Would you want a "one and done" player?

Donate To GopherHole
goldenboy

goldenboy

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 25, 2008
Messages
1,539
Reaction score
975
Points
113
Tyus or Vaughn would have certainly contributed on the floor last year, but would we be in a better place as a program right now? Humphries wasn't enough to help Monson build for long-term success. Are we better off recruiting 3-4 star players and not 5-stars? With where our program is at, I think we need players that will stick for 4 years. Time to move on from Trent?
 

goldenboy said:
Tyus or Vaughn would have certainly contributed on the floor last year, but would we be in a better place as a program right now? Humphries wasn't enough to help Monson build for long-term success. Are we better off recruiting 3-4 star players and not 5-stars? With where our program is at, I think we need players that will stick for 4 years. Time to move on from Trent?
Click to expand...

An issue with how you're setting up the question is that you're presenting "players that will stick for 4 years" as the alternative to one and done's. In reality, many kids don't stay for 4 years at one school. It's all about fit and how much a kid can help your program. In general, shying away from a potential one and done player because you only want guys that *might* stay for multiple years doesn't seem to make much sense. It all just depends.
 

Gopher Warrior said:
An issue with how you're setting up the question is that you're presenting "players that will stick for 4 years" as the alternative to one and done's. In reality, many kids don't stay for 4 years at one school. It's all about fit and how much a kid can help your program. In general, shying away from a potential one and done player because you only want guys that *might* stay for multiple years doesn't seem to make much sense. It all just depends.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Of course I'd take a Quincy Lewis (a guy who improved every year, and ended up being a star) over a Kris Humphries.

But to answer just the question itself without the variables, yes, I'd take a one-and-done.

Go Gophers!!
 

goldenboy said:
Tyus or Vaughn would have certainly contributed on the floor last year, but would we be in a better place as a program right now? Humphries wasn't enough to help Monson build for long-term success. Are we better off recruiting 3-4 star players and not 5-stars? With where our program is at, I think we need players that will stick for 4 years. Time to move on from Trent?
Click to expand...

Without a doubt you want a one and done player. But you had better have a solid surrounding cast or you get the same result as with Humphries. Whatever you do - you have to have a solid core of players- unless you are Kentucky and can go out and recruit a whole new team of 5* guys every spring.
 



I'm not sure the Gophers were better off with Kris Humphries than they would have been without him that year. To me it was a wasted year.

In general, though, I would say "yes".
 

goldenboy said:
Tyus or Vaughn would have certainly contributed on the floor last year, but would we be in a better place as a program right now? Humphries wasn't enough to help Monson build for long-term success. Are we better off recruiting 3-4 star players and not 5-stars? With where our program is at, I think we need players that will stick for 4 years. Time to move on from Trent?
Click to expand...

I'd take 4 one and doners every year. And feel bad about our APR never.
 

Sure. If you can get a player like Trent, Tyus, Vaughn, etc. you take them and if they only end up being here 1 year so be it.
 

goldenboy said:
Tyus or Vaughn would have certainly contributed on the floor last year, but would we be in a better place as a program right now? Humphries wasn't enough to help Monson build for long-term success. Are we better off recruiting 3-4 star players and not 5-stars? With where our program is at, I think we need players that will stick for 4 years. Time to move on from Trent?
Click to expand...

Do you want NFL caliber players on the football team? Of course. Yes, I realize comparing football and basketball recruiting is similar to comparing apples to kiwis. My point is, you want the best talent possible (all other things being equal such as off the court issues, coachability, etc). If a player is in a position tto go pro as a frosh, they likely had a significant impact that season. Again, I understand this doesn't apply uniformly, but generally high picks are impact players (see 2015- Okafor Towns Russel).
 



The point of my question is that, while you always prefer top talent, one McD's AA may not have the impact on our program that a good 4-year player would have, given where we're at right now. Kentucky and Duke end up reloading with a new crop each year. We'd be left with a talent void and not much to build on. If Trent is likely to become Humphries 2.0, then he's not the ideal player to build our program. If, on the other hand, he stays more than a year, or starts a trend of top talent to the U, then great. It doesn't seem like Jarvis started the avalanche, though. Did he slide too much? Would Trent, or even Coffey, be the catalyst or the distraction?
 

So we're basically talking about taking any 5 star recruit, because any of them could be one and done. You still take them in a second.
Melo Trimble is a good example for Maryland. He could have been one and done, but decided to stay. Maryland was an average team without him. With him they were one of the best in the B1G.
 





I like to watch guys improve from year to year. I get to feel more of a closeness to them. Oners, no time for them.

A one and done, on occassion, is ok, however, if he is what we need in an upcoming title year.
 

No, I'd rather they win their national titles elsewhere.
 

If that one and done is Carmelo, Anthony Davis, Tyus or Okafor and brings my school a championship in that one year, then count me in and call me Calipari.
 

We need one and done BB players, one and done FB players, and one and done cheerleaders. We are lacking in all areas.
 

Angry said:
We need one and done BB players, one and done FB players, and one and done cheerleaders. We are lacking in all areas.
Click to expand...

I nominate you as a one and done on GopherHole. :)
 

I am not a big fan of the "one and done" player. I would prefer someone who is willing to make a commitment to the school - not come in and act like a de factor mercenary. I would love to see the NCAA and the NBA get together and require all players to stay at least 2 years in college - but I realize that's not going to happen.

to answer question - if you could give me a 100% guarantee that a 1-and-done player would result in (at least) a conference championship, and a long run in the NCAA tournament, I would consider it. anything less than that, and I'm not interested.
 

The question is pretty much a moot one. There aren't that many one-and-dones each year (about 10 at max). To be one of those, you almost have to be at least a top 20 player coming in and we don't get those. I don't believe that Pitino Sr. has even had a one-and-done player at Louisville.

Even if Pitino achieves significant success here, the best he can probably hope for is to sign one or two top 50 players in a class, surround them with a competent cadre, and develop that core group.
 


Guys like Coach K, Self, and Calipari can just keep reloading with these guys without making them a central focus, plus they always have a nucleus of players there who know what is going on, so a one year wonder does not really disrupt the development of the team that much. For us, recruiting those guys is a diversion from building talent that will grow. When you are essentially replacing everything on the team, from players to style of play, a one year guy only gets in the way of some kid who will be here a while's ability to learn how to play the game. They would not have hurt us last year because so many starters were leaving and we really still could not play Pitino's style of play, but having one of them this year would be a mistake
 

corcoran1 said:
Guys like Coach K, Self, and Calipari can just keep reloading with these guys without making them a central focus, plus they always have a nucleus of players there who know what is going on, so a one year wonder does not really disrupt the development of the team that much. For us, recruiting those guys is a diversion from building talent that will grow. When you are essentially replacing everything on the team, from players to style of play, a one year guy only gets in the way of some kid who will be here a while's ability to learn how to play the game.
Click to expand...

Well said! One-and-doners (possibly even some two year players) don't really fit with our type of program even if we could get them.

It should also be noted that Duke's only first round NCAA tournament stumbles against much lower rated opponents (Lehigh and Mercer) that I can remember have occurred recently when a higher proportion of Duke recruits have become players who are only around for a year or two.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom