Duke 9 Top Ten prospects in 3 Classes

[jibsey]

I don't know the figures for Kentucky, Kansas or North Carolina. We are happy (and rightfully so) of getting a 4 star that cast off St. John's. College basketball (and football) is fixed in a way that can't be fixed.

 

[Fishy]

It's nice to be able to get whatever prospects you'd like, but I think the philosophy is a little flawed.

If I could recruit any player I wanted like Cal or K, I'd have six to eight top 20-75 kids and then add in the prodigies, mostly shooting guards and wings for scoring.

Get a solid upperclassmen point guard and front court and you can do serious damage with the wunderkinds. (Recruiting a five-star center every year tends to mean that you endure their growing pains for four months and then watch them leave.)

 

[raf46]

I don't know the figures for Kentucky, Kansas or North Carolina. We are happy (and rightfully so) of getting a 4 star that cast off St. John's. College basketball (and football) is fixed in a way that can't be fixed.

We dont play them. Beat them in the NCAA.

 

[Mr. French]

It's nice to be able to get whatever prospects you'd like, but I think the philosophy is a little flawed.

If I could recruit any player I wanted like Cal or K, I'd have six to eight top 20-75 kids and then add in the prodigies, mostly shooting guards and wings for scoring.

Get a solid upperclassmen point guard and front court and you can do serious damage with the wunderkinds. (Recruiting a five-star center every year tends to mean that you endure their growing pains for four months and then watch them leave.)

I'm with you, if I'm taking your points the correct way.

I think a major flaw with Calipari specifically is his roster management. There aren't that many UK teams that end up with the right mix, and my personal opinion is that's usually because he doesn't find the right balances on his roster.

K and Duke seem to do it much better, and in fact KU probably does it the best, but their tourney runs end nevertheless too early.

Having veteran guard play with one or two veteran front court role guys, then mixing in your studs (preferably to score, as you note) seems to be the ultimate recipe for success.

Not saying it's always easy, but that's been a knock of mine against Calipari for a few years. In addition to the other things I despise / find him overrated about.

 

[jibsey]

I actually agree with those above, but those teams are also getting the 20-75's to mix in with their top tens. I will admit it always feels better and means a lot more when we are able to take those teams down but the pattern is self perpetuating for them with publicity, tv exposure and recruits. I've never heard of a way or an approach to address this in MCBB, so we live with it.

 

[the Q]

I actually agree with those above, but those teams are also getting the 20-75's to mix in with their top tens. I will admit it always feels better and means a lot more when we are able to take those teams down but the pattern is self perpetuating for them with publicity, tv exposure and recruits. I've never heard of a way or an approach to address this in MCBB, so we live with it.

True, but we'd all be better off if guys like bagley and porter and bamba (and guys like Simmons and Wiggins before hand) were top 10 picks already rather than the current system.

 

[pj]

It's nice to be able to get whatever prospects you'd like, but I think the philosophy is a little flawed.

If I could recruit any player I wanted like Cal or K, I'd have six to eight top 20-75 kids and then add in the prodigies, mostly shooting guards and wings for scoring.

Get a solid upperclassmen point guard and front court and you can do serious damage with the wunderkinds. (Recruiting a five-star center every year tends to mean that you endure their growing pains for four months and then watch them leave.)

KO seems to be following something like this -- (a) recruit elite point guards who are short enough that they can't leave early, (b) stockpile half the roster or more with big men and let the good ones emerge, (c) recruit elite scorers like Cam Reddish, Louis King, etc, or near elite guards like Jalen Carey and Jalen Adams and Montez Mathis.

 

[HuskiesAllDay]

It's nice to be able to get whatever prospects you'd like, but I think the philosophy is a little flawed.

If I could recruit any player I wanted like Cal or K, I'd have six to eight top 20-75 kids and then add in the prodigies, mostly shooting guards and wings for scoring.

Get a solid upperclassmen point guard and front court and you can do serious damage with the wunderkinds. (Recruiting a five-star center every year tends to mean that you endure their growing pains for four months and then watch them leave.)

I agree that this would be the better approach.

Only issue I could see is the 50-75 ranked kids not wanting to come assuming they will be recruited over. Also K's age doesn't impact the one and done kids but maybe it could factor in more for the 4 star guys.

It might actually be easier for them to land top 10 kids than top 75 as crazy as that sounds.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't know the figures for Kentucky, Kansas or North Carolina. We are happy (and rightfully so) of getting a 4 star that cast off St. John's. College basketball (and football) is fixed in a way that can't be fixed.

If this is not evidence of the top programs paying players, I don't know what is. This is a recent phenomenon too, because 20 years ago the top talent was spread over more teams. Kids are smart enough to know they have to play and be "the guy" to get to the League, so how does being one of 3 McD AA's in a freshman class and joining a team that already has 4 or 5 get you on the court and get you touches? Duke and Kentucky play the same number of minutes as everyone else.

It is also worth noting that the 2 last Top 10 recruits to go to a non-P5 school had issues and never played a minute of basketball for those two schools. Not a coincidence.