"I'm eager to hit the recruiting trail hard and start to work on our 2012 class."

"I'm working on a [coaching] staff as we go. I'm eager to get those guys in place. I talked to the [players] about this last night...I want some guys that are going to bring some fresh ideas into what we are doing offensively and defensively."

"I was very interested in the position when Sydney got the job. I think often as an assistant you think you're ready...The preparation that goes in to being a head coach takes time. I think on the court, you think you're ready, but it's the stuff off the court that's most important, particularly with recruiting."

Question for you (and I don't mean this to be trolling in any way): Aside from Ian Hummer (a legacy who doesn't end up at Princeton if he's not a legacy), who would you consider the last stud recruit Princeton got?

My point is that Princeton's success has rarely been about bringing in big name recruits, it's been about developing little-name recruits.

• Howard Gensler Said:

Yes, but times they are a-changin'. And if Henderson can use some recruiting in-roads and people skills he gained over 11 years at NW...I can see why his hiring was considered preferable to Earl's or a candidate with prior head coaching experience.

• gokinsmen Said:

I'm staying out of the "Will Mitch Henderson be a good coach?" debate because I have no idea - and neither does anyone else.

But I will weigh in on your recruiting points because that's something I follow a bit more closely.

If Henderson had all these big-time recruiting connections which you hope he'll use at Princeton, why wasn't he getting those kids to go to Northwestern? For the past three years, according to ESPN, Northwestern's recruiting classes have consisted of kids in the range of this year's Harvard and Penn classes. The problem is Northwestern plays in the Big 10.

Until the Joe Scott debacle, Princeton was arguably better than Northwestern every year and they were probably as good, if not better, this year. After more than a decade of trying, Carmody has turned Northwestern into a very, very good Ivy League-level team with all the benefits of the Big 10 and none of the hindrances of the Ivy League. I think he's done a good job there - next year they may finally get over the hump and make it to their first NCAA appearance - but nothing that makes me go WOW! So I'm just confused why you think Henderson brings some unique recruiting strength and further confused why you think that's so important when the evidence of this year clearly shows that developing your talent is what helped you win?

Dunphy was a career assistant with numerous programs, had only one year as an assistant as his tie to Penn but had lots of ties to Philadelphia and although fans had issues with both his game coaching and his recruiting, he was solid enough (and underrated enough) at both that the results were pretty darn good.

If Henderson had all these big-time recruiting connections which you hope he'll use at Princeton, why wasn't he getting those kids to go to Northwestern? For the past three years, according to ESPN, Northwestern's recruiting classes have consisted of kids in the range of this year's Harvard and Penn classes.

Henderson coached two of Northwestern’s best guards in the program history in Jitim Young and Michael Thompson. Young was a first team All-Big Ten Selection in 2004 and ranks eighth on Northwestern’s career scoring list. Thompson completed his Northwestern Career last season, leaving as the school’s all time leader in assists, while ranking second in 3-point field goals and third in scoring.

So how do you rate Sydney Johnson as a recruiter?

Maddox was of course a Scott recruit, as was Mavraides.

Douglas Davis, my personal favorite, was an SJ recruit.

He gets a pass on Hummer, due to the family connection. The remainder of his recruits from my perspective, are still up in the air.

My sense is that he was a "good" recruiter (SJ), whatever that is. But good by what standard? Good by Ivy standards? Good by any standards. I guess Fairfield will find out.

If the best you can do are "Harvard/Penn" classes when you have scholarships and the Big Ten, that's the opposite of good.

No need for MH to pull recruiting magic out of his behind--if he can maintain at SJ's level we'll be fine.

The other guys are not going to stun anyone with their quickness, speed or jumping ability. They're just good, skilled, smart, basketball players who played well together.

And Hummer looked pretty darn athletic swatting away Kentucky dunk attempts. He also shares Maddox's ability to guard inside and out. Speaking of Maddox-like qualities, Barrett is said to throw down dunks in practice that outdo Kareem's. Let him and Hazel and Clement (and Bray with his strength) see a little more action before you definitively say Princeton doesn't have any above-average Ivy athletes.

• Howard Gensler Said:

That describes 95% of all Ivy players...including most of Harvard's highly touted studs.

And Hummer looked pretty darn athletic swatting away Kentucky dunk attempts. He also shares Maddox's ability to guard inside and out. Speaking of Maddox-like qualities, Barrett is said to throw down dunks in practice that outdo Kareem's. Let him and Hazel and Clement (and Bray with his strength) see a little more action before you definitively say Princeton doesn't have any above-average Ivy athletes.

Or for a non-Ivy example, Adrian Dantley was a not-too-tall guy without much lift who scored a ton of points on spin moves under the basket.