Crawfoso1973 said:

---

It doesn't always have to be an either / or. The very best combine mamba mindset, hunger and mental toughness with natural abilities.

---

I think my issue, and we're seeing it in this tournament especially, is that you don't need elite natural ability/measurables to be an elite college player.

In the NBA, where everyone is an elite athlete, you need to be an elite athlete/physical specimen with an elite game to survive/thrive.

In college basketball, you can reach the highest level being an extremely smart/skilled/crafty player with mediocre athletic talent by NBA standards. Drew Timme and Markquis Nowell are perfect examples, but there have been many over the years. We've had a lot of them in our own program.

I would honestly prefer to focus on those hungry, chip-on-the-shoulder guys who are undersized or not quite gifted enough for the NBA level because a) they're really damn good college players and b) most aren't a threat to leave early, so you actually get a chance to build something with them.

If the one year we were getting with guys like Keyonte George was his junior year, I would feel differently. But these elite freshman recruits are very rarely polished enough at that stage to make the same kind of difference an experienced/accomplished junior or senior would in the same role.

Good debate. I'm right in the middle on this debate but no team has won a title in the last 15+ years without 5+ top 100 guys on their roster. I'm sure you're probably in agreement on that. We will be teetering towards the higher end of that range which is okay if we can get multiple years from guys.

Now 92 is way different than 5 but still need 4*s and above to win big. I think that still holds this year unless Hou wins. K state /Fau too obviously but don't give them much chance

It's no coincidence the first potential winner with lower aggregate talent is near end of time you can use the Covid year. Portal probably a factor too although in re-rankings many would be top 100

Quinton said:

---

Good debate. I'm right in the middle on this debate but no team has won a title in the last 15+ years without 5+ top 100 guys on their roster. I'm sure you're probably in agreement on that. We will be teetering towards the higher end of that range which is okay if we can get multiple years from guys.

Now 92 is way different than 5 but still need 4*s and above to win big. I think that still holds this year unless Hou wins. K state /Fau too obviously but don't give them much chance

It's no coincidence the first potential winner with lower aggregate talent is near end of time you can use the Covid year. Portal probably a factor too although in re-rankings many would be top 100

---

I'm not saying recruit bad players, obviously. I'm saying recruit great college players without concern for what kind of pros they'll be. In fact, the lack of pro pedigree is a bonus for me because it means you'll get more time with them.

I would honestly rather have the No. 85 recruit who is going to be an elite college player as a junior and senior than one year with the No. 5 player.

Yeah I know. Not sure why I direct replied. I would say solid evaluation and top 75-40 is a sweet spot for the core. Mix in players the staff is huge on if underrated or players that are efficient and can blend if top 15.

Quinton said:

---

Yeah I know. Not sure why I direct replied. I would say solid evaluation and top 75-40 is a sweet spot for the core. Mix in players the staff is huge on if underrated or players that are efficient and can blend if top 15.

---

I actually really like the JUCO route for supplemental guys. I think it's kind of become the Moneyball market inefficiency way to add substantial, experienced, under-the-radar talent to your program without having to compete with blue blood programs for those players.

I think this was the case before the transfer portal, but it's especially so now. Baylor has gotten a lot of really good, valuable players from that pipeline over the years. I'm hoping Grimes will be the next.