THIS!!!!!!
That's why I say the NBA is moving away from the traditional BIG men, but in high school and college, they are very much needed.
2018 Nike Hoop Summit
- Thread starter Dad2ze
- Start date
THIS!!!!!!
That's why I say the NBA is moving away from the traditional BIG men, but in high school and college, they are very much needed.
Eh. I think that, theoretically, you are correct. In practice, a truly OFF shooting night is the end of the road in the NCAAT. If a team shoots 40% (from its primary three point shooters) on average (with a lower team percentage), and has some night where the stars shoot 35%, then a scoring big can help. But it is hard to call that an off night.
.
Allen and Trent went 4-19, which is a truly OFF performance. And we had two elite scoring bigs. But when the perimeter shooters are that far off, the defense can just pack it in around the bigs.
.
And, again, elite bigs are nice. But, like UNC this past year (and probably next year), you can't plan on having elite scoring bigs every year. I'd prefer to focus on athleticism (especially on the perimeter), 3pt shooting, and rim defense. I think a team can be built along those lines, every year, that will be a threat to win the NCAAT. Trying to recruit, or even develop, a true low post threat is a much riskier proposition.
I tend to agree with you. However, the 2010 team makes that debatable. I would consider Zoubek "elite" for the tournament run. But, I wouldn't consider him a reliable post player, on offense at least. He was never a guy who we would throw the ball to on the block, and assume he will get a bucket. Basically, he was not Jahlil Okafor.
Our 2010 offense consisted around Singler, Scheyer, and Smith carrying the whole offense. Obviously the bigs were good for offensive rebounds/putbacks, and Dawkins gave us a shooter off the bench.
Oh no, not in that sense, you are correct. But, that TEAM featured a collection of BIGS, three that went to the NBA (four if you include Ryan Kelly).
Also, with that TEAM, Zoub averaged less than 20 mpg as well. So with the 2010 team, I just include all of the BIGS because K actually rotated them in a lot and that helped.
I still have a very difficult time thinking there is one specific way to "do it" in college basketball. Maybe the only proven necessity is at least a little upperclass experience, but that might be it. There are examples over the years of all different kinds of teams winning it all.
In general, people look at the most recent and make the definitive determination that that is the way to go. But even looking at the last two champions, they had some unbelievable fortune and circumstances that are hard to replicate. On this year's Villanova team, 3 of their top 6 guys had taken redshirt years, and none of them were Tony Bennett development redshirts - they were all necessitated by circumstance, be it academic, injury, or transfer. There aren't many teams who can say that. And I look at the UNC team of the year before. They started five upperclassman that were all former McDonald's All-Americans. That never happens anymore. To put it in perspective, during that year no other team had more than one single upperclassman who played in the McDonald's game, and UNC had five. Again, I can't imagine many teams in today's era for whom that happens - it was an absolute perfect storm of a number of factors to keep that group together.
As history has shown, are there any absolute "musts" for a championship team? Is there an example to contradict any and every of the typical notions?
In general, people look at the most recent and make the definitive determination that that is the way to go. But even looking at the last two champions, they had some unbelievable fortune and circumstances that are hard to replicate. On this year's Villanova team, 3 of their top 6 guys had taken redshirt years, and none of them were Tony Bennett development redshirts - they were all necessitated by circumstance, be it academic, injury, or transfer. There aren't many teams who can say that. And I look at the UNC team of the year before. They started five upperclassman that were all former McDonald's All-Americans. That never happens anymore. To put it in perspective, during that year no other team had more than one single upperclassman who played in the McDonald's game, and UNC had five. Again, I can't imagine many teams in today's era for whom that happens - it was an absolute perfect storm of a number of factors to keep that group together.
As history has shown, are there any absolute "musts" for a championship team? Is there an example to contradict any and every of the typical notions?
All things considered, having a recruit we are most concerned about being a stud like Cameron Reddish is a nice position to be in. And I am glad Zion and Tre slipped in the rankings. Puts a chip on their shoulder. Eye of the tiger baby
i wish i had seen this post before i responded to the duke/uk recruiting thread. This is spot on.