I haven't seen any signs of it. We just got Lohner, Bridges, and Grimes.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Brown and particularly Sochan were not only ready but played at an all-conference level.

---

They were ready to contribute. They weren't ready to be the guy. Few freshmen are.

Brown and Sochan were really good side dishes, but without a steak on the plate, we were a second-round tournament team.

vanillabryce said:

---

I haven't seen any signs of it. We just got Lohner, Bridges, and Grimes.

---

I think you're probably right and that the transfer portal will keep us from ending up in the roster situation I describe above. I'm just seeing our high school recruiting improve and hoping we don't fall too deeply in love with one-and-done talent. I think it's great to have those guys. But they shouldn't be the foundation of your program IMO. There's just way too much volatility in that market.

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Brown and particularly Sochan were not only ready but played at an all-conference level.

---

They were ready to contribute. They weren't ready to be the guy. Few freshmen are.

Brown and Sochan were really good side dishes, but without a steak on the plate, we were a second-round tournament team.

---

I think we were a 2nd round tourney team due to losing JTT and Cryer. We had the best 8 man rotation in college hoops and we werre 15-0 prior to the onslaught of injuries, with KB starting and Sochan playing a key 6th man role while leading us to a big 12 title.

I think you can have one-and-done guys while at the same time having roster continuity and 4 year guys in the rotation. It's not an either / or. In the new era of the transfer portal, roster management is what separates the great coaching staffs from the mediocre and bad ones.

---

I agree completely with your second paragraph, and that's what I'm advocating for. But access to five-star talent is a seductive drug. It's important IMO to maintain that balance between high-upside youth and steady, mature experience.

If/when we attract a freshman capable of being the guy, great. But I don't ever want one coming in feeling like they have to be. Those guys need to be the bricks laid on a firm foundation, not the foundation itself.

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Brown and particularly Sochan were not only ready but played at an all-conference level.

---

They were ready to contribute. They weren't ready to be the guy. Few freshmen are.

Brown and Sochan were really good side dishes, but without a steak on the plate, we were a second-round tournament team.

---

Yeah, no JTT or Cryer had nothing to do with that.

We already did recruit a freshman capable of being "the guy." His name is Keyonte George.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Brown and particularly Sochan were not only ready but played at an all-conference level.

---

They were ready to contribute. They weren't ready to be the guy. Few freshmen are.

Brown and Sochan were really good side dishes, but without a steak on the plate, we were a second-round tournament team.

---

Yeah, no JTT or Cryer had nothing to do with that.

---

That's my point. Particularly late in the season, we needed those guys to be alphas, and neither was really equipped to do that. That's the case with most freshmen, even those talented enough to be projected lottery picks/first-rounders.

I love both Brown and Sochan, so this is nothing at all against them. They were great players for us. It's just the nature of the beast. After our injuries started, and we were forced to lean more and more heavily on those guys, our ceiling dropped from a national title to about Sweet 16 appearance.

In a perfect world, and as was the case during our 15-0 run, those guys are the potatoes, not the meat.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

We already did recruit a freshman capable of being "the guy." His name is Keyonte George.

---

We all assume that will be the case, but he hasn't played a second for us yet. As good as I think he can and will be, I'm speaking in the present tense, not the future tense.

It's the same with Miro and any of these other five-star recruits we're talking about right now.

Were you watching games? Sochan was spectacular and did turn into an alpha player down the stretch. He almost single-handedly won the game for us vs UNC. Not sure what you are complaining about or what else you could want / expect from him.

As for KB, he will not be an alpha scorer at any level. He is more of a role player. 3 and D role player that nba franchises covet.

He apparently doesn't want us recruiting one and done players?

I got trashed a month ago for echoing your sentiments. You are not alone. I don't think everyone understands that you can buy what you want in the Portal.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Were you watching games? Sochan was spectacular and did turn into an alpha player down the stretch. He almost single-handedly won the game for us vs UNC. Not sure what you are complaining about or what else you could want / expect from him.

As for KB, he will not be an alpha scorer at any level. He is more of a role player. 3 and D role player that nba franchises covet.

