ncbears said:

---

Ben Braun didn't have any recruits for his first year as Cal coach, because wasn't he hired in September of 1996 - just before the season began?
So, in his first class, he got Sean Lampley. Carlisle may have already transferred and was sitting out the 96-97 season. But, Braun also got Kilgore, Gill and Elson whom I think were JC transfers.

---

Braun and Monty both relied heavily on JC and other transfers at first (not sure who was already on the way). It was the right strategy and with the transfer portal and grad transfers is even easier to follow now.

The biggest mistake is handing out 4 year scholarships to marginal players who will barely ever contribute. Monty, Cuonzo and Wyking all made that mistake (yes, Monty made both lists). Hopefully Fox doesn't make that mistake.

I hope we are looking at Boogie Ellis, he de-committed from Duke. 4-star to 5-star, depending on where you look. UCLA and others have interest, does Cal?

Quote:

---

I was not enamored with Hawthorne. I thought he was a ball hog. He went coast to coast regularly, which was grade school stuff where I came from.

---

I remember one play where the opponents had just scored and Hawthorne got the ball for the inbounds pass. Nobody on our team could get open, so Hawthorne threw the ball hard off the back of an opponent, picked up the ricochet, and went coast to coast for a layup. Not exactly what you might call a textbook play but nevertheless highly entertaining.

ncbears said:

---

Ben Braun didn't have any recruits for his first year as Cal coach, because wasn't he hired in September of 1996 - just before the season began?
So, in his first class, he got Sean Lampley. Carlisle may have already transferred and was sitting out the 96-97 season. But, Braun also got Kilgore, Gill and Elson whom I think were JC transfers.

---

Braun was hired in mid September, 1996, and the season did not begin until November 25, so Braun had two months to recruit. He inherited a team with 6 seniors, 2 juniors, 2 sophs. He had 9 or 10 players on scholarship (Justin Labagh was one of the sophs, so I don't know if he had a schollie) Braun had so many good players that I think he used his scholarships to stockpile some transfers for the 1997-98 season. This included Carlisle, who transferred from Northwestern, Mike Gill, who transferred from Pitt, Thomas Kilgore, who transferred from Central Michigan, Raymond King, who transferred from San Diego State, The 1996-97 roster also had 6 freshmen, who were either brought in by Braun or left to him by Bozeman. One of those was a decent player, Sean Jackson, who would not play much at Cal with all the talent Braun had, and would transfer to UC Irivine where he was a star player for them.

Bozeman left Braun a roster that was loaded, with seniors Ed Gray, Randy Duck, Prentice McGruder, Anwar McQueen, Al Grigsby, Michael Stewart, junior Tony Gonzalez, and soph Kenyon Jones. And with 6 seniors graduating and Gonzalez leaving for the NFL, Braun did an incredible job building a team in just two months that could compete the following season. In his second season he would add frosh Lampley, transfer Francisco Elson from Kilgore CC in Texas, and soph Robbie Jones.

G Hawthorne was a great player, and perhaps the best left handed Bear G of all time.

calumnus said:

---

ncbears said:

---

Ben Braun didn't have any recruits for his first year as Cal coach, because wasn't he hired in September of 1996 - just before the season began?
So, in his first class, he got Sean Lampley. Carlisle may have already transferred and was sitting out the 96-97 season. But, Braun also got Kilgore, Gill and Elson whom I think were JC transfers.

---

Braun and Monty both relied heavily on JC and other transfers at first (not sure who was already on the way). It was the right strategy and with the transfer portal and grad transfers is even easier to follow now.

The biggest mistake is handing out 4 year scholarships to marginal players who will barely ever contribute. Monty, Cuonzo and Wyking all made that mistake (yes, Monty made both lists). Hopefully Fox doesn't make that mistake.

---

I looked at Braun's whole Cal career, and found only two JC transfers. In 1997 he got.Francisco Elson of Kilgore CC in Texas, and in 1998 he got Carl Boyd of Porterville CC. He depended early on mostly D1 transfers. He sure was a coach who knew talent, and knew how to sign it, for Cal at least.

He's being courted by the big boys. He ain't coming to Cal. Same with Jordan Brown.

ben bruan was an excellent recruiter. have no idea what this staff can bring in at this late date. our current roster will have problems in a half court offense. i like bradley. lots of potential.

SFCityBear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Judging by the comments here on another thread, Bozeman would get a lot of support from this site if he came back and continued his realistic methods.

---

So illegal and unethical behavior in a coach is now called "realistic"? As a society, we can't sink much lower than that. I hope it never returns to Cal. I really did not enjoy seeing my University on probation. I'll leave that to the USC's of the world.

