Of course he doesn't read the article disputing his point. Oh well, he is now the first person to make my ignore list.
Aaron Wheeler showing all of his skills (May 2018)
- Thread starter LionBulldog83
- Start date
I get a better bet instead of cash.
If a team wins the tourney next year has a McDonald’s All american you stay on the KHC side of the forum for good.
If a team that wins doesn’t have a McDonald’s All American I will personally donate $100 to a charity of your choosing. I am happy to share my personal email on the forum for you to send the details for me to cut the check.
Well, I'm not going to do that bet. They don't discuss basketball enough on KHC for my liking, so to get my fix I come here and discuss it.
But a better bet to make if you really disagree with me is that a team with all freshman will win the national title.
So if Duke wins it next year, you'll have disputed both my claim and the article I linked that recruiting rankings don' matter, player development does.
FIFY
OAD talent does not guarantee tournament success and there hasn't been a team with a starting lineup of OAD that won a national title.
All 5 star talent <> OAD. You seem to think 5 star is directly correlated to OAD.
Duke has a higher win probability than Purdue because they have 5 star McDonald All Americans.
96.67% of the time this has been the case. To most I would say "you can't argue against those odds" but clearly you were made different.
Well look, you're the one taking the argumentative tone here. Youre correct Im not good at arguing because Im not trying to argue. You keep trying to make this into an argument. You keep trying to insinuate I'm stupid and changing my posts. I'm not interested in arguing. I wouldn't even know how to go about winning an internet argument. Do you get a prize for those or something?
But I also standby my facts and the article I presented with the data they found. Nothing you've posted has changed my viewpoint that recruiting rankings matter more than development.
I went and looked up the Wooden Award winners:
Here they are in spoilers as to not lag the thread
2013 Sophomore
2014 Senior
2015 Senior
2016 Senior
2017 Senior
2018 Junior
2014 Senior
2015 Senior
2016 Senior
2017 Senior
2018 Junior
Only one of the last 6 Wooden Award winners was a McDonald's All american(and that was this year with Brunson). 3 of them were 3 star recruits. Only 1 was a 5 star recruit.
All of them upperclassmen though. Further strengthens my point of view that development is key, recruiting rankings aren't.
Let me try to wrap this all up. You're both right in different ways. Do teams need more than just 5* freshman to win a title? Yes? Do unranked guys who develop into stars help teams win titles? Yes. Has it been shown that nearly every team that wins a title has a McDonald's All American on the team? Yes.
So what's the recipe? A good mixture. You definitely need a solid core of 3-4 year players who are experienced. Whether those guys were highly ranked out of high school or not, you still need them. Sometimes it will be an unranked diamond in the rough, sometimes it will be a solid 4* guy or fringe 5* guy who ends up staying for awhile.
You also need a sprinkling of McD All-Americans. Even just one of them on a team will do. It would be great if it was one that stayed 2 or 3 years, because they would have more experience, but it could also be a freshman. Regardless, you need at least one. History has shown that.
It's unlikely a team wins a title without a good mixture of both. You're not gonna win it starting 5 freshman, you're not gonna win it only with a group of 3* juniors and seniors. You're gonna win it with a group of 4-5 experienced juniors and seniors, along with 1 or 2 elite burger boys. That's the formula, nearly every year.
So what's the recipe? A good mixture. You definitely need a solid core of 3-4 year players who are experienced. Whether those guys were highly ranked out of high school or not, you still need them. Sometimes it will be an unranked diamond in the rough, sometimes it will be a solid 4* guy or fringe 5* guy who ends up staying for awhile.
You also need a sprinkling of McD All-Americans. Even just one of them on a team will do. It would be great if it was one that stayed 2 or 3 years, because they would have more experience, but it could also be a freshman. Regardless, you need at least one. History has shown that.
