Admittedly, the problem with relying upon freshmen to assume major roles is that the approach has greater voltality (recruiting misses; increased declarations) and inextricably tied to the quality of the freshmen class. In 2014-15 the recruiting class was very strong; and the teams that recruited those guys will be correspondingly strong (e.g., Duke and UK in 14-15). 2016-17 is expected to be the same way. In 2012-13 and 2015-16, by contrast, the freshmen classes weren't all that great and the teams that had a lot of freshmen fared poorly (in 12-13 UK went to the NIT and in 15-16, UK lost in the 2nd round, Duke lost 10+ games for the first time in nearly a decade, Cal lost in the first round, and LSU in the NIT). In the end of the day, I think recruiting the top-end players improves your chances at making final fours and national titles; but I also think it clearly leads to more volatility more from year-to-year.
But the bar continues to be lowered so comparing from year to year might not make the most sense. Every time a freshman gets drafted on "potential", that leads to 10 kids currently in AAU ball thinking they can be that guy. And it also leads to recruitniks and talking heads evaluating players more and more on "potential". For example, Skal from UK had a joke of a season. But he's listed as a top 15 draft pick by most services. But how does he compare to top 15 draft picks of yesteryear? Not favorably. Of course we can't fully evaluate him until he's been in the league a while (and most likely failed). But the point is, the standards for being "draftable" continue to be lowered. So even your assertion that next year looks more like last year isn't necessarily accurate because each year we're measuring kids against a lower mark. Make sense?