Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="RF2044, post: 2142855, member: 40"] Where I depart from that line of thinking is that the classes ARE talented on a year to year basis, because they're chock full of top tier / blue chip recruits. Sometimes, the components fit together well and UK has dominant teams. Other years, the components don't fit well, don't mesh, or whatever and their teams aren't quite as good. In 2011, his first year at UK, they had Wall, Cousins, Bledsoe, and others -- that group was highly complimentary and they were one of the best teams in college basketball. All of those guys went pro, but Cal followed that up with another monster class. Problem was, they weren't as good as their predecessors. Knight was the top PG recruit in the class, but he wasn't John Wall. And while that team got to the elite 8, they were a lower seed and not nearly as talented nor dangerous as the previous team. Following year, they lost all of those principals again, but reloaded with another blockbuster class featuring Anthony Davis -- one of the top talents in the game. We know what happened from there. Similar thing happened in 2013, when Cal loaded an absolutely monster class headlined by Nerlens Noel. Problem was, he wasn't in the same universe as Davis as a player. That team lost in the first round of the NIT [admittedly, due to Noel getting injured mid-season]. Two years later, they go undefeated all the way to the final four, on the strength of Karl Anthony Towns, Booker, and a couple of other really talented frontcourt components. The following year, they don't get past the sweet 16. These ebbs and flows are going to be standard for UK, I think, given the recruiting model they follow. They're up more than they are down--so the "down turns" are relative--but sometimes the sum isn't greater than the parts no matter who the recruits are. [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?