---

The top four Pac programs in recent years, UofA, Oregon, UCLA and USC, all cheat, and take kids with backgrounds schools that schools like Udub, Cal or Furd would never take. Bottom line is this is a **** hole confence that doesn't attract talent anymore (we don't pay well) and the only way to compete is cheat, or in the case of Udub, Cal (under Martin) or Utah, land the occasional future NBA player. The portal and 1 year rule don't help. The days of Monty ball, where you can have a bunch of veteran players who play sophisticated basketball and win are long gone for this conferencre. Yes it can work in the ACC, for a lot of reasons. But not in the Pac. If you want sustained winning, better be like those four programs.

There are a variety of forms of "cheating" and I think it helps to be precise about what exactly we mean when we say that. We're learning about cheating in the form of coaches paying players with their own money. I suspect those cases are far from typical and the province of the true scumbags of the sport. Those are obvious. What gets grayer is when staff members coordinate some kind of financial support from a third party like an agent, a shoe company liaison, etc. but are not directly involved necessarily. You could have school staff coordinate support (like getting a high paying job or straight cash) from a booster as well. Those things all involve university involvement but it's a spectrum and it's not always clear who knows what. I still believe that most of the dirty money in college basketball flows outside of direct school involvement. What's not clear is whether coaches simply turn a blind eye to that and allow it to go on or whether they are simply unaware. Coaches may knowingly play a guy that they know to be ineligible under the rules because they're receive some kind of support. That may be pretty common but it's also fairly tame on the spectrum of "cheating". It's also pretty difficult for both schools and the ncaa to enforce rigorously.

Ultimately, there are many different ways that schools may be involved in bending the ncaa rules. But there's clearly a spectrum and what we're seeing from Sean Miller is at the egregious and extreme end of the spectrum and likely not very common.

Everybody's homework is to watch Blue Chips!

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are a variety of forms of "cheating" and I think it helps to be precise about what exactly we mean when we say that. We're learning about cheating in the form of coaches paying players with their own money. I suspect those cases are far from typical and the province of the true scumbags of the sport. Those are obvious. What gets grayer is when staff members coordinate some kind of financial support from a third party like an agent, a shoe company liaison, etc. but are not directly involved necessarily. You could have school staff coordinate support (like getting a high paying job or straight cash) from a booster as well. Those things all involve university involvement but it's a spectrum and it's not always clear who knows what. I still believe that most of the dirty money in college basketball flows outside of direct school involvement. What's not clear is whether coaches simply turn a blind eye to that and allow it to go on or whether they are simply unaware. Coaches may knowingly play a guy that they know to be ineligible under the rules because they're receive some kind of support. That may be pretty common but it's also fairly tame on the spectrum of "cheating". It's also pretty difficult for both schools and the ncaa to enforce rigorously.

Ultimately, there are many different ways that schools may be involved in bending the ncaa rules. But there's clearly a spectrum and what we're seeing from Sean Miller is at the egregious and extreme end of the spectrum and likely not very common.

---

This is just the start. How above hiring AAU coaches to bring players with them? Or having your backers support AAU teams like UCLA? And then there is Altman. I'm not even sure where to begin. I had this discussion with Monty. The reality is that unless a good player is very academically-oriented and maintain his independence, the player is taken in a systemic manner and steered to specific schools with the understanding he will get "stuff" and be placed on the right AAU team.(the other side of the equation is the inside schools take care of the AAU networkers and often player families). I want you to focus on the word Monty used: systemic. It is not some nuanced forms of cheating. Brown went to Cal because he chose the academic path and stayed clear of AAU influence. But how many Browns are there? Very few. If you are not one of the inside programs, you have to recruit less known players like a Wisconsin or Virginia and build them-up. You want talent, cheat. That is the status college men's basketball recruiting.

Systemic: Just one of many articles

The FBI Scandal Hasn't Changed College Basketball https://www.theringer.com/college-basketball/2018/12/17/18144429/college-basketball-scandal-fbi-investigation?

College basketball is in such a sad state

I was disappointed in the special task force that looked into it

They made a few good changes, and at least one bad change (15 official visits) but basically did nothing to change the situation

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Judging by the comments here on another thread, Bozeman would get a lot of support from this site if he came back and continued his realistic methods.

---

So illegal and unethical behavior in a coach is now called "realistic"? As a society, we can't sink much lower than that. I hope it never returns to Cal. I really did not enjoy seeing my University on probation. I'll leave that to the USC's of the world.

