Ok originally this was gonna be a response to some posts in some of the bball forum threads but it got so long that it needed its own thread. It deals with the common argument that Barnes isn't trying to recruit highly rated guys (lazy) vs he's trying to get guys to coach up (selective).
Generally speaking, there are mile wide gaps between simply making the tournament and being one of the 10-12 teams that have legitimate chances of winning the NCAA tournament. This current team and it's immediate future are definitely closer to one of those than the other. Obviously you have your outliers (USC last year, which I would argue still didn't really have a chance to win it even though they made the final four, but that's another discussion), but no one wants to be an outlier. Our ultimate goal is to be a team that's regularly in the discussion.
I did not go back and look at all the final four teams because it would take forever, but if you look at each NCAA tournament champion over the last 20ish years (or whenever services started to rate players), they were each composed of multiple 4 and 5 star players. Most also had some 3 star guys, but the foundational cores were made of of highly recruited, highly rated players. Many teams also had significant contributions from at least one one-and-done player, although this was actually less common than you might think. And basically all of them had someone go on to get drafted.
No one is arguing that rick barnes should, if he is even able to, go out and sign a bunch of one and done guys like kentucky. If anything, we have a lot of evidence that this method doesn't win championships at a high rate (although a higher rate than we've ever won at). People just want him to go out and get higher rated guys. Think of Jarnell Stokes. He could have been a significant contributor on a championship team. Other examples: Grayson Allen, Joel Berry III, Florida's two title teams, Kemba Walker, Frank Mason etc. There are TONS of examples littered over previous title teams' rosters. Seriously, go take a look. Super talented 3-4 year guys everywhere.
People love to talk about coaching low rated guys up, but there are no examples of this actually working to produce a title in recent (last 20 years) history, and only sparse examples of them making final four runs consistently. Probably the closest you can find are Butler's runs (and I would argue they weren't just coached up, but they were coached up by one of the top 2 or 3 talent developers in all of basketball). But again, we're talking about outliers and we don't want to be an outlier. We want to be a regular. We want to have an expectation that we can potentially make the final four year in and year out. Rick Barnes is a good coach but he's not turning into Brad Stevens any time soon.
So why am I typing all of this? My point is that in life it doesn't make sense to attempt to operate in theory when there is good data grounded in reality in front of us. I love the heck out of our team. They're fun to watch, they clearly like each other, they play hard, and they seem like really good kids. But I have zero expectations for Rick Barnes to be able to win a title with this roster or any rosters built like it, because it just doesn't happen anymore. And if our ultimate goal isn't to win a title, then we're no different than vanderbilt in football. I refuse to believe that UT can't be a place where both sports flourish.
Putting together a 1-5 lineup full of chris lofton-like talents would take as much luck as skill by the coaching staff (don't try to tell me buzz freaking peterson saw something special in him that somehow everyone else missed). So that's why people, including myself, want Barnes to go get some highly rated guys that we already all agree are good talents and THEN coach them up. They don't have to be one and dones, they can be 2-4 year guys with definite pro potential. That's what wins titles. That's what gets you competing for conference championships and final fours on a year in, year out basis. I hope that clears things up and keeps people from going after each other's throats.
TL,DR - you can both recruit highly rated guys AND coach them. No one is forcing us to pick and choose. These types of teams compete for championships consistently.
Generally speaking, there are mile wide gaps between simply making the tournament and being one of the 10-12 teams that have legitimate chances of winning the NCAA tournament. This current team and it's immediate future are definitely closer to one of those than the other. Obviously you have your outliers (USC last year, which I would argue still didn't really have a chance to win it even though they made the final four, but that's another discussion), but no one wants to be an outlier. Our ultimate goal is to be a team that's regularly in the discussion.
I did not go back and look at all the final four teams because it would take forever, but if you look at each NCAA tournament champion over the last 20ish years (or whenever services started to rate players), they were each composed of multiple 4 and 5 star players. Most also had some 3 star guys, but the foundational cores were made of of highly recruited, highly rated players. Many teams also had significant contributions from at least one one-and-done player, although this was actually less common than you might think. And basically all of them had someone go on to get drafted.
No one is arguing that rick barnes should, if he is even able to, go out and sign a bunch of one and done guys like kentucky. If anything, we have a lot of evidence that this method doesn't win championships at a high rate (although a higher rate than we've ever won at). People just want him to go out and get higher rated guys. Think of Jarnell Stokes. He could have been a significant contributor on a championship team. Other examples: Grayson Allen, Joel Berry III, Florida's two title teams, Kemba Walker, Frank Mason etc. There are TONS of examples littered over previous title teams' rosters. Seriously, go take a look. Super talented 3-4 year guys everywhere.
People love to talk about coaching low rated guys up, but there are no examples of this actually working to produce a title in recent (last 20 years) history, and only sparse examples of them making final four runs consistently. Probably the closest you can find are Butler's runs (and I would argue they weren't just coached up, but they were coached up by one of the top 2 or 3 talent developers in all of basketball). But again, we're talking about outliers and we don't want to be an outlier. We want to be a regular. We want to have an expectation that we can potentially make the final four year in and year out. Rick Barnes is a good coach but he's not turning into Brad Stevens any time soon.
So why am I typing all of this? My point is that in life it doesn't make sense to attempt to operate in theory when there is good data grounded in reality in front of us. I love the heck out of our team. They're fun to watch, they clearly like each other, they play hard, and they seem like really good kids. But I have zero expectations for Rick Barnes to be able to win a title with this roster or any rosters built like it, because it just doesn't happen anymore. And if our ultimate goal isn't to win a title, then we're no different than vanderbilt in football. I refuse to believe that UT can't be a place where both sports flourish.
Putting together a 1-5 lineup full of chris lofton-like talents would take as much luck as skill by the coaching staff (don't try to tell me buzz freaking peterson saw something special in him that somehow everyone else missed). So that's why people, including myself, want Barnes to go get some highly rated guys that we already all agree are good talents and THEN coach them up. They don't have to be one and dones, they can be 2-4 year guys with definite pro potential. That's what wins titles. That's what gets you competing for conference championships and final fours on a year in, year out basis. I hope that clears things up and keeps people from going after each other's throats.
TL,DR - you can both recruit highly rated guys AND coach them. No one is forcing us to pick and choose. These types of teams compete for championships consistently.
