I addressed this briefly in my post above:
2018 Recruiting: - Lukas Kisunas Commits to UConn
While you're not wrong, I think this shows up
more at the NBA level, than the college level. When the athletic guys have enough skills to demolish less athletic guys. But even then, a guy like Tim Duncan, never to be mistaken for an elite athlete, rose to be arguably the best at his position ever, based largely on the strength of his fundamentals and skills.
(yes, I understand he is probably the most extreme example available)
In college, just being an athlete is not enough; bigs are generally so raw. UK's athletes in 2014 were locked down by guys like DD and Giffey. Neither were elite athletes. I mean, Giffey was guarding Julius Randle well, not because he was elite athletically, but he had very, very sound fundamentals.
When you think about guys like Harangody, Curley, etc...fundamentals in college,
at the big man position, can take you a long way.
You're absolutely right, and most importantly, the athletic guys are
younger in the college game. There is a reason that the sport has so much parity. Nobody is all that good given that the most talented players are in the infancy stages of their development. A kid like Kisunas will be relatively polished early in his career and especially by the time he graduates.
The problem I have is that virtually every generality that is being pedaled around in this thread can be applied to every level of basketball imaginable. If I pooled together a bunch of fragmented paragraphs describing Ivy League players and imposed them next to the posts in this thread, I'm not sure people would be able to tell them apart. That's because the entire appeal of this player is built upon subjective terms. All of it can be universalized and manipulated for filler on whoever's recruiting website needs clicks. None of it can be extrapolated into a scheme that fits a practical calculus.
Kisunas will help us win, I simply question whether he will help us win in every match-up. But that's what separates the good recruits from the elite recruits, and right now, especially up front, we're short on elite ones. If this board is hoping to avoid a scenario where everything we do is limited by the center position, then signing the opposite of Brimah is not the answer. It wasn't that long ago that Olander and Wolf drew the derision of this board, and they had great hands and could screen like hell. Back then, we would have traded the farm for a player like Brimah or Facey.
I would argue that Giffey was, if not an elite athlete, then close to it. He didn't jump off the screen, but the finer points of athleticism, like foot work, body control, core strength, and balance, he possessed in abundance. That's what enabled him to play the five at a time where doing so at that size and winning big was unprecedented. Brimah's lack of balance, footwork, and instincts held him back, which is exactly why I'm eagerly awaiting the debut of Diarra. If Brimah is one end of the extreme and Kisunas is the other, he probably represents something closer to a happy medium (at his size, he won't play center full-time, but Giffey didn't, either).
This board is obviously not supposed to be objective. I'm not objective, either. In a way, nobody is. But consider the optics of four frustrating years and then consider the idea of finding an alternative to that. It's a dichotomy that is not supposed to resonate in an objective way and this particular recruit has managed to satisfy every board fetish at once. (Incidentally, during Harangody's reign, Notre Dame ranked 133rd, 66th, 45th, and 105th in adjusted defense and won one combined tournament game - his tree isn't the one I want to pick from).