---

I watched every game, and Sochan was my favorite player on the team. I absolutely love his game and think he'll have a long and successful career in the NBA. But alphas don't average 9.2 points.

And I'm not complaining. Just stating facts. Teams that lean as heavily as we were on freshmen at the end of the season rarely win national titles. If that's our goal, we need to continue to develop three- and four-year stars or bring them in through the transfer portal and view our incoming freshmen as supplemental pieces, not centerpieces. Some of those guys will likely become centerpieces (Guys like Geoge and Miro absolutely have that potential), but that can't be the expectation IMO. We need grown men around those guys to carry the load if they can't.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

He apparently doesn't want us recruiting one and done players?

---

And you apparently can't/don't read. You're pretty good at arguing for argument's sake, though.

I have no problem with us recruiting one-and-done players. I just don't want us to become too dependent on them. That's not how we built our program into what it is and that's not the best way IMO to sustain it.

I'm sure you'll find something in there to misrepresent and argue about, but this isn't a particularly controversial opinion.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

You should write a letter to Drew then spelling out your concerns with the program.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

What?

If they are One & Done Players, they will never overlap. Your premise ignores the very definition.

Taking three One & Done players each season necessarily means that a team never has more than 3 on the team at any given time. That is the exact definition of One & Done. Thus, the team would always have ten other roster spots.

EvilTroyAndAbed said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

You should write a letter to Drew then spelling out your concerns with the program.

---

And you should put me on ignore if reading opinions on a message board is too much for you to handle.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

What?

If they are One & Done Players, they will never overlap. Your premise ignores the very definition.

Taking three One & Done players each season necessarily means that a team never has more than 3 on the team at any given time. That is the exact definition of One & Done. Thus, the team would always have ten other roster spots.

---

My premise is that you want/need some really good three- and four-year players to be the leaders in your program. If you're losing two or three freshmen in every class, you're going to have trouble developing any of those kinds of players because no one's staying around long enough to develop. This is what happened at Kentucky for years. They had a new nucleus year after year after year and it was always made up primarily of freshmen.

The transfer portal has changed this equation quite a bit, as vanillabryce pointed out above. And it's probably made my concerns moot. You now can recruit those established, experienced players to make up for gaps in development, which is IMO a good thing.

I just don't want us to abandon the get old, stay old strategy that has taken us from a good program to a great one, now that we have access to a higher caliber of high school player. That's an easy trap to fall into, and I'd like to see us avoid it.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

If only Drew would listen to bear2be2 and could understand how to build and manage a roster.

---

This post explains every overly defensive reply you've made in this thread -- and there are many.

First, you conflate expressing a concern with criticism of a coach. Those aren't the same thing. And second, you clearly can't separate a message from the messenger. You obviously have an issue with me for some reason, and feel a need to come hard at every post I make. Whatever. You do you.

But understand that you don't need to defend Scott Drew's honor. No one's attacking it. I'm as big a Scott Drew apologist as exists on this board. I have nothing but praise for the way he's built his program and will ultimately respect whatever recruiting decisions he makes going forward.

In the meantime, though, I see nothing whatsoever wrong with pointing out that it was our focus on transfers and player development, not attracting elite five-star talent that lifted our program to a level where a national championship was possible. I would like to see us stay on the path that got us to this point. I've seen in other programs how quickly access to one-and-dones can turn to overdependence on those same players, and I'd rather see us avoid that pitfall.

I don't know you personally but your hot takes are pretty wild and since this is a message board I will address your hot takes. Nothing personal. Last I remember interacting with you was after Akinjo left and our freshman PG decommitted and you argued relentlessly AGAINST bringing in a PG and I disagreed. Our staff brought in Grimes like a day later and it blew over.

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

What?

If they are One & Done Players, they will never overlap. Your premise ignores the very definition.

Taking three One & Done players each season necessarily means that a team never has more than 3 on the team at any given time. That is the exact definition of One & Done. Thus, the team would always have ten other roster spots.

