In Reply to: LCT: Respectfully, On What Planet Do You Reside? posted by 68mgr on July 09, 2018 at 15:17:50
I did not make up those descriptions of recruitment strategies and program cultures. I just summarized what I heard from John Belein in his post Big Ten tournament interview and from Jay Wright in an interview he gave on NBA draft night. Strikingly similar approaches, both at institutions that, like UCLA, see themselves much more as first class educational institutions than revenue sports factories, even while striving to compete at the highest level of sports.
Mine are not pie in the sky proposals. This is what the most successful programs are doing NOW.
If only 3% of college prospects fit my description, then those are the 3% that UCLA should be recruiting, not the less than 3% that are legitimate 1 and done candidates (that UCLA is probably going to lose to Duke, Kentucky or Kansas anyway). Do you think that UCLA the institution is inherently less attractive, to academically oriented basketball players that have the physical tools to play in the NBA but need more basketball development in order to make it, than either Michigan or Villanova? I don't, but I do think that Steve Alford, and the current UCLA program, have less credibility in being able to provide the basketball education to help such players as much as Beilein, Wright, and the programs that they have built.
Brunson. Bridges. Mo Wagner. And this was not a one year fluke: Josh Hart. Caris Levert. Tim Hardaway. Next year, Charles Mathews. I am not suggesting that recruiting or even finding players like this is an easy way to build a team capable of competing at the highest level of men's basketball: there is no easy way of doing that. But, demonstrably, it is possible, because the two universities that got teams to the final game did it.
Post a Followup