There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

Maybe you'll next want to do a study of 4 and done students, and tell us what percentage of those led their teams to successful seasons. Then compare the various groups' respective success rates.

And we'll only recruit the group that has the best rate.
Thanks.

Concord; SFCB did yeoman research and needed to be applauded for his efforts. One-and-dones can be a distraction to team unity. I'm sure most coaches would agree if you asked them privately. Not sure if your comment was purposefully sarcastic but that was how I read it.

Sorry, son. I see you have five stars from all the rating services. Maybe Stanford can use you.

It's mixed and marbled.

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

The proper metric isn't how many wins the team got because of the one or two and done. The proper metric is how many wins they got versus the replacement the team passed on or the last schollie the team gave that year. So go down the list of players Cal has had go one or two and done and compare their contribution to the least successful players they signed that year or any known recruit Cal might have gotten. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is a very valid discussion at the point when Cal fills its classes with solid 4 year contributors. Cal has never consistently done that. There isn't a single one and done or two and done who didn't contribute significantly more than others in the class or the guy they might have otherwise gotten. Closest thing is Sampson who shouldn't have been one and done and who was basically going to be replaced by giving the schollie to a walk on if he didn't come.

The relevant metric FOR CAL is comparing the guys Cal got with what they lost. What guy left us worse off than if we had gone with an alternate option we actually had?

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

The proper metric isn't how many wins the team got because of the one or two and done. The proper metric is how many wins they got versus the replacement the team passed on or the last schollie the team gave that year. So go down the list of players Cal has had go one or two and done and compare their contribution to the least successful players they signed that year or any known recruit Cal might have gotten. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is a very valid discussion at the point when Cal fills its classes with solid 4 year contributors. Cal has never consistently done that. There isn't a single one and done or two and done who didn't contribute significantly more than others in the class or the guy they might have otherwise gotten. Closest thing is Sampson who shouldn't have been one and done and who was basically going to be replaced by giving the schollie to a walk on if he didn't come.

The relevant metric FOR CAL is comparing the guys Cal got with what they lost. What guy left us worse off than if we had gone with an alternate option we actually had?

---

I think SFCity's research is interesting; however, as OB points out, there are other metrics. Part of what SFCity's data suggest is that it depends on context. In other words, if you are a strong team that is close to success, a OAD can put you over the top (UK, KU). OTOH, probably won't get you to the Final Four if you're Washington State or Cal in most years. Still, there are other metrics that are useful. For instance, had we been more successful in the year we had Brown and Rabb and had Cuonzo been a better coach, having those 2 might have been important in terms of "putting the program on the map." Much as Jason Kidd did in his 2 years (although Bozeman negated it). In general, I think adding a single OAD to a solid class of 3-4 year players can be beneficial IF it's the right player and IF the team is well positioned.

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

I also have to say under your definition of successful season for these guys, how many successful seasons has Cal had in the last 20 years? Wouldn't the criteria for Cal taking a one and done be that it makes Cal better than most years when they don't take one. Most of the seasons you describe, other than having wins vacated for recruiting violations, and to be clear, I'm not in favor of shenanigans to get one and done guys, would be among the best Cal has had in 50 years.

Cal has one conference championship in like 55 years. 2 sweet sixteens. I'm not looking up 25 wins, but precious few. How is your criteria appropriate for Cal?

UrsaMajor said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

The proper metric isn't how many wins the team got because of the one or two and done. The proper metric is how many wins they got versus the replacement the team passed on or the last schollie the team gave that year. So go down the list of players Cal has had go one or two and done and compare their contribution to the least successful players they signed that year or any known recruit Cal might have gotten. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is a very valid discussion at the point when Cal fills its classes with solid 4 year contributors. Cal has never consistently done that. There isn't a single one and done or two and done who didn't contribute significantly more than others in the class or the guy they might have otherwise gotten. Closest thing is Sampson who shouldn't have been one and done and who was basically going to be replaced by giving the schollie to a walk on if he didn't come.

The relevant metric FOR CAL is comparing the guys Cal got with what they lost. What guy left us worse off than if we had gone with an alternate option we actually had?

---

I think SFCity's research is interesting; however, as OB points out, there are other metrics. Part of what SFCity's data suggest is that it depends on context. In other words, if you are a strong team that is close to success, a OAD can put you over the top (UK, KU). OTOH, probably won't get you to the Final Four if you're Washington State or Cal in most years. Still, there are other metrics that are useful. For instance, had we been more successful in the year we had Brown and Rabb and had Cuonzo been a better coach, having those 2 might have been important in terms of "putting the program on the map." Much as Jason Kidd did in his 2 years (although Bozeman negated it). In general, I think adding a single OAD to a solid class of 3-4 year players can be beneficial IF it's the right player and IF the team is well positioned.

---

Seriously, who should Cal have taken over Brown or Rabb? Kidd? Anderson? (Who wasn't supposed to be a one and done). Shareef? When you actually look at guys Cal took and what Cal's other options were at the time, the question is clearly ridiculous. I don't think it is a ridiculous question for everyone, but for Cal it is. Usually the bottom of our class stinks, to be honest. I can't think of a single class in my lifetime where we didn't either leave an open schollie or where there wasn't some one in the class I wouldn't trade for one of our one or two and dones.

I don't care that they were only here for one and two years, I wouldn't trade Brown and Rabb for anyone. Both fit at Cal and have represented well out in the world.

We can't coach up one and dones any better than 4 year players so what's the difference?