---

The top four Pac programs in recent years, UofA, Oregon, UCLA and USC, all cheat, and take kids with backgrounds schools that schools like Udub, Cal or Furd would never take. Bottom line is this is a **** hole confence that doesn't attract talent anymore (we don't pay well) and the only way to compete is cheat, or in the case of Udub, Cal (under Martin) or Utah, land the occasional future NBA player. The portal and 1 year rule don't help. The days of Monty ball, where you can have a bunch of veteran players who play sophisticated basketball and win are long gone for this conferencre. Yes it can work in the ACC, for a lot of reasons. But not in the Pac. If you want sustained winning, better be like those four programs.

---

I disagree totally with your conclusion. Basketball history, both modern and ancient, is littered with examples of teams winning with less talent over the highly talented teams. Recruits are not robots that you can plug into the five slots on a team and expect them to play as well as a team as they are ranked individually. In fact it can be more challenging for a coach with 5 prima donna one and dones to get them to play together and not try to do it all by themselves. There is only one basketball in a game at a time, and it has to be shared. I only need to point you to this year's NCAA Final. Virginia with Tony Bennett coaching a roster with very good players, but zero one and dones, and Chris Beard with only one top 100 player on his roster, and him not even a starter, both battling for the title, with all the teams with all the one and dones in the entire country, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina all sitting on the sidelines as spectators. I would also mention that the year before, Villanova had a single one and done, Omari Spellman, but the other teams in the Final Four, Kansas, Michigan, and Loyola had none. I can't remember the last time Loyola had a top 100 recruit, let alone had a one and done. In 2017, UNC won with a ton of ranked players, but only a single one and done, Tony Bradley. Of the Final 4, Gonzaga had a single one and done, Zach Collins, and neither South Carolina nor Oregon had a single one and done player.

As to the PAC12, this year Washington won it, and they did not have a single one and done. ASU finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2018, Arizona won it, and had a single one and done, Andre Ayton. USC finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2017, Arizona won, and both Markkanan and Simmons were one and dones. Oregon finished 2nd, without a single one and done. In 2016, Oregon won the title, without a single one and done. Utah finished 2nd without a single one and done. This is a small sample, and all I can glean from it is that in the PAC12, maybe Sean Miller usually can't win the PAC12 without one and dones, but the other coaches seemed to find a way to do it without one and dones. If I have time, I'll do more research on this.

Basketball success might actually be moving more away from the scenario you described, and moving more toward sharp coaching with less talent. At least I hope this year's NCAA final was not a fluke.

This year's tourney was spectacular . . . genuinely captivating.

uVa Coach Tony Bennett.

Loyola Ramblers Jerry Harkness 1963 and LaRue Martin 1970 prox.

Ben Simmons was LSu.

"This is a small sample, and all I can glean from it is that in the PAC12, maybe Sean Miller usually can't win the PAC12 without one and dones, but the other coaches seemed to find a way to do it without one and dones. If I have time, I'll do more research on this."
What does this say for Miller as a coach? Coach Altman's teams seem to waltz circles around the hapless Miller and his bag-boys.

joe amos yaks said:

---

uVa Coach Tony Bennett.

Loyola Ramblers Jerry Harkness 1963 and LaRue Martin 1970 prox.

Ben Simmons was LSu.

"This is a small sample, and all I can glean from it is that in the PAC12, maybe Sean Miller usually can't win the PAC12 without one and dones, but the other coaches seemed to find a way to do it without one and dones. If I have time, I'll do more research on this."
What does this say for Miller as a coach? Coach Altman's teams seem to waltz circles around the hapless Miller and his bag-boys.

---

Thanks for the correction on Tony Bennett. I'm still amazed that a great crooner could also coach real good basketball.

I never saw Harkness or Martin play, but they were very good players. They didn't have top 100 rankings or one and dones in those days (freshmen not allowed to play varsity) as I remember. Were they good enough in high school to be highly ranked? Probably so.

As to Simmons, I was thinking of Kobi Simmons who was a one and done at Arizona.

As to Miller, if he is guilty in this scandal, I hope the NCAA nails him good, and sends him off to be an assistant to Todd Bozeman. On the other hand if this is a criminal offense, the rock pile would be too good for him.

"Shoot Two" Larue Martin was the #1 overall draft choice in 1972 from Loyola of Chicago by the Portland Trailblazers ahead of Julius Erving....not a one and done but pretty impressive as an overall #1.....

