I don't agree 100%. I'm more focused on winning at the college level. We've done that without a ton of one and done. I know the college game is changing, but I care more about college success and program success than NBA All-Stars.
UCONN - no top 50 recruits
- Thread starter gauchoheel
- Start date
Yeah I care more about that too. But the absolute top recruits are often extremely helpful to winning at the college level. The tournament is a one-and-done format so there's a lot of variance (e.g., SDSU was likely not the 2nd best team this year), but many of the guys I named were dominant players. Just because Duke couldn't put shooters around Zion doesn't mean he wasn't amazing.
We'd have been really fricken good this year if we had recruited Brandon Miller instead of say Tyler Nickel (probably would've been pretty good with Cam Whitmore), and he wasn't at the level of the guys I mentioned. It's not smart to just punt on all the top 5 type recruits because a lot of them do help you with winning, and both Roy + Hubert have consistently pursued these players for a reason. Roy would've taken Zion 100 times out of 100, and him with Coby + Cam + Luke would've been huge title favorites. We'd probably have steamrolled to another natty.
But if you look at the one and done era, the bulk of the success in the tournament is more veteran teams than one and done teams. There are exceptions, but we see the tournament success shows team cohesion leads to more titles than just raw talent. It really comes down finding a missing piece that checks the box of the team already in place.
I don't really agree with what you seem to think the implication of that paragraph is. I think there's a lot of bad statistics fans are doing in their heads.
There's only been really two "OAD heavy" teams -- Duke and UK. Arizona maybe is up there for a few years, but that's about it. There's probably ~15-20 programs that are serious contenders and are "veteran heavy".
That means if these two approaches were equally valid, the teams would have about the same odds of winning the tourney, but since there are so many more vet-heavy squads the OAD-heavy teams should only win the tournament about once every 5-10 years (that's all of them combined). That's about what we see. So I don't view the tournament as a repudiation of OAD. We should expect "the bulk of the success in the tournament is more veteran teams than one and done teams", simply because the vast majority of good teams are vet-heavy teams.
The tournament results often also come down to 1-2 shots; it's very noisy and not really the best indicator of good process. I think a stat like KenPom efficiency is a better assessment of who can assemble teams that consistently have good shots at winning a title. Both Duke and UK have been top 10 in Kenpom 5 of the last 10 years, and every champion of the last decade except UConn in 2014 was also in the top 10. This compares favorably to just about any school. There's plenty of vet-heavy schools like Gonzaga and Michigan State with great coaches and player tenure who've not won titles and aren't consistently more competitive. UNC and Nova are both at 5 of 10 the last decade too btw.
Moreover, this is not a binary option. Nobody is calling for all five starters to be freshman. But if you don't think the very best freshman can assist, I just don't really know what to say. We certainly should and will go for the outlier freshman every year, and so will every other coach who has a chance at them. Find the best talent wherever it is: OAD freshman, portal transfer, or HS recruit whose got some limitations that will keep him in college 3-4 years. The smartest coaches will explore all three avenues.
Those two punk arses do have large fan bases, but I would argue ours is equally large! I think it is probably the level of talent as it was mentioned above and not just the name! With the increased player movement resulting in actual parity we might have to get used to unexpected schools making deep runs. I think it could be good for the sport as long as the knee-jerk reaction doesn't derail the positives!
BTW: I think the discussion morphed into a discussion of how to be successful in the tourney and not how to get peeps to watch your games! I care about winning and the NCAA cares about butts in seats and eyes on screens! My fear is still that they might change the tourney to "fix" something that is clearly not broken!
BTW: I think the discussion morphed into a discussion of how to be successful in the tourney and not how to get peeps to watch your games! I care about winning and the NCAA cares about butts in seats and eyes on screens! My fear is still that they might change the tourney to "fix" something that is clearly not broken!
Maybe, but you look at it each year. If Duke and UK have the top talent each year, that should show more success post season (even Final Fours). That hasn't been the case. Yes, when you expand to a larger sample size then the likelihood of success blends. But, I haven't seen the 1 and done recruiting model change results much at all. Look at Duke and Kentucky's success prior to that. Those are brands that have history.
