Should we keep targeting top 10 kids
- Thread starter EvilMD
- Start date
Take the entire top ten if we can. To paraphrase Tom Osborne, they can't hurt you if they're on your bench.
We should definitely concede all of the top talent to Duke, North Carolina, Kansas and other programs. That paid huge dividends for us between 1999 and 2009. Heck we wouldn't have gotten Cal had we recruited better! Definitely should stop doing the thing that's gotten us four final fours the last six seasons.
The only top 10 players we should target are juco players, or 5th yr transfers. I want more Terrance Williams, Derrick character, or samardo Samuels type guys that stick around more than 1 yr. We don't need the premadonnas to play faste paste. Play for the name on the jersey!
Signed,
Louisville fans
Signed,
Louisville fans
Anthony Davis was awful for us, I'm not sure how we survived.
No. Let's not go after the very best kids. I don't want the great ones. I think we should pass on the players ranked 1-9. We need to give the other schools a chance. Yeah right.
Give me the top 5 players who are hungry to be the first pick in the draft.
I think you guys are being too hard on the OP. The way the question was worded just begged for smart *** answers -- which it received. But it brings up an interesting debate. A better way to phrase it:
"If Cal's recruiting classes since he arrived here had been more balanced with a combination of top 10 talent and lesser talented (top 75) recruits, would we be better off today or not?"
Regardless of how you feel about it, every time this type of topic arises, I think of this:
When some other coach, such as Pitino, says they don't believe in the one-and-done approach, I just wish a reporter would ask them: "Well, Rick, does that mean that if the best player in the country wanted to play for you, that you would turn them down?"
I'd love to for a coach to have to answer that, in some honest, believable way.
"If Cal's recruiting classes since he arrived here had been more balanced with a combination of top 10 talent and lesser talented (top 75) recruits, would we be better off today or not?"
Regardless of how you feel about it, every time this type of topic arises, I think of this:
When some other coach, such as Pitino, says they don't believe in the one-and-done approach, I just wish a reporter would ask them: "Well, Rick, does that mean that if the best player in the country wanted to play for you, that you would turn them down?"
I'd love to for a coach to have to answer that, in some honest, believable way.
YEA, none of those were top 11-25 as OP suggested.
A full roster of 5* players not rated top 10 would not be bad.
Ahhhh Sheray and woo bring back some great memories. I think we were playing Mississippi state. Meeks gets fouled and Bobby perry says in the camera "it's over he's money" we were up two points before Meeks shot his 2 fts. Anyway, Meeks hits the first one puts us up 3. Then comes that one shinning moment from Sheray Thomas. After the first ft he is being subbed out and he leaves the ft line before the shot is up therefore we get a technical and the second shot doesn't count. Jamont Gordon who was a total uk killer goes the length of the court hits a 3 and sends it into overtime. Needless to say, we ended up losing the game. My memory maybe a little cloudy due to excessive drinking in those dark times but if I left out some detail please enlighten us all. Those were the days!
The problem with this logic is, we'll have a down year every other year instead of competing for a title every year.
Then you got the pitchforks coming out.
Sign the top 10 every year is you ask me.
Then you got the pitchforks coming out.
Sign the top 10 every year is you ask me.
we shouldn't change a thing.
this season to me though is a major barometer for what to expect in the future. and i mean i think our talent/experience level (give or take) will be about what we're seeing here and in '14. this is the first season to be as open ended as '14. in '09 there was no question we were the scariest team. every class is different with different personalities and will's to win. but consider this...this is the first season where there is not an extraordinary amount of preseason pressure. we've tasted every tourney scenario in almost every round (thanks cal for no elite 8 losses which suck donkey crap), we've had mostly freshman, mostly sophomores, we've seen all-americans at every position, and every variation of cal's coaching philosophies have been utilized to the point that he he can change the team's style of play as to forge a new identity. sometimes it's something simple of course.