---

My premise is that you want/need some really good three- and four-year players to be the leaders in your program. If you're losing two or three freshmen in every class, you're going to have trouble developing any of those kinds of players because no one's staying around long enough to develop. This is what happened at Kentucky for years. They had a new nucleus year after year after year and it was always made up primarily of freshmen.

The transfer portal has changed this equation quite a bit, as vanillabryce pointed out above. And it's probably made my concerns moot. You now can recruit those established, experienced players to make up for gaps in development, which is IMO a good thing.

I just don't want us to abandon the get old, stay old strategy that has taken us from a good program to a great one, now that we have access to a higher caliber of high school player. That's an easy trap to fall into, and I'd like to see us avoid it.

---

Moving the goalpost. You expressly stated the roster turning over every 1-2 years. Read your own words:



Further, recruiting elite "one & done" talent and developing other talent for an experienced roster are NOT at odds.

As to your "don't change our strategy" comment, any program that isn't constantly evolving in response to a rapidly changing recruiting environment will necessarily get left in the dust. OTT, NIL, O&D, whatever…….adapt or die. You are basically arguing that cable works well and we should ignore streaming, or that 8 tracks are solid no need for cassette tapes, or flip phones are awesome who needs that new iPhone.

FYI…….Kentucky loses because Calipari is stuck on his antiquated Dribble Drive offense and his teams lack the O efficiency to win the Tourney. Duke has faced a myriad of small problems that hinder their teams. Age is a Talking Head simplistic explanation. Age didn't prevent Cade Cunningham from elevating his team several levels. Age didn't prevent Jeremy Sochan from producing in a way that allowed Baylor to win a B12 regular season title. Age is a cop out argument.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

I don't know you personally but your hot takes are pretty wild and since this is a message board I will address your hot takes. Nothing personal. Last I remember interacting with you was after Akinjo left and our freshman PG decommitted and you argued relentlessly AGAINST bringing in a PG and I disagreed. Our staff brought in Grimes like a day later and it blew over.

---

I didn't argue against bringing in a point guard. I argued that if it was one or the other, adding a power forward was more important. We ended up having the scholarships and rotation spots available to do both.

My two caveats for adding a point guard were that I'd rather have no addition at all than a ball-dominant player at that position and that I didn't want to add a point guard if it meant pushing a current scholarship player off the roster. Fortunately, we found one in Grimes who seems to check all boxes without taking another player's scholarship.

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Adriacus Peratuun said:

---

With a 13 person roster, the likelihood that any roster would not be a combination [of development and one & done players] is WAY beyond minimal. The worry about 1 & dones seems ridiculous. Even if a Team takes 3 in any recruiting class, that leaves 10 other players. If you assume that 7 of the 13 total players are underclassmen, that leaves 6 upperclassmen. The premise of lacking development, experience, and continuity is grasping at straws.

The items are simply not incompatible.

---

You're talking about three in one class. If you take two or three in every class, you're turning over your roster every year or two the way Kentucky and Duke have. This is the pattern I'm hoping to avoid.

The transfer portal makes it much easier to do this because you can fill holes immediately with experienced talent. And I suspect Drew, who has navigated the transfer process masterfully for years, will continue to do so.

But we've never in our program's history recruited at the level we are now. I just don't want to see our formula change because we have access to more and better high school talent.

---

What?

If they are One & Done Players, they will never overlap. Your premise ignores the very definition.

Taking three One & Done players each season necessarily means that a team never has more than 3 on the team at any given time. That is the exact definition of One & Done. Thus, the team would always have ten other roster spots.

---

My premise is that you want/need some really good three- and four-year players to be the leaders in your program. If you're losing two or three freshmen in every class, you're going to have trouble developing any of those kinds of players because no one's staying around long enough to develop. This is what happened at Kentucky for years. They had a new nucleus year after year after year and it was always made up primarily of freshmen.

The transfer portal has changed this equation quite a bit, as vanillabryce pointed out above. And it's probably made my concerns moot. You now can recruit those established, experienced players to make up for gaps in development, which is IMO a good thing.

