luther

Lute Olson reportedly said he is through recruiting guys who figure to be one-and-done players. ( http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/news/story?id=3483221 ) In the same article, Jim Boeheim pretty much scoffs at that idea in the same article, and Tubby Smith pretty much goes against that mantra as well. What would you do as a high-level NCAA program? Would you go for guys who are pretty obviously one-year rentals? Personally, I doubt I would: I think I'd focus on the guys JUST UNDER that level, with my planned stars as guys who may potentially prove they're good enough to go after one, but are more likely to stick 2 or 3 years (then filling out the roster with probable 4-year guys). My reasoning is that while yes, you do win with talent, in the NCAA you also often win with experience. Not a lot of teams have won on the backs of a one-year player. Boeheim is willing to chance it, sure, because he's a guy who had Carmelo Anthony lead him to a title in his sole season. OJ Mayo, Michael Beasley, Greg Oden, Kevin Durant, Dajuan Wagner and pretty much every other clear one-year player didn't. And while Derrick Rose and Oden got close, they weren't there solely on that guy, but with strong teams. Marvin Williams did win in his one year, but again, strong team. I'm not saying it can't happen again, but I'd feel a lot better as a coach with players I knew I actually could coach long enough to improve and know--more than a single season.

TM

You just hit it. If you already have a strong team, you'd be a fool not to go after a guy who could put you over the top. Now, if it means you put all your eggs in one basket and ignore guys who will be really good 2-3 year players, then I say you're pretty dumb. But to just vow to never recruit any such player under any circumstance... That's pretty dumb too. I can definitely understand why he feels like that at the moment though.

luther

I almost agree, but it depends on who that one guy is, and his style and personality. For example, on a different level (we're not talking title contention here), the Gophers were set to return some good talent for the 2003-04 season. They lost Rick Rickert and Jerry Holman--their 4 and 5--but returned 13 ppg wing Maurice Hargrow, 11 ppg forward Mike Bauer, a now-healthy and former double-digit scorer at Northwestern combo guard Ben Johnson, and were adding former Top 50 PG Adam Boone back from a transfer. There was reason to believe that as they added stud PF Kris Humphries--who fit PERFECTLY on paper beside these guys as the inside threat--that they'd be a legit Big Ten contender and NCAA Tournament team. Instead, that obvious one-year player took over the program. He took nearly twice as many shots as the next guy (498 to Johnson's 253), averaged .7 assists per game--THAT IS ZERO-POINT-SEVEN!--and was so selfish he actually caused Hargrow to transfer out, disgruntled. Humphries left, of course, and a far less talented team came back the next year to make the NCAA Tournament. Sometimes that talented guy won't get you over the top, he'll push you to the bottom so he can climb over you.

TM

I said "strong team"

luther

I know, and as I said, that was a relative example. But that team was an NCAA tourney-type team. And in the grand scheme of things, that's top 35 or so once the automatic bids are in. To torpedo that into the absolutely terrible results that team eventually put up (school record for least wins and most losses) is remarkable. I'm sure there are better examples, too, but I'm not in the mood to do any quick digging.

thatsnotgross

Well if you think about it... Arizona can get players that ranges from 30-100 on the rivals.com/scouts.com rankings and they will be fine. Most of them aren't one and dones unless you go for the cream of the crop. If Arizona can do taht they can be a powerhouse. Imagine a conveyer belt of very good college players staying for 3-4 years and having inccming freshmen sitting on the bench and learn the game.

A good example is probably Pittsburgh. They aren't the top teams in preseason ranking (except for this year), but they always had strong leadership, players stay for 3+ years and usually you don't see them going after the top 20 players on those HS ranking boards. Dixon is perfectly fine with scrappy players that wants an education.

luther

^ That's exactly what I was thinking. Good players, but maybe not so many McDonald's AA types, unless they are guys who have expressed interest in staying longer, or who don't project as immediate pros. Otherwise, the guys just below there. That is probably the way to make a perennially powerful NCAA program.

HKF

Arizona has had players who were non top-30 players jump to the pros. People like Marcus Williams, Gilbert Arenas, Andre Iguodala and Richard Jefferson. Not a single one, a top 30 rated HS kid. Arizona kids get a lot of exposure and they bolt.

Maybe it's just time for Lute to hang it up.

__________________
My favorite NBA players: Deron Williams * Kobe Bryant * Carmelo Anthony * Ben Gordon * Joe Johnson * Kevin Martin * Tim Duncan * Kyle Lowry * Thad Young * Amare Stoudemire * Dwight Howard * Josh Smith * Brandon Roy * LaMarcus Aldridge * Rudy Gay * Al Horford * Brandan Wright * Craig Smith * Renaldo Balkman * Wilson Chandler

2008-09 Favorite Rookies: Jerryd Bayless (POR), Roy Hibbert (IND), Greg Oden (POR), Chris Douglas-Roberts (NJN), Joe Alexander (MIL), Patrick Ewing, Jr. (NYK)

College Basketball: "Where 7-Foot Bigs Foul Out Happen"

luther

But those guys all made it two years at least. If Lute is saying he's not going for presumed 1-and-dones, that wouldn't include them. For that matter, it wouldn't include Bayless, whom Olson said had planned on two years. Off the top of my head, Jennings is one of the only Arizona guys who, going in, wasn't expected to last at least two seasons.