's where I agree that money is probably better spent on players with multiple years of eligibility that have either proven themselves at a lower level in college ball or are role players on elite teams looking for bigger roles.
Well yeah, if Bucky lights this thing on fire and we have 20 million dollars to throw around then that changes things.halfastros81 said:
That's a very well considered and realistic post imo.
The exception might be if Buckyball yields some early high level success and more money pours in for recruiting.
Though I will say I think sometimes coaches start to think that way and it gets them away from what they're good at. We've seen coaches get tempted by the stars and forget how they built their great teams. Which obviously included stars, but a lot of them home grown or with a base of players and a culture that was home grown.
Barnes, Shaka, Drew all come to mind.
Drew is especially interesting. Baylor was star chasing in the early 2010s with some good-but-not-otherworldly results, then Drew hit on the "get old, stay old" thing where they were really building a transfer-portal-era type program before the transfer portal existed. Those guys were the foundation of those absolutely dominant 2020 and 2021 Baylor teams, and now it seems like he's gone back the other way again.
I'm curious on your categories . Where do players like Billy White III or Austin Brown fall? High level prospects is my guess.
I don't follow recruiting like I used to but from their ranking they both look like "high level" guys, though Brown seems to fall closer to the "low-risk projects" zone.
That was also an overly simplified description too because obviously there's some variables in there.
Like the bigger and more athletic a player is the less risk there is to them. Take a player like Solo, he was going to be a decent role player even if he never improves his skill level one bit, compared to a player like say Wade Taylor.
That was also an overly simplified description too because obviously there's some variables in there.
Like the bigger and more athletic a player is the less risk there is to them. Take a player like Solo, he was going to be a decent role player even if he never improves his skill level one bit, compared to a player like say Wade Taylor.
The other big wild card though, one that hopefully works in our favor because I think that's why hiring Bucky is intriguing, is the system.
I'm hopeful that we can take some players that might be undervalued overall, but have a couple of high level skills, and put them in a position to maximize those skills. And that spills into this conversation too of why I tend to think we're better spreading our money around over a lot of players than really spending for a couple of high level ones.
I think it's a strategic advantage if we can eventually be recruiting specific skills and pieces that we're looking for rather than competing with everyone else to just sign the best all around basketball players.
I'm hopeful that we can take some players that might be undervalued overall, but have a couple of high level skills, and put them in a position to maximize those skills. And that spills into this conversation too of why I tend to think we're better spreading our money around over a lot of players than really spending for a couple of high level ones.
I think it's a strategic advantage if we can eventually be recruiting specific skills and pieces that we're looking for rather than competing with everyone else to just sign the best all around basketball players.
I felt like that was also the case with Buzz. For the most part it didn't seem like he was generally targeting the same recruits that other p4 coaches were. Granted this may have been for largely different reasons than system , more about culture .
Yes, and it worked fairly well. Similar concept in the sense that we were trying to zig while everyone else was zagging, but different in literally every other sense as far as they kind of players they were targeting. Also I'm optimistic that Bucky is going to be better at coaching up some offensive fundamentals in players that lack them. We can debate forever how much players improved or not under Buzz, but from a fundamental offense standpoint I'd hope we can all agree that overall development there was lacking.
I also think Bucky has already shown that he's willing to engage with people more too so he's hopefully going to have a little deeper pockets than Buzz did anyway.
I also think Bucky has already shown that he's willing to engage with people more too so he's hopefully going to have a little deeper pockets than Buzz did anyway.
I would also guess that a system that revolves around the sexier parts of the game that help kids showcase their talent will help in recruiting.
I think this is definitely true... as long as it works. Which goes back to why one-year rentals are okay.
We need to show, quickly, that our style is going to play at this level. If we get dropped on our heads all season everyone in the world is going to use our style to recruit against us.
We need to show, quickly, that our style is going to play at this level. If we get dropped on our heads all season everyone in the world is going to use our style to recruit against us.
