I want to start a more grounded discussion around something that gets thrown around all the time:
“stars”, “studs”, “dudes”
These words show up in basically every roster debate, especially when people talk about what it takes to win a championship. The problem is, everyone seems to mean something different when they say it, and the definition tends to change depending on the argument.
So I want to ask this in a more clear and consistent way.
How do you define a “star”, “stud”, or “dude”?
Try not to use player examples. Instead, describe it in a way that could actually be measured or identified. What specifically qualifies someone? Is it production, efficiency, accolades, recruiting rank, transfer value, role impact, something else? However you define it, it should be something that could hold up across different teams and seasons, not just based on feel.
Second, how many of those players do you think a team needs to win a national championship?
Be specific here too. Is there a minimum number? Does the type of player matter? Can different types make up for each other? Is there a point where having more doesn’t really add anything?
The reason I’m asking is because a lot of conversations just default to things like “you need more dudes” or “that team doesn’t have enough stars” or “talent wins in March.” But without a real definition behind it, those statements are hard to evaluate and usually just turn into hindsight or eye test arguments.
If people can actually define what they mean in a consistent and measurable way, then we can start to test it, compare different roster builds, and figure out what actually matters versus what just sounds right after the fact.
Curious how people would define it if they had to be precise about it.
“stars”, “studs”, “dudes”
These words show up in basically every roster debate, especially when people talk about what it takes to win a championship. The problem is, everyone seems to mean something different when they say it, and the definition tends to change depending on the argument.
So I want to ask this in a more clear and consistent way.
How do you define a “star”, “stud”, or “dude”?
Try not to use player examples. Instead, describe it in a way that could actually be measured or identified. What specifically qualifies someone? Is it production, efficiency, accolades, recruiting rank, transfer value, role impact, something else? However you define it, it should be something that could hold up across different teams and seasons, not just based on feel.
Second, how many of those players do you think a team needs to win a national championship?
Be specific here too. Is there a minimum number? Does the type of player matter? Can different types make up for each other? Is there a point where having more doesn’t really add anything?
The reason I’m asking is because a lot of conversations just default to things like “you need more dudes” or “that team doesn’t have enough stars” or “talent wins in March.” But without a real definition behind it, those statements are hard to evaluate and usually just turn into hindsight or eye test arguments.
If people can actually define what they mean in a consistent and measurable way, then we can start to test it, compare different roster builds, and figure out what actually matters versus what just sounds right after the fact.
Curious how people would define it if they had to be precise about it.
