I’m very happy with Brissett, Marek, and Sidibe. All 3 of them are players. Too many on here were freaking out last spring. Not a bad class at all.
None had great years, that's for sure. I still like Diallo and Green to be really good college players if they end up staying. But the interesting question that situations like this (even when you're on the other side landing bigger names like McCullough and Bazely, etc.) is: How good is a really talented, short-term player for your program and is he actually a better recruit (for the program) than a less heralded player?
As a rule, short-term, it seems it's almost always better to get the higher-end athlete. I love Marek but he's going to take a little time. Same with Sidibe (though if he was healthy he would also have contributed more). But as much criticism those UK guys will take and as much as it was a 'down' year for them, they still got it together enough to win the SEC conference tourney and come awfully close to squeaking into the elite 8, finishing with that Sweet 16 loss.
But UK it would seem could still end up losing Diallo (after a meh season), Knox (after a good but not elite season), Gilgeous-Alexander (after a really, really good season), and who knows who else? So while that won't kill the Cats, who will re-load, for most teams that's a one-year window.
It's weird to say you'd prefer a guy like Marek to a guy like Knox b/c Marek's unlikely to ever be in the same league as Knox talent-wise. But if he stays 3-4 years (not a guarantee), I'd argue that he's every bit as important from a program perspective. Even UK, to be honest, needs it's guys like Gabriel and Washington (if he ends up being a 3/4-year guy).
Anyway, it's an interesting balance.