we know cal will find the team by late february and we will enter the sec tourney ready to roll into the post season. we know no matter the record we will enjoy an ironic seeding/region and then turn in some of the best basketball in the country under immense pressure.
if this team only loses say five games and mostly consistent, then that says mostly freshman starting fives will probably win titles at kentucky in the near future. if we lose say nine games, then i see tougher tourney situations being the norm. what that '14 team in the end was amazing. then again we didn't really have a guy like briscoe coming back (imo-no disrespect to sophomore poythress, or wcs). this will be an interesting year because good defense seems to be a common attribute with this class. '14 struggled early with that.
this season to me though is a major barometer for what to expect in the future. and i mean i think our talent/experience level (give or take) will be about what we're seeing here and in '14. this is the first season to be as open ended as '14. in '09 there was no question we were the scariest team. every class is different with different personalities and will's to win. but consider this...this is the first season where there is not an extraordinary amount of preseason pressure. we've tasted every tourney scenario in almost every round (thanks cal for no elite 8 losses which suck donkey crap), we've had mostly freshman, mostly sophomores, we've seen all-americans at every position, and every variation of cal's coaching philosophies have been utilized to the point that he he can change the team's style of play as to forge a new identity. sometimes it's something simple of course.
we know cal will find the team by late february and we will enter the sec tourney ready to roll into the post season. we know no matter the record we will enjoy an ironic seeding/region and then turn in some of the best basketball in the country under immense pressure.
if this team only loses say five games and mostly consistent, then that says mostly freshman starting fives will probably win titles at kentucky in the near future. if we lose say nine games, then i see tougher tourney situations being the norm. what that '14 team in the end was amazing. then again we didn't really have a guy like briscoe coming back (imo-no disrespect to sophomore poythress, or wcs). this will be an interesting year because good defense seems to be a common attribute with this class. '14 struggled early with that.
Can we bring back the mandarin Chinese posts? They were much more logical than this sh*t
I've discussed this before, but here we go:
If you look at the RSCI top 10 recruits for the one and done era, a huge percentage of them ended up in the NBA, and a large number of those guys are still playing- something close to 70% of them, if I'm remembering correctly (not going to add it up again).
If you look at the guys rated 11-25, there is a sharp, sharp drop-off in those percentages. Which makes sense. A certain number of the very best players are going to be identified early, and then remain among the best players for pretty much the rest of their careers (which are likely to be lengthy). Historically, going back at least 30 years now, you average about 20 guys per NBA draft class who last for any significant time in the league (7+ years, 500 games), and 10-12 of those who become real long-term mainstays, playing well over a decade, into their 30's. Usually at least 3-4 of those guys were identified as potential stars in HS. Sometimes more, rarely less.
Examples- the really strong draft of 1996. You had 14 guys from that draft end up playing 800 or more games. 6 of them were definite top 10 level recruits (Kobe, Iverson, Jermaine O'Neal. Antoine Walker, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, and Stephon Marbury).
Or 2004, another strong draft, where you're likely going to end up with 14 guys hitting 800 games (careers in progress). 5 of them were definite top 10 recruits (Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Luol Deng, and Al Jefferson).
Those are the type of talents you want. Yeah, there's not always a difference between a top 10 guy and a guy rated 11-25, and yeah, the slightly lower guy sometimes ends up being Devin Booker (or James Harden, or Blake Griffin), but you go for the surer thing. John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Brandon Knight, Anthony Davis, MKG, Nerlens Noel, Julius Randle, Karl Towns, Trey Lyles, and Jamal Murray (eventually)- all top 10 recruits.
If you look at the RSCI top 10 recruits for the one and done era, a huge percentage of them ended up in the NBA, and a large number of those guys are still playing- something close to 70% of them, if I'm remembering correctly (not going to add it up again).
