Imagine you're a 5 star recruit...

[Towney007]

Fun thread.

-I grew up in NW Connecticut
-Went to a pretty prestigeous boarding school
-I was a good student (B+/A-), not a great student
-Wasn't a burn out, but I like to party quite a bit.
-Not all that well traveled, but for the most part - don't lament that.
-Always thrived under tougher coaches.
-Even if I was a ***** guy - I wouldn't one-and-done it. Just wouldn't. I coveted the college experience far too much growing up. I'd want to go some place I could grow.
-Distance was never a thing to me. When I was looking at schools - I looked at small private New England schools and looked as far west as the University of British Columbia in Canada.
-I'm a big relationship guy. Good people make the experience even better.

I gotta be honest, guys - the more I think about ME, i'd probably pick UConn as my top target. It kind of checks my boxes. It's a pretty good school, I'd love to be the hometown hero, and Ollie is as good at preparing you for the NBA as anyone. Good party school, but isn't insane. Familiar setting to home. The downside would be a familiar setting to home because I feel like I could get lured away for the right setting. Being at home is cool - but college should also be a time to explore. I can't honestly say anything bad on the basketball side.

If I could be lured away.... Gonzaga and Georgetown immediately jump to mind. They're different enough - but check my boxes, too. Georgetown's campus is flipping gorgeous, politics is a side-hobby of mine - but it's a major media market where if you emerge as a star - you'll be the dude there. The school is fantastic and urban living is something i've always considered. It's far enough to be away from home, but not too far to get home when you need it. I always loved the super physical style of play. Downside is D.C. can be boring. It's going to be much more academically demanding. I grew up hating the crap out of them.

Gonzaga - I swear if I retire - it's going to be to Washington State... I've always been enamored with the place. And i love the rain, so that's that. I've been to Spokane and it's the bees knees. I'd love being the toast of a smaller town like that. I also just like the program, how they play and the fact that they just have that cozy feeling UConn did when they were emerging as a program. I'd love to be a part of that and be remembered as a building block of a program and just not another dude coming through.

I'd kick tires on Michigan State because of Izzo, but I don't have a huge attachment to anything else there. Indiana would be cool to be the guy who led them back to relevancy. That's really the only outside two i'd think about.

So my list would be:

1.) Connecticut
2.) Georgetown
3.) Gonzaga
4.) Michigan State
5.) Indiana

I'm pretty sure i'd never want to play in the SEC or the ACC - so that'd eliminate Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Kentucky and the like. Gonzaga's really the only place I'd ever see myself playing out west. There's no appeal to the Pac-12 to me. Big XII is out as well.

 

[FASTEDDY]

Fun thread.

-I grew up in NW Connecticut
-Went to a pretty prestigeous boarding school
-I was a good student (B+/A-), not a great student
-Wasn't a burn out, but I like to party quite a bit.
-Not all that well traveled, but for the most part - don't lament that.
-Always thrived under tougher coaches.
-Even if I was a ***** guy - I wouldn't one-and-done it. Just wouldn't. I coveted the college experience far too much growing up. I'd want to go some place I could grow.
-Distance was never a thing to me. When I was looking at schools - I looked at small private New England schools and looked as far west as the University of British Columbia in Canada.
-I'm a big relationship guy. Good people make the experience even better.

I gotta be honest, guys - the more I think about ME, i'd probably pick UConn as my top target. It kind of checks my boxes. It's a pretty good school, I'd love to be the hometown hero, and Ollie is as good at preparing you for the NBA as anyone. Good party school, but isn't insane. Familiar setting to home. The downside would be a familiar setting to home because I feel like I could get lured away for the right setting. Being at home is cool - but college should also be a time to explore. I can't honestly say anything bad on the basketball side.

If I could be lured away.... Gonzaga and Georgetown immediately jump to mind. They're different enough - but check my boxes, too. Georgetown's campus is flipping gorgeous, politics is a side-hobby of mine - but it's a major media market where if you emerge as a star - you'll be the dude there. The school is fantastic and urban living is something i've always considered. It's far enough to be away from home, but not too far to get home when you need it. I always loved the super physical style of play. Downside is D.C. can be boring. It's going to be much more academically demanding. I grew up hating the crap out of them.

Gonzaga - I swear if I retire - it's going to be to Washington State... I've always been enamored with the place. And i love the rain, so that's that. I've been to Spokane and it's the bees knees. I'd love being the toast of a smaller town like that. I also just like the program, how they play and the fact that they just have that cozy feeling UConn did when they were emerging as a program. I'd love to be a part of that and be remembered as a building block of a program and just not another dude coming through.

I'd kick tires on Michigan State because of Izzo, but I don't have a huge attachment to anything else there. Indiana would be cool to be the guy who led them back to relevancy. That's really the only outside two i'd think about.