It's unlikely a team wins a title without a good mixture of both. You're not gonna win it starting 5 freshman, you're not gonna win it only with a group of 3* juniors and seniors. You're gonna win it with a group of 4-5 experienced juniors and seniors, along with 1 or 2 elite burger boys. That's the formula, nearly every year.
And only one of those teams won the title that year.....I'll let you figure out which one.
Alot of them very successful in the tournament
-Kaminsky made back to back Final Fours and lost in the title game
-Burke lost in the title game
-Hield made the final four
-Frank Mason lost in the elite 8 after destroying Purdue in the Sweet 16
Firstly - Please don't call me Zach, that's not my name.
Secondly, do you have anything in response to my Wooden Award list that isn't trolling or trying to argue?
I agree. There are a lot of great college players that start off as unheralded recruits. The argument from those opposing you is just that you can't win a title with JUST those type of players. You need a burger boy too.
Cheeseman,
The reason I can't get behind that is because Nova won the 2016 title with one McDonald's All American, true freshman Jalen Brunson.
He scored 4 points with 0 assists and 1 rebound in 22 minutes vs North Carolina in the title game.
On the year, he averaged 9.6 points and 2.5 assists. That sort of impact is easily replaced and Nova would have been even better with a developed upperclassmen playing guard there instead of a McD AA frosh.
So, the only thing you need is good, developed players to win a title. If one or some of those happen to be McD AA, then good for them imo.
The reason I can't get behind that is because Nova won the 2016 title with one McDonald's All American, true freshman Jalen Brunson.
He scored 4 points with 0 assists and 1 rebound in 22 minutes vs North Carolina in the title game.
On the year, he averaged 9.6 points and 2.5 assists. That sort of impact is easily replaced and Nova would have been even better with a developed upperclassmen playing guard there instead of a McD AA frosh.
So, the only thing you need is good, developed players to win a title. If one or some of those happen to be McD AA, then good for them imo.
I just wanna be clear that McDonald’s AA has to be a reason they either win a national championship not just be in the team. Brunson and Spellman were 5star AA and neither played particularly well in championship game but did help Villanova get to championship game however but the none 5star players was the reason they won the national title. Being an AA on a team doesn’t qualify if that said AA is not the reason they in bcuztjat AA didn’t play or help them get there bcuz I no a few AA on some blue blood teams and none blue blood team didn’t even play much this season and some didn’t play at all so I’ll be watching very closely which AA players on whichever team that gets to a final 4 and pay close attention to how that AA impacted their team to a national title.
True, he didn't have a huge contribution. However, it still has to be more than just a coincidence that 29 of the last 30 champions had burger boys. Maybe there is more to it than just the contribution they give on the court.
Consider this: If a team is bringing in burger boys, there is usually a good reason for it. The team has been relevant recently, they have a great coach, they have solid recruiters, they have other solid players. So if you're bringing in those types of guys, you likely have a solid team with a good coach and staff. So let's take Purdue as an example. If Purdue starts drawing in McDs talent, it's likely because those players see something at Purdue that excites them, and that's probably a good thing for the team. The point is that if a team can get to the point where they draw that kind of talent, then they have something good going on, and there is a higher chance they will be a solid team that has a shot to win championships.
Last edited:
I'm not saying having an AA on the team is the reason the team wins. I'm saying teams almost never win that don't have AA (1 time in the last 40 years). It's the combination of AA talent and developed players. Usually the national champion is a team full of top 100 players that also have one or two Elite level recruits mixed in.
I would never bet on a team to win the championship if they don't have an AA.
Maybe that’s true but I’m only responding bcuz you said this season their would be AA on a team that help win a national championship and that player would be the reason this coming season I’m gonna see if what you saying has some truths to it. I say that bcuz Kentucky,Duke,Arizona, has had many on one team the last few years and neither of those teams with 3 or more AA with elite talent top 100 guys with some experienced players haven’t seen a final 4 the last 3/4 years but Loyola,gonazaga Wisconsin Oregon, North Carolina teams like that with much less have been to a final 4 and national championship. I don’t dispute your claim
But it’s not always the case either Loyola showed that this season.
