2018 NCAA tournament thread

[Buffnik]

Villanova might be the model for the future to build championship programs.

You recruit players who are one step below one and done with the expectation that they will be with you for 3-4 years. That difference isn't as great as some might think. Because they are going to be there longer they are more willing to play team ball instead of trying to impress the scouts. They develop relationships within the team and buy into the culture.

Arguably there were other teams in the tourney who had more talent than Villanova did but none played as well as a team as they did. The talent matters and they have it but what you do with the talent means more.

I don't think that's the model at all, Mtn.

If you can recruit a guy who is going to be a lottery pick after 1 season, you definitely recruit him. Jay Wright would love having a player like that.

But what he wouldn't do is take a guy like that who didn't fit his team schemes and culture.

I mean, it's not like Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas have been struggling to win with the OAD talent in their programs.

 

[Johnny Juzang]

'Nova is 165-21 since the beginning of the 2013 season.

 

[torero]

At least the wait will be shorter since the NCAA moved up the start date.

Are you glad Gonzaga decided to stick with the WCC?

Important for the conference. The concessions made to keep them are cutting back to a 16 game conference schedule, and giving the top 2 seeds a bye to the semifinals of the conference tournament. Which actually isn't much of a concession, because that's how it used to be before BYU and Pacific joined the conference. Also important for USD, guaranteed sell out every year. Them and San Diego State are the only games that sell out every year. Now if we would just get rid of football and the money suck it is, and then we could put all our budget into hoops and baseball.

 

[MtnBuff]

I don't think that's the model at all, Mtn.

If you can recruit a guy who is going to be a lottery pick after 1 season, you definitely recruit him. Jay Wright would love having a player like that.

But what he wouldn't do is take a guy like that who didn't fit his team schemes and culture.

I mean, it's not like Duke, Kentucky, North Carolina and Kansas have been struggling to win with the OAD talent in their programs.

I'm not saying that Wright would turn one of those guys down, if he had a solid shot at one of those guys he would go after him. Just a much more effective thing for him and the program to put his effort into guys who are a small step down who he will likely have for multiple years.

That is why what kentucky is so amazing. To turn over half the roster every year and still compete for titles is damn near impossible. I think you can have one or two one and done guys that would put your roster over the top, but I don't know how you can build a consistent team with a roster full of those type of players.

Good post. This is why I mentioned Villanova as a good model. How many Kentuckys can there be and where were they this year? Where was Kansas, Arizona, etc. for the final four this year.

Can't argue with the schools who manage to win titles getting the top players for one year but a lot of schools like Villanova aren't going to do that, instead they won this title without the supertalents and look to have a program that will contend for future years as well.

 

[Bison]

Villanova might be the model for the future to build championship programs.

You recruit players who are one step below one and done with the expectation that they will be with you for 3-4 years. That difference isn't as great as some might think. Because they are going to be there longer they are more willing to play team ball instead of trying to impress the scouts. They develop relationships within the team and buy into the culture.

Arguably there were other teams in the tourney who had more talent than Villanova did but none played as well as a team as they did. The talent matters and they have it but what you do with the talent means more.

Perhaps Tad needs to recruit better offensive players that are coach able on the defensive end.

 

[Buffnik]

I'm not saying that Wright would turn one of those guys down, if he had a solid shot at one of those guys he would go after him. Just a much more effective thing for him and the program to put his effort into guys who are a small step down who he will likely have for multiple years.



Good post. This is why I mentioned Villanova as a good model. How many Kentuckys can there be and where were they this year? Where was Kansas, Arizona, etc. for the final four this year.

Can't argue with the schools who manage to win titles getting the top players for one year but a lot of schools like Villanova aren't going to do that, instead they won this title without the supertalents and look to have a program that will contend for future years as well.

Kansas was in the Final Four.

 

[dyemeduke]

I'm not saying that Wright would turn one of those guys down, if he had a solid shot at one of those guys he would go after him. Just a much more effective thing for him and the program to put his effort into guys who are a small step down who he will likely have for multiple years.



