Of course he doesn't read the article disputing his point. Oh well, he is now the first person to make my ignore list.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I get a better bet instead of cash.Bolded is good to here. Going to hold you to this.
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.
FIFYThey don't discuss basketball enough on KHC for my liking, so to get my fix I come here and argue terribly.
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.But a better bet to make if you really disagree with me is that a team with all freshman will win the national title.
Duke has a higher win probability than Purdue because they have 5 star McDonald All Americans.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.
I have made 4 or 5 post on the subject and they have been fairly consistent, My original response was to a couple of post. One suggested Wheeler should start instead of Cline and another that thought Wheeler could be better than a freshmen Vince. My point was that while the videos are very encouraging, he did red shirt last year and coaches typically don't red shirt guys who are ready to play. The other posters responded by saying that it doesn't reflect on his ability because we were so deep at the 4. I stand by my original post that I believe we weren't so deep that if he could have played like "a freshman Vince" their weren't minutes available.
There is no agenda. I don't know the players or hope one player starts over another. I trust Painter will play the best 8 or 9 guys he thinks will help Purdue win. If Wheeler is better than Cline and is Vince 2.0 that will be great, but I think its a little early to make those projections.
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
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.
Yet you continue to post over here.Im not trying to argue.
And only one of those teams won the title that year.....I'll let you figure out which one.
Yet you continue to post over here.
Bye Zach.
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
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.Not sure what that has to do with what I just said. We need to get elite talent to have a shot at being championship contenders.
How about this, so we can end this. I will bet you $1k that a team with a former McDonald's AA wins the championship this upcoming season. You can have the field. Accept?
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.
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 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.
Space is cold therefore the sun isn't hot.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.
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 claimI'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.
And Michigan no AA but good quality players with a hellava coach at the help was within 1 game of winning it all.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.
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.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.
U winLoyola 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.
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.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
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
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.Secondly, do you have anything in response to my Wooden Award list that isn't trolling or trying to argue?
Wow...just wow...
Not trolling but help me understand your math here.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.
Shocking stat, isn't it?
Perception isn't reality, reality is reality.
Not trolling but help me understand your math here.
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.
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
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.
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..
And Villanova with 2 McDonald All American's won the national title, the other team lost in the sweet 16.Villanova had the second 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.
And Villanova with 2 McDonald All American's won the national title, the other team lost in the sweet 16.
News flash - we weren’t beatin Nova with or without Haas.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.
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.
So is offensive efficiency the 5th or 6th subject change so far? I've lost track.And Villanova with 2 McDonald All American's won the national title, the other team lost in the sweet 16.