I think taking OAD's really only works if the school has a reasonable expectation of replacing the player the next year with another OAD. The Kansas and Kentuckies of the world can do it, we can't. The recent crappy roster is directly tied to the prior decision to take Raab and Brown. Reasonable people can disagree - is it better to have a Montgomery type model where the team is stable and consistently good but talent wise isn't really a threat to go deep or is it better to go for it with OAD's knowing there will be extreme lean years. I prefer the former.

tequila4kapp said:

---

I think taking OAD's really only works if the school has a reasonable expectation of replacing the player the next year with another OAD. The Kansas and Kentuckies of the world can do it, we can't. The recent crappy roster is directly tied to the prior decision to take Raab and Brown. Reasonable people can disagree - is it better to have a Montgomery type model where the team is stable and consistently good but talent wise isn't really a threat to go deep or is it better to go for it with OAD's knowing there will be extreme lean years. I prefer the former.

---

True, only programs like Kentucky, Duke, Kansas and UNC which get OADs, usually in multiples, every year consistently achieve success with this approach but, as OTB points out, the few we've landed have been assets in our program. I've generally been negative on OADs from the standpoint that they shouldn't be forced to detour to college on the way to the NBA. In essence, they are denying scholarships to less talented players who probably have a greater need/use for the education that so many OADs blow off.

tequila4kapp said:

---

I think taking OAD's really only works if the school has a reasonable expectation of replacing the player the next year with another OAD. The Kansas and Kentuckies of the world can do it, we can't. The recent crappy roster is directly tied to the prior decision to take Raab and Brown. Reasonable people can disagree - is it better to have a Montgomery type model where the team is stable and consistently good but talent wise isn't really a threat to go deep or is it better to go for it with OAD's knowing there will be extreme lean years. I prefer the former.

---

Don't agree with the first sentence, tequila. What's wrong with taking an OAD (oh, let's say Jordan Brown) and replacing him the next year with a 4* freshman? You get a productive year (hopefully) from a stud and a free scholarship the next year.

twoUrsaMajor said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I think taking OAD's really only works if the school has a reasonable expectation of replacing the player the next year with another OAD. The Kansas and Kentuckies of the world can do it, we can't. The recent crappy roster is directly tied to the prior decision to take Raab and Brown. Reasonable people can disagree - is it better to have a Montgomery type model where the team is stable and consistently good but talent wise isn't really a threat to go deep or is it better to go for it with OAD's knowing there will be extreme lean years. I prefer the former.

---

Don't agree with the first sentence, tequila. What's wrong with taking an OAD (oh, let's say Jordan Brown) and replacing him the next year with a 4* freshman? You get a productive year (hopefully) from a stud and a free scholarship the next year.

---

I would say this, Ursa. I need to take into account the class I expect next year and the classes I've gotten already. If I look at Cal, my expectation for basketball recruiting based on reality over the years, not hope or what it should be, is that on average, I'm going to get a good player, a decent player, and then scrape bottom. So with that in mind, let's say I have these options for a class of 4 this year:

Option one:

Ivan Rabb
Average Player who takes a year or two to develop
Flyer on a guy who could develop, but is likely a 4 year limited contributor
Open Schollie

or Option two:

Theo Robertson (by this I mean a player who contributes right away and is good if not great for four years)
Theo Robertson
Theo Robertson
Theo Robertson

I'm taking Option two. Easy. Give me a roster of 4 senior Theo's, 3 junior Theo's, 3 Soph Theo's, and 3 frosh Theo's and I'm ecstatic. Why do I take that over Option one? Because Cal normally has Option three:

Theo Robertson
Average Player who takes a year or two to develop
Flyer on a guy who could develop but is likely a 4 year limited contributor
Flyer on a guy who could develop but is likely a 4 year limited contributor or Open Schollie

Over the years, Cal almost never has a complete roster. Think about the Big 3 year with Shipp, Wethers, Tamir. (and Midgley and ??????????) That is typical Cal and that is a good year. Tequila can talk about the Monty model, but he took a lot of crappy players who did nothing and after Braun's guys left, the roster was not remotely deep.

See, the problem is, Cal virtually never gets Option two. We on occasion get Option one. And we've never gotten option one when we had an alternative choice to take Option two. We get Option one when the alternative choice is Option three and that is a no brainer decision.

Now, I'd prefer Option four:

Ivan Rabb
Theo Robertson
Theo Robertson
Theo Robertson

But we never get that. Maybe once - the two year span of the Murray - Kidd classes. And boy that was great.

Now, I will make one point. If we weren't Cal and I was sitting on 2 Option two classes from the last two years, and I was confident that next year I could pull another Option two class, I'm taking the Option one class this year.

OB:

I had a bit of trouble following your post, but I think we are in full agreement. Obviously, your option 4 is the best (think Villanova) and your option 2 would be 2nd best (but the hardest to achieve). One advantage of an occasional OAD is that they are less likely to be busts. Shooting for 4 Theo's is hard to accomplish. Chances aren't great that all 4 of your recruits will be at that level. One may turn out to be a Gary Franklin or an Emerson Murray.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

The proper metric isn't how many wins the team got because of the one or two and done. The proper metric is how many wins they got versus the replacement the team passed on or the last schollie the team gave that year. So go down the list of players Cal has had go one or two and done and compare their contribution to the least successful players they signed that year or any known recruit Cal might have gotten. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is a very valid discussion at the point when Cal fills its classes with solid 4 year contributors. Cal has never consistently done that. There isn't a single one and done or two and done who didn't contribute significantly more than others in the class or the guy they might have otherwise gotten. Closest thing is Sampson who shouldn't have been one and done and who was basically going to be replaced by giving the schollie to a walk on if he didn't come.

The relevant metric FOR CAL is comparing the guys Cal got with what they lost. What guy left us worse off than if we had gone with an alternate option we actually had?