If you look at the guys rated 11-25, there is a sharp, sharp drop-off in those percentages. Which makes sense. A certain number of the very best players are going to be identified early, and then remain among the best players for pretty much the rest of their careers (which are likely to be lengthy). Historically, going back at least 30 years now, you average about 20 guys per NBA draft class who last for any significant time in the league (7+ years, 500 games), and 10-12 of those who become real long-term mainstays, playing well over a decade, into their 30's. Usually at least 3-4 of those guys were identified as potential stars in HS. Sometimes more, rarely less.
Examples- the really strong draft of 1996. You had 14 guys from that draft end up playing 800 or more games. 6 of them were definite top 10 level recruits (Kobe, Iverson, Jermaine O'Neal. Antoine Walker, Shareef Abdur-Rahim, and Stephon Marbury).
Or 2004, another strong draft, where you're likely going to end up with 14 guys hitting 800 games (careers in progress). 5 of them were definite top 10 recruits (Dwight Howard, Josh Smith, JR Smith, Luol Deng, and Al Jefferson).
Those are the type of talents you want. Yeah, there's not always a difference between a top 10 guy and a guy rated 11-25, and yeah, the slightly lower guy sometimes ends up being Devin Booker (or James Harden, or Blake Griffin), but you go for the surer thing. John Wall, DeMarcus Cousins, Brandon Knight, Anthony Davis, MKG, Nerlens Noel, Julius Randle, Karl Towns, Trey Lyles, and Jamal Murray (eventually)- all top 10 recruits.
Last edited:
Absolutely go after the most talented kids available. Cal seems to have a formula that works pretty damn well. He's had either # 1 or # 2 every year he's been here and he's managed to add 4 banners in 7 seasons. Why change anything?
When I saw this, I smiled and chuckled out loud [laughing][laughing] . My wife ask what was so funny, so I explained the post question. Then read her catdance post, She laughed
and said; that a good one[roll][roll][roll]
Get the best players you can. Gives us a reason to watch the NBA. Thomas' lane violation sent me over the edge. Top 10 kids would have put that game away.
I just wanted a discussion, which I kind of screwed up by not saying "should we go for ONLY top 10 kids".
And did Tubby even get top 25 kids? I thought Tubby's downfall was having guys like Bobby Perry and Shagari instead of top 25 kids.
What were the Florida back-to-back kids ranked?
And did Tubby even get top 25 kids? I thought Tubby's downfall was having guys like Bobby Perry and Shagari instead of top 25 kids.
What were the Florida back-to-back kids ranked?
I think the way Cal's doing it has worked pretty well. Some of you people just can't be satisfied. Why don't you go down to the basketball office and sit down with Cal and explain to him how you'd suggest how he could do it better. I'm sure you've been a sucessful HOF coach, so I'm sure he'll listen to you.
Bottom line is this: No one has done it better than Cal. When he's gone, maybe some of you idiot people will realize just how amazing he recruited at UK.
If this is a serious question, Calipari will continue to recruit and sign the best players he can get, that have the skills to play like he wants his team to play. Just like he always has. Do you think he came to Kentucky to sign lesser players? LOL!
Since you're quoting my post in your rant, I'm assuming you're referring to me. Which makes me believe you didn't even read it. If you are referring to me, I'm SMH. If not, cool.
Neither.
You get the best that fit what you want to do. Not all prospects fit all programs/coaches. Some top recruits aren't kids character wise that you want. Some lower rated guys have that extra indescribable something. Some prospects are so because of potential that might be years away, while some with a lower ceiling may be better for the first year or two.
You get the best that fit what you want to do. Not all prospects fit all programs/coaches. Some top recruits aren't kids character wise that you want. Some lower rated guys have that extra indescribable something. Some prospects are so because of potential that might be years away, while some with a lower ceiling may be better for the first year or two.
The answer to this is simply another question.
Which top 10 player you replacing on the 2012 team with a lesser talent?
2010?
2011?
2013?
2014?
