How much 'talent' do you need to win it all?

[jontaejones]

To win it all, not to reach the Final 4. Do you feel your team can legitimately win it all?

The reason I believe people generally say teams like St. Louis, Wichita State and Virginia, and even more established programs like Wisconsin and Villanova may be able to reach the Final 4, but cannot win it all is because they don't have the pure talent, although they might be excellent teams.

Every single team that has won the title has had a McD AA on the team since 1979 except Maryland.

So, if your team is recruiting at a certain level, do you accept that you 'currently' have no chance to win it all? What level is that?

Saint Louis has a senior class of unranked players that has played together for 4 years. Obviously won't be good enough.

Let's take Wisconsin. Wisconsin has a team of contributors of mainly three stars players with the exception of Sam Dekker (5-star). Is that enough?

What about Wichita State? There's a couple of 3 star guys but that's it.

Of course, a used car salesman like Calipari can field a team that can potentially win it all every year, depending on whether or not those guys become an actual basketball team.

But what level do you have to recruit at to be able to win it all? All 4 stars? A mix of 4s and 3s? 3s?

Fans of teams who are not the bluebloods. Do you feel your team has enough pure talent to win it all?

Of course, Butler could have changed it all, but they didn't.

 

[CoolStoryBro]

Great post!

Shit Cuse has sat or had very little playing time for The burger boys before, even a few 4, 5 stars, he generally recruits for who can contribute to the zone the best but of course he gets a few great recruits for scoring power. Cuse gives offers to maybe 2 top 50 guys every year (which amazes me how little tbh)

Back to your question. My opinion of a squad that tends to win it all is one with senior leadership, which I like in the back court. And a few nba guys in the front. Or you could switch it up with a split 1 in the back one in front. That usually is a team that makes the most noise, the senior leadership is able to coach the young guys along into a team format, especially with a senior (jr) or all star sophomore that can dish it and play unselfishly.

Your right some squads don't get respect because they don't have that all star player that wows you. So yes those teams do run into trouble when they face a team who also plays collectively just as well but has the x-factor of a guy or two that just simply can take over in a game.

You want that x-factor, do you need it is the question? As you said there have been little NCs won without the "x-factor" but there have been many who made it to the FF and a few as a runner-up. I think that proves, at least, those teams should be feared just as much. And we all know what can happen with that, this year will be another we can gauge and lend an argument to the question you posed.

 

[MI Nightmare]

Football has a similar case in that all BCS champions had at least one top 10 recruiting class (Oklahoma included --- and I believe even Nebraska's classes in the 90's were pretty stout) prior to winning it all.

Coaching and player development are more important, imo, but the recruiting stats are compelling.

 

[douggie]

You don't run in the Kentucky Derby with a jackass.

 

[rmilia1]

Man thats a great question. I think there are a lot of different variables ESPECIALLY now with the one and dones and the propensity of kids to leave early. Talent is clearly a HUGE part of the equation but Id say its less important now than it was in the 80's and 90's. Teams obviously still need to have talent but I think its possible now for teams to win a title with less talent IF they have a lot of experience and depth. GREAT teams have a true mixture of both genrally speaking. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule like UK winning it with almost all one and done guys but I think teams need to have that 1 guy that they can go to late in games that they can count on to make a HUGE play but they also need to have guys that have been through the fire and know what tourney play is all about also it certainly helps if you are at least 8 or 9 deep. I also think your superior talent needs to be in the backcourt. Tourney play is ruled by guards not big men anymore.

 

[jonvi]

I think the stat speaks for itself. And it's good to read that Maryland "did" win without an All American. Cause that means WSU and VA are in the game still.

Ref Wisconsin and to piggy back off my above answer, a great player is a bonus...so yes. Wisconsin is a good team. I see no reason why they can't win six in a row.

