Most of that sounds like pie-in-the-sky and b!tching about your own OAD system. And the environment your school has created for the rest of college basketball.
FIVE STAR BASKETBALL RECRUITS 2009-2014:
NCAA BASKETBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS 2010-2015:
And if you consider the teams that have made multiple Elite Eight appearances in that same time frame, this is the way I would eyeball rate their performance with respect to the talent on their rosters:
I don't think it's a coincidence that the only championship at LPT during that time period was with Anthony Davis, their best player overall and one of the best in the NBA.
And that's because LPT doesn't really have a coach... They have a recruiter or salesman. Tremendous amount of talent, but results not so remarkable compared to that talent. And raw talent matters more to LPT fans who have always been hyper-obsessed with recruiting.
"Elite program", my a$$...
The thing you misinterpreted as complaining was actually the incredibly simple logical concept that demonstrates why your "who landed the most five stars over 6 years" logic is so abysmal.
Again, when UK plays a Duke or an Arizona or a Kansas or UNC, it's a group of 5 star starters versus 5 star starters most years, with maybe a 4 star thrown in the starting line up and top 40 guys off the bench, many of whom are also 5 stars. - it's just that their kids came over 2-4 classes, and ours came over 1-2. The number of kids per class does not impact the average star rating.
C'mon buddy, I know you can get that. Just put your math hat on. I believe in you!
Seriously, though - don't you ever get tired of the shtick and desire to have a semi-honest debate?
You can make a case that Rick's run is even impressive than Cal relative to talent
without your hilariously dishonest (who are you trying to fool? math-impaired second graders?) "eyeball chart"
which attempts to make it look like UK is trotting out rosters 3 times more talented than Duke. Be serious for just a second.
Cal's rosters by average star rating have been
nearly identical to K's, and so have his results been. He's had vastly better results than future HOFers Roy and Self who have likewise been bringing burger boys off the bench most of the time. And as good as Miller has looked, Cal's blown him out of the water, too.
Rick is just barely behind Cal and K in terms of results, but he's done it with vastly less talent out of high school than any of the aforementioned coaches.
Why not celebrate that instead of stubbornly clinging to the world's worst argument which commits the incredibly basic error of accounting for the input but not the output of the system?
