An anagram of "fractions" is "iron facts"
There are 10 scholarship players.
Hurley recruited Adams, Akok, Bouknight, and Gaffney. That's 40%. 40% > ⅓. Game over for the guy who said that the team is ⅔ late-signed 3-stars.
But wait, there's more.
Ollie recruited Gilbert, who was a McD's AA, though shows as a 4-star. Wilson also was a 4-star. Now we're up to 60% of the roster,. That's almost ⅔.
Ollie also recruited Vital, Polley, Carlton, and Whaley. All of them were indeed later recruits. Three of them were indeed 3-stars. Whaley was not ranked.
@UcannUconn is not correct in his ⅔ claim that has already been criticized elsewhere.
I already know that this roster ***by high school rating alone** does not measure up to UConn's better teams from the Calhoun era.
For the purpose of having a healthy perspective, I am wondering how a roster with five 4-stars and four 3-stars stacks up against other schools' current rosters.
Is such a composition typically indicative of a top 25 team?
Top 50?
NCAA Tournament team?
NIT?
I think the answer might come as a surprise to many here. I suspect many other than myself do not know the answer, and that many who do not know post with bravado that might be reduced if based on a more informed picture.
I also have an undetailed awareness that Virginia and Houston last year had rosters composed of players not notably ranked highly.
Again, I'm asking only as to rankings. Player development and maturity of upperclassmen are very important, as are team chemistry, injury profiles, and other factors that go into any team's seasonal performance.
Thanks in advance.
