Looks like 3 Schools have the market curbed on the top talent.

[Flacusian]

With the latest signings it would appear that Kentucky, Duke, and Kansas are the programs which continue to funnel the elite talent into their programs. The rich stay rich or get richer and everyone else mops up the best of the rest.

Fortunately, the team that wins isn't always the one with the highest rated recruits. In spite of that there can be no denying the massive advantage those programs have with the annual infusion of NBA ready talent.

To level off the playing "court" baskets made by top 10 picks should only be worth 1.5 points. and 2.5 points for a trey! With the insanity of some of the other college basketball rules it would fit right in.

 

[AlaskaSU]

and N. Carolina, and AZ come to think of it, and MSU does not do too bad.

 

[anomander]

If Syracuse took 2 more players in this class they would be right up there with them. We will show we are just as big of a monster on the recruiting trail in 2015 when we take a relatively large class

 

[Bornorange]

. The rich stay rich or get richer and everyone else mops up the best of the rest.
.

If so, Then JB is the best janitor out there. He has mopped up ample future NBA talent,

 

[texascpa]

Oh, c'mon. Sorry, but those three schools are NOT the only three that continue to get elite talent every year. You can include Florida and UCLA (though coaching hasn't done squat with that elite talent), as well as SU.

 

[cusetown1]

Many times these recruits wait until the end to commit. Their stock goes up especially when the Dukes and UKs of the world are recruiting them. Give me mccullough over Alexander. He committed early his stock went down. Lets not get too excited about these recruit rankings, although it's nice to land them. Unless they are going to make a Durant, Davis, Melo type impact, it's a few over weight fat guys that never played the game before ranking these players. Randle and Parker will probably be on that list by the end of the year.

 

[RF2044]

Is this really any different than how the pecking order has been for a long time? UNC belongs in this category, too--although they've probably been the program hurt the most by UK's run.

And of all the things to worry about, I sure am not worried about SU's recruiting. We're on a pretty incredible streak, and more importantly, we recruit for system far more than any of the programs mentioned in this thread.

 

[SoBeCuse]

Also not worried about SU's recruiting. Louisville won the title and has had multiple Final 4's without having Top 3 or 5 recruiting classes. No denying though that the last few years Kentucky, Kansas, Duke, and Arizona/UNC have been hauling in the very top talent.

 

[thebigeast44]

Number of McDonald AA's by college:

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/mcplayers_by_college

 

[thebigeast44]

Many times these recruits wait until the end to commit. Their stock goes up especially when the Dukes and UKs of the world are recruiting them. Give me mccullough over Alexander. He committed early his stock went down. Lets not get too excited about these recruit rankings, although it's nice to land them. Unless they are going to make a Durant, Davis, Melo type impact, it's a few over weight fat guys that never played the game before ranking these players. Randle and Parker will probably be on that list by the end of the year.

Randle and Parker will be on what list? First team AA I'd say.

 

[thebigeast44]

Number of NBA players by college:

http://www.rpiratings.com/NBA.php

 

[SoBeCuse]

Number of NBA players by college:

http://www.rpiratings.com/NBA.php

Thanks for posting, man! Didn't know about this and always wanted to find an easy way to track School/NBA players.

 

[dollarbill44]

When they start giving out trophies for recruiting, I will start to give a carp. That will also be the day I stop watching.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[anomander]

When they start giving out trophies for recruiting, I will start to give a carp. That will also be the day I stop watching.

Sent from my ADR6350 using 2

recruiting is the life blood of the program. if you can't recruit, you don't win.

 

[cuseguy]

This was Duke's way of making a statement in the new ACC.

 

[DoctorBombay]

anomander, post: 807026, member: 2766"]recruiting is the life blood of the program. if you can't recruit, you don't win.

Memphis says hi!
There's more to winning then just getting talent, see; Williams, Roy or Calipari, John.
Sorry, this seems like a very specious and ill-timed train of thought right now- especially when it pertains to SU these last few years.
Yes, recruiting matters, but its ultimately just a factor, not the whole ball of wax. See: Football recruits, Rutgers University.
Nuff said

 

[anomander]

Memphis says hi!
There's more to winning then just getting talent, see; Williams, Roy or Calipari, John.
Sorry, this seems like a very specious and ill-timed train of thought right now- especially when it pertains to SU these last few years.
Yes, recruiting matters, but its ultimately just a factor, not the whole ball of wax. See: Football recruits, Rutgers University.
Nuff said

What are you talking about? When Memphis was bringing in elite recruits they were coming with a last second 3 ball of winning a national title. And what about football recruits? Rutgers isn't recruiting at an elite level. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say how it pertains to Syracuse the last few years? We have been killing it in recruiting

 

[thebigeast44]

Memphis says hi!
There's more to winning then just getting talent, see; Williams, Roy or Calipari, John.
Sorry, this seems like a very specious and ill-timed train of thought right now- especially when it pertains to SU these last few years.
Yes, recruiting matters, but its ultimately just a factor, not the whole ball of wax. See: Football recruits, Rutgers University.
Nuff said

I seem to remember Roy winning 2 National Championships and Cal has also won one. Of course, there's more to winning than just talent. But it starts there and if you don't have it, you're not winning. Only one team in the last 30+ years has won a National Championship without a McDonald's AA (Maryland in 2002).

