Last season, Coach Calipari and UK captured the national championship with a majority of the players being "one and done" freshman. In many people's minds, this seemed to vindicate the approach taken by Calipari and others regarding the recruitng of players who expect to stay in college for just one year.

 

While I am certainly no basketball expert, it appeared to me that UK would probably not have won the national title in 2012 if the team had been without the contributions of upperclass players like Lamb, Jones and Miller.

 

So, with all this in mind, is it possible for a team to be a realistic championship contender without having multiple upperclass contributors on the roster? Do coaches need to recruit and sign at least a few players who can be expected to remain at the school for a few years if they want to be legitimate national title contenders?

Contrary to the prevailing thought, I do not believe Cal recruits just guys that are "1 and done", they just happened to be that. I think the odds are if you get a group of 4 or 5 guys, the chances of all of them bolting for the league after 1 season is slim. Veteran leadership today is coming back for your second season and UK had two of those guys last season. UK had 3 freshman leave early last year, 4 in Cal's first season. But who in there right mind ever though Bledsoe or Orton would have been drafted in the first round out of high school? Both were fringe 5 star guys that Cal was able to turn in to 1st round selections.

 

To answer your question, I do not think Cal is out searching for a lot of guys that will be there all 4 seasons and fill in as a role player. Cal plays 6-7 guys tops so those are the ones seeing the action. But I agree it is nice to have those types on the roster.

Unless you consider Lamb and Jones upperclassmen, UK only had one upper class contributor last year.

I am considering any player who is not a freshman as an "upperclassman." Perhaps I used the term incorrectly. Sorry that I did not clarify this previously.

I think the 2013-14 Wildcats will answer this question better than any of us.

^ Well, next year's team may have some non-freshman contributors, no?

^ Well, next year's team may have some non-freshman contributors, no?

 

Wiljter will be the main non-freshman contributor. But as of right now, the five best players will all be freshmen. If Cal lands Wiggins or Randle then it will be six.

^ Well, next year's team may have some non-freshman contributors, no?

 

Potentially Wiltjer, WCS and Harrow.

Last season, Coach Calipari and UK captured the national championship with a majority of the players being "one and done" freshman. In many people's minds, this seemed to vindicate the approach taken by Calipari and others regarding the recruitng of players who expect to stay in college for just one year.

 

While I am certainly no basketball expert, it appeared to me that UK would probably not have won the national title in 2012 if the team had been without the contributions of upperclass players like Lamb, Jones and Miller.

 

So, with all this in mind, is it possible for a team to be a realistic championship contender without having multiple upperclass contributors on the roster? Do coaches need to recruit and sign at least a few players who can be expected to remain at the school for a few years if they want to be legitimate national title contenders?

 

I'd say it's still too early to tell. But I don't think sophomores are considered upperclassmen. Next season could paint is a better picture.

Wiljter will be the main non-freshman contributor. But as of right now, the five best players will all be freshmen. If Cal lands Wiggins or Randle then it will be six.

 

You don't think Harrow will be a strong contributor next year? With the twins I could very easily see Cal yanking either one of them if they don't play right or miss plays.

My question is what is the alternative to recruiting one & done players?

 

Do you recruit guys who are not as talented so that they'll stick around longer? That doesn't make sense to me.

My question is what is the alternative to recruiting one & done players?

 

Do you recruit guys who are not as talented so that they'll stick around longer? That doesn't make sense to me.

Exactly. I believe Cal's philosophy is to first get guys that fit what he is wanting to accomplish. Those guys just happened to be lottery picks, he is just better at grabbing them

My question is what is the alternative to recruiting one & done players?

 

Do you recruit guys who are not as talented so that they'll stick around longer? That doesn't make sense to me.

I suppose the alternative could be whatever Duke's Coach K does. Sure, Duke has one-and-dones, but they also have several non-frosh contributors/starters every year. So, how is Coach K able to do this?

I suppose the alternative could be whatever Duke's Coach K does. Sure, Duke has one-and-dones, but they also have several non-frosh contributors/starters every year. So, how is Coach K able to do this?

 

Overall has Duke been better than Kentucky since Cal arrived?

Overall has Duke been better than Kentucky since Cal arrived?

 

They both have a title, but the answer is no. Though we may be splitting hairs here. Duke has also been a 1 (title), 1 (Sweet 16), and 2 (First Round) seed.