TheSouseFamily said:

---

There are a variety of forms of "cheating" and I think it helps to be precise about what exactly we mean when we say that. We're learning about cheating in the form of coaches paying players with their own money. I suspect those cases are far from typical and the province of the true scumbags of the sport. Those are obvious. What gets grayer is when staff members coordinate some kind of financial support from a third party like an agent, a shoe company liaison, etc. but are not directly involved necessarily. You could have school staff coordinate support (like getting a high paying job or straight cash) from a booster as well. Those things all involve university involvement but it's a spectrum and it's not always clear who knows what. I still believe that most of the dirty money in college basketball flows outside of direct school involvement. What's not clear is whether coaches simply turn a blind eye to that and allow it to go on or whether they are simply unaware. Coaches may knowingly play a guy that they know to be ineligible under the rules because they're receive some kind of support. That may be pretty common but it's also fairly tame on the spectrum of "cheating". It's also pretty difficult for both schools and the ncaa to enforce rigorously.

Ultimately, there are many different ways that schools may be involved in bending the ncaa rules. But there's clearly a spectrum and what we're seeing from Sean Miller is at the egregious and extreme end of the spectrum and likely not very common.

---

"Coordinating" payoffs from others is a gray area? I don't think so. We have a little problem with ethics if that is what people really think.

SFCityBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Judging by the comments here on another thread, Bozeman would get a lot of support from this site if he came back and continued his realistic methods.

---

So illegal and unethical behavior in a coach is now called "realistic"? As a society, we can't sink much lower than that. I hope it never returns to Cal. I really did not enjoy seeing my University on probation. I'll leave that to the USC's of the world.

---

The top four Pac programs in recent years, UofA, Oregon, UCLA and USC, all cheat, and take kids with backgrounds schools that schools like Udub, Cal or Furd would never take. Bottom line is this is a **** hole confence that doesn't attract talent anymore (we don't pay well) and the only way to compete is cheat, or in the case of Udub, Cal (under Martin) or Utah, land the occasional future NBA player. The portal and 1 year rule don't help. The days of Monty ball, where you can have a bunch of veteran players who play sophisticated basketball and win are long gone for this conferencre. Yes it can work in the ACC, for a lot of reasons. But not in the Pac. If you want sustained winning, better be like those four programs.

---

I disagree totally with your conclusion. Basketball history, both modern and ancient, is littered with examples of teams winning with less talent over the highly talented teams. Recruits are not robots that you can plug into the five slots on a team and expect them to play as well as a team as they are ranked individually. In fact it can be more challenging for a coach with 5 prima donna one and dones to get them to play together and not try to do it all by themselves. There is only one basketball in a game at a time, and it has to be shared. I only need to point you to this year's NCAA Final. Virginia with Tony Bennett coaching a roster with very good players, but zero one and dones, and Chris Beard with only one top 100 player on his roster, and him not even a starter, both battling for the title, with all the teams with all the one and dones in the entire country, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina all sitting on the sidelines as spectators. I would also mention that the year before, Villanova had a single one and done, Omari Spellman, but the other teams in the Final Four, Kansas, Michigan, and Loyola had none. I can't remember the last time Loyola had a top 100 recruit, let alone had a one and done. In 2017, UNC won with a ton of ranked players, but only a single one and done, Tony Bradley. Of the Final 4, Gonzaga had a single one and done, Zach Collins, and neither South Carolina nor Oregon had a single one and done player.

As to the PAC12, this year Washington won it, and they did not have a single one and done. ASU finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2018, Arizona won it, and had a single one and done, Andre Ayton. USC finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2017, Arizona won, and both Markkanan and Simmons were one and dones. Oregon finished 2nd, without a single one and done. In 2016, Oregon won the title, without a single one and done. Utah finished 2nd without a single one and done. This is a small sample, and all I can glean from it is that in the PAC12, maybe Sean Miller usually can't win the PAC12 without one and dones, but the other coaches seemed to find a way to do it without one and dones. If I have time, I'll do more research on this.

Basketball success might actually be moving more away from the scenario you described, and moving more toward sharp coaching with less talent. At least I hope this year's NCAA final was not a fluke.

---

You seem to be looking at this as one and done issue. That is not what I said, The programs that have sustained winning are the one's that cheat generally, and that the exceptions (like Udub last year as many top players are no longer considering the Pac) or Utah when they hit on the occasional big man lottery pick. I think you proved my point, by following my lead with Virginia (which I called out in the previous post, and naming Bennett. You stated with calling out teams off the top of your head about what they were and how they finished in the Pac. I think a more detailed and systematic look at the Pac champions might be more instructive (leaving out last season where other than Bol Bol there was really no five star talent as the Pac becomes a second level conference):

UofA 2017-8: 1st in conference. Starters:

Ristic: 3 star guy that actually graduated
Ayton: 5 stars one and done and 1st pick in draft
Akins: Akins 5 star who left for the NBA after the season.
Alonzo Trier: 5 star who left early. Spent most of his time on academic probation that UofA covered up by citing his disqualification time as related to injury or whatever.
Jackson-Cartwright: a 4 star who played in his senior year.


