Importance of Recruiting

[DRCATFAN]

Look at the two teams in the finals, or even the four teams in the final four. Despite the coach or system, what's common about all the teams? Multiple players with NBA level talent.

This is why Tubby could make sweet 16's, but not final fours. He recruit "good" talent but not "great" talent. His only chance was the Rondo/Crawford/Morris class but he couldn't manage the players.

The good news for us, is that BCG fully understands the importance of talent. On his show, he even made a comment that the more talented team will win 9 out of 10 times regardless of the defense man/zone or offense motion/plays.

For UK to consistently contend for championships, we need to return to having top 5 recruiting classes practically every year.

[Will Lavender]

Not sure about top 5 classes every year. That's a tall order. If you're recruiting top 15 classes consistently, then you should (in theory) perform as a top 15 team. If you're performing as a top 15 team, that means you should be in the hunt for Final Fours with decent consistency -- and that's what we need to see at UK.

But I absolutely agree. Recruiting outweighs everything else in this game by a mile. It is the pulse and blood of the sport.

[allnet]

Look at the two teams in the finals, or even the four teams in the final four. Despite the coach or system, what's common about all the teams? Multiple players with NBA level talent.

This is why Tubby could make sweet 16's, but not final fours. He recruit "good" talent but not "great" talent. His only chance was the Rondo/Crawford/Morris class but he couldn't manage the players.

The good news for us, is that BCG fully understands the importance of talent. On his show, he even made a comment that the more talented team will win 9 out of 10 times regardless of the defense man/zone or offense motion/plays.

For UK to consistently contend for championships, we need to return to having top 5 recruiting classes practically every year.

A common theme from you, but they also have top end coaching. This is not an average bunch of coaches.

[needmore44]

Interesting read on this subject.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/collegebasketball/story/10764257

[Bombastic Blue]

"When given a choice between talent and experience, I'll take talent everytime." - John Wooden

[RaleighCat]

A common theme from you, but they also have top end coaching. This is not an average bunch of coaches.

I'd argue the opposite. None of these guys are without faults. Roy Williams looked like a middle school coach the other night getting schooled by Bill Self. And it was Self's team that almost choked up a 28 point lead. Ye gads.

Talent wins. Hands down. Roy and Cal have great "systems" for their talent. But I don't think either is a genius bench coach. Put enough talent into a good system and you can win championships. Players play, after all. And this Final Four is loaded with players.

[poodoo]

Look at the two teams in the finals, or even the four teams in the final four. Despite the coach or system, what's common about all the teams? Multiple players with NBA level talent.

This is why Tubby could make sweet 16's, but not final fours. He recruit "good" talent but not "great" talent. His only chance was the Rondo/Crawford/Morris class but he couldn't manage the players.



Like allnet and with no offense intended, I seem to remember reading the same for a few years. ;) Actually, UK seemingly had enough talent to make it to the Final Four four times, but fell barely short in the Elite Eight three of those four times, for various reasons, reasons that have been discussed ad nauseum on this board.

I like the other part of the post a lot better. Coach Gillispie is our coach now. Sure, he realizes the importance of getting more talent in here. All coaches do. Give me the more talented players, and I win most of the time. As RaleighCat said, talent wins, at least most of the time. Talk is cheap, though. What matters is how many of those top players Coach Gillispie gets, and he knows that. I think it WILL happen.:)

Too, look at what he did as a coach after the guys bought into his system this season. Get some more of those top guys in here, and, yes, our chance of reaching another Final Four and getting another national championship is GREATLY increased. :) Don't forget teams like Davidson, though, who missed the Final Four by missing an essentially open three. It CAN happen without a bunch of top recruits, and I think Coach Gillispie can do it without getting all the recruits we want him to get, especially because he's able to get his players to play so hard. Yet, any time, give me THE TALENT, of course. :)

[RP_McMurphy]

The team that scores the most points wins. Generally the team with better talent will put the ball in basket more and win more often. So give me the more talented players. Kentucky tried the less talented player routine and frankly it didn't work at all.

[crazzedcats22]

A common theme from you, but they also have top end coaching. This is not an average bunch of coaches.

Talent (among other things-heart, dedication, etc...) makes great players. You need the other things but without talent you can't be great.

Great players make great coaches. Anyone ever been mistaken for a great coach when the team is full of bad players and goes 5-25?

Therefore, talent = great players = great coaches. Can't go the other way....it has to start with getting the best talent in every year

[smitty1512]

I agree that talent is important, but someone has already pointed out that talent doesn't necessarily guarantee wins. The Morris/Rondo/Crawford class should point that out. I agree more that talent and SYSTEM (aka coaching) wins championships. We had a coach that could win games but not championships because of recruiting issues. However, Gene Keady (sp?) and Bobby Cremins (sp?) are good examples of having lots of talent and not winning championships. The Fab Five at Michigan didn't win any championships. You have to have both. Talent alone isn't enough. One has to be great and the other has to be good, in any combination.

[crazzedcats22]

I agree that talent is important, but someone has already pointed out that talent doesn't necessarily guarantee wins. The Morris/Rondo/Crawford class should point that out. I agree more that talent and SYSTEM (aka coaching) wins championships. We had a coach that could win games but not championships because of recruiting issues. However, Gene Keady (sp?) and Bobby Cremins (sp?) are good examples of having lots of talent and not winning championships. The Fab Five at Michigan didn't win any championships. You have to have both. Talent alone isn't enough. One has to be great and the other has to be good, in any combination.

