2 Prospects already offered by Mack Team

[Cardtillidie]

The reality has become that any top 25-30 rated recruit in this era has pro asperations asap, and it's very likely that the top twenty players look for a bonus when picking a a school to lay over for a year.

Unless you kiss their butt and play a style that specifically benefits them, its difficult to recruit them.They either want to play with others of the same mindset, or like Simmons and Fultz go to a school that will bend over backwards for you, and the won loss record isn't what's important.

Louisville won't cater to entitled brats. That means they take a few swings at the upper echelon players, but the wheel house and sweet spot is going to be players ranked between 25 and 75.

Style plays a major part in that. The top players want to showcase offense, not play defense. Defense won't get them a high draft spot. So be it. Louisville will take their shots with some of the big name players, but won't cater and turn the program over to them. You take the best players that want to be here.

 

[zipp]

Please list the number of titles those schools have won. Once again, you are attempting to prove your point by trying to find exceptions to the rule...

Newsflash for ya... Finding exceptions to the rule means you don't have much of a "rule".

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Bill Walton wasn’t a OAD, he has a degree. LMAO

You asked for one example of a team who excel with unheralded playes and I gave you one. That wasn’t acceptable so I gave you two more. I’m finding exceptions? So there is an Anthoney Davis who leads his team to an NCAA title each year? Who was UNC’s OAD Anthoney Davis last year? Who was Villanova’s the year before? Is Marvin Bagley still playing this weekend? Is Kentucky?

Keep moving that goalpost, boy. I’ll still keep kicking it through.

I’ll tell you what: the OAD rule came into effect in 2006. If you can show me that the NCAA tournament’s Most Outstanding Player over the last ten years has been won by a freshman more than 50% of the time, I’ll concede to your argument. But... we both know the answer already, don’t we?

Are you only saying that we shouldn’t get OAD’s? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t get guys that are close to the talent level of OAD’s? These are different arguments and you and Mike may be misinterpreting each other. To be a contender you have to have talent. Loyola of Chicago likely wouldn’t have made the tourney if they played in our conference. They are on an historic run right now, but anything can happen in the tourney.

Not all 5 stars are OAD’s. Miles bridges is a guy that I think would have pushed Louisville to the tourney this year had he been on our team. Would you not offer him a scholarship on principle because he is talented? I don’t want to be UK, but I don’t want to be UVA or Loyola of Chicago either. Having one or 2 blue chippers every other year or so wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

Almost everything I thought of has been said so I only have a couple of things to add. I wish we kept Ray Ganong he has done a good job and he is really intense on the bench. Everybody is also forgetting about Wiley Brown and his artificial thumb. He was not a AA but he was a really good player for us who made a difference.

Ray Ganong is gone? That’s a shame. But I will say, for a strength coach he never really helped our bean poles put on weight. And some other guys struggled with staying in shape. Ray is a good guy and definitely L1C4, but I wish Anas and others would have benefited more from his coaching. You can’t teach desire though.

 

[KingHenry_X]

Are you only saying that we shouldn’t get OAD’s? Or are you saying that we shouldn’t get guys that are close to the talent level of OAD’s? These are different arguments and you and Mike may be misinterpreting each other. To be a contender you have to have talent. Loyola of Chicago likely wouldn’t have made the tourney if they played in our conference. They are on an historic run right now, but anything can happen in the tourney.

Not all 5 stars are OAD’s. Miles bridges is a guy that I think would have pushed Louisville to the tourney this year had he been on our team. Would you not offer him a scholarship on principle because he is talented? I don’t want to be UK, but I don’t want to be UVA or Loyola of Chicago either. Having one or 2 blue chippers every other year or so wouldn’t be a bad thing IMO.

You just asked me a question and then repeated what I said in the very post that you quoted. Surely you want to get all the talent you can. But I also cannot see how any fan would want a revolving door of talent like Kentucky. Heck, they (UK fans) don’t even like it.

Lets say you have a fairly veteran team coming back (3-4 starters returning), but you have a glaring hole and not much depth at a position, then sure - try to get someone who can make the most immediate impact. But you also recruit a player at the position that may need mire fine tuning who will be around for longer. This ensures continuity in your roster. Collecting superstars at every position who only plan to stick around for a season does not build chemistry, and chemistry is an intangible that isn’t built over 30 games and a key ingredient for success in March. If only talent wins out, March Madness would not be what it is. The common variable of almost every single team that makes the F4 is veteran guard play and team chemistry.

 

[BooneCo_Card]

The common variable of almost every single team that makes the F4 is veteran guard play and team chemistry.

Bingo!

Game, Set and Match.

 

[Cardinal Cash]

You just asked me a question and then repeated what I said in the very post that you quoted. Surely you want to get all the talent you can. But I also cannot see how any fan would want a revolving door of talent like Kentucky. Heck, they (UK fans) don’t even like it.

Lets say you have a fairly veteran team coming back (3-4 starters returning), but you have a glaring hole and not much depth at a position, then sure - try to get someone who can make the most immediate impact. But you also recruit a player at the position that may need mire fine tuning who will be around for longer. This ensures continuity in your roster. Collecting superstars at every position who only plan to stick around for a season does not build chemistry, and chemistry is an intangible that isn’t built over 30 games and a key ingredient for success in March. If only talent wins out, March Madness would not be what it is. The common variable of almost every single team that makes the F4 is veteran guard play and team chemistry.

It seemed earlier that you were adamant about not recruiting above a certain threshold of talent. I think this whole thread has been a bit of a misunderstanding. No one is advocating for a team of only two stars that we hope pan out, and no one is hoping for a team full of UK types. A balance of strong young talent and developed talent is what makes U of L basketball the most successful. Next year will be a solid year if we can add one to two pieces.

 

[KingHenry_X]

It seemed earlier that you were adamant about not recruiting above a certain threshold of talent. I think this whole thread has been a bit of a misunderstanding. No one is advocating for a team of only two stars that we hope pan out, and no one is hoping for a team full of UK types. A balance of strong young talent and developed talent is what makes U of L basketball the most successful. Next year will be a solid year if we can add one to two pieces.

No, I’ve been firm and clear of my position - OADs provide no value. Talent is NOT the most important factor in winning basketball games. Team play is. Good coaching is. Talent helps, but talent can also be developed.

 

[earsky]

Team play is.

There's a perception amongst many here that guys with one eye on the league tend to disrupt the concept of team play.
Most of these kids are higher ranked out of high school.
Veteran guards balance out this quandary by getting all eyes on the prize - a championship.
BTW, I think this is a healthy discussion.

 

[Ipartiedwithhopgood]

It's been proven a title can be won in a variety of ways.