Reply to thread

Message

[QUOTE="HoustonCuse, post: 1363861, member: 87"]
There is some truth to this but we have to face that Duke (to use your example) has had far superior talent than we have had, on average. We get good and sometimes great players, but we are significantly below the level of Duke, Kansas, Kentucky, etc in the players we get and the average over time. Is this because we recruit based on faulty requirements (trying to get players suited for the zone)? I'm not really convinced that is true. I think JB has purposefully limited our recruiting footprint and done several other things that have kept our pool of elite candidates smaller than it otherwise could have been. The more lines you have the water, the more bites you are likely to get. Thomas Bryant is a great example. Indiana basically fell ass backwards into getting that kid due to a whirlwind of unlikely factors - but they would have never gotten him if they said: "we don't recruit NYS."

Back to the point: Duke's most talented teams are more talented than our most talented teams and their average teams are also more talented than our average teams. Hell, their average team is possibly on par with some of our best, raw talent wise. Yet they still have failures in the tournament so it is not like there is some key coaching mantra that is bulletproof. Kentucky is exhibit A, they have only cashed the best recruiting run in history into one championship. No single factor determines this, but raw talent is probably the most important factor. Combined with outstanding coaching and you get Duke.
[/QUOTE]

Verification

What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?