My point is the 1 and done model hasn't produced substantially more results.
Just checking… I was the one who stated an opinion of mine…. where I believe Roy made some errors. Am I the troll you’re talking about?
Is there a correlation? I mean, why wasn’t duke able to put shooters around Zion? Maybe shooters didn’t want to be a part of the circus? Maybe those shooters thought they’d be more valued at a place without a Zion.
@NCAAUCoach is killing it in this thread.
There are maybe 3-4 schools that wouldn't trade their last 10 years for Duke/UK. It's done very well.
Anyway, I doubt we disagree that much. I think we should take the top freshman AND go after the top players from other sources. I think you agree with that, but if you really don't want Ian Jackson, wouldn't want Matas next year, wouldn't have wanted guys like Brandon Miller, Evan Mobley, Chet Holmgren, Zion, Nas Little, etc on the team then I have to disagree. I would take any of them, and I think we'd have been a lot better had any of those guys been on the team in addition to Nas the last few years.
You assume everything remains the same if we sign some of those guys. If that were the case, then sure. But how do we know Zion committing to us doesn’t prevent Coby from coming. Or maybe Luke transferring. Or a host of other potential consequences that changes our path?
We can't know for sure, but I seriously doubt either of those things happen. We desperately needed a PG and Coby committed right away. Luke was already here and coming off a sterling JR year. What basis is there for those possibilities? Even if that had come to fruition, Zion was so much better than say Luke it wouldn't have made the team net worse, just not as great as with both of them. It also could've made the team better in a host of ways.
Zion at the college level could easily defend the 3-4-5 just because of his overwhelming athleticism. And with Coby/Cam's shooting you'd have incredible flexibility. A Coby-Cam-Luke-Zion lineup with either Kenny/Brooks (we can pretend Zion comes instead of Nas if you want) would have been just comically dominant.
Roy Williams constantly pursued the best players. Hubert Davis is doing the same. You really think these guys just don't know what they're doing and guys like Zion, Mobley, AD are net negatives? I honestly think Roy would laugh hysterically if someone told him "thank goodness we didn't have Zion on the team in 2019!".
It's even more ridiculous because most of our titles had absolute stud recruits on them. Michael Jordan, Hansbrough, Justin Jackson, Lawson, May, McCants, etc. All no-doubt, top 10 recruits. You don't turn down top talent from coming here; you just try to mix them in with proven talent too. Somehow our recruiting dropoff has led to this delusion where many of our fans think we don't want the top recruits in the first place. It's clear our coaches do.
Nope. Multiple peeps for decades have pointed out what they perceive as errors. (I tend to disagree that many of them are errors, but are actually things that didn't work as planned and only look like errors in hindsight) All peeps make errors and there is no problem with stating our opinions, but peeps like SDung pile it on a bit thick and seem to forget that it isn't them who won the 3 Nattys and they are not in the HOF for coaching! One doesn't have one of the highest winning percentages in history if one can be outcoached by internet posters!
You’re being way too literal. I’m not talking about that one situation. I’m talking about an approach of finding the right fit versus just gobbling up talent. The point I’m making is that the infusion of the OAD stars can and probably will change team make up. If not from a personnel standpoint, then likely from a chemistry standpoint.
Secondly, every super talented player you named in the last paragraph was an upperclassman (save Jordan who’s team was led by a super talented upperclassman) when they won, lending credence to the argument that experience wins out.
I, as many of you, watched the 1&D era unfold and as it did watched KY and duke sop up the 5 star talents. Yes, both of them did win nattys in that era and won a lot of games by just having more talent than other programs. Both programs did get players that were game changers in their freshman seasons, one of the 2 won the recruiting titles every year. Our 1&D players were not nearly as productive, didn't blow up the box scores like Ky kids or duke kids did. But those freshman led teams also gave their fans heart ache, I still laugh at the Ky fan that that has to live with that 40-0 tattoo! LOL
But I think we as well saw natty games being won much more often by teams that had and featured experienced players that may not have been NBA guys but were very good college players. Ky and duke used that sales pitch of getting those big time talents to the NBA as quickly as possible, programs like ours sold become the best player you can become. WE used a mix, a really nice blend of freshmen that can help you some but the core of our teams were based on experienced players. You have nice freshmen like Marvin, Ed Davis, or Tony Bradley that were contributors on national title winning teams but it was our experienced players that were featured.