And Michigan no AA but good quality players with a hellava coach at the help was within 1 game of winning it all.
Loyola didn't win the championship though. I'm not talking about simply getting to the Final 4, or getting to the championship game. I'm talking about actually winning it.
Duke and UK have been to multiple Final 4s this decade. Duke has two championships, and UK has one. It's hard to say that their strategy isn't working.
FWIW, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, Oregon, and UNC all had at least one McDonald's AA on their team when they made their final 4/championship runs.
I want Purdue to win a championship. Given that 39/40 years the champion has had an AA, I'm deducing that Purdue needs an AA to have a chance at a title.
If you don't think recruiting rankings matter you don't understand college basketball. Recruiting higher ranked players gives you a higher probability of consistent success. Saying rankings are completely meaningless/arbitrary is completely wrong
Nope, you're wrong, because there was that time that the 5* AA didn't pan out, and also that time that the 3* won the NPOY award. Also, a national championship team has had a 3* as a role player before.
The last 6 years
The best player in college basketball was ranked this in his class
2018: 20th
2017 79th
2016 79th
2015 unranked
2014 unranked
2013 147th
You were 3 times more likely to have the Wooden Award winner on your team the past 6 years if you had nothing but 3 star recruits vs teams who had nothing but 5 star recruits.
You had a 0% chance if you had all top 15 ranked recruits.
Those are actual facts
The best player in college basketball was ranked this in his class
2018: 20th
2017 79th
2016 79th
2015 unranked
2014 unranked
2013 147th
You were 3 times more likely to have the Wooden Award winner on your team the past 6 years if you had nothing but 3 star recruits vs teams who had nothing but 5 star recruits.
You had a 0% chance if you had all top 15 ranked recruits.
Those are actual facts
Your Wooden award list has nothing to do with this argument that teams that win the national title have McDonald All American's on them.
Can players develop and out perform their rankings? Yes
Can players under perform their rankings? Yes
Since 1979, I went back and counted myself, every NCAA tournament winner had a McDonald's AA on their roster.
Does that statement imply they have to be a contributor? No
Does that mean they have to be a starter? No
Does it mean they have to be the tournament MVP? No
Do you have to have a McDonald's AA on your team to make a Final Four? No but it certainly increases your odds.
Wooden Award Winners <> National Titles
Wondered why you stopped at 2012 arbitrarily for your "facts..."
2004–05 Andrew Bogut Utah Center Sophomore
2005–06 J. J. Redick[16] Duke (5) Shooting guard Senior
2006–07 Kevin Durant[17] Texas (2) Small forward Freshman
2007–08 Tyler Hansbrough[18] North Carolina (4) Power forward Junior
2008–09 Blake Griffin[19] Oklahoma Power forward Sophomore
2009–10 Evan Turner[20] Ohio State Small forward Junior
2010–11 Jimmer Fredette[21] BYU (2) Point guard Senior
2011–12 Anthony Davis[22] Kentucky
So to add to your list of Wooden winners are 4 5-star guys...2 top 50 guys and two 3-star/unranked guys...Hunt all you want for the Jimmers and Kaminskys through the roughly 200 3 star recruits per class...I'll take the higher ranked guys 10 times out of 10
The past 6 Wooden Award winners
3 3-star recruits
2 4-srar recruits
1 5-star recruit
3 stars were three times more likely to win it the past 6 years than 5 stars.
So the past 14 have been
5 5-Stars
4 4-Stars
5 3-Stars
Take into consideration there are 20-25 5-stars per year...100-4 stars and probably 200 3-stars. Even by your random standard of going by Wooden Awards you have a better chance of getting the POY if you recruit the top players coming out of high school than 3-stars. A lot more Eden Ewings out there than there are Oladipos...
1. I don't have to hunt for them, they won the Wooden Award. The 3 star recruits named were the premier players in the sport their winning years.