---

I totally agree with your main thesis but I think Sampson also significantly outplayed whoever would have replaced him. I'm not a fan of trying to build a program around nothing but one and dones or even two year players. I think what we need desperately right now is to develop a program with an identity and continuity and filled with guys who are good to excellent college players who will play 3-4 years. Then your 1-2 years come into a real culture instead of just this year's version of Cal. But at this moment in time the only 1-2 year player we're in the mix for this year is Brown and I have no qualms about wanting him. We need a boost in recruiting profile and wins this season in order to build longer term and he would help with both.

This is a silly discussion.

Cherry pick 4 years of Theo. Ha, he's only the top 3FG% shooter in Cal history.
Why not use Martin Smith as your 4 year guy?
Or Brandon Smith for that matter!

UrsaMajor said:

---

OB:

I had a bit of trouble following your post, but I think we are in full agreement. Obviously, your option 4 is the best (think Villanova) and your option 2 would be 2nd best (but the hardest to achieve). One advantage of an occasional OAD is that they are less likely to be busts. Shooting for 4 Theo's is hard to accomplish. Chances aren't great that all 4 of your recruits will be at that level. One may turn out to be a Gary Franklin or an Emerson Murray.

---

There are one and done's I would avoid like the plague. Specifically, guys who are physical specimens that the NBA will take a flyer on that are also extremely raw skill wise. There have been a few of those guys in college and they aren't worth it because you are thinking about the player they will become when that player will not develop until after they have left. In other words, don't take a player the NBA is drooling over who isn't likely to be a good college player.

But, yes, the vast majority of players that are anticipated to be one and done players are good college players and contribute to the team immediately. So you have two scenarios - hard to know which to call "worst case". Scenario one, you give up a scholarship for one year and you get one good year. That is BETTER than most players. Second scenario is that oh, no. They aren't as good as you thought and they just turn out to be good players who aren't one and done and you get to keep them longer.

And yes, part of my point with the four Theo's is, well, if you can guarantee me 4 Theo's, I'll take 4 Theo's. Because that is essentially what the "I don't want one and done players" people are thinking. I'd rather have Theo. Well, we didn't know Theo would be Theo. We've had lots of Theo recruits and most of them turned out to be Franklin's or Murray's. Yet every player Cal recruited anticipating they would be one or two and done has been a valuable player throughout their entire career at Cal.

I'm still waiting for one example of a player Cal could have gotten instead of Kidd, Shareef, Sampson, Powe, Brown, and Rabb (these are the six that could be anticipated one or two and done's at the time of recruitment with Sampson being questionable) that they could not get because they took any of these guys, that would have left the program in a better position.

And frankly, if you look at the last thirty years of college basketball generally and Cal basketball specifically, with all of the transfers and early departures, anyone, especially Cal, is lucky to get one good year out of a player and two is almost a miracle. The careers we got from Kidd, Rabb, and Powe, are just clearly in the 95th+ percentile of what you can expect out of any recruit, 4 year guy or one and done.

concordtom said:

---

This is a silly discussion.

Cherry pick 4 years of Theo. Ha, he's only the top 3FG% shooter in Cal history.
Why not use Martin Smith as your 4 year guy?
Or Brandon Smith for that matter!

---

There have been a lot of thoughtful comments in this thread. It is only a "silly discussion" if you come to the discussion without a full deck. If you want to know about the success rate of top 100 recruits of 2009 who played all four years at one school, go back and find my spreadsheet which is still up on the forum. The answer is there if you have enough interest to look for it.

You are not correct if you think Theo was a "cherry pick" or that he was the best in Cal history. He had the best percentage at Cal since three points were awarded for a long range shot, but there have been others before that time: Larry Friend, Cal All-American, who left the NBA to jump to the ABL, the first pro league to institute the three point circle. He led that league in three-point shooting that year. All-American Rusty Critchfield was an excellent long range shooter, as were both Tandy Gillis of Cal's 1960 NCAA runnerup team and Dan Wolthers. And you overlooked Jerome Randle who was a shade behind Theo in shooting percentage, but might have been a better three-point shooter than Theo, because he could create his own shot. Allen Crabbe and Jordan Mathews were not the greatest Cal ever had, and only played 3 years, but both were very good three point shooters.

PS: I posted information about Top 100 recruits of one class. If you want to start mentioning players like Martin Smith or Brandon Smith in the same discussion, both were recruited as walk-ons, I believe, and not relevant to this discussion. I think it is you trying to make a serious discussion into a silly one. I hope you are not successful.

bluesaxe said:

---

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

There has been some discussion among posters as to the wisdom of recruiting the highest ranked recruits who are likely to play one or two years at the most at Cal, and then leave school for the NBA. I have felt for some time that this type of recruit, while being outstanding athletes, on average do not contribute much to a team's success. I went back to a spreadsheet of the top 100 players of 2009 that I posted here on the Bear Insider a few years ago, to see what the results showed. In that spreadsheet, I arbitrarily defined a successful team as a team that had accomplished one or more of the following goals in that one season: 25 or more wins, a conference championship, or a trip to the Sweet 16 in the NCAA tournament. Here are the results for the one-and done players:

#1 Derrick Favors, Georgia Tech: 2nd round of the NCAA
#2 John Wall, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#3 DeMarcus Cousins, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8
#4 Avery Bradley, Texas: 1st Round NCAA
#6 Xavier Henry, Kansas: Big 12 Championship, 2nd Round NCAA
#8 Lance Stephenson, Cincinnati: 2nd Round NIT
#10 Keith Gallon, Oklahoma: All team wins vacated by the NCAA. Gallon played, but was supposedly offered or took cash in a recruiting scandal.
#19 Daniel Orton, Kentucky: played very little on team which won SEC Championship, and advanced to NCAA Elite 8
#30 Tommy Mason-Griffin, Oklahoma: Griffin played well, but all team wins were vacated by the NCAA in recruiting scandal.
#52 Eric Bledsoe, Kentucky: won the SEC Championship, NCAA Elite 8

So out of a total of 100 players there were ten who left for the NBA after one season, and of those ten, only four, Wall, Cousins, Henry, and Bledsoe helped their teams to a successful season. And only two schools, Kentucky and Kansas were helped by these 10 recruits to a successful season.