I think there is a lot of fools gold in 5 star players in that they have great talent but the very best of them you don't see in college, you get a shadow of what may be in that 1 season of college ball, it is the NBA that gets the real player. I wonder for example, as much as we know that former UNC players love to come back to Chapel Hill and play pick up with the current players, and how they actively work to help our current players improve, how often is it that our former 1&D players come back and do that? I know Marvin did but anyone seen Brandan Wright lately?
But I think we as well saw natty games being won much more often by teams that had and featured experienced players that may not have been NBA guys but were very good college players. Ky and duke used that sales pitch of getting those big time talents to the NBA as quickly as possible, programs like ours sold become the best player you can become. WE used a mix, a really nice blend of freshmen that can help you some but the core of our teams were based on experienced players. You have nice freshmen like Marvin, Ed Davis, or Tony Bradley that were contributors on national title winning teams but it was our experienced players that were featured.
I think there is a lot of fools gold in 5 star players in that they have great talent but the very best of them you don't see in college, you get a shadow of what may be in that 1 season of college ball, it is the NBA that gets the real player. I wonder for example, as much as we know that former UNC players love to come back to Chapel Hill and play pick up with the current players, and how they actively work to help our current players improve, how often is it that our former 1&D players come back and do that? I know Marvin did but anyone seen Brandan Wright lately?
Rumor has it UConn may lose their big 7 footer to the portal if their starting center doesn't turn pro.
I agree fit matters. There are ways to plug in top talent with fit though. Many of the best players are extremely versatile (Zion is a great case in point), and would fit in many situations. Taking 6 OADs and having them be your whole lineup would often cause problems; having 1-2 elite players much less so.
I'm arguing exactly what Roy was trying to do. We had that whole team assembled at that point; Zion committed very late. Looking at the roster, he would've actually fit very well because the one hole we had was a dearth of talented bigs. Roy was trying to add him BECAUSE he would've fit with the team, and he was also insanely good.
It doesn't though. Most of them played when just about everyone stayed 3-4 years. Now that's less the case. It doesn't mean the OAD type recruits aren't valuable, they just aren't as valuable as they use to be. Saying the guys I mentioned wouldn't be valuable at all or couldn't fit on any Carolina team is frankly preposterous.
Fit matters! Talent matters! Experience matters! Experienced talent that fits wins!
One genius aspect of Roy is he built teams this way and had 3-4 year plans for his teams. The last few years his plans failed because he couldn't get the elite talents to join his ready-to-win team that already had experience. He missed on a few that I am happy went elsewhere and a few I really regret! Zion would have thrived at UNC, but it appears some extra incentives were required to get him so I'm don't call that a miss! It is funny that almost all of them would be legal now!
One genius aspect of Roy is he built teams this way and had 3-4 year plans for his teams. The last few years his plans failed because he couldn't get the elite talents to join his ready-to-win team that already had experience. He missed on a few that I am happy went elsewhere and a few I really regret! Zion would have thrived at UNC, but it appears some extra incentives were required to get him so I'm don't call that a miss! It is funny that almost all of them would be legal now!
No one said OAD talent isn't valuable. And no one said that the players you named wouldn't thrive on any team. So frankly, I'm not sure what argument you're trying to make. I am sure of what @NCAAUCoach is saying as he's articulated it well and made great points. I agree with him.
Haha you are responding to my OP! My view is we should seek to add top 5 recruits when we can. Don't want a team full of mostly five star freshman but they can definitely be valuable, and the best ones are stars. If you disagree feel free to clarify your position.
