I'm not sure how many times this has to be reiterated but your recruiting class rank doesn't matter. Wins matter. If you are winning, you are recruiting well, regardless of what a recruiting services rank is.
They just had a one-and-done. Obviously they are recruiting well now. The kid was a top player in the rankings. And they are winning big, but prior to that (which is what we are discussing), their winning was more a function of the weak league they were in, weaker than the AAC. Go back and look at their recruiting. It is no surprise they were not advancing very far. In fact, prior to the last few years, they had only gotten out of the first weekend TWICE in 15 years despite the fact that they were in the NCAAs each and every year (largely because of the conference). 2 times in 15 years is not what I'd call winning.
The fact is, before recently, THEY HAD NOT outperformed UConn on the basketball court either. The wins, not surprisingly, coincide with their recruiting upswing. That is what changed.
Mark Few has also been there forever and provided them with stability. That counts. When recruits sniff that an AD isn't committed to the coach, it hurts recruiting. We heard the same from former UConn bball players who said that in the media about Ollie's 2013 tryout.
Winning the national championship with only one NBA player as UConn did in 2014 is a rarity. This isn't a good model at all for winning. You need to recruit multiple NBA players (ie. higher ranked players).
I challenge anyone to go back and look at the national champions from the last 20 years to find teams who won without more than 1 NBA player.
That 2014 UConn team is a huge outlier. You need to recruit studs to win. The correlation between NBA players and national champions is a close one. Gonzaga has Olynyk and Sabonis, with Wiltjer probably on the outs. That is simply not enough to win, and it is likely why they haven't won it all.
Now look at the current team. More NBA talent coming for them, and it explains their recent performance.