Good post. This is why I mentioned Villanova as a good model. How many Kentuckys can there be and where were they this year? Where was Kansas, Arizona, etc. for the final four this year.

Can't argue with the schools who manage to win titles getting the top players for one year but a lot of schools like Villanova aren't going to do that, instead they won this title without the supertalents and look to have a program that will contend for future years as well.

Yeah, as Buffnik said, KU was in the FF. Not only that, but they ran into a team that was shot lights out. KU was good this year. Duke is more of the poster child for OADs than KU, and they were right there with KU - Grayson's shot couldn't get more rim without going in.

There's strong argument for running a program as you say - sure player development and developing a culture in your program are critical. However, the OAD "model" is also not going anywhere. Sure, it's going to be limited to select schools, because there just aren't dozens of OADs. But what if Duke was in a different bracket and made it to the title game? Does a second place finish mean their pursuit of OADs is not what they should be doing? I think generally most of us prefer to see kids stick around in college, so we can see their development and progress. It's also what we're used to seeing from our youth to now. But, I don't think the OAD "model" is going away anytime soon unless fundamental changes occur. Props to Jay Wright and Nova.

Further to this conversation, next year will add a lot of ammo to either side of this debate. Duke has an incredible class... ...no upper classmen leadership. If they lose early, are OADs not the best way to win (UK and Duke being aberrations)? If they make the FF, then does talent mean more? Like most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I still say that stocking up on the best players is not going away.

 

[Buffnik]

Yeah, as Buffnik said, KU was in the FF. Not only that, but they ran into a team that was shot lights out. KU was good this year. Duke is more of the poster child for OADs than KU, and they were right there with KU - Grayson's shot couldn't get more rim without going in.

There's strong argument for running a program as you say - sure player development and developing a culture in your program are critical. However, the OAD "model" is also not going anywhere. Sure, it's going to be limited to select schools, because there just aren't dozens of OADs. But what if Duke was in a different bracket and made it to the title game? Does a second place finish mean their pursuit of OADs is not what they should be doing? I think generally most of us prefer to see kids stick around in college, so we can see their development and progress. It's also what we're used to seeing from our youth to now. But, I don't think the OAD "model" is going away anytime soon unless fundamental changes occur. Props to Jay Wright and Nova.

Further to this conversation, next year will add a lot of ammo to either side of this debate. Duke has an incredible class... ...no upper classmen leadership. If they lose early, are OADs not the best way to win (UK and Duke being aberrations)? If they make the FF, then does talent mean more? Like most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I still say that stocking up on the best players is not going away.

Coach Cal talks about the most difficult thing is teaching young players about being adults and being responsible in all aspects of their lives off the court because only then does maturity develop on the court. Probably why we saw Kansas, Duke and Kentucky all have head scratcher stretches to their seasons but then peak late because their elite coaching and program infrastructures pulled it together by the end of February.

 

[MtnBuff]

Yeah, as Buffnik said, KU was in the FF. Not only that, but they ran into a team that was shot lights out. KU was good this year. Duke is more of the poster child for OADs than KU, and they were right there with KU - Grayson's shot couldn't get more rim without going in.

There's strong argument for running a program as you say - sure player development and developing a culture in your program are critical. However, the OAD "model" is also not going anywhere. Sure, it's going to be limited to select schools, because there just aren't dozens of OADs. But what if Duke was in a different bracket and made it to the title game? Does a second place finish mean their pursuit of OADs is not what they should be doing? I think generally most of us prefer to see kids stick around in college, so we can see their development and progress. It's also what we're used to seeing from our youth to now. But, I don't think the OAD "model" is going away anytime soon unless fundamental changes occur. Props to Jay Wright and Nova.

Further to this conversation, next year will add a lot of ammo to either side of this debate. Duke has an incredible class... ...no upper classmen leadership. If they lose early, are OADs not the best way to win (UK and Duke being aberrations)? If they make the FF, then does talent mean more? Like most things, the answer lies somewhere in the middle, but I still say that stocking up on the best players is not going away.

