I wanted a point guard to replace Pullin from last season, and I also wanted Johnell Davis over Alijah Martin. So I am gonna let Golden run the basketball program from now on.
We just won a NC with 0 and 3-star players - the idea of paying that much money and NOT winning an NC seems beneath us. We’ve cracked the code, why deviate and get into bidding wars with everyone else. I like what Illinois is doing, at least they’re original. So many big programs now feel like the Yankees, and have won as much.
doing it once, is not cracking any code. If we can continue this and still get to the Elite 8/FF, then code is broken, but I think we'll need more highly regarded players to continue.
you can crack a code once. If they change the code, you crack it again or you don't, but we did crack it. Our ascension to an NC in 3 years, with big leaps in individual and team performance is about as close as you can get to a proven formula in such a short period of time. Why change strategies if you don't have to - at least until they change the code.
Fland is a bad shooter and not elite finishing at the rim when contested. I’d take Claude over him all day.
The 'money/high quality players vs. 'code' question does not have a binary answer in my opinion. All things being equal, the team that pays more and acquires better talent wins. But all things are NOT equal. For example: - paying for an elite '1 and done' freshman is very risky as the big lights, long season of college hoops is a hard adjustment. Perhaps spend on a seasoned veteran (especially guards)? - Talent evaluation is not even across the board. No player is perfect and some coaches value defense (Houston) or offense more. - Recruiting complementary players or just 'getting talent'? - Talent development and coaching - look at Golden focusing on our defense (knowing the offense would be there). Money is one of many factors. Golden is on top of all the other factors, and it seems like we have the money to continue doing great things (as long as Golden is our coach).
I believe our staff applies next-level analytics in its player searches as much as it does in game-planning. There may not be as much data available on high-school players or overseas players, but the staff is digging deep into what is available and going after those guys that are team-first guys, play hard, and check off the data boxes.
I’m reminded of the era when UK signed most of the top players every year it seemed. They flopped and most of these blue bloods were one and done. We all laughed at the UK fans who predicted a NC every year. I agree there are a lot of variables in putting together a winning, championship team; I think Golden is one of those rare coaches that understands a lot of what it takes.
what we have here, is a failure to communicate. We go from a losing record to getting bounced in the first game, then win the natty. A program like ours should be able to get in the NCAA most years (see last year). Going from where should be as a baseline to winning it all is a huge leap and how we did it is not a proven formula. How can you “prove” the formula with single data point. If anything, we caught lightening in a bottle. If we go deep in the tournament next with any marquee signings, then I’ll be leaning towards supporting the formula.
But let's be honest - If Clayton was lets say a junior and didn't go to the NBA - he would have been a 5-star 3-4 Million dollar player in the portal this year. Same with Martin though maybe 2-3 Mil. Heck - I'd bet we payed 1 Mil+ to retain Clayton this year. Martin and Richard probably had NIL deals that were near a Million. I'd bet in the 3/4 of a mil range. Its not like we took complete bargain basement players that were totally overlooked by the market by last year. I DONT think we should pursue an endless money pit of star players. But we need to be real with this narrative of we took nobodies. They were all pretty well known and valuable on the market last year. Still probably undervalued - but still not overlooked by any stretch of the imagination. Martin was a 92 rated 4 star transfer. Richard was a 90, 4 star rated transfer. Clayton was a 92 rated, 4 star transfer. I think its gonna end up like when One-and-dones were "created" (forced to spend a year in college). Calipari came along and won a title with a loaded one-and-done roster and then everyone thought that was the way. But then better coaches took the idea and refined it and the "formula" ended up being more or less what we had in 2014: 1-2 high level freshman mixed in with an experienced and veteran class. I think we basically stumbled across the same formula early: 1-2 really high level players in Clayton, Condon - with a good supporting cast of really good veterans and players that develop into the system and rotation. With an emphasis on making sure your mix is able to handle a lot of different types of situations and lineups to avoid weaknesses like in 2024 where you could just line up a bunch of 240-250 pound forwards and hit us over and over because we were so thin. With that I say a single major acquisition isn't out of the question while building a team around him of 3/4 star sub-million players and developmental players is more or less in keeping with our strategy. Again - no money pits and building a team of stars - but a single known quantity to fill a known hole and build around. With THAT said, I'm a quite a bit bigger on Ben Henshall who I believe is more likely to withdraw from the draft and could probably be convinced to come with a decent leap over whatever he's making professionally in Australia which is probably a middle ground between a decent 3 star in the portal and someone like Boogie at 3 Mil.