2016-7 UofA finishes first in conference. The starting line-up:

Markkanen: 5 star most rating agencies who left after the season, his second, for the NBA
Ristic: a 3 star guy that actually graduated,
Atkins: a five star who opted for the draft after his first year, came back and then left for the draft his second year
Kobe Simmons: a 5 star one and done
Kadeem Allen: a four star transfer that lasted two years

Basically the 7 foot Ristic is the only guy who played 4 years in the starters for both seasons.

Was any team not among the 4 cheaters ever in the mix for any of these guys over then maybe the 7 foot Ristic? Are any of these teams even close to any team in recent years of Cal (maybe the Brown year), Utah, Udub, ASU, OSU, WSU, Furd, Colorado? Sure, UCLA, Oregon, and USC have had similar talent levels.

2015-6 Oregon first in Pac: Starters (primary starters as Altman moved around the roster):

Bell: high 4 star, no. 100 player, left for NBA after junior season
Brooks: high 4 star, no. 59 player, left after 3 seasons
Dorsey: high 4 star and in 3 years left for the NBA
Bouchard: National JC Player of the year, 4 star and graduated to the NBA
Cook: low 4 star transfer, who graduated and played in the NBA.

Number of players that played four years at Oregon: zero. All the starters left for the NBA.
Is this team even close to any team in recent years of Cal (maybe the Brown year), Utah, Udub, ASU, OSU, WSU, Furd, Colorado? Sure, UCLA, Oregon, and USC have had similar talent levels

2014-5 UofA won the Pac. Starters:

Tarczweski: 5 star that stayed 4 years.
Ashely: mostly 5 stars and left for the NBA after 3 years.
Hollis-Jefferson: 5 stars and left in 2 years to the NBA
Johnson: 5 stars and one and done
McConnel: a transfer who played two years at UofA and then played in the NBA

How many players were at UofA for 4 years: one. Repeat the paragraphs from above.

2013-4 UCLA won with its all AAU team. Repeat and rinse the discussion of starters.

2012-3 UCLA with its all AAU team. Repeat and rinse the discussion of starters.

wifeisafurd said:

---

Alonzo Trier: 5 star who left early. Spent most of his time on academic probation that UofA covered up by citing his disqualification time as related to injury or whatever.

---

Good post. I believe Trier was suspended by the NCAA for 'roids.

Just to be clear, Bearprof, I don't mean gray in the sense of whether it's ethical or not. It's gray from an obviousness and enforceability context. Let's say a coach suggests a parent meet with a booster about a potential job. All he does is make an introduction and from there; it's out of his hands. Maybe that's a job at a fair market rate and maybe it's a fake job. The coach may not know what exactly is happening. Maybe he does. It just gets trickier to police and that's really all I meant.

The Cam Newton "recruitment" was clearly unethical but it was in a gray area which allowed Auburn to go unpunished and for Newton to remain eligible. Can Newton's father got money from a third party for him to enroll at Auburn but the investigation suggested that neither the player nor the school was aware of it. That's the kind of gray area I mean even though it was clearly a payoff and decidedly unethical.

Civil Bear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

Alonzo Trier: 5 star who left early. Spent most of his time on academic probation that UofA covered up by citing his disqualification time as related to injury or whatever.

---

Good post. I believe Trier was suspended by the NCAA for 'roids.

---

. . . hem_?

oski003 said:

---

Everybody's homework is to watch Blue Chips!

---

"If you're not a virgin you're a *****."

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

SFCityBear said:

---

Bobodeluxe said:

---

Judging by the comments here on another thread, Bozeman would get a lot of support from this site if he came back and continued his realistic methods.

---

So illegal and unethical behavior in a coach is now called "realistic"? As a society, we can't sink much lower than that. I hope it never returns to Cal. I really did not enjoy seeing my University on probation. I'll leave that to the USC's of the world.