I'm not in any way saying that those few schools that can make the one and done model work should abandon it. Simply there aren't many who can make it work, less than think they can.

Arizona has gone full in and have how many titles to show for it. If you are Kentucky or Kansas and can make it work go for it but there aren't that many of those recruits and they tend to end up in a small number of schools. For schools who can't or won't do what it "cost" to get those recruits the Nova model can result in titles and longer term success.

 

[dyemeduke]

I'm not in any way saying that those few schools that can make the one and done model work should abandon it. Simply there aren't many who can make it work, less than think they can.

Arizona has gone full in and have how many titles to show for it. If you are Kentucky or Kansas and can make it work go for it but there aren't that many of those recruits and they tend to end up in a small number of schools. For schools who can't or won't do what it "cost" to get those recruits the Nova model can result in titles and longer term success.

I think you are knocking down programs for failing to win a title or make a FF, when it's damn hard to get that far. It's hard to make the S16 (FWIW - I firmly believe that if the off-court stuff wasn't happening, Arizona would have been S16 or E8, if not further). If you're at a top program that has the prestige, why not go after top players? I think anyone would be crazy to not go after the best players that they can get, that also fit the program's culture and bball play. Nova does go after top 25 players - just not as many or as aggressively overall as other programs that frankly, are more prestigious bball-wise. Their two recent titles may change things, but I think going after top 100 players as a base with scattering top 25-50 players is what you can expect from Nova. Nova is not a classically dominant program - not a TRUE blue blood. Overall, their classes are up there though. To me, they go after the best players they feel they can get, that fit their program. So say you're the HC at Syracuse, and the top player in the nation is in upstate NY. He's a clear OAD and not really a Syracuse fan, but interested too. You're not going to go after him? You're the HC at Georgetown, and tons of talented players are in the DC area. You're not going to say hi to the top guys to gauge their interest, because they're too talented or potentially OAD? What if two kids are both attending DeMatha and want to play together, and they're both great OAD type kids. You're going to tell them no? UK, Duke, etc also go after the best players they can get, that the coaches feel fit their program.

Teams that have more upperclassmen and players that have developed over the years may ultimately end up winning more titles, and show that developed talent and experience usually win out over sheer, talented/athletic bball freshmen. But I don't think programs are going to suddenly think to themselves that they should recruit less talented players in hopes of keeping them around more. No, I think they'll continue to recruit the best players they feel they can get, that fit their programs, and hope for the best each season. Who knows, maybe your Jalen Brunson or Miles Bridges decide to stick around?

 

[Highlander]

MtnBuff getting out-Mtn'ed.

 

[dyemeduke]

MtnBuff getting out-Mtn'ed.

I think that's when I know to stop

 

[Goose]

Coach Cal talks about the most difficult thing is teaching young players about being adults and being responsible in all aspects of their lives off the court because only then does maturity develop on the court. Probably why we saw Kansas, Duke and Kentucky all have head scratcher stretches to their seasons but then peak late because their elite coaching and program infrastructures pulled it together by the end of February.

I know I've brought this up and am beating a dead horse, but I'm firmly convinced Cal is actually underrated as a coach. Every f**king year, he has a bunch of one and done's who know they have to light it up to get NBA scouts attention and he somehow convinces them to be a damn good defensive team. His DRtg's at KEntucky - 6, 16, 7, 88, 32, 1, 39, 7 & 22. And the 88 was the disaster season where Nerlens Noel was hurt. Dirty as hell, guilty of everything you want to throw at him, but damn if that isn't ****ing impressive.