I want great college players, I don't really care about NBA All-stars. UNC has had excellent college players contribute to titles...Hansbrough, McCants, Felton, Green, Pinson, Ellington, Jackson, Berry, etc. Some played in the NBA, but not all stuck nor were any of them All-Stars. So, yes...they were highly rated recruits, but we didn't just throw darts at the top recruits and assume all would be a great fit. We did pursue Zion and many thought we were getting him. He could've played along side the team we had at that time and likely would've been a difference maker. Same thing about a number of players we recruited that we didn't get.
I don't want to learn an entirely new team every year, with 5-6 new guys coming in and having a totally different starting lineup. Duke and UK have done that and have had relative success compared to most...but not compared to what they ultimately want as fans....Titles. I want titles and jerseys in the rafters. I want the kids to be successful in life and NBA success helps in recruiting...but I don't want to have to take my media guide to the games to figure out who I'm rooting for. I want Carolina guys, guys that spend summers here, that give back to the University, that pour into the next class, that lead by example. College is changing and we have to adapt to some extent...but I don't want to sell out for the sake of recruiting either.
I don't want to learn an entirely new team every year, with 5-6 new guys coming in and having a totally different starting lineup. Duke and UK have done that and have had relative success compared to most...but not compared to what they ultimately want as fans....Titles. I want titles and jerseys in the rafters. I want the kids to be successful in life and NBA success helps in recruiting...but I don't want to have to take my media guide to the games to figure out who I'm rooting for. I want Carolina guys, guys that spend summers here, that give back to the University, that pour into the next class, that lead by example. College is changing and we have to adapt to some extent...but I don't want to sell out for the sake of recruiting either.
Recruits do. They care very much about NBA success. And UNC is at an absolute low point for NBA players in my lifetime. We must do better. There is a distinct possibility we'll have as many players in the transfer portal this spring as we have players on NBA rosters next fall.
UNC has always been at the top of active players in the NBA, but not so much in the 1 and done era. The family/culture that UNC has isn't as attractive to stopping for a Cherry Smash at Sutton's. It really is about the program. Some recruits gravitate to that and some it turns off. I think what makes UNC unique is what I want to try and keep as much as possible.
Thanks for clarifying.
20-20 hindsight is the best vision and everyone forms their own opinion.
For me, Roy tarnished his legacy with some decisions between 2016 and his retirement. In no way does it take away the magnificent saviour job he did from ‘04 to 2017 and he stands on the pantheon of coaching greats… but, as with all of them, there were mistakes.
He's been a dook troll on this board for years.
Dean & Roy > Kay
I've never once forgotten about the 3 National Titles. Banners hang forever. And yes, I know Roy can out coach me. Is that really a compliment to him? Jesus Christ, lol.
"but are actually things that didn't work as planned and only look like errors in hindsight"... What? This means everything that goes wrong unintentionally in life only look like errors in hindsight, lol. The fact that Roy planned on starting Desmond Hubert and Joel James as something that can work makes it even worse. The fact that Hubert planned on Nance being a 4 as something that can work makes it even worse.
This is part of coaching at a great program and this is part of being a great coach.
Bill Self has reached the Elite 8 with 3 different programs and won 2 National Championships. The next time he gets upset in the first round by a double-digit seed or loses in the second round as a 1 seed, you better believe people will bring up those failures despite his success.
K is the most successful CBB coach in history, but everytime he couldn't win with the perceived most talent, you better believe people here brought up all those failures despite his success.
Mark Few has gotten Gonzaga to 8 straight sweet 16's. That's a longer streak of reaching the second weekend than Roy ever had at UNC, Bill Self has ever had, Bob Knight has ever had. Every year he doesn't win a National Championship, you know people will bring up that failure despite his success at freaking Gonzaga.
With anything in life, extremes probably don't work. UConn won it this year without a "1-and-done" but they certainly got help from talented freshman who were ready to contribute as freshman in March. Kansas won with an older team last year, but Christian Braun certainly helped them as a 1-and-done.
A balance is probably the best way to do it.
I think it's more important to have freshman who are ready to contribute from day 1. On a personal level, I think it would be nice to say that a current NBA all star is from UNC. Seems like it's been a little while.