---

The top four Pac programs in recent years, UofA, Oregon, UCLA and USC, all cheat, and take kids with backgrounds schools that schools like Udub, Cal or Furd would never take. Bottom line is this is a **** hole confence that doesn't attract talent anymore (we don't pay well) and the only way to compete is cheat, or in the case of Udub, Cal (under Martin) or Utah, land the occasional future NBA player. The portal and 1 year rule don't help. The days of Monty ball, where you can have a bunch of veteran players who play sophisticated basketball and win are long gone for this conferencre. Yes it can work in the ACC, for a lot of reasons. But not in the Pac. If you want sustained winning, better be like those four programs.

---

I disagree totally with your conclusion. Basketball history, both modern and ancient, is littered with examples of teams winning with less talent over the highly talented teams. Recruits are not robots that you can plug into the five slots on a team and expect them to play as well as a team as they are ranked individually. In fact it can be more challenging for a coach with 5 prima donna one and dones to get them to play together and not try to do it all by themselves. There is only one basketball in a game at a time, and it has to be shared. I only need to point you to this year's NCAA Final. Virginia with Tony Bennett coaching a roster with very good players, but zero one and dones, and Chris Beard with only one top 100 player on his roster, and him not even a starter, both battling for the title, with all the teams with all the one and dones in the entire country, Kentucky, Duke, Kansas, North Carolina all sitting on the sidelines as spectators. I would also mention that the year before, Villanova had a single one and done, Omari Spellman, but the other teams in the Final Four, Kansas, Michigan, and Loyola had none. I can't remember the last time Loyola had a top 100 recruit, let alone had a one and done. In 2017, UNC won with a ton of ranked players, but only a single one and done, Tony Bradley. Of the Final 4, Gonzaga had a single one and done, Zach Collins, and neither South Carolina nor Oregon had a single one and done player.

As to the PAC12, this year Washington won it, and they did not have a single one and done. ASU finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2018, Arizona won it, and had a single one and done, Andre Ayton. USC finished 2nd without a one and done. In 2017, Arizona won, and both Markkanan and Simmons were one and dones. Oregon finished 2nd, without a single one and done. In 2016, Oregon won the title, without a single one and done. Utah finished 2nd without a single one and done. This is a small sample, and all I can glean from it is that in the PAC12, maybe Sean Miller usually can't win the PAC12 without one and dones, but the other coaches seemed to find a way to do it without one and dones. If I have time, I'll do more research on this.

Basketball success might actually be moving more away from the scenario you described, and moving more toward sharp coaching with less talent. At least I hope this year's NCAA final was not a fluke.

---

You seem to be looking at this as one and done issue. That is not what I said, The programs that have sustained winning are the one's that cheat generally, and that the exceptions (like Udub last year as many top players are no longer considering the Pac) or Utah when they hit on the occasional big man lottery pick. I think you proved my point, by following my lead with Virginia (which I called out in the previous post, and naming Bennett. You stated with calling out teams off the top of your head about what they were and how they finished in the Pac. I think a more detailed and systematic look at the Pac champions might be more instructive (leaving out last season where other than Bol Bol there was really no five star talent as the Pac becomes a second level conference):

UofA 2017-8: 1st in conference. Starters:

Ristic: 3 star guy that actually graduated
Ayton: 5 stars one and done and 1st pick in draft
Akins: Akins 5 star who left for the NBA after the season.
Alonzo Trier: 5 star who left early. Spent most of his time on academic probation that UofA covered up by citing his disqualification time as related to injury or whatever.
Jackson-Cartwright: a 4 star who played in his senior year.


2016-7 UofA finishes first in conference. The starting line-up:

Markkanen: 5 star most rating agencies who left after the season, his second, for the NBA
Ristic: a 3 star guy that actually graduated,
Atkins: a five star who opted for the draft after his first year, came back and then left for the draft his second year
Kobe Simmons: a 5 star one and done
Kadeem Allen: a four star transfer that lasted two years

Basically the 7 foot Ristic is the only guy who played 4 years in the starters for both seasons.

Was any team not among the 4 cheaters ever in the mix for any of these guys over then maybe the 7 foot Ristic? Are any of these teams even close to any team in recent years of Cal (maybe the Brown year), Utah, Udub, ASU, OSU, WSU, Furd, Colorado? Sure, UCLA, Oregon, and USC have had similar talent levels.

2015-6 Oregon first in Pac: Starters (primary starters as Altman moved around the roster):

Bell: high 4 star, no. 100 player, left for NBA after junior season
Brooks: high 4 star, no. 59 player, left after 3 seasons
Dorsey: high 4 star and in 3 years left for the NBA
Bouchard: National JC Player of the year, 4 star and graduated to the NBA
Cook: low 4 star transfer, who graduated and played in the NBA.