 

[MtnBuff]

I think you are knocking down programs for failing to win a title or make a FF, when it's damn hard to get that far. It's hard to make the S16 (FWIW - I firmly believe that if the off-court stuff wasn't happening, Arizona would have been S16 or E8, if not further). If you're at a top program that has the prestige, why not go after top players? I think anyone would be crazy to not go after the best players that they can get, that also fit the program's culture and bball play. Nova does go after top 25 players - just not as many or as aggressively overall as other programs that frankly, are more prestigious bball-wise. Their two recent titles may change things, but I think going after top 100 players as a base with scattering top 25-50 players is what you can expect from Nova. Nova is not a classically dominant program - not a TRUE blue blood. Overall, their classes are up there though. To me, they go after the best players they feel they can get, that fit their program. So say you're the HC at Syracuse, and the top player in the nation is in upstate NY. He's a clear OAD and not really a Syracuse fan, but interested too. You're not going to go after him? You're the HC at Georgetown, and tons of talented players are in the DC area. You're not going to say hi to the top guys to gauge their interest, because they're too talented or potentially OAD? What if two kids are both attending DeMatha and want to play together, and they're both great OAD type kids. You're going to tell them no? UK, Duke, etc also go after the best players they can get, that the coaches feel fit their program.

Teams that have more upperclassmen and players that have developed over the years may ultimately end up winning more titles, and show that developed talent and experience usually win out over sheer, talented/athletic bball freshmen. But I don't think programs are going to suddenly think to themselves that they should recruit less talented players in hopes of keeping them around more. No, I think they'll continue to recruit the best players they feel they can get, that fit their programs, and hope for the best each season. Who knows, maybe your Jalen Brunson or Miles Bridges decide to stick around?

Your post kind of makes my point.

If you have a great kid who is willing to come and give you a year certainly you take him. Point is though that there are very few blue blood programs that can count on consistently getting and reloading enough of the OAD kids to smell final fours much less NCs. Arizona thinks they are, how many NCs do they have?

For a high quality but not blue blood program, and Nova fits that sure you take the OAD if he falls into your lap but you don't try to be something you aren't. A lot of schools were sitting home as Villanova was cutting down the nets the other night and will probably still be sitting at home the next time Villanova wins a title.

One thing to consider is with the way Wright has build that program and the culture he has instilled if (or when) he gets that top 10-15 OAD player for a year it is likely that the player will conform more to the culture and that the program will not be as impacted when that guy leaves.

Again not saying to turn down talent. My point is that to maintain a program at a high level with reasonable chances to have a shot at titles a lot of schools would be better off trying to imitate Villanova than imitate Duke or Kentucky, etc.

 

[Goose]

Mtn, seriously, no one is disagreeing with you that it's probably better to try to imitate than it is to try to duplicate unprecedented recruiting successes (Duke has the top THREE players in the country for next year, Kentucky is in the top 3 classes every damn year). That's like arguing that it's better to try to slowly build up your retirement savings than it is to be Bill Gates - everyone should do the former but you're not going to turn the opportunity down to be the latter.

 

[dyemeduke]

Your post kind of makes my point.

If you have a great kid who is willing to come and give you a year certainly you take him. Point is though that there are very few blue blood programs that can count on consistently getting and reloading enough of the OAD kids to smell final fours much less NCs. Arizona thinks they are, how many NCs do they have?

For a high quality but not blue blood program, and Nova fits that sure you take the OAD if he falls into your lap but you don't try to be something you aren't. A lot of schools were sitting home as Villanova was cutting down the nets the other night and will probably still be sitting at home the next time Villanova wins a title.

One thing to consider is with the way Wright has build that program and the culture he has instilled if (or when) he gets that top 10-15 OAD player for a year it is likely that the player will conform more to the culture and that the program will not be as impacted when that guy leaves.

Again not saying to turn down talent. My point is that to maintain a program at a high level with reasonable chances to have a shot at titles a lot of schools would be better off trying to imitate Villanova than imitate Duke or Kentucky, etc.

I think that's when I know to stop

 

[Alfred91]

I think we would all like Mtn to be right, as I don't think anyone would seriously argue that OADs are good for college basketball.

Having said that, talent is talent, and even if you only have them for one year, if you're getting the cream of the crop year after year, you're going to win.