If we look at the two-and-done players, here are those results:

#7 Renardo Sidney, Mississippi State: suspended for fighting; team lost 1st Round NIT
#22 Jordan Hamilton, Texas: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#32 Tyler Honeycutt, UCLA: 3rd Round NCAA (his 2nd year)
#41 Nolan Dennis, Baylor: Had ear problems and left school
#48 Kawhi Leonard, San Diego State: Conference co-Champ, NCAA Sweet 16(2nd year)
#100 Derrick Williams, Arizona: PAC10 Champion, NCAA Elite 8

So overall the results for all these one-and-done and two and done players is 16 players are 6 out of 16 helped their teams have successful seasons during their brief college careers. Two of those players Sidney, and Gallon may have hurt their teams ability to be successful. One player, Nolan Dennis, left school due to injury. The most surprising statistic to me was that of 16 players who left school early, only four schools were helped by these highly ranked players.

I also looked at players in the 2009 class who left after one season to transfer to another school. There were a total of 11 of these who transferred. Only one, Jamil Wilson, helped the team that originally signed him, and that was Jamil Wilson, who played a year at Oregon and helped his team to a 27-8 season and Sweet 16 in the NCAA. He then transferred to Marquette. Some of the others you may be familiar with: Travis and David Wear who played little at North Carolina and transferred to UCLA, Mike Moser who played little at UCLA and transferred twice, and Clarence Trent who played little at UW and transferred. Royce White (Minnesota) and Chris Colvin (Iowa State) both played little and both were suspended. The other players all played very little.

My definition of success is arbitrary. Some of you may have a higher or lower bar. 2009 is only one recruiting class and the results may differ some from class to class, but for 2009 at least, the results of recruiting one- and one or two-and done players did not seem to be a good strategy for me for achieving team success in that year.

---

The proper metric isn't how many wins the team got because of the one or two and done. The proper metric is how many wins they got versus the replacement the team passed on or the last schollie the team gave that year. So go down the list of players Cal has had go one or two and done and compare their contribution to the least successful players they signed that year or any known recruit Cal might have gotten. I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is a very valid discussion at the point when Cal fills its classes with solid 4 year contributors. Cal has never consistently done that. There isn't a single one and done or two and done who didn't contribute significantly more than others in the class or the guy they might have otherwise gotten. Closest thing is Sampson who shouldn't have been one and done and who was basically going to be replaced by giving the schollie to a walk on if he didn't come.

The relevant metric FOR CAL is comparing the guys Cal got with what they lost. What guy left us worse off than if we had gone with an alternate option we actually had?

---

I totally agree with your main thesis but I think Sampson also significantly outplayed whoever would have replaced him. I'm not a fan of trying to build a program around nothing but one and dones or even two year players. I think what we need desperately right now is to develop a program with an identity and continuity and filled with guys who are good to excellent college players who will play 3-4 years. Then your 1-2 years come into a real culture instead of just this year's version of Cal. But at this moment in time the only 1-2 year player we're in the mix for this year is Brown and I have no qualms about wanting him. We need a boost in recruiting profile and wins this season in order to build longer term and he would help with both.

---

Yeah, to clarify, Sampson significantly outplayed anyone who would have replaced him, especially since I'm pretty sure he would have been replaced by Noah Body. Throwing a bone to the other side in that he was incredibly raw offensively, though was absolutely a defensive force. I would definitely take a solid 4 year player over Sampson, but we didn't have one of those guys available. Another point with Sampson is he essentially fell into our lap. We did not spend a lot of recruiting resources on him. It's not like we missed someone else because we were focused on him.

Distilling you point down, OB, it's that you need to compare taking an OAD with the alternative. Saying I'd take a 4-year Theo or a 4-year Jorge or even a 4-year Kravish over an OAD reminds me of those hilarious trade suggestions you here on sports talk radio: why don't we trade our back-up QB for Aaron Rodgers...

The one addition I'd make is that one needs to take into consideration the team as a whole. I'd be very opposed to taking (for example) 3 OAD's in a year (like Oregon or Kentucky are wont to do) regardless of who they are. Even 2/year is likely problematic because of the difficulties integrating them. I also agree with your point that raw physicality is not a reason to take someone for a year.

I am going to distill all of what everyone has said and will say on the subject:

As a coach, you look at your situation, ie. your current personnel, potential recruits, both this coming year in future years and find a guy who fits your current needs and longer term plans, knowing that things can and most likely, will change. It is so specific to a program and a coach's style that one way is not necessarily better than any other, because there are so many variables.

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

This is a silly discussion.

Cherry pick 4 years of Theo. Ha, he's only the top 3FG% shooter in Cal history.
Why not use Martin Smith as your 4 year guy?
Or Brandon Smith for that matter!

---

There have been a lot of thoughtful comments in this thread. It is only a "silly discussion" if you come to the discussion without a full deck. If you want to know about the success rate of top 100 recruits of 2009 who played all four years at one school, go back and find my spreadsheet which is still up on the forum. The answer is there if you have enough interest to look for it.