Number of players that played four years at Oregon: zero. All the starters left for the NBA.
Is this team even close to any team in recent years of Cal (maybe the Brown year), Utah, Udub, ASU, OSU, WSU, Furd, Colorado? Sure, UCLA, Oregon, and USC have had similar talent levels

2014-5 UofA won the Pac. Starters:

Tarczweski: 5 star that stayed 4 years.
Ashely: mostly 5 stars and left for the NBA after 3 years.
Hollis-Jefferson: 5 stars and left in 2 years to the NBA
Johnson: 5 stars and one and done
McConnel: a transfer who played two years at UofA and then played in the NBA

How many players were at UofA for 4 years: one. Repeat the paragraphs from above.

2013-4 UCLA won with its all AAU team. Repeat and rinse the discussion of starters.

2012-3 UCLA with its all AAU team. Repeat and rinse the discussion of starters.

---

I'm having trouble following this.

I will say that the reason I focus more on one and dones is because the recruit ranking "experts" are more likely to be accurate in their predictions of success for the top 20 or 25 recruits, than they are for the rest of the top 100 or top 150 or whatever rankings we use. You use the word "talent', but I would use the words "ranked talent", because of the large number of recruits do not live up to their rankings in terms of their achieving at least one season of personal success for the college who originally signed them, or in terms of their helping the team which originally signed them to at least one successful season. I believe that any team, coach, or donor is not investing his money very wisely if he spends it to recruit players rated lower than the top 25 in any given year, if he is in fact basing his decisions on recruit ranking. If he is basing his investment decision on his team's coaches, as to what their needs are and what their evaluations of a recruit are, that is a different story. But to spend money on a recruit just because he is ranked #45 or #65 is a fool's errand, as rankings below #25 are much less often accurate.

I published on the BI years ago a spreadsheet where I followed the top 100 recruits of 2009, and charted their success in college or lack of it. First off the bat, 32% of the recruits transferred (some twice) to other schools. 12 recruits got hurt. 7 were suspended for disciplinary reasons. 5 failed to qualify for admission or academically failed. So if a school paid any of them money, that money went down the drain. Only 61 had at least one personally successful season in 4 years. (success defined by statistics: points, assists, rebounds, blocks, etc.) Only 34 helped their original team to at least one successful season. (Successful season defined as 24 wins or a conference championship, or at least a Sweet 16 finish). This is why I focused on one and dones, because their rankings are more accurate at predicting success, either personal or team success. 10 of the top 25 ranked players played on successful teams. 13 of the players ranked from 26-50 played on successful teams. 16 of the players ranked from 51-100 played on successful teams.

If you are going to cheat, the best bet is to put your money on the one-and dones. But you have to keep doing it, because they keep leaving early. The longer a player stays, the better he becomes (theoretically), and more he will help your team.

Hoop dream.

HoopDreams said:

---

a cal team that we aspire to ... the conference championship team
I think that was a group with a couple top 100 players, a quality transfer, and a few 3 stars

Basically a veteran team with pro talent (overseas and fringe NBA) coached by a great coach, without any one or two and done players.

This type of team can be in the top half of the conference every year, challenge for the conference championship some years, make the tournament 60-70% of the time, with the potential to reach the Sweet 16, and then who knows from there

---

Agree 100%. I hope you didn't think I was pushing for the one and dones, and/or cheating to get them. I was responding to someone who negatively said any team who wants success in the PAC12 needs to get blue chips and needs to cheat to get them in the current climate. I am opposed to that strategy, and if that is what we start doing (again), I won't tag along for the ride. I've learned my lesson.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

a cal team that we aspire to ... the conference championship team
I think that was a group with a couple top 100 players, a quality transfer, and a few 3 stars

Basically a veteran team with pro talent (overseas and fringe NBA) coached by a great coach, without any one or two and done players.

This type of team can be in the top half of the conference every year, challenge for the conference championship some years, make the tournament 60-70% of the time, with the potential to reach the Sweet 16, and then who knows from there

---

Agree 100%. I hope you didn't think I was pushing for the one and dones, and/or cheating to get them. I was responding to someone who negatively said any team who wants success in the PAC12 needs to get blue chips and needs to cheat to get them in the current climate. I am opposed to that strategy, and if that is what we start doing (again), I won't tag along for the ride. I've learned my lesson.

---

I got your point SF. my post was just about the type of team I think can be successful given the landscape

HoopDreams said:

---

a cal team that we aspire to ... the conference championship team
I think that was a group with a couple top 100 players, a quality transfer, and a few 3 stars

Basically a veteran team with pro talent (overseas and fringe NBA) coached by a great coach, without any one or two and done players.