You will not find a Tar Heel fan that didn't want Zion to be a Heel, don't think I have seen anyone in this thread say they didn't want him, the point is being blurred guys. The point is that we are looking for a core of experienced players with a star freshman or 2 added in. That is not what Ky and duke elected to do, they went full fledged 5 star freshman, get as many of them as you can, let your returning players be practice fodder. Where we blended the in coming freshmen we built around a core of returning experienced players the 1&D programs blended in some experienced players with a core reliance on big time freshman talents, the opposite approach.
For blue blood programs the goal every season is the final 4, it is to be playing on the final weekend of the season.
For blue blood programs the goal every season is the final 4, it is to be playing on the final weekend of the season.
I agree. That's what I'm saying. The teams that have gone all in on talent (multiple one and done players) haven't had the deeper runs in the NCAA Tournament overall compared to the ones that found a one and done guy to help push them over the top.
Kentucky's National Title in 2012 wasn't just one and done guys. Lamb had 20+ and went off. Their teams that started all FR haven't gotten that far....same with Duke.
It was strongly implied that Zion may not have been overall positive value to that UNC team. I know it's hard to believe, but that's what someone said.
I think if a top 5 guy wants to play here, we should take him. Do you disagree? If not, then we're aligned. No one has ever said we should have all freshman recruits in this thread, so let's leave that strawman alone.
No matter what may have been said in a thread that has gone a bit sideways, folks say some dumb things when they are tossing darts back & forth, I don't believe any of those that may have given the indication they didn't want Zion felt that way back when it looked like we had a good shot at him.
Top 5 guy wants to play for UNC you dang skippy you take him, with a couple of exceptions. If it is a kid that has history of off the court problems, for example John Wall, PASS ON THAT! Secondly, if it is a kid that just does not fit your chemistry and every coach knows his team's chemistry both on and off the court, no matter what they may tell you, then you have to pass on him. Duke has had several 1&D guys that I wish we had got, that most every Tar Heel fan wanted as much as I did.
The difference to me just comes back to I do want 5 star talents, I do prefer the 5 star kids that are not direct plug in to the NBA guys so that we have a shot at having them for more than 1 season but say no to Zion no freakin way! LOL In fact, as far as I can recall off the cuff about the ONLY 2 5 stars duke had that I did NOT want were Bagley and the Johnson (straight guessing he was a 5 star, not sure actually) kid K booted off his team. I would not have been comfortable loading up with as many in the same class as they did.
I just don't know that I am comfortable with more than 1 freshman starting, I am fine with more than 1 and as many as 3 getting solid PT so a lot of those duke 1&D guys coming in the same class would have been a problem in my eyes.
"but are actually things that didn't work as planned and only look like errors in hindsight"... What? This means everything that goes wrong unintentionally in life only look like errors in hindsight, lol."
The above statement is one of the most ridiculous and intellectually lazy responses on this board! This is not even worthy from a confirmed troll like yourself! Absolutes almost always look/sound ridiculous and are extremely easy to refute! I notice you switched the peeps you were referring to as well. Hmmmm...
You were once interesting to spar with and now you have jumped the shark! It is clearly difficult to maintain a semblance of balance while being a closeted troll. Sometimes the obvious animosity has to seep out, lol!
I agree that being out coached or even bested intellectually by you would be embarrassing! If you have nothing better to say, I suggest you leave me alone!
Roy was one of the best coaches in history and still human. Of course, he made mistakes but it is disingenuous to even think he didn't realize them or that the decisions were clearly mistakes before the season played out!
The above statement is one of the most ridiculous and intellectually lazy responses on this board! This is not even worthy from a confirmed troll like yourself! Absolutes almost always look/sound ridiculous and are extremely easy to refute! I notice you switched the peeps you were referring to as well. Hmmmm...
You were once interesting to spar with and now you have jumped the shark! It is clearly difficult to maintain a semblance of balance while being a closeted troll. Sometimes the obvious animosity has to seep out, lol!
I agree that being out coached or even bested intellectually by you would be embarrassing! If you have nothing better to say, I suggest you leave me alone!
Roy was one of the best coaches in history and still human. Of course, he made mistakes but it is disingenuous to even think he didn't realize them or that the decisions were clearly mistakes before the season played out!