 

[Dave85]

latest signings...Kentucky, Duke, and Kansas are the programs which continue to funnel the elite talent...Fortunately, the team that wins isn't always the one with the highest rated recruits.

Well, I like following guys like Keita for four years. I was happy when Cooney went 7 for 8 from 3-point range. I was thrilled when SU beat Indiana. It's all good. A lot of the elite guys are head cases. BB is a team sport.

 

[Dave85]

This was Duke's way of making a statement in the new ACC.

McCullough made a statement this week. Just not the one we wanted! McCullough is elite if he shows up.

 

[DoctorBombay]

What are you talking about? When Memphis was bringing in elite recruits they were coming with a last second 3 ball of winning a national title. And what about football recruits? Rutgers isn't recruiting at an elite level. I have no idea what you are talking about when you say how it pertains to Syracuse the last few years? We have been killing it in recruiting

Memphis has continued to rank in top 5-10 classes even after Cal left, yet they haven't come close to doing anything worthwhile. Rutgers has had "better" recruits than us for years now (according to the all-knowing Nostradamus-like "experts"), the best in the old BE, yet they've done squat in the conference, while a Cincy has done very well.
Really, what's the big mystery here? All im saying is that although Recruiting is important obviously, but even the schools you mentioned haven't won ALL the time. COACHING is the much bigger factor, IMO, as witnessed by the Calhoun's, Shaka Smarts, and Butler's old coach doing great stuff in the Dance.
What I'm "talking about" is that the fixation on recruiting is misplaced, especially when you consider the level that we've done so these last few years. Kapeesh?

 

[anomander]

Memphis has continued to rank in top 5-10 classes even after Cal left, yet they haven't come close to doing anything worthwhile. Rutgers has had "better" recruits than us for years now- the best in the old BE, yet they've done squat in the conference, while a Cincy has done very well.
What's the mystery here? Recruiting is important obviously, but even the schools you mentioned haven't won ALL the time. COACHING is the much bigger factor, IMO, as witnessed by the Calhoun's, Shaka Smarts, and Butler's old coach doing great stuff in the Dance.
What I'm "talking about" is that the fixation on recruiting is misplaced, especially when you consider the level that we've these last few years. Kapeesh?

imo you are totally off base.

VCU and Butler both bring in top 100 and top 150 kids each year. VCU signed 2 yesterday. Gordon Hayward and Shelvin Mack were top 100 kids. Sure Rutgers was recruiting at the top of the Big East, but they also weren't recruiting a national level. They didn't have top 25 recruiting classes. Like I said recruiting is the most important part of building a program. I don't care how good of a coach you are if you don't have the players you don't win.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Oh, for the love of Pete...
Look, the OP basically implied that UK, KU, & DUKE had cornered the market on top recruits & that somehow everyone else had to settle for less talent, and implicitly, less results in terms of wins & losses.
All I'm saying is that that's not necessarily the case & I cited some examples of programs that won big w/out top recruits throughout the roster.
I feel like we're arguing different things here...& it's not that hard. What is it that you DON'T understand about that POV?

 

[anomander]

Oh, for the love of Pete...
Look, the OP basically implied that UK, KU, & DUKE had cornered the market on top recruits & that somehow everyone else had to settle for less talent, and implicitly, less results in terms of wins & losses.
All I'm saying is that that's not necessarily the case & I cited some examples of programs that won big w/out top recruits throughout the roster.
I feel like we're arguing different things here...& it's not that hard. What is it that you DON'T understand about that POV?

I totally understand the OP. I just disagreed with your first post that recruiting is just another factor

 

[dollarbill44]

recruiting is the life blood of the program. if you can't recruit, you don't win.

I don't know how we win without being able to recruit worth a damn. :noidea: [sarcasm font]

How have we stacked up the last 4-5 years with the only teams that can get elite talent? Pretty well, I would say.

Of course, recruiting is important, but there is plenty of talent to go around in ncaab to be able to be outside of the only 3 schools (according to this thread) who can get "elite" talent. I would even argue that it's less important now than it was in the past to have the elite talent. In the late 80s-early 90s, Duke was in the F4 almost every year when their elite level talent stayed for 3-4 years. Now, you can neutralize a lot of the elite talent, who are one and done guys, with solid "program" guys with experience.If it was all about having elite talent, UK, KU and Duke would be the only teams winning championships and that isn't the case.