While it's true, it's no excuse. As far as our program goes, that means they had better players than us that year. A few of the most important guys on UNC last year were a 4 star and a 3 star. But according to half or more of this board those guys cannot win titles and are even laughed at while we count stars in recruiting classes.
I understand the other side of it, but it is what it is. We really should be recruiting needs and skills instead of strictly talent and stars, but it appears we just look at a top 25 list and go fishing. We need a bit more creativity. Hopefully with the recruitments of guys like Baker Cal is somewhat waking up to it, but hell if he plays half decent he'll leave too for the second round anyway I guess.
The beast is out of its cage right now. Hopefully we can start hitting the top 5 as hard as we did 5 years ago because that's what we have to have. People laugh at that but I think it's valid. For Cals system to work he's going to need 2 top 5 players from each class AND we need them to live up to the hype; otherwise we are too young and not talented enough to overcome it.
People just fail to realize two things concerning championships. One is that there are multiple ways to build a roster, none of them are fool proof, and all of them have flaws. UNC and UK are prime examples of teams that do it the best at each extreme. UNC gets really talented players that they keep around for 3-4 years and try to develop them. UK (specifically Cal) goes after the hottest talent in the incoming class and sends them on their way as soon as they can get drafted. In 2012, it worked out for UK. In 2017, it worked out for UNC. Both years these two teams were 2 of the top 5 teams. UNC had built an amazing team getting guys to return in 2012, only to see UK use more talented Freshman to win the title. UK had the #1 recruiting class in 2016, only to see veteran UNC team win the title.Building a roster with 3-4 year guys means you have to hope those guys develop enough to hide their issues over the years. Building a roster with "one and done" guys means you have to hope at least most of those guys live up to the hype. No assurances either way.
The second thing is that winning a championship involves a whole lot more than just being talented. I would argue matchups and officiating are two things that are at least as important as the roster, and maybe more important. Every team has weaknesses, and matchups can determine whether those weaknesses can be exposed or not. The tournament is not a round-robin, where the best record wins at the end. All it takes is one bad matchup, and you are done.
As another poster said, it took 3-4 years for Berry, Jackson, and Meeks to develop into the players they were. Yet UK had 3 freshman who were at least on par if not better than them. The first game was all about the stars, and they showed out, and UK won on a last second shot. The second meeting was all about the supporting cast (which UNC held an advantage), and UNC won on a last second shot, by a member of that supporting cast.