So my list would be:

1.) Connecticut
2.) Georgetown
3.) Gonzaga
4.) Michigan State
5.) Indiana

I'm pretty sure i'd never want to play in the SEC or the ACC - so that'd eliminate Duke, Syracuse, UNC, Kentucky and the like. Gonzaga's really the only place I'd ever see myself playing out west. There's no appeal to the Pac-12 to me. Big XII is out as well.

Sorry but UCONN is not a pretty good school but rather it is now a very good school. Its really on the rise (Top 20 USNews).

 

[pnow15]

University of Charleston. Every woman on campus looks like a future Fox News reporter and they outnumber men by a huge margin. Plus Charleston is prettiest city on East Coast. Education? You forget I'm going to the NBA and going to make a few million no matter what. I'm only 18 and the two things I want to all the time is play ball and ....

 

[Scoe]

Zona, UCLA, USC, Stanford, Puke, Florida. One place I would really consider is SDSU they have a solid program year to year and its San diego can't beat that. I would also consider Europe I can make money right away out of high school.

 

[cowboysnation]

top 5 for girls
1. USC
2. Miami
3. Arizona
4. Arizona State
5. Mississippi

top 5 for coaching
1. Duke
2.Michigan State
3.Wisconsin
4.Wichita State
5.Gonzaga

of course uconn is number one for both.

 

[dante]

Stanford, Notre Dame, Vanderbilt or Duke.. If you're good you're going shine anywhere but if you don't and you have to stick around well shoot take advantage.
I would have said an Ivy League School but I have no clue if they offer athletic scholarships or whatever.

 

[Scoe]

How about playing at Hawaii your the ultimate king of the island, if your a 5 star one and done.

 

[Towney007]

Sorry but UCONN is not a pretty good school but rather it is now a very good school. Its really on the rise (Top 20 USNews).

Sorry to have offended your sensibilities. I hope you can recover - some day - from such an egregious slight and find peace internally in spite of what i'm sure is truly a traumatic incident for you. God have mercy on my soul.

 

[mlz01]

It's interesting to read these responses. I realize there are several unknown variables in the scenario presented, but a lot of good factors were presented in the decision making process. I think the most difficult thing to do is put yourself into the mindset of high school kid potentially embarking on an NBA career, fame and a lot of cash. I think a big reason why so many are now choosing KY is because the media has placed the brightest spotlight on that program and so many have entered the next level as lottery picks (IMO, would have done so right out of HS...and nothing to do with KY experience). What is often overlooked is education, character building coaches/programs, significant player development and the opportunity to be a bigger part of the success of a program (rather than simply play with a bunch of future NBA lottery picks). It's easy for me to say at age 36 that there is no chance I'd ever choose Kentucky, but difficult to say that they wouldn't be a top choice right now (as a teenager) when I'd be easily persuaded by the spotlight and the greasy car salesman (Wenyen Gabriel).

Schools mentioned often were Stanford, Duke, Arizona and Michigan State. I did a quick search on these schools as well as other top programs, to review their # of ESPN 100 recruits over the last 5 years (including 2016 class). As I look at this a few things stand out, including the embarrassment of riches at KY and Duke as well as years of high hopes and disappointment for schools like KU, AZ and UCLA.

Kentucky 22
Duke 17
Kansas 15
UNC 14
Arizona 14
Syracuse 13
UCLA 13
MSU 11
UConn 9
G'Town 7
Stanford 5

If it's clean (big IF), I guess credit is due to the greasy car salesman. Otherwise this might be annoying for a long time to come (although incredibly satisfying as we consistently beat them).

 

[slepers]

Imagine you're a 5 star recruit (disregard position) and can choose to play anywhere in the country (exclude UCONN for this exercise). What school would you choose and why?

There are clearly a lot of folks on this board with a great passion for college basketball and knowledge of the game. Many, including myself, say that they would never choose to play for Calipari and can't understand why they get such a wealth of recruits every single year (thus all the posts about it).

I realize it may be hard for people to remove their bias (and sometimes hatred), but am very interested to read some honest answers (especially the "why").

Hawaii, a year in paradise no further explanation needed

 

[CallMeBruce]

barring uconn (even objectively, who wouldn't want to play for kevin ollie??) i think cal, stanford, wisconsin, and harvard all seem like solid bets. maybe georgetown, but i am trying to stay the hell out of the south.

Are we considering DC the south?

