Coach McDermott's Recruiting Classes

With basketball season quickly approaching its time to once again take stock of where we are as a program and how far we are from the Final Four. But as we evaluate each season what we often forget is how this year’s team got to where it is. And most of the time it started back when the class was put together during recruiting.

There are now basically three kinds of recruiting- the traditional recruiting by signing freshman,bringing in players from overseas or filling the roster by signing the growing number of transfers.

Now that Coach McDermott enters his 15th season, we here at bluejaybanter.com feel we have a large enough sample size to see how this staff has done and how these various classes have affected the results 2-4 years down the road.

The ratings systems

To begin this evaluation, we first needed to establish a ranking system. After reviewing a few ranking systems in various sports, we came up with the following:

5—Superstar. Multiple all conference awards, national run including some All-American teams. One of the best if not the best players in the conference. Drafted or in serious discussion by NBA scouts.

4—Multiple year starter. Key player with some all-conference honors.

3—Starter for most of one year or key contributor for multiple years.

2—Role player. Maybe a start here and there. A player who contributes but also a player who is lost to the team can be replaced easily.

1—A total bust. Rarely plays or transfers before he sees the floor.

When we scored each player, we used half points. It gave us more flexibility to place players in their proper category.

The players are graded on how they performed while at Creighton. Yes, it will be hard for us not to rank a player that made an NBA roster in the high 4’s. But to use Anthony Tolliver as an example you could rate him no more than a 4 by his Creighton career even though he developed his game after school and had a long NBA career. In some situations, projection was also used. For instance, a player that came on strong at the end of last season or a new player and he may fit into the rotation for the current season.

Besides a system for the players, we needed a rating system for each year’s class. While the exact numbers could be debated, we thought the best way was to take different levels of recruiting success and see where the numbers would land. These are all based on a four-person class.

Excellent- (four player ranking)-4.5,4.0,3.0,2.5

3.50 Average

Very good- (four player ranking)-4.0,3.5,3.0,2.0

3.15 Average

Average- (four player ranking)-4.0,3.0,2.0,2.0

2.75 Average

Below Average-(four player average)-4.0,2.5,2.0,1.0

2.38 Average

Poor-(four player average)-3.0,2.0,2.0,1.0

2.00 Average

These were just hypothetical classes to get a sense what a poor class would look like versus a very good class. The scores are more general to each category than exact. But as you will see it gives us an idea when the individual year’s scores are calculated as to how good the classes really were.

Ranking the classes

As we begin to rate the classes a couple of points. In coach McDermott’s first class not all of the players were actually recruited by this staff. We included everyone though as we took into consideration that players also could have left. Also we not only included recruited players but players who transferred, either from a JUCO or from another D-1 school. Let’s face it-transfers make up a good number of D-1 teams these years and the numbers are only growing.

Important point: We very much realize that by doing these ratings there is more to the final product than just recruiting. Certainly their development, and their improvement by virtue of excellent development by the coaching staff, is a huge factor. So while the final ranking is a combination of both it all starts with recruiting.

We have also added star ratings to the players once we began Big East recruiting. This should help us down the road to further evaluate the classes.

Members of bluejaybanter.com and bluejaybanter rated the classes. We tried to come to a consensus so we would have one score that related to our scoring matrix. The discussions will be highlighted below. Just remember that these are all up for debate and certainly three other people could rate these classes and come up with some other results.

So with that in mind let’s take a look at the classes under coach McDermott.

2010-2011—3.63 Excellent-

Doug McDermott-5.0

Grant Gibbs-4.0

Jahens Manigat-3.0

Will Artino=2.5

Of course anytime you have the player of the year in college basketball your recruiting class will probably be graded excellent. But Jahens was a multi-year starter and solid contributor and of course Grant was a key member of the multi-year NCAA teams. This was a perfect example of an excellent class producing excellent seasons two and three seasons down the road.

2011-2012—2.38 Below average

Austin Chatman-3.0

Avery Dingman-2.5

Geoff Groselle-3.0

Nevin Johnson-1.0

This class is an example of players who were good role players but when they were asked to carry the team they did not fare as well. This was the first class where we had some disagreements. We had some discussion of moving Chatman to a 4 but he never had all conference honors which was part of our criteria. Dingman was scored correctly in my opinion-started some but had an up and down career which finished on a down note. Groselle’s score of 3 was really garnered because of his fine play as a senior.

2012-2013—2.00 Poor

Isaiah Zierden-3.0

Andre Yates-1.0

If you look at our struggles of 14-15 and 15-16 you have to point to this class. When you only have two spots you need to hit a home run with one of your recruits and we did not, hence resulting in a poor rating.