 

[Blaise Winter]

A good theory, just want to point out that this year's Wisconsin team is a bit different than past ones. Sophomore Sam Dekker was a 5-star and possibly the last player left off McD that year; Freshman Nigel Hayes was a top 100 recruit who turned down his home state OSU team to come to Madison; Freshman Bronson Koenig is a 4-star MdD nominee ranked top 10-15 at his position who turned down North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, etc., to stay in state. The team is good this year partially due to their rapid development, so they may not be ready as a team quite yet when it comes to the championship. Next year should be a different story, with only Brust leaving the team and a strong senior-laden squad with some very talented underclassmen coming back.

 

[rmilia1]

There is a reason you have seen more and more mid major type teams making deep runs now than you ever have before. Cohesiveness, team play, chemistry are HUGE in basketball. A team can have less talent but if they have those 3 things they can beat a team with superior talent especially in a one and done type scenario. There is also a reason that these freshman laden teams ( 12 Kentucky aside ) havent really won any titles, just not enough experience. I think you need to look at the teams with A. Talent, B. That have played together AT LEAST a few years ( especially in the backcourt ), C. Teams that are fire tested, that have played a great schedule and D. Teams that have a great coach. You find 3 or 4 of those teams and pencil them into the EE and then go from there IMO

 

[gordontrue]

A good theory, just want to point out that this year's Wisconsin team is a bit different than past ones. Sophomore Sam Dekker was a 5-star and possibly the last player left off McD that year; Freshman Nigel Hayes was a top 100 recruit who turned down his home state OSU team to come to Madison; Freshman Bronson Koenig is a 4-star MdD nominee ranked top 10-15 at his position who turned down North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, etc., to stay in state. The team is good this year partially due to their rapid development, so they may not be ready as a team quite yet when it comes to the championship. Next year should be a different story, with only Brust leaving the team and a strong senior-laden squad with some very talented underclassmen coming back.

Honest question, here. Are Wisconsin fans growing impatient with Bo Ryan's tournament success (or the lack thereof). Or are they more just happy with his season success (12 straight tourneys)??

He's had 12 fantastic regular seasons, but really underachieved in the tournament.

I looked it up and it's even worse than I thought it was. Wisconsin has earned a top-5 seed in 6 of the last 7 years. In those years they:
Lost to a 7 seed
Lost to a 10 seed
Lost to a 4 seed
Lost to a 12 seed
Lost to a 8 seed
Lost to a 1 seed
Lost to a 12 seed

 

[jonvi]

^^I know I and many other SU fans were releived to see Coach JB get his NC.^^

SU has a rep for choking in the dance and the NC made a lot of that noise go away.

 

[Blaise Winter]

It's certainly a bone of contention amongst fans. Some of us remember pre-Bo (and Bennett) how awful they used to be, though, and this seems far preferable. The problem has likely been the subject of this thread - talent. And scoring. This year's team (and next year's team) have enough talent (and offense) for a real run. The last time I can remember a team with this much potential for the tourney is the year they were ranked #1 during the season, but once their big man (McDonald's All American Brian Butch) went down just before the tourney, it was too much to overcome. If Butch would have stayed healthy...and Devin Harris wouldn't have left early (a complete rarity for the Badgers)...that's how thin the margin is for the team. I think there will be a breakthrough soon, but if not, that will be his D1 legacy - awesome in the regular season, faulty when it counts the most.

 

[jontaejones]

I think the stat speaks for itself. And it's good to read that Maryland "did" win without an All American. Cause that means WSU and VA are in the game still.

Ref Wisconsin and to piggy back off my above answer, a great player is a bonus...so yes. Wisconsin is a good team. I see no reason why they can't win six in a row.

The Maryland team is too old for me to look up the recruiting stats, but I'm pretty sure Chris Wilcox and Steve Blake were very heavily recruited although not McDs, 4 stars at least. So, that is the level that I believe you have to recruit at to have a chance to win it all.

Louisville last year too was not super laden with stars, but a good mix of high and mid 4 star players.