USC fans are sad to see him go. I like this addition.
I Agee. The dunk is the best form of scoring.
I love his video. Thanks for sharing.
In other news, let's get that point guard as well.
Final thought....so passes are legal in the NCAA? USC looked so pretty because I hadn't seen a good pass in so long.
In other news, let's get that point guard as well.
Final thought....so passes are legal in the NCAA? USC looked so pretty because I hadn't seen a good pass in so long.
Add in Pop Isaacs. Holy hell I didn't see that coming!
Woah! Did we just get Pop Isaacs??
We now have a legit team
World's worst proofreader
Yep
World's worst proofreader
He's already had two rounds of hip surgery so I very much hope his hip issue is fully resolved, but I wonder if it's a question mark to Creighton and other teams.
If Sampson thought he was physically ready, then that's good enough for me
Mgbakos agent announced he's withdrawing from the draft. This roster is looking really nice
bobinator said:
If Sampson thought he was physically ready, then that's good enough for me
Starting lineup?
PG - Lane
SG - Isaacs
SF - Griffen
PF - Mgbako
C - Federiko
About as good of a starting 5 as we could've hoped for a couple months ago
PG - Lane
SG - Isaacs
SF - Griffen
PF - Mgbako
C - Federiko
About as good of a starting 5 as we could've hoped for a couple months ago
We just became a tourney roster.
94chem,
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
That, sir, was the greatest post in the history of TexAgs. I salute you. -- Dough
No telling how/if these pieces will mesh but it's a whole lot more interesting than having no pieces.
Detmersdislocatedshoulder
Joined:
Mar 30, 2020
Posts:
14,509
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GCP12 said:
Starting lineup?
PG - Lane
SG - Isaacs
SF - Griffen
PF - Mgbako
C - Federiko
About as good of a starting 5 as we could've hoped for a couple months ago
what's exciting to me is this starting five looks good but we have some legit players off the bench. we are legitimately 8-9 deep with proven college basketball players. 11 deep if a few reach anywhere close to their potential and or stay healthy.
bucky has done one hell of a job so far can't wait for bball season to get started and it just ended.
Thanks, missed that. Made my morning.nelsonagholor said:
Mgbakos agent announced he's withdrawing from the draft. This roster is looking really nice
Laphonso just said he is an athlete.
1st year Sweet Sixteen here we come.
GCP12 said:
Starting lineup?
PG - Lane
SG - Isaacs
SF - Griffen
PF - Mgbako
C - Federiko
About as good of a starting 5 as we could've hoped for a couple months ago
It may be
G - Hill
G - Isaacs
F - Griffen
F - Mgbako
C - Federiko
Who are we signing today?
Looks like a roster built for tourney success. Guard scoring-check, rim defense-check, deep roster-check, veterans-check, quality shooting-probably.
Mackenzie Mgbako, a projected second round pick, will withdraw from the NBA draft, and spend his junior season at Texas A&M, agent Sam Rose of CAA told ESPN.
— Jonathan Givony (@DraftExpress) May 27, 2025
STORY: https://t.co/0f068RHTJN pic.twitter.com/IgSXkpP1SE
A lot of good news coming in today 👀☀️#GigEm | #BuckyBall pic.twitter.com/DQRd1bqui3
— Texas A&M Basketball (@aggiembk) May 27, 2025
Hardworking, Unselfish, Fearless
Featured Stories
See All
Five in Five: Texas A&M players not being talked about enough
by Billy Liucci
4:55
1h ago
1.1k
25 Players in 25 Days: #12 Rueben Owens II
by Olin Buchanan
20:31
1h ago
1.8k
Howell among reasons how A&M should improve its pass rush in 2025
by Olin Buchanan
12:50
1h ago
691
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
What I'm hearing on Mathews & Womack with decisions looming
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
22
tu ag
Five in Five: Texas A&M players not being talked about enough
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
21
ElkoSZN
What I'm hearing on Mathews & Womack with decisions looming
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
18