You are not correct if you think Theo was a "cherry pick" or that he was the best in Cal history. He had the best percentage at Cal since three points were awarded for a long range shot, but there have been others before that time: Larry Friend, Cal All-American, who left the NBA to jump to the ABL, the first pro league to institute the three point circle. He led that league in three-point shooting that year. All-American Rusty Critchfield was an excellent long range shooter, as were both Tandy Gillis of Cal's 1960 NCAA runnerup team and Dan Wolthers. And you overlooked Jerome Randle who was a shade behind Theo in shooting percentage, but might have been a better three-point shooter than Theo, because he could create his own shot. Allen Crabbe and Jordan Mathews were not the greatest Cal ever had, and only played 3 years, but both were very good three point shooters.

PS: I posted information about Top 100 recruits of one class. If you want to start mentioning players like Martin Smith or Brandon Smith in the same discussion, both were recruited as walk-ons, I believe, and not relevant to this discussion. I think it is you trying to make a serious discussion into a silly one. I hope you are not successful.

---

SFCity - I really do appreciate the effort you put into your analysis. But my issue is your definition of a successful season - I don't know, it might be reasonable over all, but for Cal? I checked and in the last 58 seasons, Cal has met your criteria 3 times. And I do have to say, subjectively, your definition leaves out years that as a Cal fan I would find successful. I just can't see second place in a major conference with 10 or 12 teams being unsuccessful.

My response to your question of the wisdom of recruiting one and done's has to be placed in context:

1. The wisdom of focusing your recruiting efforts on one and dones:

Answer - If you are Kentucky, do it. If you are anyone else, don't.

2. Hey, I may not be Kentucky, but I am Duke, or Kansas, or North Carolina, what about me?

Answer - recruit both one and dones and top players who will be around, don't take more than two one and done's a year unless you get 5 that you think will get you a title or your returning roster is for some reason depleted.

3. I'm Arizona or UCLA - what about me?

Answer - Keep focusing on one and dones. The conference appreciates your boom and bust cycles, especially you UCLA who probably would be a consistent power if you stopped taking sissies who don't give a damn about your program other than the fact that it is in the LA media market.

4. I'm your average NCAA power conference team. What should I do?

Answer - Is this a problem you really have? Lots of one and done's beating down your door every year, are there? I'd say recruit your quality players and when a one and done comes along, take them and start recruiting a quality 4 year guy to replace him next season.

5. I'm Cal.

Answer - Um...have you seen what the bottom half, two thirds, heck, sometimes whole recruiting classes look like. You get a one and done coming your way, grab on like grim death. Think about the last guy in every recruiting class you've ever had and tell me whether his four years of nuthin' is better than one year of a lot of somethin'. At least if the one and done isn't what you hope, he's one and done and not four and done.

See the problem with one and dones at Cal is not how good the team would be with them versus without them. It is how good they are versus the fantasy Cal fans have of how good they will be. I've never understood this logic. Cal gets an awesome class, say, #10 in the recruiting rankings. A gaggle of Cal fans run around screaming Final Four. But wait. Our recruiting class was #10 right? That means there are 9 teams ahead for just that year, right? And frankly, most of those 9 teams had higher ranked recruiting classes than Cal last year, and the year before and the year before that, right? So how does that math equate to a top 4 finish? Final Four Baby!!!! And then when we don't get to the Final Four it's because the one and done thing didn't work. Our average season with a one or two and done has been far more successful than our average season without one. If you take out Ryan Anderson's career (and no one thought we were recruiting a two and done when we got him) at the end of Braun's career when he'd run out of gas, the rest of the years have been very successful compared to most years at Cal.

Plain and simple, with thirteen roster spots. With graduate transfers. With all the transfers we've had over the years. With recruits that simply don't work out. Getting a one and done every six years or so is not the thing that is killing our program continuity.

concordtom said:

---

Maybe you'll next want to do a study of 4 and done students, and tell us what percentage of those led their teams to successful seasons. Then compare the various groups' respective success rates.

And we'll only recruit the group that has the best rate.
Thanks.

---

It is all in the spreadsheet, as I said. I just did your study. It took me 5 minutes. From the top 100 recruits in the 2009 class, only 39 played all four years at the school which signed them. Of those, 21 helped their teams to a successful season, and actually helped them to 36 successful seasons, averaging almost 2 successful seasons for each player who helped their team.

Of the ten one and dones in the top 100, only 4 helped their team, a 40% success rate. Of the 39 four year players, 21 helped their teams at least one season, or a 54% success rate. On a per year basis, the four year players who helped their schools, helped them 36 seasons out of 84 years or a 43% success rate.

The sample size (just 10 one and dones, for example) is just to small to make predictions of one vs the other. 29% of the top 100 transferred to other schools, and the remaining 22 left school to play in the NBA after 2 or 3 seasons, or left due to injury, academic, or disciplinary problems.

"See the problem with one and dones at Cal is not how good the team would be with them versus without them. It is how good they are versus the fantasy Cal fans have of how good they will be. I've never understood this logic. Cal gets an awesome class, say, #10 in the recruiting rankings. A gaggle of Cal fans run around screaming Final Four. But wait. Our recruiting class was #10 right? That means there are 9 teams ahead for just that year, right? And frankly, most of those 9 teams had higher ranked recruiting classes than Cal last year, and the year before and the year before that, right? So how does that math equate to a top 4 finish? Final Four Baby!!!! And then when we don't get to the Final Four it's because the one and done thing didn't work. Our average season with a one or two and done has been far more successful than our average season without one. If you take out Ryan Anderson's career (and no one thought we were recruiting a two and done when we got him) at the end of Braun's career when he'd run out of gas, the rest of the years have been very successful compared to most years at Cal.

