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

[dollarbill44]

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.

You're changing the argument, though, aren't you? The OP was about only 3 teams getting all of the elite talent and that is giving them a decided advantage over everyone else and that just hasn't been the case. UofL wasn't in the list of 3, yet they have a pretty good chance to go back-to-back this year, not Duke, not UK, not KU.

 

[anomander]

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.

i think we are talking about 2 different things. i consider elite talent 4 stars and above, which Syracuse, and about 15-20 other schools have rosters full of. i have been saying syracuse recruits at an elite level, and that's why we win. the schools that get the scraps, like the lower level schools in the ACC and old Big East are lower level teams because they can't get the kids we get.

 

[dollarbill44]

i think we are talking about 2 different things. i consider elite talent 4 stars and above, which Syracuse, and about 15-20 other schools have rosters full of. i have been saying syracuse recruits at an elite level, and that's why we win. the schools that get the scraps, like the lower level schools in the ACC and old Big East are lower level teams because they can't get the kids we get.

Perhaps that is the disconnect in this thread. I don't consider 4* to be "elite". Rather, elite to me is a guy who could go to the NBA if not for the requirement to play college for a year.

 

[anomander]

Perhaps that is the disconnect in this thread. I don't consider 4* to be "elite". Rather, elite to me is a guy who could go to the NBA if not for the requirement to play college for a year.

if that's your requirement for elite then you probably couldn't even field a full starting 5

 

[dollarbill44]

if that's your requirement for elite then you probably couldn't even field a full starting 5

I've been making the argument that we don't need "elite" talent to win. "Elite" means the best of a class. If you include 4* players, you've gone pretty broad with "elite", imo.

 

[anomander]

I've been making the argument that we don't need "elite" talent to win. "Elite" means the best of a class. If you include 4* players, you've gone pretty broad with "elite", imo.

ya and if you are saying elite is only HS kids that are good enough to forego HS and go straight to the pro's you are being too narrow. Literally there may be 3 -5 kids a year that can do that

 

[Oakland]

Number of McDonald AA's by college:

http://statsheet.com/bhsb/mcplayers_by_college

Some interesting info in there.

1) Florida was consistently that high for that long. Top 10 going back to 1977?

2) Texas on the big rise up to #5 - there is your example that recruiting isn't everything.

3) Indiana on the big decline - the Bobby Knight effect - the lowest of the 6 bluebloods.

4) Kentucky that far behind Duke and NCar.

5) Louisville and UConn that low since 2000. Maybe Rickie and Jim coach up their players more than others! Another example that recruiting isn't everything.

6) The top 4 programs' share going from 24% to almost 30%.

 

[dollarbill44]

ya and if you are saying elite is only HS kids that are good enough to forego HS and go straight to the pro's you are being too narrow. Literally there may be 3 -5 kids a year that can do that

If the draft experts are saying 7-9 of the top ten picks in the next draft will be freshmen, that means there are about 10 freshmen that could have been drafted out od HS, in my mind. I will posit that 10 is the number of elite players in each class.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[two3zone]

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

Wish the football team realized that v


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RF2044]

Wish the football team realized that v

Right. Because the football team doesn't place value on recruiting. Oh Lord

 

[two3zone]

Right. Because the football team doesn't place value on recruiting. Oh Lord

Your sarcasm detector is not working.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[thebigeast44]

And Duke just landed Justise Winslow: http://espn.go.com/college-sports/basketball/recruiting/player/_/id/117581/justise-winslow
http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/recruiting/player-Justise-Winslow-123703

 

[Full_Rebar]

Can we start the 2014-15 is Coach K's final season so this is why these elite kids are all going to Duke theory?

 

[thebigeast44]

It's not his final season as he has said publicly that he thinks the Olympic coach needs to be an active coach.