How many 5-Star recruits is enough? Too many? | The Boneyard

How many 5-Star recruits is enough? Too many?

D

dogpause

Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
2,085
Reaction Score
7,984
Assuming almost all 5*'s are one-and-done, in your opinion is there a correct number to have on the roster? One, Stephon Castle was just right this year, and Kentucky has shown that too many are not good. In addition to talent, it seems that continuity, chemistry, and humilty are also valued assets to Hurley. What's your thoughts?
 
this is a skill issue. some 5 stars can be impact players with the right attitude, not all are. the problem comes when you just recruit for rankings, but they are obviously not doing that. that they are getting more 5 stars is not an indication that they are sacrificing the team for rankings. it's just that the program reputation is finally catching up to reality and more players are willing to buy in.
 
Somewhere between 1 and 13 seems about right.

The problem with some of those teams isn’t that there are too many 5 star recruits, it’s lack of experience on the roster overall or poor roster construction or less effective coaching. There is nothing inherently cocky, selfish, or disruptive about a 5 star recruit, alone or in combination.
 
Probably depends on the make-up of the team. A roster full of them does not make an elite team. I think last year we had a perfect mix with experience, youth and grit.
 
As said in several ways above, it's not the number of 5-stars you have, it's whether you can get them to mesh together into a great team.

Example that I've seen a lot: St. Mary's of California, who has gifted Aidan Mahaney to Storrs. Aidan was the Gaels' first-ever 4-star guy, yet SMC had won LOTS of games under Randy Bennett, even a few tourney games; often beating teams with 4-stars and 5-stars galore.

This sorta brings up another thing I've always thought about coaches. Some are better at "coaching up" so-so talent, but have trouble getting loaded rosters to jell. Some are better at making terrific teams out of highly gifted guys, but can't win at all with so-so talent.

This theory holds true for me in high schools, too.

It seems to me, in my as-yet limited experience with UConn, Hurley (and Auriemma) can be highly successful in both cases.
 
The real question is how many 5-stars can you get who are willing to pass the ball, set screens, play team defense, and run sets knowing that they will not touch the rock on that trip down the floor unless they get the rebound and put back.
 
NJHoops said:
Somewhere between 1 and 13 seems about right.

The problem with some of those teams isn’t that there are too many 5 star recruits, it’s lack of experience on the roster overall or poor roster construction or less effective coaching. There is nothing inherently cocky, selfish, or disruptive about a 5 star recruit, alone or in combination.
Expand ...

Yes. To get to be a 5* they had to have a lot of grit, determination, hard work on top of natural talent. Other things equal, being a 5* is only a positive.
 
pj said:
Yes. To get to be a 5* they had to have a lot of grit, determination, hard work on top of natural talent. Other things equal, being a 5* is only a positive.
Expand ...
I think that's right. People scoff at 5* as if they were just the most athletic guys who didn't have to try - no you need a lot of grit and effort to get to 5*
 
I don't mind 1, it was great this year. I suppose 2 can work, but once you get to 3 or more and I suspect their playing will become an issue and I prefer older players who are hungry and committed

Having said all that, I defer my every thought to the wisdom of our brilliant coaching staff.
 
There is no right answer to this. It’s about culture and fit more than ranking. Steph Castle is a 5 star, but I would take 13 of him. I wouldn’t pass on someone just because they are a 5 star. I would pass on someone because they aren’t a program fit. It’s always great to have talent, but it has to make sense for what our identity is.
 
dogpause said:
Assuming almost all 5*'s are one-and-done, in your opinion is there a correct number to have on the roster? One, Stephon Castle was just right this year, and Kentucky has shown that too many are not good. In addition to talent, it seems that continuity, chemistry, and humilty are also valued assets to Hurley. What's your thoughts?
Expand ...

I think there is no right number as long as you have one who’s an absolute superstar.

Melo had none (Gmac was a 4*) and Davis had a bunch. Okafor and Tyus Jones were the only other one-and-dones champs.

My gut says that it’s so rare that a freshman leads you to a title, the more of them you’re relying on, the bigger problems you’re going to have. Unless you have a Melo or AD.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Online statistics

Members online
237
Guests online
1,446
Total visitors
1,683
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Share This Page

Forum statistics

Threads
164,025
Messages
4,378,913
Members
10,171
Latest member
ctfb19382


.
..
Top Bottom