You're confusing one great class with talent. The Fab Five was one class, the rest of the team sucked....Morris/Rondo/Crawford was one class. You can't get one great recruiting class and then take 2-3 years off of recruiting. You don't have to have a top 5 recruiting class every year, but you need to have a top class every few years mixed with a top 15-20 class the other years.

Also, I am not sure that Cremins and Keady consistently had great talent, maybe some great players here and there but not on a consistent basis.

Coaching is important to winning, but great talent beats great coaching almost every time.

[ukwebfan]

I agree that talent is important, but someone has already pointed out that talent doesn't necessarily guarantee wins. The Morris/Rondo/Crawford class should point that out. I agree more that talent and SYSTEM (aka coaching) wins championships. We had a coach that could win games but not championships because of recruiting issues. However, Gene Keady (sp?) and Bobby Cremins (sp?) are good examples of having lots of talent and not winning championships. The Fab Five at Michigan didn't win any championships. You have to have both. Talent alone isn't enough. One has to be great and the other has to be good, in any combination.I got to looking at the class of 2004. Florida was the 12th rated class yet won 2 titles while remaining intact until this season. Many of the top 12 had huge NBA defections including UK (Rondo), Texas (Gibson), UCLA (Farmar) and UCONN (Gay).

Rivals 2004 Recruiting classes (http://rivalshoops.rivals.com/content.asp?SID=910&CID=297763)

It can be argued that Kansas was the only other top 12 team that remained virtually intact especially when 2005 recruits Rush and Chalmers, returned for their junior years.

[ukwebfan]

You're confusing one great class with talent. The Fab Five was one class, the rest of the team sucked....Morris/Rondo/Crawford was one class. You can't get one great recruiting class and then take 2-3 years off of recruiting. You don't have to have a top 5 recruiting class every year, but you need to have a top class every few years mixed with a top 15-20 class the other years. UK's 2003 class was 18th while the 2006 class was 16th. Although 2005 was a bust, they usually are when it follows a number one.

[poodoo]

FWIW, KSR's Matt Jones says today that Coach Gillispie is not going to be one to go after all the top talent, as he looks more for guys to play his system, including defense. I'm just sharing, so please don't shoot the messenger. :icon_mrgreen: Maybe someone can provide the link.

[Dawood Khan]

I don't think that was Matt Jones. I think that was Bryan the Intern.

[Dawood Khan]

"The one thing you have to do coaching this way is you have to ... if you have 10 ropes that you're holding onto, you have to give up about three and just hold onto seven because there's more freedom (for the players) to make choices," Calipari said. "You have to count on your team to be unselfish, you have to count on your team being able to make great decisions on the run and you have to understand that what makes it good is how they feel unleashed."

I think getting great recruits is the most important part of coaching, not drawing up plays. Likewise, I don't think anybody who can't sign great recruits can be great at this level. And if you want to disagree, that's fine. But then I'll challenge you to a fantasy game in which you can have the five best "pure coaches" you want while I take the five best recruiters.

Then we'll look up in four years and see who has the better results, and I'd be willing to bet anything that my guys are more successful than your guys, regardless of what kind of offense or defense or inbounds plays my guys run.


I honestly wish that Coach Smith would have agreed with this. Everyone would have been happy. We'd have not gone through the past few years. Coach Smith would still be here. No divide would have been ripped through the faithful.

And, honestly, it would have been nice to see Smith reach that Championship level with a team that he created. He almost did it with the Bogans team. But not enough studs. Too bad.

[poodoo]

I don't think that was Matt Jones. I think that was Bryan the Intern.

Thanks for clarifying that, Legionaire. My bad. You are probably right. Possibly someone can provide the link.

Too, I agree with your second post that players can sometimes be overcoached. Calipari's comments were interesting. Memphis was certainly fun to watch, too. :)

To be honest, though, I surely don't believe Coach Gillispie would put a rubber stamp on Calipari's comments. :big_grin: I've listened to Coach Gillispie a lot. He constantly emphasizes the importance of every single possession (and such is probably why players are often jerked out in a manner similar to the past, which I will not discuss :icon_mrgreen:). Also, he constantly discusses the importance of rebounding and defense. Those are the areas he always stresses in his postgame comments. He only rarely refers to offensive plays, neither of a positve or negative nature (although he did mention Joe's 42-footer or whatever :icon_mrgreen:). By the way, I believe it was Coach Cyprien who recently said that Coach Gillispie always recruits the "blue-collar" guys, although I surely hope he also gets some of the most talented offensive players, too.

I guess what I am saying is that what some fans (and this statement is not at all directed toward you) want Coach Gillispie to be is not what he actually is, as many posters have been trying to say since the hire. While some of his games at A&M were played at a fast pace, manhy others were played at a slow pace. As Perry Stevenson said, Coach wants it to be "ugly." For me, winning is beautiful, period, by the way, although I will also never forget the fun of watching the '96 team with its eight draft picks, of course. :icon_mrgreen:

Again, I'm happy with Coach just as he is, AND I will be even happier when he gets more top talent here, which he will. :) I'm just hoping, though, that some fans don't become disappointed when his style still does not match their dream team (Pitino days of pressing and threes, for example) or the image of him that they have concocted.

Coach Gillispie is not going to be Pitino, Calipari, or Williams (although we are seeing MORE freedom to the players, which I absolutely like :big_grin:). His teams are going to leave it all out on the floor as they did during the conference race, though. Too, that HEART and DRIVE and HUSTLE is going to look even better when Gillispie signs some of these guys he's recruiting (and, again, may all UK fans show their love at the Derby Classic). I LOVE it! :icon_biggrin: GO CATS!!!