2. The game of basketball has been figured out by math nerds. It's no longer purely about athleticism, it's as much about skill and basketball IQ as anything. If the game had never been solved, then you could revert back to 10 years ago when all that mattered was having the most athletic players and recruiting rankings would mostly matter. But in today's game, where Dakota Mathias and Vince Edwards can be great players and Josh Langford and Tum Tum Nairn aren't good at basketball, recruiting rankings don't matter at all.
Teams that develop skilled players to play the right way, much like Villanova and Michigan have done, thrive today over teams like Texas and Arizona who just load on up highly ranked athletes. Part of that, as the article I linked alluded to, is upperclassmen develop a real feel for the game and hone their skills to fit what's needed to win.
Just look at the evidence:
Jalen Brunson JR
Frank Mason senior
Buddy Hield / Denzel Valentine seniors
Frank Kaminsky senior
Doug McDermott senior
Trey Burke sophomore
With advanced analytics taking over the game, inefficient chuckers can't just out talent skilled and cerebrally gifted upperclassmen anymore but the those players will make you pay by shooting the highest percentage shots and baiting the chuckers into taking long 2 point jumpers
You can all but assure yourself that this season, a skilled and cerebrally gifted upperclassmen will win the Wooden Award again, for the 7th consecutive year.
You can all but assure the same for the winner of B1G PoTY
Carsen Edwards, 91st in his class
Ethan Happ, in the 120s in his class
Juwan Morgan in the 100s
Jesse Palmer 99th in his class
Just to name a few.
A 5 star player winning the Wooden Award 13 years ago isn' relevant to this argument even slightly. It's a different game today that relies on skill and basketball IQ.
I went back 6 years on purpose, because the trend started roughly around there.
You just ended your own argument. If you don't understand that the probability of choosing between a pool of 25 different players (5-Star) versus 200+ (3-Star) in regards to a prospect I don't know what to tell you. You're far more likely to get an Eden Ewing than a Frank Kaminsky...My whole point is that higher ranked recruits have a greater probability of being better players which in turn makes your team better if you recruit them consistently...
How? What trend? Your invented trend of players being more skillful? Recruiting rankings take skill into consideration when they make them..
The game today is played much differently than even 5 years ago.
Go back to the last time a McDonald's All American actually won the Wooden Award - you have to go all the way back in 11-12 with Kentucky's Anthony Davis.
40 teams in the country attempted 40% or more of their field goals from behind the 3 point line. The highest team was 47.3.
Fast forward to this year
120 teams attempted 40% or more of their field goals from behind the 3 point line. The highest from 2011 at 47.3 would come in 15th.
The game paints a very, very different picture today than even 6-7 years ago. Advanced statistics have figured things out.
By the way
Villanova had the best offense in the nation last year with only 2 McDonald's All Americans
Who was #2? Purdue, with their 0 McDonald's All Americans. Duke and Kentucky started 5 McDonald's All Americans each iirc and they were behind Purdue.
Last edited:
And Villanova with 2 McDonald All American's won the national title, the other team lost in the sweet 16.
The one whose starting center went down in round 1 to a season ending injury. I mean at this point do we even have to pretend you aren't trolling anymore?
Yeah, not having a McDonald's All American was the reason Purdue lost in the Sweet 16, not that their starting center on their top 5 team was out of the game.
Come on, either discuss with intellectual honesty or don't waste my time trolling me.
News flash - we weren’t beatin Nova with or without Haas.
If you want to talk about “intellectual honesty” then you should have no problem admitting the hard evidence says a team with a McD AA wins the national title <95% of the time.
So is offensive efficiency the 5th or 6th subject change so far? I've lost track.
Do you think he even knows the topic is the correlation between McDonald's AA and national championship winners? I'm thinking no.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
OT: Sports writer's opinion of "Top 10" programs.....- Latest: KentuckyBoiler
-