2013-2014—2.5 slightly below average

Devin Brooks-2.5

Darien Harris-1.0

James Milliken-3.0

Zach Hanson-2.5

Toby Hegner-3.5

Much discussion about this class. We put Devin at a 3 simply because of the contributions he made in his junior year and the fact he was a Big East type of player we were lacking as we entered the Big East. Certainly Hanson was greatly affected by injuries but it is what it is. We moved Toby to a 3.5 as he was a multi-year starter and gave us an inside presence when we were lacking. Plus there were some games we would have lost without him-I think of the Ole Miss game. This class, coupled with the 12-13 class, resulted in the struggles of 2014-16.

2014-2015–2.70 slightly below average– Star average 3.2

Leon Gilmore (3 star)-1.0

Ronnie Harrell (4 star)-2.5

Cole Huff (3 star)-3.0

Mo Watson (3 star)-4.0

Ricky Kreklow (3 star)-3.0

I know many of you may disagree with Ronnie’s score but when you look at what he contributed you really can’t score him higher than a 2.5 since by our grading standards he hasn’t started much and has been an inconsistent contributor. Plus he did transfer which has to be looked at as a negative. An argument could be made for Mo as a 4.5 but again, as unlucky as it is, you must take into consideration his injury.

2015-2016–3.41-Very Good— Star average 3.0

Malik Albert (2 star) -1.5

Marcus Foster (3 star)- 4.5

Khyri Thomas (3 star)-5.0

Marlon Stewart (3 star)-1.5

Martin Krampelj (3 star)-4.0

Justin Patton (4 star)-4.0

Even with Stewart and Albert, this was a highly rated class. A big jump from the previous year when this class was below average. It should be pointed out that with this excellent class the team had no NCAA wins. Some of that of course is due to the early departures of Patton, Thomas and Krampelj. Even though drafted, Patton was a four as he had only one year and as his professional career went he perhaps was not as talented as we originally thought.

2016-17– 2.17 Poor– Star average 3.33

Kobe Paras (3 star)-1.0

Davion Mintz (3 star)-3.5

Kaleb Joseph (4 star)- 2.0

This class was just awful. Paras was a total bust and Joseph did not contribute. The only thing that saved this class at all was the fact Mintz was a major contributor at CU. Mintz was really a difficult player to grade. While much of the time his play has been substandard, he has been a starter a good chuck of his first two seasons and his defense did improve. We pushed him up to a 3.5 because of his play at Kentucky. Normally that would be at least a four but to be fair Creighton had better teams than Kentucky during that time.

This bad class probably is one of the reasons the excellent class the year before did not get any NCAA wins. Plus factoring in the star rating, albeit the recruiters missed on Paras and Joseph, this class is really disappointing.

2017-18—3.30 Very good– Star average 3.8 –Rivals Class rank 25th

Mitch Ballock (4 star) (64th overall) – 4.5

Ty-Shon Alexander (4 star) (85th overall) – 4.5

Jacob Epperson (4 star) (79th overall) – 2.0

Damien Jefferson (3 star)- 4.0

Manny Suarez (2 star)-1.5

Three great stars in this class. However, several things have dragged down the score of this class. Besides Suarez being a bust, Epperson did not live up to the hype. Yes, it has all been injury driven but in rating his performance we felt a below 3 rating was justified as he just wasn’t on the court. Sometimes these rankings are driven by things out the coach’s control and this is one of them. Jefferson developed into an absolute stud. Mitch and Ty-Shon were difficult to grade. There was much discussion to put them at a five. But in the end we settled on 4.5. Yes Ty-Shon overall more talented but Mitch stayed even with him as we took into consideration his overall effect on the team. Several coaches have commented to me over the years about how great Mitch was in the locker room. We felt that was worth something.

2018-19— 2.9 Above Average– Star average 3.4 –Rivals Class rank 49th

Samson Froling (4 star) 1.5

Christian Bishop (4 star) 3.0

Denzel Mahoney (2 star) 3.5

Marcus Zegarowski (3 star) 4.5

Connor Cashaw (3 star) 2.0

An above average class that had a superstar in it. Zegarowski developed into a tremendous leader and star, not only in the Big East but nationally. His overall grade reflected not only his play but his draft status. Bishop came on strong in the great season that was cut short by Covid. He didn’t have much of an impact at Texas, which showed that CU’s system made him successful. Froling was a one and done and we will never know if he would have panned out, although he did play pro ball in Australia. Mahoney of course was a huge contributor. Cashaw was a disappointment but did contribute in a small way.