 

[auror]

It's interesting to read these responses. I realize there are several unknown variables in the scenario presented, but a lot of good factors were presented in the decision making process. I think the most difficult thing to do is put yourself into the mindset of high school kid potentially embarking on an NBA career, fame and a lot of cash. I think a big reason why so many are now choosing KY is because the media has placed the brightest spotlight on that program and so many have entered the next level as lottery picks (IMO, would have done so right out of HS...and nothing to do with KY experience). What is often overlooked is education, character building coaches/programs, significant player development and the opportunity to be a bigger part of the success of a program (rather than simply play with a bunch of future NBA lottery picks). It's easy for me to say at age 36 that there is no chance I'd ever choose Kentucky, but difficult to say that they wouldn't be a top choice right now (as a teenager) when I'd be easily persuaded by the spotlight and the greasy car salesman (Wenyen Gabriel).

I think you're underselling the need to maximize your chances of going to the NBA.

The difference for a lot of these kids between making the NBA and not is enormous. Average NBA career earnings was $25 million and it's probably higher for 5* recruits as well as going up with the new salary cap the next few years. With compound interest, you're looking at obscene amounts of money for any NBA players with a decent financial adviser (and the smarts to listen).

Top 10 recruits almost always make the league, so your point is taken there. But after that, any chance of getting additional exposure or scout time is almost priceless. Anecdotal, but does Daniel Orton get drafted in the first round playing anywhere else? He wasn't even very good. Devin Booker? Definitely not 1-and-done. Willie Cauley-Stein in the top 10?

 

[Scoe]

Imagine if a once in a generation player like a Lebron, Durant decided to play at a place like Central or Maine, you could average 50 ppg in your conference, and your highlights would look something like this.

 

[auror]

Imagine if a once in a generation player like a Lebron, Durant decided to play at a place like Central or Maine.

They would be Randy Moss.

 

[mlz01]

I think you're underselling the need to maximize your chances of going to the NBA.

The difference for a lot of these kids between making the NBA and not is enormous. Average NBA career earnings was $25 million and it's probably higher for 5* recruits as well as going up with the new salary cap the next few years. With compound interest, you're looking at obscene amounts of money for any NBA players with a decent financial adviser (and the smarts to listen).

Top 10 recruits almost always make the league, so your point is taken there. But after that, any chance of getting additional exposure or scout time is almost priceless. Anecdotal, but does Daniel Orton get drafted in the first round playing anywhere else? He wasn't even very good. Devin Booker? Definitely not 1-and-done. Willie Cauley-Stein in the top 10?

You may be right. I'm absolutely no expert on this. But I have to disagree. Kentucky is not good for many of these athletes.

Daniel Orton was a backup at Kentucky and some fool told him it would be a good idea to hire an agent and declare for the draft after his freshman year, where he came off the bench. He was drafted b/c he was a 6'10" and big, a classic project, but he was absolutely NOT ready. He was a backup at Kentucky and there was minimal development/coaching of his game. As a result, he never reaches his potential and now plays in the D-League.

Devin booker was #18 ESPN 100 out of high school. He would have started anywhere in the country, gotten a heck of a lot of playing time and development and everyone would have known about him. Had nothing to do with KY. On Kentucky, he came off the bench in their "platoon" system, and was overshadowed by several players. Kentucky is NOT why Devin Booker was a lottery pick.

Willie Cauley-Stein in the top 10 was a questionable pick and a surprise to many....but how was this a result of being on Kentucky. Declared for draft after Junior season where he was one of the best defenders in the country. If he was elsewhere, perhaps a better coach could have developed his offensive game a bit...and given him a chance to be a really good NBA player. Instead, he was in the platoon system at KY and overshadowed by Townes.

 

[Taco]

They would be Randy Moss.

Randy didn't have a lot of options once Notre Dame & FSU pulled their offers after his assault / probation violation..

You do see NBA players coming from nowhere (Pippen /Stockton/ Curry) but I imagine it's much harder to break through. With only 2 round in the draft teams don't have much incentive in giving undrafted FA much of a chance & if you play for a nothing team in a nothing conference you're going lower in the draft.

What if Davidson / Curry didn't have a good run in the tourney he might not have been drafted, certainly not early in the 1st round.

In football, lots of players come from small time programs - lot more positions / rounds in the draft though.

 

[auror]

snip

We're arguing unproveable hypotheticals, but let's take Devin Booker. RSCI ranking of 23.

20    1    22    5.8        Devin Robinson    Florida                                     
20    4    22    7.1        James Blackmon    Indiana                                     
22    -2    24    8.3        Dwayne Morgan   UNLV                                     
23    6    26    6.0        Devin Booker    Kentucky                                     
24    10    27    6.6        Grayson Allen   Duke                                     
25    -8    28    13.2        Joel Berry    North Carolina                                     
25    1    28    5.7        Shaqquan Aaron    Louisville                                     
27    5    29    6.7        Kameron Chatman    Michigan                                     
28    12    30    10.1        Isaac Copeland    Georgetown                                     
29    1    32    10.9        Keita Bates-Diop   Ohio State

That's the 3 guys rated ahead of him and 6 after (the RSCI 20-29).