Nova has shown that they can win big with a bunch of elite but not quite OAD level guys, but that doesn't mean that they've "cracked the code", so to speak. It also isn't a model that very many teams can copy, because very few programs have Jay Wright-level coaches.

 

[J-R-K]

I forget the exact stat but it was something like... based on espn rankings Nova has only had one recruiting class in the last ten years that was rated in the top-20 nationally.

Also Jay Wright typically lets several scholarships go unused each year with Wright’s logic being that this means more playing time for the guys who are there which mean they’ll be happier and more focused/committed. It also means less attrition and the probability of playing time can be used as a recruiting pitch.

 

[MtnBuff]

I think we would all like Mtn to be right, as I don't think anyone would seriously argue that OADs are good for college basketball.

Having said that, talent is talent, and even if you only have them for one year, if you're getting the cream of the crop year after year, you're going to win.

Nova has shown that they can win big with a bunch of elite but not quite OAD level guys, but that doesn't mean that they've "cracked the code", so to speak. It also isn't a model that very many teams can copy, because very few programs have Jay Wright-level coaches.

Yup, I would never turn down the talent.

Just think that unless you are one of a very small number of schools sights would be better set on getting the best of the non-OAD guys and building a program.

Of coarse a lot of schools cannot realistically aim at that level either. I do think though that in upcoming years we will see more eventual champions that look like Villanova than the recruiting gurus would expect. Doesn't mean that we won't have some winners with a bunch of guys who's next stop is the draft as well.

 

[Buffnik]

So are we all in agreement that you should recruit the best players you can for the scheme you want to run?

 

[Goose]

So are we all in agreement that you should recruit the best players you can for the scheme you want to run?

We may need a couple more pages of posts to fully flesh that out.

 

[ahoelsken]

I think you are knocking down programs for failing to win a title or make a FF, when it's damn hard to get that far. It's hard to make the S16 (FWIW - I firmly believe that if the off-court stuff wasn't happening, Arizona would have been S16 or E8, if not further). If you're at a top program that has the prestige, why not go after top players? I think anyone would be crazy to not go after the best players that they can get, that also fit the program's culture and bball play. Nova does go after top 25 players - just not as many or as aggressively overall as other programs that frankly, are more prestigious bball-wise. Their two recent titles may change things, but I think going after top 100 players as a base with scattering top 25-50 players is what you can expect from Nova. Nova is not a classically dominant program - not a TRUE blue blood. Overall, their classes are up there though. To me, they go after the best players they feel they can get, that fit their program. So say you're the HC at Syracuse, and the top player in the nation is in upstate NY. He's a clear OAD and not really a Syracuse fan, but interested too. You're not going to go after him? You're the HC at Georgetown, and tons of talented players are in the DC area. You're not going to say hi to the top guys to gauge their interest, because they're too talented or potentially OAD? What if two kids are both attending DeMatha and want to play together, and they're both great OAD type kids. You're going to tell them no? UK, Duke, etc also go after the best players they can get, that the coaches feel fit their program.

Teams that have more upperclassmen and players that have developed over the years may ultimately end up winning more titles, and show that developed talent and experience usually win out over sheer, talented/athletic bball freshmen. But I don't think programs are going to suddenly think to themselves that they should recruit less talented players in hopes of keeping them around more. No, I think they'll continue to recruit the best players they feel they can get, that fit their programs, and hope for the best each season. Who knows, maybe your Jalen Brunson or Miles Bridges decide to stick around?

Nova is a similar animal to Gonzaga, except they play in a tougher league. The Zags go after top talent, and often find studs abroad, but they're not all-in on the one-and-done model (Zach Collins has been the only one Few has had in his time up there) like Duke and Kentucky have.

 

[dyemeduke]

Nova is a similar animal to Gonzaga, except they play in a tougher league. The Zags go after top talent, and often find studs abroad, but they're not all-in on the one-and-done model (Zach Collins has been the only one Few has had in his time up there) like Duke and Kentucky have.

I think that's when I know to stop