I just want to see UConn win. Getting the best players at each position increases the odds of that happening. If the one and done player is team oriented and only needs to tweak his skills to accommodate the teams best chance of winning, I would be crazy to say we should turn away that player. The only thing I'd personally miss is the opportunity to see a player develop over several seasons.
Let's not forget there is an advantage to having upperclassman leadership. The question is can that leadership and experience overcome relatively inexperienced (at the college level) but more talented players? The argument for the upperclassman value can be made by the recent successes of UConn, Butler, Wisconsin. The argument for super talented "inexperienced" players can be made by Kentucky, Arizona, and Kansas.
Interestingly this conversation has changed in recent years. I can distinctly recall that many pundits valued a leader like Mateen Cleaves in forecasting a team's success. Dick Vitale certainly had a column on diaper dandies, and publications would comment on the potential of the best incoming recruits. But the excitement was primarily focused on the veteran teams (with the exception of Duke). You have to wonder how much of this conversation we're having is because we are being influenced by the latest media hype as opposed to an insightful conversation.
So with this preamble, and to get back on track with the thread, if I can only chose to recruit two players, we already have them. I wanted Adams and Enoch the most. If I can only get two more I want Stone and Mack. One for the polish he brings immediately and one who I believe is the best all around player at his position and is just reaching his potential.
Needless to say as long as KO is coaching for UConn I like the team's chances no matter what rendition of talent and experience that his teams have.