Eh, I disagree on a few items here.
That's not true at all. Recruiting is about perception, and in that sense, one great class frequently begets another. Why does UK get many of the top players? Because in the previous class, many of the top players went to UK, signifying that UK is the destination for top players. And so on. It's a cycle.
Recruiting is about perception, yes. But being perceived in one way does not guarantee you will be perceived that way forever. Nobody has terrorized the recruiting trail like Kentucky these past few years - yet, they only managed to snag one of their main targets (and he may not qualify).
And that perception, mind you, is not built based on who you recruit but rather what you do with those recruits. Obviously, it is easier to do good things with better recruits, but the thing is, we have good recruits. So I'm still unclear on why our current class is not sustainable.
I'll grant you Stone and I'll grant you that Mack/Jones/Clarke were influenced by the presence of Purvis/Hamilton (though I would argue a better recruiter could get them in spite of that concern), but the others are not "bad luck". Prince Ali's decommitment after his stock soared basically said "UConn is small time and I want bigger" -- that's a major perception problem that the staff could not counter; that's not bad luck. Losing Larrier to VCU and Shaka is not bad luck, it's bad recruiting, and should not be excused as something out of the staff's control.
We were small time even though we were championship? If by small time, you mean less marketable, and less appealing, than other top programs, I agree. But that has always been the case.
I'll end on a cheery note -- most of this I actually agree with. At the end of the day, it matters who you land. That said, after Enoch, we failed on all of our high school targets and landed nobody (until grad transfer season). Now, if we get Gibbs, that suggests we're doing really well with grad transfers. But it doesn't change the fact that we've struggled to get the high school recruits we need.
I also think it's reasonable to look "under the hood" at the process and who we've been able to get. We shouldn't dismiss getting Adams and Enoch because they were local. But then we should look at the local crop going forward. If New England is going to continue to produce top prospects, then we're in good shape if our local recruiting is strong. On the other hand, if we're going to have to recruit nationally, then the failure in this cycle to attract anyone from farther away bears some consideration.
If we're signing two top recruits out of high school and two top grad transfers every year until I die, sign me up now.