Plain and simple, with thirteen roster spots. With graduate transfers. With all the transfers we've had over the years. With recruits that simply don't work out. Getting a one and done every six years or so is not the thing that is killing our program continuity."


One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that if you're going after these OADs you'd also better have a good plan B because mostly they won't come to Cal. One of the reasons our roster is so shallow is because Martin didn't. One thing Wyking did that I liked was he signed Kelly when Brown was unwilling to commit. A quality bird in the hand who will likely be a four-year player is a plus.

Also, as someone else has pointed out, the OAD's we've had recently are all quality people who represent the program well. Those guys are no-brainers when it comes to deciding whether to recruit them, but they're also not necessarily the usual.

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Maybe you'll next want to do a study of 4 and done students, and tell us what percentage of those led their teams to successful seasons. Then compare the various groups' respective success rates.

And we'll only recruit the group that has the best rate.
Thanks.

---

It is all in the spreadsheet, as I said. I just did your study. It took me 5 minutes. From the top 100 recruits in the 2009 class, only 39 played all four years at the school which signed them. Of those, 21 helped their teams to a successful season, and actually helped them to 36 successful seasons, averaging almost 2 successful seasons for each player who helped their team.

Of the ten one and dones in the top 100, only 4 helped their team, a 40% success rate. Of the 39 four year players, 21 helped their teams at least one season, or a 54% success rate. On a per year basis, the four year players who helped their schools, helped them 36 seasons out of 84 years or a 43% success rate.

The sample size (just 10 one and dones, for example) is just to small to make predictions of one vs the other. 29% of the top 100 transferred to other schools, and the remaining 22 left school to play in the NBA after 2 or 3 seasons, or left due to injury, academic, or disciplinary problems.

---

I'm sorry SF City, but this methodology just doesn't work. The worst four year recruits usually don't stay four years. Transfers, injuries, academic failure, leaving early are all part of the risk of taking a four year guy. You can't just factor in the guys who actually stayed four years. They all have to factor in. Here is what your methodology leads to:

KJ - 4 years, no successful season by your definition. Failure though he was the #7 pick and turned Cal basketball around

Joe Shipp - No successful season. Failure though he was conference player of the year and his teams went to 3 NCAA's and had two of the better seasons Cal has had. (Add Wethers here as well)

Sean Lampley - No successful season. Broke the school scoring record and was conference player of the year

Chauca- Doesn't count. only played 3 years, though did nothing while taking up a schollie

Franklin - Doesn't count didn't play 4 years.

DJ Seeley - SUCCESS!!! helped his team to a conference championship.

Tell you what. I'll take KJ, Shipp and Lampley and you got Chauca, Franklin and Seeley. I think I win.

Shouldn't success also be measured by player success as well? Seeley is a success in your metric because he rode the coattails of better players. That doesn't work.

One and dones are guys who play one year and go to the NBA. Two and dones play two years and go to the NBA. Those are the guys recruiters surmise may be one and dones when they recruit them. Then there is everyone else.

At minimum there are 84 guys on your list that you should be factoring in against one and dones, not 39. A guy who plays two years, then transfers because he can't make the starting lineup needs to factor in as a failure on the non-one and done side. Your methodology is dramatically skewing to the benefit of the non one and dones by just not considering the failures.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Maybe you'll next want to do a study of 4 and done students, and tell us what percentage of those led their teams to successful seasons. Then compare the various groups' respective success rates.

And we'll only recruit the group that has the best rate.
Thanks.

---

It is all in the spreadsheet, as I said. I just did your study. It took me 5 minutes. From the top 100 recruits in the 2009 class, only 39 played all four years at the school which signed them. Of those, 21 helped their teams to a successful season, and actually helped them to 36 successful seasons, averaging almost 2 successful seasons for each player who helped their team.

Of the ten one and dones in the top 100, only 4 helped their team, a 40% success rate. Of the 39 four year players, 21 helped their teams at least one season, or a 54% success rate. On a per year basis, the four year players who helped their schools, helped them 36 seasons out of 84 years or a 43% success rate.

The sample size (just 10 one and dones, for example) is just to small to make predictions of one vs the other. 29% of the top 100 transferred to other schools, and the remaining 22 left school to play in the NBA after 2 or 3 seasons, or left due to injury, academic, or disciplinary problems.

---

I'm sorry SF City, but this methodology just doesn't work. The worst four year recruits usually don't stay four years. Transfers, injuries, academic failure, leaving early are all part of the risk of taking a four year guy. You can't just factor in the guys who actually stayed four years. They all have to factor in. Here is what your methodology leads to:

KJ - 4 years, no successful season by your definition. Failure though he was the #7 pick and turned Cal basketball around

Joe Shipp - No successful season. Failure though he was conference player of the year and his teams went to 3 NCAA's and had two of the better seasons Cal has had. (Add Wethers here as well)

Sean Lampley - No successful season. Broke the school scoring record and was conference player of the year

Chauca- Doesn't count. only played 3 years, though did nothing while taking up a schollie

Franklin - Doesn't count didn't play 4 years.

DJ Seeley - SUCCESS!!! helped his team to a conference championship.

Tell you what. I'll take KJ, Shipp and Lampley and you got Chauca, Franklin and Seeley. I think I win.

Shouldn't success also be measured by player success as well? Seeley is a success in your metric because he rode the coattails of better players. That doesn't work.

One and dones are guys who play one year and go to the NBA. Two and dones play two years and go to the NBA. Those are the guys recruiters surmise may be one and dones when they recruit them. Then there is everyone else.

