The other day I was looking at Rivals and checking out where all the college basketball recruits had signed. I was thrilled when I discovered that Brandon Knight, debatably the number one recruit, was coming to Kentucky, and that two other 5-star recruits had made verbal commitments. Retrospectively, I am not sure if I am really so happy.
I was talking to my buddy Hector about Brandon Knight and he basically said “There goes another Kentucky one-and-done.” I thought about what he said, and he’s probably right. Don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic about getting the arguable best high school player in the country (who some have called John Wall with a jump shot).
Is Kentucky really going to win a national championship led solely by a whole bunch of freshman? My honest answer is probably not. Which brings me to my question. Would it be better for teams to get lower ranked recruits who are more likely to stay for several years? Look at this year’s champion, Duke. Duke’s best players stayed for several years. North Carolina won in 2009 led predominately by seniors and juniors. I could give more examples, but I think you get the point.
My question goes against the logical recruiting position—to go out and try to get the best players possible. But in the current situation where players can leave after just one season, it is hard to win a championship when the majority of your best players are freshman. In an ideal world, the NCAA and NBA would work together and change the rule so that players had to stay two years or ideally three (like college football). Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon, so I guess I am left hoping that the one-and-done’s in Kentucky either win a championship or miraculously decide to stay another year.
I was talking to my buddy Hector about Brandon Knight and he basically said “There goes another Kentucky one-and-done.” I thought about what he said, and he’s probably right. Don’t get me wrong, I am ecstatic about getting the arguable best high school player in the country (who some have called John Wall with a jump shot).
Is Kentucky really going to win a national championship led solely by a whole bunch of freshman? My honest answer is probably not. Which brings me to my question. Would it be better for teams to get lower ranked recruits who are more likely to stay for several years? Look at this year’s champion, Duke. Duke’s best players stayed for several years. North Carolina won in 2009 led predominately by seniors and juniors. I could give more examples, but I think you get the point.
My question goes against the logical recruiting position—to go out and try to get the best players possible. But in the current situation where players can leave after just one season, it is hard to win a championship when the majority of your best players are freshman. In an ideal world, the NCAA and NBA would work together and change the rule so that players had to stay two years or ideally three (like college football). Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening anytime soon, so I guess I am left hoping that the one-and-done’s in Kentucky either win a championship or miraculously decide to stay another year.
RSS Feed