socaltownie said:
I think the 4-stars and high 3 stars are what Cal should target, because if we want success soon, we don't have the luxury of gambling on one-and-dones. We need Alan Crabbes, or Matt Bradleys, 4-stars who are ready to play as freshmen, and will stay 3-4 years. We need Jerome Randles or Harper Kamps, 3-stars who might not be ready to play until they are sophs or juniors, and will stay 4 years. And we need a lot of these types, not just 2 or 3 per team. If we are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on the low ranked 3 stars, or the unranked Jorges, than on the elite players."
I just will never understand your point here which you have made a LOT of times in a LOT of posts (Ditto the whole Hawaii thing forgetting that Bird and Wallace were BOTH out that game and the team was clearly rattled by the whole Yani thing).. Would you really give a scholarship to an low ranked 3 rather than Ivan Rabb? "Sorry Ms. Rabb, I know your son is a dominant player but we want to pass on him to give it to this guy from Chico that will work really hard on his two hand jumper?"
To compete to get to the second weekend in the current environment you MUST have kids that at least can SMELL the next level. They might not make it (Bird, Wallace, Rabb, Jorge, Jerome ) but they need to have the skills to get there. It is important to know that only Jorge flew under the radar here - frankly form some very very unique circumstances. The rest where 4* (I believe that is true of Jerome but he might have been a 3 because of height) or a low 5 (Ivan).
What is the case is that we are so far from smelling even low 4s that it is funny. We can not replace Fox with someone who can actually recruit fast enough.
Once again, I did NOT bring up the Cal Hawaii game in the post you reference. I brought the Hawaii team up because Hawaii was a very good team all season long. Whoever decided to give Hawaii recruits such low rankings just missed on several players, that's all.
Look, there is nothing wrong with your approach of getting elite players, including some who leave early. I can remember Cal lost in the Elite 8 to Seattle in 1958. Seattle had two elite players, Elgin Baylor and Charlie Brown. Baylor was the best player in the country, and would have left school early if he had the chance. Brown would have been a low 5 or high 4 star. As it turned out Baylor got hurt in the semi-final, played hurt the final, and did not play well, and Seattle lost to Kentucky. Newell was really disappointed, because he felt Cal had a better team than Kentucky, even with no elite players at all, and Cal could have won their first NCAA. After that, I began following the NCAA every year, and in most years to get to a Final Four,I saw you needed to have 2 elite players. You might not win it all, but that was what was needed to get to the 4. It is still true today, I think.
The problem with your approach today is that you need a steady stream of 4 and 5-star players, because so much is based on recruit rankings, which is often inaccurate. The other big problem is injuries. You need the steady stream of elite players because so many get injured today. The final problem is they keep leaving after a year or two, and you have to keep replacing them, year by year. Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UNC, UConn all follow your approach and still don't make it to the Final Four in some years. My point is that Cal even its best years can't recruit with the teams above. Cal flopped after that chance in 2016, because he could not immediately bring in elite replacements to replace those who left. You have to keep your foot on the accelerator year after year, and never let up, or you are not going to keep up with Arizona, UCLA, UW, USC, and not ever get get close to Duke or Kentucky. In the modern game, I think Cal should try for the Virginia model. They get plenty of top 100 players, but not many of the elite one-and-dones, if any. And they are usually in or sniffing the Final Four. I hope now you understand what I'm for.
I would have given a scholarship to Rabb over almost any recruit whatever his ranking. Cal desperately needed a good big man who could play right away. But more than that, we knew his mother was a strong influence in where he would go, and I felt there was a good chance he would have stayed 2 and even 3 years. What we need are good players who will stay at Cal at least 3 years. The same goes for Jabari Bird. Bird had family ties to Cal, and I felt he would need to build up his body to have a chance to leave Cal early. As it was the poor guy kept getting injured, and stayed all 4 years. He did manage to learn the three point shot while at Cal, so he had a good chance to make it in the NBA.
If you rephrase the question to ask me if the elite player was not Rabb, but Jaylen Brown, I suppose if there were a talented under the radar 3-star player, I might take him instead of offering Brown. There was no way Brown was going to play more than one season at Cal. It was fun to see him play here, but the team result was not what was hoped for, even with all the talent around him. Injuries are a fact in modern basketball. As low-ranked under the radar 3-stars, I remember seeing high school mixtapes of Jerome Randle, which looked very exciting. I would have offered him, and I said so. It took him two years to develop, but his last two years were sensational. I could give you a list of 3-stars who made good in college.
BTW, Jaylen Brown was ranked #3 in the RSCI consensus top 100, Ivan Rabb #5 in 2015, a very high 5-star. Jerome Randle was a low-ranked 3-star, and not in the top 100 in 2006.
SFCityBear