At minimum there are 84 guys on your list that you should be factoring in against one and dones, not 39. A guy who plays two years, then transfers because he can't make the starting lineup needs to factor in as a failure on the non-one and done side. Your methodology is dramatically skewing to the benefit of the non one and dones by just not considering the failures.

---

On the money, overall, but I remember Joe Shipp as BEING IN THE RUNNING for PoY, but not the winner. He had a great senior season, to be sure. One of my fav Cal players.

Really hard to make generalizations about whether OADs are inherently good or bad. It really depends on the player, the surrounding talent, the system and the coaching. Arguments could be made on both sides.

Villanova is a case on one end of the spectrum where they haven't had a single top 25 recruiting class in a decade, zero OADs and only Mickey D guy (Brunson). Clearly, they're crushing it.

On the other end of the spectrum, Duke has gone hog wild with OADs in the last decade and the results have largely been favorable the more OADs they've gotten, at least in the tournament when it matters. Since 2009, they've had four teams with zero or 1 OAD freshman starters and they finished 5-4 in the NCAA Tournament with one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16 and two first round losses. The four teams that averaged at least two OAD starters finished 12-3 in NCAA play with one national title, one Elite Eight, one Sweet 16 and one second-round loss. The two teams that started at least three one-and-done freshmen finished 9-1 in NCAA play with a national title and an Elite Eight this past season with only a rimmed out shot keeping them from a final 4.

There are different paths to success. The Villanova approach seems the approach that best fits Cal. Recruit a bunch of players ranked 50-150 and build a strong program culture with 3-4 year guys. USC was on a similar path until things went sideways on them.

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are different paths to success. The Villanova approach seems the approach that best fits Cal. Recruit a bunch of players ranked 50-150 and build a strong program culture with 3-4 year guys.

---

Recruit those players is step 2; build a strong program culture is step 3.

Step 1 is to hire a coach of Jay Wright's level, or at least someone within shouting distance of that level. Unless step 1 is done well, step 3 won't be done well, and then you just have ok-but-not-great recruits playing in a weak culture, like Sean Miler's Arizona if they had a mix of 2-star and 3-star players instead of 5-star players.

BearSD said:

---

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are different paths to success. The Villanova approach seems the approach that best fits Cal. Recruit a bunch of players ranked 50-150 and build a strong program culture with 3-4 year guys.

---

Recruit those players is step 2; build a strong program culture is step 3.

Step 1 is to hire a coach of Jay Wright's level, or at least someone within shouting distance of that level. Unless step 1 is done well, step 3 won't be done well, and then you just have ok-but-not-great recruits playing in a weak culture, like Sean Miler's Arizona if they had a mix of 2-star and 3-star players instead of 5-star players.

---

Problem: there are a lot of Sean Millers, even more Ernie Kents, not a lot of Jay Wrights around.

OaktownBear said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

concordtom said:

---

Maybe you'll next want to do a study of 4 and done students, and tell us what percentage of those led their teams to successful seasons. Then compare the various groups' respective success rates.

And we'll only recruit the group that has the best rate.
Thanks.

---

It is all in the spreadsheet, as I said. I just did your study. It took me 5 minutes. From the top 100 recruits in the 2009 class, only 39 played all four years at the school which signed them. Of those, 21 helped their teams to a successful season, and actually helped them to 36 successful seasons, averaging almost 2 successful seasons for each player who helped their team.

Of the ten one and dones in the top 100, only 4 helped their team, a 40% success rate. Of the 39 four year players, 21 helped their teams at least one season, or a 54% success rate. On a per year basis, the four year players who helped their schools, helped them 36 seasons out of 84 years or a 43% success rate.

The sample size (just 10 one and dones, for example) is just to small to make predictions of one vs the other. 29% of the top 100 transferred to other schools, and the remaining 22 left school to play in the NBA after 2 or 3 seasons, or left due to injury, academic, or disciplinary problems.

---

I'm sorry SF City, but this methodology just doesn't work. The worst four year recruits usually don't stay four years. Transfers, injuries, academic failure, leaving early are all part of the risk of taking a four year guy. You can't just factor in the guys who actually stayed four years. They all have to factor in. Here is what your methodology leads to:

KJ - 4 years, no successful season by your definition. Failure though he was the #7 pick and turned Cal basketball around

Joe Shipp - No successful season. Failure though he was conference player of the year and his teams went to 3 NCAA's and had two of the better seasons Cal has had. (Add Wethers here as well)

Sean Lampley - No successful season. Broke the school scoring record and was conference player of the year

Chauca- Doesn't count. only played 3 years, though did nothing while taking up a schollie

Franklin - Doesn't count didn't play 4 years.

DJ Seeley - SUCCESS!!! helped his team to a conference championship.

Tell you what. I'll take KJ, Shipp and Lampley and you got Chauca, Franklin and Seeley. I think I win.

Shouldn't success also be measured by player success as well? Seeley is a success in your metric because he rode the coattails of better players. That doesn't work.

One and dones are guys who play one year and go to the NBA. Two and dones play two years and go to the NBA. Those are the guys recruiters surmise may be one and dones when they recruit them. Then there is everyone else.

At minimum there are 84 guys on your list that you should be factoring in against one and dones, not 39. A guy who plays two years, then transfers because he can't make the starting lineup needs to factor in as a failure on the non-one and done side. Your methodology is dramatically skewing to the benefit of the non one and dones by just not considering the failures.

---

Oaktown --- I don't read your posts anymore. I stopped reading them, because they nearly always included a personal attack on me. I really don't have time for that sort of crap and I wish you didn't either. I read this post of yours by accident, when it was quoted by another poster. Your post is misinformed and off-topic, through no fault of your own. I will try to reply as best I can in such a way as to not offend you in any way.