2019-20 2.0 Poor –Star average 3.25– Rivals Class rank 89th

Shereef Mitchell (3 star) 2.5

Antwann Jones (4 star) (119th overall) 2.0

Jalen Windham (3 Star) 1.0

Kelvin Jones (3 star) 2.5

A poor class sandwiched in between some great ones. Shereef had some real injury setbacks, or he could have helped this class. Windham was a bust and Jones was a huge disappointment. Kelvin Jones was a solid contributor and probably exceeded the role he was recruited for.

2020-21 3.00 Above average– Star average 3.75 —-Rivals Class rank 46th

Rati Andronikashvili (4 star) 2.5

Ryan Kalkbrenner (4 star) (95th overall) 5.0

Modestas Kancleris (3 Star) 1.0

Alex O’Connell – Transfer (4 star) (58th overall) 3.5

This was a strong class whose top contributors paved the way for some success on the floor. Alex was close to a four—especially with the NBA scouts’ evaluations and his role at Duke. Kalk of course is one of the best bigs in the country and certainly in Creighton history. Going to keep Rati at a 2.5. Yes, he only had one year here but leaving the program was complicated and he did make a contribution. The miss on Kancleris hurts this class ranking.

2021-22 3.5 –Excellent Star average -3.8 Rivals Class rank 3rd

Arthur Kaluma (4 star) (51st overall) 4.0

Ryan Nembhard (4 star) (76th overall) 4.5

Mason Miller (4 star) (67th overall) 3.0

Trey Alexander (4 star) (85th overall) 5.0

John Christofilis (3 star) (144th overall) 2.0

Ryan Hawkins – Transfer (NR) 4.0

Keyshawn Feazell – Transfer (3 star) 2.0

Just a historically great class that hit a home run in many ways. This class was powered by four four-stars and this is Mac’s second highest ranked class. Big production by Miller this year would boost it to the top.

2022-23 -3.20 Very good- Star Average– 3.67 Rivals Class rank 37th

Ben Shtolzberg (4 star) (25th overall)-1.5

Jasen Green (3 star)-3.5

Fredrick King (4 star)-3.0

Baylor Scheierman – Transfer (NR)-5.0

Francisco Farabello – Transfer (NR)-3.0

Tough to grade a couple of players. Gave Fran a grade of 3.0 as with some injuries a couple of seasons would have been way worse without him. Fred has shown he is more than a capable backup and deserving of a 3.0, and depending on his last year at Murray State he could inch higher. Baylor is a no brainer five. Green sits at a 3.5, time will tell but he could easily move higher. This class would be much higher without Ben’s transfer. Not a miss on recruiting—just a numbers game.

2023-24 —2.5-slightly below average Star Average 3.33 –Rivals Class rank NR

Josiah Dotzler (3 star) 1.0

Steven Ashworth (NR) 4.0

Johnathan Lawson (4 star) 2.0

Isaac Traudt (4 star) 3.0

A surprisingly slightly below average class during a period where our on court success was unmatched. The big miss here was Dotzler who never showed what he could do. Although when given some chances he didn’t shine like we thought he would. Lawson was the other big disappointment. Traudt has a chance to inch higher. But really this class was about adding Ashworth to take Nembhard’s spot.

2024-25- 3.2 Very Good Star Average- 3.0 On3 class rank-26

Jamiya Neal (NR) 3.5

Fedor Zugic (NR) 3.0

Pop Isaacs (4 star) 14^th ranked transfer 3.0

Ty Davis (3 star) 136^th overall 2.5

Jackson McAndrew (4 Star) 36th overall 4.0

Of course this class has a long way to go to be properly weighed. Fedor, Jackson and Ty could really boost this class and eventually make it one of the best. Jamiya was a big part of last years team and Pop falls in the category of what could have been.

Conclusion

Average of classes =3.02 Above Average-to Very Good (increase of .18 from last ranking)

Years 2-4 of Mac’s tenure left something to be desired when it came to recruiting. During that time we had only two players ranked higher than a 3. The above averages were pulled down greatly by those years. There has been a big upturn in recruiting since then which much had to do with the move from the Valley to the Big East. Some upgrades to certain players and the positive effect of some of the transfers raised the score over the last few years.

We also saw how a team made up of one excellent class may not give you the results you would expect when a very poor class makes up the rest of the roster.

Another big positive to our recruiting is finding and securing topflight talent. Over the last four years our average in recruiting stars is 3.51 (including transfers and players who have no rankings) That’s just outstanding. And then throw in Mac’s ability to develop players and that’s why you have a championship program.

So yes, the overall grade may be only above average, the recent trend would grade out very good to excellent. And you can see that rankings can be skewed by one or two recruits leaving what could have been an excellent class.

With what could be another historic season upon us, there is no reason to think that what has been built at Creighton will slow down any time soon. The job Mac has done, not only transitioning from a mid-major to a power school but acquiring big time talent, is one that needs to be applauded and praised.