A good theory, just want to point out that this year's Wisconsin team is a bit different than past ones. Sophomore Sam Dekker was a 5-star and possibly the last player left off McD that year; Freshman Nigel Hayes was a top 100 recruit who turned down his home state OSU team to come to Madison; Freshman Bronson Koenig is a 4-star MdD nominee ranked top 10-15 at his position who turned down North Carolina, Kansas, Duke, etc., to stay in state. The team is good this year partially due to their rapid development, so they may not be ready as a team quite yet when it comes to the championship. Next year should be a different story, with only Brust leaving the team and a strong senior-laden squad with some very talented underclassmen coming back.

Right. You know your team's recruiting well.

What is the lowest seed ever to win an NCAA tournament? Right. How many McD AA did they have? 2 actually! Of course, I wasn't a fan back then. Too young.

As far as the current Nova team, it is comprised of primarily 4 star recruits in the 40s to 70s. One McD AA (Pinkston). Although they may be the most balanced 'team' we have ever had, I believe talent wise they fall slightly short of being able to win it all. We can and do recruit at a slightly higher level though. I think our 2006 and 2009 squads could both easily win this year in what is a weak year.

I think that is something you consider as a UVA fan, even if you happen to go in with a #1 seed. Can my team really win it? Or do I set our 'championship' at the Final 4?

 

[Lions=TeHsUcKs]

You usually need 2 NBA players, a deep team or 1 elite PG and an NBA player.. IMHO.. I'm not even referring to stars.. You have to remember that Butler and Western Kentucky developed a couple of players that eventually became NBA regulars.. I think that's what you need from a talent standpoint.. Certainly good recruiting classes help, but if you have the facilities that can develop a great player and a good coaching staff, you can make a deep run..

 

[wiskyisgood12]

Interesting question. As a Badger fan I know this is some of the best talent UW has had. But, is it win it all talent? I don't know. I think there's a few potential NBA caliber guys. Sam Dekker is the best player, and a lot of people say he's got NBA ability. Frank Kaminsky, has the size and the ability to stretch the floor, but I don't think he's an NBA player. Nigel Hayes is good enough, but I feel like he'd be undersized as a 4 in the NBA, and I doubt he could play out as a 3. I think at some point Bronson Koenig could maybe turn into something.

This is the most talent Coach Ryan has assembled, but I don't know if this is National Championship level. Match ups are everything, though.

 

[Smart]

Honest question, here. Are Wisconsin fans growing impatient with Bo Ryan's tournament success (or the lack thereof). Or are they more just happy with his season success (12 straight tourneys)??

He's had 12 fantastic regular seasons, but really underachieved in the tournament.

I looked it up and it's even worse than I thought it was. Wisconsin has earned a top-5 seed in 6 of the last 7 years. In those years they:
Lost to a 7 seed
Lost to a 10 seed
Lost to a 4 seed
Lost to a 12 seed
Lost to a 8 seed
Lost to a 1 seed
Lost to a 12 seed

We've been over this before. Bo's tourney results exactly match his seeds.

He's been a 2 seed once; He made the Elite Eight once.
He's been a 3-4 seed four times; He's lost in the Sweet Sixteen four times.
He's been a 5-8 seed five times; He's lost in the Round of 32 five times.
He's been a 9-16 seed twice; He's lost in the Round of 64 twice.

Calling out losses to the teams we lost to is bull shit, because it's not a random sample of teams with those seeds. Besides Ole Miss last year, the teams we lost to all had to pull upsets to play us. A loss to an 8 seed looks awful, until you realize that 8 seed was Butler, and they made the Final Four. A loss to a 10 seed looks awful until you realize that 10 seed was Davidson, and they had a shot at the buzzer to beat the eventual national champs. The other 12 seed was to a stacked Cornell team who couldn't miss a shot for 40 minutes.

The point is that Bo Ryan plays to his seeds. Tat's why it's stupid to discount Wisconsin when we will likely be a 2 seed and might sneak on the 1 line.

 

[MI Nightmare]

We've been over this before. Bo's tourney results exactly match his seeds.