In order to follow or understand my "methodology" you would have needed to study my spreadsheet on the 2009 recruiting class which I posted a few years ago on the Bear Insider, and then a year or two later, I reposted it. You would have seen it was much more detailed than just looking at one-and-dones vs 4 year players. You would in fact have seen that I covered many of the points you make, and in fact agree with some of it. Unfortunately, it looks like the BI only archives posts for a year, so I can't direct you to the link for the spreadsheet. If you send me a private message, I will be happy to e-mail you the spreadsheet, and would like to hear your comments.

I feel that most fans almost religiously believe in recruit rankings, and I wanted to see for myself whether the recruit rankings were accurate for the top 100 players of one year. I picked the year 2009, because those recruits had all finished their careers and many had played professionally for a few years after college. I chose to use the RCSI top 100 players list, because it was a composite or average ranking from several of the major recruit evaluation services who publish such lists. Today, Greg of our Insider Staff tells me that Rivals has a more accurate list when it comes to ranking players from the west, and he prefers that one. Nevertheless, I used RCSI which includes Rivals in their evaluations.

In my spreadsheet, you would see for each player, how many years he played, and for which schools. You would see how many minutes he played on average, what his statistics were in his best seasons, and how many good seasons he had as an individual. You would see if he had academic problems, drug problems, discipline problems, was injured, or if he transferred. I used all of that data to determine if he had lived up to his recruit ranking, whether he played 1, 2, 3, or 4 years in college. I then looked at the teams he played for, and I arbitrarily chose what would have been a good year for his team, in terms of winning something. If he was an exciting player who caused a lot of fans to see him play, even though his team was not successful, I did not consider that as helping his team. I reported on how many good seasons his teams had when he was a significant player for them, that is he had to play significant minutes, and had to be in his team's rotation of 6 to 9 players.

Then I looked at his career after college and recorded how many years he had played professionally and in what leagues or countries. I did that just to see how many of 100 recruits did play professionally, but I did not include that in my evaluation of whether he had lived up to his recruit ranking.

What is this "four year recruit" that you talk about? We don't know how long any recruit will stay in college, or stay at one college, do we?

Your post was mostly about picking certain players from other eras and comparing them to what I found for the year 2009. Bringing up Kevin Johnson is like a non-sequitur for this discussion. First of all, there was no RSCI top 100 recruits list when Johnson played for Cal. Rivals was not even founded until 1998. So Kevin Johnson was not ranked in the top 100 recruits. Looking at the 2009 class, in their first year, the Cal team played 35 games. Kevin Johnson's Cal teams played only 28 games per season in his first 3 years. So if I had done a spreadsheet for those years, I would have said a 19 win season was a good season, which is what KJ's Cal team had in 1986. I will grant you that Johnson helped turn Cal Basketball around, but I would argue that the main reason Cal Basketball turned around was Lou Campanelli. Johnson's first two seasons were both losing records under Dick Kuchen, and his final two years under Campanelli were Cal's and Johnson's best years of the four years. Campy put defense back into the Cal vocabulary, which is what turned that team around, IMO.

Joe Shipp wasn't ranked on RCSI's composite top 100 list for 1999, so he is also not relevant to this discussion. Brian Wethers was ranked #50 on that list, so he would be relevant. RCSI did not publish their first composite top 100 ranking list until 1998, and Sean Lampley was in the 1997 class, so unfortunately he is not relevant to this discussion either. Brandon Chauca was not ranked at all until Cal signed him, and then he got a 2-star ranking, not enough to get him onto the RCSI top 100 list, so he is not relevant.

Both Gary Franklin and D.J. Seeley were RCSI top 100 recruits, but here again you need to have studied my spread sheet to know what my "methodology" was, and that was that a player had to play significant minutes, and have a good personal season to be credited with having helped his team. Franklin played 13 games at Cal, was a starter, averaged 8 points and 2 assists. Not enough to be credited with helping his team. In fact, by leaving mid-season, he really hurt the team. In 2010, Cal won the PAC10, and D. J. Seeley played 8 minutes, averaged 2 points and 0.5 assists. He did not have a good personal season and did not help his team at all. In fact, he may have hurt the team with all his sulking and disinterested play. If you had studied my spreadsheet, you would know that for me, a recruit had to play significant minutes, and make a significant contribution with good statistics or otherwise to be credited with helping his team be successful.

I will disagree with you with the importance you give to a player's individual success. I don't exclude it, I accept it, but it pales in comparison to how the team functions as a team, which I think is the best road to success. If a player has so much personal success that it detracts from the team game, it can prevent the team from achieving its potential to win games and championships.

Finally, the thread was started to begin a discussion about the value for a program to focus on one-and-dones or not, and I used the 2009 top 100 players as an example of just one class of recruits. I did not make any predictions or observations about other classes or players, and I would not, unless I was willing to put in all the hours to look at another class, which I don't have time to do. If you want to use other criteria, or look at other years, I welcome your interest. I hope you will contact me so I can e-mail you the spreadsheet for 2009.

Maybe, but does Coach Miller do a good Lou Rawls impersonation?

SFCity;

as I have posted before, your data are interesting and your methodology is sound as far as it goes. Unfortunately, you can't really evaluate what you can't have data for. In other words, defining "helping the team" as the team succeeding in one or another metric makes sense. However, a player who takes a team that would have won fewer than 10 games and helps them to win--say--17, even if they don't win a championship or get to the tournament has helped his team. I recognize that it is impossible to do that research, because you can't possibly know how many games team X would have won without player Y, so I can accept your work as a good approximation.