The best teams typically have a short, tight rotation. Maximizing minutes for the best players is sound strategy.
Couldn't disagree more. BTW, one reason why many basketball people act like a short rotation is the best to the point that it's treated as 'common knowledge' is because most schools simply don't have enough good players to have a deep bench, so they've never really had a opportunity to aim for anything else.
In Division I there's really only a few programs who can consistently pull off having ridiculously deep benches, and Kentucky happens to be one of those programs. Most schools can't do that so of course it's not going to see widespread practice.
I will agree that you can have a really good team with a short tight rotation, but the very best teams IMO are ones that are talented and deep. That's why I've always been in favor of UK recruiting deep and talented benches whenever possible. The reason being that with a short rotation there's just too many variables which can derail a season. With a short rotation, a key injury or a bad matchup or even a player getting in early foul trouble can end a team's season quickly.
A deep bench is kind of like an insurance policy against those things. Of course it's difficult to develop and manage a deep bench, and it can implode on you if not done well. But I think the rewards outweigh the risks.