He's been a 2 seed once; He made the Elite Eight once.
He's been a 3-4 seed four times; He's lost in the Sweet Sixteen four times.
He's been a 5-8 seed five times; He's lost in the Round of 32 five times.
He's been a 9-16 seed twice; He's lost in the Round of 64 twice.

Calling out losses to the teams we lost to is bull shit, because it's not a random sample of teams with those seeds. Besides Ole Miss last year, the teams we lost to all had to pull upsets to play us. A loss to an 8 seed looks awful, until you realize that 8 seed was Butler, and they made the Final Four. A loss to a 10 seed looks awful until you realize that 10 seed was Davidson, and they had a shot at the buzzer to beat the eventual national champs. The other 12 seed was to a stacked Cornell team who couldn't miss a shot for 40 minutes.

The point is that Bo Ryan plays to his seeds. Tat's why it's stupid to discount Wisconsin when we will likely be a 2 seed and might sneak on the 1 line.

So Ryan has difficulties in overacheiving.

 

[Smart]

So Ryan has difficulties in overacheiving.

Yep. He's chalk. And while that sucks if you aren't proven in the regular season, that's not us this year. This year and next year should be the years where Bo gets the high seeds and (crosses fingers) gets at least an Elite Eight and hopefully a Final Four.

 

[pumpkinhead33793]

I think Wisconsin is legit. They can beat anyone. But they can also lose to anyone. I just think they will have a game they struggle to score because they don't shoot well in it and they eventually lose. But I see FF potential in them, Michigan and MSU from the Big Ten.

 

[ericd7633]

Man thats a great question. I think there are a lot of different variables ESPECIALLY now with the one and dones and the propensity of kids to leave early. Talent is clearly a HUGE part of the equation but Id say its less important now than it was in the 80's and 90's. Teams obviously still need to have talent but I think its possible now for teams to win a title with less talent IF they have a lot of experience and depth. GREAT teams have a true mixture of both genrally speaking. Obviously there are exceptions to every rule like UK winning it with almost all one and done guys but I think teams need to have that 1 guy that they can go to late in games that they can count on to make a HUGE play but they also need to have guys that have been through the fire and know what tourney play is all about also it certainly helps if you are at least 8 or 9 deep. I also think your superior talent needs to be in the backcourt. Tourney play is ruled by guards not big men anymore.

I think that's a BIG misconception. UK had 2 sophomore starters and a senior coming off the bench that played major minutes. Ask yourself this; Would that UK team have won the title if Terrence Jones had gone pro after his freshman year, and Kyle Wiltjer was getting all his minutes at PF? To me the answer is no. No team of all freshman is ever going to win the title IMO. If the Fab 5 couldn't do it, nobody can. And Anthony Davis doesn't come around every year, he's basically a 5 year generation player. Lebron in 03, Durant in 07 and Davis in 12.

To answer the question, you need a mix of upperclassman experience and talented freshman/sophomores. Florida and Arizona(before the Ashley injury) were the two teams I thought were the favorites. Zona still looks like they could potentially win it all.

 

[rmilia1]

I think that's a BIG misconception. UK had 2 sophomore starters and a senior coming off the bench that played major minutes. Ask yourself this; Would that UK team have won the title if Terrence Jones had gone pro after his freshman year, and Kyle Wiltjer was getting all his minutes at PF? To me the answer is no. No team of all freshman is ever going to win the title IMO. If the Fab 5 couldn't do it, nobody can. And Anthony Davis doesn't come around every year, he's basically a 5 year generation player. Lebron in 03, Durant in 07 and Davis in 12.

To answer the question, you need a mix of upperclassman experience and talented freshman/sophomores. Florida and Arizona(before the Ashley injury) were the two teams I thought were the favorites. Zona still looks like they could potentially win it all.

Hell thats true man. Totally forgot about Jones and youre right. Proves my point even more. Teams cant be ALL talent and no experience, just doesnt work. Doesnt even necessarily need to be tourney experience IMO but you need to have guys that have played tight games, guys that have been through the conference rigors, guys that have been tested. Talent is awesome but if you dont have those other guys then you arent winning a title. Nice call ED.