The level of play and talent is down all over the NCAA—somehow—yet there are a ton of good players on even 'minor' programs. Competent players. Players with fully-developed bodies and fundamental skills.
A lot of the teams that are number 1 and 2 seeds now like (injury-depleted Baylor and Kentucky) wouldve struggled to have even been ranked in eras past, in my opinion. Individually, some of these players are no doubt phenomenally talented...a player like Banchero is an undeniable talent...yet if you look at a team like Duke...almost that whole roster wouldve been 3-4 year players in the 80s,90s...how good would they be if that whole roster was together for 3 years??? a lot better than they are now!!!
the best players used to be 22...now they are 19...
the fab five being good was surprising to a lot of people...bc freshman usually didnt do much in the sport up until then. now, they are expected to be stars immediately...benny williams arc used to be pretty normal...now it raises alarm bells
teams used to only really shine once their core came of age as juniors and seniors...now teams like that...
simply dont exist in p5 where the talent really is...(teams like UVa Villanova and Gonzaga are the closest it gets to that...but they are the exceptions...and they havent had that much lottery level talent)
"Somehow"???
Its so obvious why. and that this is exacty what would happen as soon as the one and done era came in. and leaving school once you average double figures for one season...
of course, 22 year old midmajor teams can outplay 18 year old one and dones that are only going to be together for 1 year...its not really anything new. Im surprised anyone is surprised by the lower level of play in NCAABB...
in a way it levels the playing field and keeps the major programs within reach of the smaller schools (though the portal undermines continuity for mid majors now too)...but it also seriously lowers the overall quality of play.
its not just a down year...its a feature of the sport now. and a legit reason for the NCAA to try to limit the one and done pathway.
Yeah, i'm watching this Gonzaga Memphis thing, and flashing back to when we were at our best.
Look at the composition of our primary players —
Mid- and Late 80s: DC and Seikaly. Owens. Strength.
Go to the 96 title run, and Wallace was a strong player.
03, Carmelo, Forth, McNeil. That's a lot of power. And even Warrick's game had strength.
Then we had Arinze and Jackson.
And Fab Melo. Big power. With CJ, Scoop, Triche, Dion...
And yet, the cliche about our program is that we recruit beanpoles who can get to the corner. Or, put them there way out of position (Marek).
We need strong players, who don't wilt when pressure is applied, but we keep getting underdeveloped yutes because they're supposed to be better suited to the zone.
The level of play and talent is down all over the NCAA—somehow—yet there are a ton of good players on even 'minor' programs. Competent players. Players with fully-developed bodies and fundamental skills. If we're not casting a wide enough net, what's the reason? Of late, we've been settling for family and friends of family. JAB has been very, very comfortable. Even getting Silent G and Bazeley's promise... how hard did JAB have to exert himself there? How many flights out of 'the corridor?'
Feels like we're just lazy and coasting and relying on specious archetypes that aren't actually the formulas for success.
as far who and how to target in this era...its more of a moving target than it ever was.
i agree the assessment and targeting of players by the staff has been totally off lately...but it makes sense...the landscape is shaky and unpredictable now...so hard to project beyond one season in terms of building a roster...and continuity has always been the way to create a good team
I dont blame a coach for trying to get a bit less talented players and keep them around for 3-4 years and build that way...it makes a lot of sense in this landscape...kentucky only has 1 title with cal...and they have had scores of nba players ...
even if a coach could get the one and dones...it doesnt likely equate with increased odds to win a title...
when a team finds a diamond in the rough like Ennis...what is the reward? hes gone in 1 year! and he must be replaced asap...
coaches now are in a very tricky spot...
some of the younger coaches like oates and beard seem to have it figured out but its not easy now with how empowered players are and how unlikely they are to stay anywhere...
it doesnt fit the narrative...but player empowerment is a detriment to quality of play in my opinion.