This type of team can be in the top half of the conference every year, challenge for the conference championship some years, make the tournament 60-70% of the time, with the potential to reach the Sweet 16, and then who knows from there

---

Braun recruits, a few key transfers plus Jorge, Monty coaching.

On paper Braun had a better team two years before and finished second to last. Monty never did as well again.

Fox is more like Braun as a coach. I think he is going to need teams more talented than that to finish anywhere nearly as high. Recruiting will be key in any case.

calumnus said:

---

Fox is more like Braun as a coach.

---

I don't think Fox has anything in common with Braun. Fox won at a much higher rate at a lower level of competition than Braun did at any of his four stops. Braun probably had a better eye for talent than Fox does, which is not a good place to be.

SFCityBear said:

---

HoopDreams said:

---

a cal team that we aspire to ... the conference championship team
I think that was a group with a couple top 100 players, a quality transfer, and a few 3 stars

Basically a veteran team with pro talent (overseas and fringe NBA) coached by a great coach, without any one or two and done players.

This type of team can be in the top half of the conference every year, challenge for the conference championship some years, make the tournament 60-70% of the time, with the potential to reach the Sweet 16, and then who knows from there

---

Agree 100%. I hope you didn't think I was pushing for the one and dones, and/or cheating to get them. I was responding to someone who negatively said any team who wants success in the PAC12 needs to get blue chips and needs to cheat to get them in the current climate. I am opposed to that strategy, and if that is what we start doing (again), I won't tag along for the ride. I've learned my lesson.

---

No, but you are the only person that discussed one and done. I didn't say that, I said that programs that were sustaining winning were cheating to do that. You said that had to be done with one and dones, creating your own narrative. Look at the cheating programs: it's not that hard to follow, you have UofA, UCLA and Oregon winning championships. I said on occasion other programs have broken through like when Larry K gets a NBA big man, or Udub last year in a down year due to the cheating scandal and conference on the decline. Don't put words in people's mouths.

As for the hot mess that is Cal basketball right now, I'm trying to imagine a scenario under which there should be any expectation of recruiting a couple top 100 players, not to mention a quality transfer. A few 3 stars that are focused on the education, I will grant you. But your expectations for this staff, that is not known for being good recruiters in the first place, are absurd presently.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fox is more like Braun as a coach.

---

I don't think Fox has anything in common with Braun. Fox won at a much higher rate at a lower level of competition than Braun did at any of his four stops. Braun probably had a better eye for talent than Fox does, which is not a good place to be.

---

"Fox's teams haven't tended to be exciting or much good at all on offense. They're inefficient at scoring, and they take long, plodding possessions. But Fox has consistently coached great defense throughout his career, and that should help him land another gig sometime."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.sbnation.com/platform/amp/college-basketball/2018/3/10/17104276/mark-fox-fired-georgia-coach-search

That is what I meant by more like Braun than Monty as a coach.

wifeisafurd said:

---

No, but you are the only person that discussed one and done. I didn't say that, I said that programs that were sustaining winning were cheating to do that. You said that had to be done with one and dones, creating your own narrative. Look at the cheating programs: it's not that hard to follow, you have UofA, UCLA and Oregon winning championships. I said on occasion other programs have broken through like when Larry K gets a NBA big man, or Udub last year in a down year due to the cheating scandal and conference on the decline. Don't put words in people's mouths.

As for the hot mess that is Cal basketball right now, I'm trying to imagine a scenario under which there should be any expectation of recruiting a couple top 100 players, not to mention a quality transfer. A few 3 stars that are focused on the education, I will grant you. But your expectations for this staff, that is not known for being good recruiters in the first place, are absurd presently.

---

In fairness, Wife, I don't believe SFCity was saying it "has to be done with one and dones." Not wanting to misquote him, but he was pointing out that with the high transfer rate, you're safer spending money on them rather than players who have a decent likelihood of leaving (see Brown at Nevada for an example).

Fox had 2 NCAA's in 9 years at UGa. Braun 5 in 12 at Cal. Braun also had a winning conference record, while Fox did not.

In college hoops, it's really all about getting to the Big Dance, especially for middling programs like Cal and Georgia.

Yogi Bear said:

---

calumnus said:

---

Fox is more like Braun as a coach.

---

I don't think Fox has anything in common with Braun. Fox won at a much higher rate at a lower level of competition than Braun did at any of his four stops. Braun probably had a better eye for talent than Fox does, which is not a good place to be.

---