I just don't want us to abandon the get old, stay old strategy that has taken us from a good program to a great one, now that we have access to a higher caliber of high school player. That's an easy trap to fall into, and I'd like to see us avoid it.

---

Moving the goalpost. You expressly stated the roster turning over every 1-2 years. Read your own words:



Further, recruiting elite "one & done" talent and developing other talent for an experienced roster are NOT at odds.

As to your "don't change our strategy" comment, any program that isn't constantly evolving in response to a rapidly changing recruiting environment will necessarily get left in the dust. OTT, NIL, O&D, whatever…….adapt or die. You are basically arguing that cable works well and we should ignore streaming, or that 8 tracks are solid no need for cassette tapes, or flip phones are awesome who needs that new iPhone.

FYI…….Kentucky loses because Calipari is stuck on his antiquated Dribble Drive offense and his teams lack the O efficiency to win the Tourney. Duke has faced a myriad of small problems that hinder their teams. Age is a Talking Head simplistic explanation. Age didn't prevent Cade Cunningham from elevating his team several levels. Age didn't prevent Jeremy Sochan from producing in a way that allowed Baylor to win a B12 regular season title. Age is a cop out argument.

---

Whatever. You're just looking for an argument at this point. Anyone who reads my posts in this thread with the intent to understand rather than rebutt will see pretty quickly what my point is and why I feel the way I do. You all are free to disagree but the constant gotcha bull**** is exhausting.

And Scott Drew's recruiting doesn't need to evolve because his strategy was way ahead of the curve. He's been doing what others are currently doing through the transfer portal for a decade now. It's a proven way to keep established, mature, experienced talent in your program and supplement those developed within the program. There's no reason to deviate from what he's been doing, which is to bring in talented freshman around an experience core. And all I've done in this thread (much to the inexplicable consternation of some) is express a desire that we keep the same balance and hierarchy in our program that has brought us unprecedented success.

And we'll just have to agree to disagree on Kentucky. It's not age that's the issue. That's a gross oversimplification of my point. Age, in and of itself, is neither a benefit nor a hinderance. I'm talking about maturity and continuity. When your roster never has enough of those two things, it's hard to line up all the ducks necessary to accomplish something as difficult as winning an NCAA men's basketball title.

You're making this an argument about individuals, which it is not. It's an argument about roster composition. I'm all for adding talented freshmen. I just don't ever want to be in a situation where I'm forced to rely on them to carry my team. There aren't many freshmen out there who are ready for that type of role or responsibility.

Your concerns about bringing in a ball dominant PG and pushing someone off the roster were 2 false dichotomies you generated in your own mind, to then take and argue with others. Same with now arguing needlessly about our roster composition. I am pretty sure our staff knows what they are doing.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Your concerns about bringing in a ball dominant PG and pushing someone off the roster were 2 false dichotomies you generated in your own mind, to then take and argue with others. Same with now arguing needlessly about our roster composition. I am pretty sure our staff knows what they are doing.

---

There was no dichotomy. You continue to misrepresent my positions and leave out very important qualifiers to all of my points.

I prefaced basically every point I ever made about our point guard position with, "If we can find a distributing point guard, great." That means I was never against the idea. Just as I've said at least four times in this thread that "I'm all for adding five-star talent," and you continue to suggest that I'm against recruiting one-and-dones.

The words before the "but" matter. It would be nice if you'd stop leaving them out when reframing my argument. Hell, it would be nice if you'd stop reframing my arguments altogether as I'm fairly certain my words can stand on their own just fine.

And positing thoughts or concerns is not arguing. Go look in this thread at who first took an argumentative tone. Same with the point guard discussion. I shared a personal opinion and others quite needlessly turned it into a contentious debate. Once a back-and-forth has begun, I'm not going to let others misrepresent my point, and I'll clarify if there seems to be confusion, but only one person has turned a discussion about recruiting into a personal referendum on the other's loyalty to our program and Scott Drew -- the defense of whom (once again) is not necessary because he's not being attacked.

bear2be2… I really like most of your takes, but bro give this one up.

Some y'all people need church.