Robinson is #47 on DraftExpress top 100. Grayson Allen #53 (might go up). Conceivably they will be drafted and have a shot a the 1st round at some point if they keep playing well.

Blackmon, Berry, Morgan, Aaron, Chatman, Copeman, and Diop are not listed in the top 100.

Devin Booker has already been drafted. In the lottery. He only played 20 minutes per game and averaged 10 points with 41% shooting on 3's. Rest of his stats are unremarkable. That's why you go to Kentucky.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

You may be right. I'm absolutely no expert on this. But I have to disagree. Kentucky is not good for many of these athletes.

Daniel Orton was a backup at Kentucky and some fool told him it would be a good idea to hire an agent and declare for the draft after his freshman year, where he came off the bench. He was drafted b/c he was a 6'10" and big, a classic project, but he was absolutely NOT ready. He was a backup at Kentucky and there was minimal development/coaching of his game. As a result, he never reaches his potential and now plays in the D-League.

Devin booker was #18 ESPN 100 out of high school. He would have started anywhere in the country, gotten a heck of a lot of playing time and development and everyone would have known about him. Had nothing to do with KY. On Kentucky, he came off the bench in their "platoon" system, and was overshadowed by several players. Kentucky is NOT why Devin Booker was a lottery pick.

Willie Cauley-Stein in the top 10 was a questionable pick and a surprise to many....but how was this a result of being on Kentucky. Declared for draft after Junior season where he was one of the best defenders in the country. If he was elsewhere, perhaps a better coach could have developed his offensive game a bit...and given him a chance to be a really good NBA player. Instead, he was in the platoon system at KY and overshadowed by Townes.

The entire point of your post is that Kentucky was "not good" for certain athletes and then you go on to explain how they came off the bench or were overshadowed by other players . . . and still were lottery picks. Seems pretty good. You only "prove" your point by simply concluding - absent any evidence - that going in the lottery was not because they were at Kentucky. Not exactly a winning argument.

 

[mlz01]

The entire point of your post is that Kentucky was "not good" for certain athletes and then you go on to explain how they came off the bench or were overshadowed by other players . . . and still were lottery picks. Seems pretty good. You only "prove" your point by simply concluding - absent any evidence - that going in the lottery was not because they were at Kentucky. Not exactly a winning argument.

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

 

[BigErnMcCracken]

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

By "winning an argument" I mean "convincing anyone that you are doing anything other than rambling." You're sort of all over the map. What I think you intended to be an argument in support of the proposition that Kentucky does not develop players for the NBA has sort of turned into a statement that kids who stay in school longer develop more in college. Not really controversial, because the kids who leave aren't in college anymore.

With your Booker example, you're placing an awful lot of (undeserved) emphasis on playing time in terms of development and draft status. These college teams spend an awful lot of time doing things besides playing in games. Besides, NBA teams want the best players and they're going to take those kids regardless of how many minutes they play in college.

Could Anthony Davis have been the #1 pick had he not gone to Kentucky? Most definitely, but that's an argument about how good he is more than a strike against Kentucky.

 

[auror]

Zero interest in winning an argument here, just sharing an opinion. And yes, absent concrete evidence about Booker, but is it really far fetched to think he'd have still been a lottery pick, playing 30 minutes a game in the starting lineup for another school (likely having a much bigger impact on his team)? I see the info auror shared, but Booker's shot is special...and he could have developed a lot more.

That's basically James Blackmon. Similar RSCI, went to Indiana, played 30 minutes a game last year. An inch shorter, but an inch longer wingspan, so pretty comparable for the position. Shot 39% on 3's and scored 15.7 points per game in a bigger role in the offense.

Not drafted yet, obviously. Could be drafted eventually, but DraftExpress has him at #37 in the '17 mock. Booker went in the lottery.

 

[Dabutlerdidit]

You can do better than Cincinnati...cmon.

Lol.. Indeed. That was dripping w a little sarcasm.

Part of me would consider playing for Jay Wright at Nova (coach & tradition)

 

[mlz01]

By "winning an argument" I mean "convincing anyone that you are doing anything other than rambling." You're sort of all over the map. What I think you intended to be an argument in support of the proposition that Kentucky does not develop players for the NBA has sort of turned into a statement that kids who stay in school longer develop more in college. Not really controversial, because the kids who leave aren't in college anymore.

With your Booker example, you're placing an awful lot of (undeserved) emphasis on playing time in terms of development and draft status. These college teams spend an awful lot of time doing things besides playing in games. Besides, NBA teams want the best players and they're going to take those kids regardless of how many minutes they play in college.

Could Anthony Davis have been the #1 pick had he not gone to Kentucky? Most definitely, but that's an argument about how good he is more than a strike against Kentucky.

Got it. Fair enough.