mikecohen;842334716 said:
OR: Can Cuonzo create a class of perhaps somewhat less than ALL 5 and 4 star talent, but with other qualities that could nevertheless capture the big prize (perhaps with a similar basketball idea as the Spurs). To me, Montgomery's tenure suggested this was possible, in that some of those teams in some of those times seemed capable, if pulling it all together, of beating anybody, and in creating a run that could improbably carry them all the way. I never thought of that possibility for a Cal team before Montgomery (except that one year when they went so far into the Tournament AFTER Ed Gray broke his leg at the end of a 50-point game at the end of the season); and the current team, as rag-tag in all its differing parts as it seems to be, looks to me to be only maybe one more player of Bird's caliber away (who could even possibly develop from within the current cast) from being that competitive if all remained healthy [although I felt that somewhat more before Rooks was lost for the season].
The classic case at Cal of winning a national championship with lesser talent is, of course, Pete Newell, and he did it with no recruits who would have been rated as 5-star, and only one or two who would have been rated at 4-star.
I'll take a wild guess at what the recruit rankings would have been for the '59 squad:
Imhoff unranked
Doughty unranked
McClintock 4 stars
Dalton 2 stars
Grout 3 stars
Buch 3 or 4 stars
Fitzpatrick 3 stars
Simpson 2 stars
Langley 2 stars
For the '60 squad:
Imhoff unranked
Doughty unranked
McClintock 4 stars
Schultz- 4 stars
Wendell 2 or 3 stars
Gillis - 2 or 3 stars
Stafford 3 stars
Morrison - 2 stars
Mann 2 or 3 stars
I can hear the critics already, with the usual "basketball has changed' and "now you need the horses" talk. Well, to that I would reply that the USF teams of Phil Woolpert also won national titles as underdogs, but they sure had the horses. Here is my wild guess on what the recruit rankings might have been for the USF teams of 1955 and 1956:
Bill Russell - 2 stars
KC Jones - 5 stars
Hal Perry 4 stars
Mike Farmer 5 stars
Carl Boldt 5 stars
Gene Brown 4 stars
Mike Preseau 3 stars
There were teams with great talent, comparatively, in the era in which Newell coached, but compared against the coaches of his era, Newell won with less talent than the other coaches had. No reason why a coach can't win with lesser recruits. It is harder now, because most players arrive at college without many basic fundamental skills. Still what makes the difference between two teams with great talent is the coach. Teams with all 5 - star players don't necessarily win without a good coach, and that is as true in now as it was from 1955-60. We need to face facts. We can improve recruiting, but we are never going to recruit at the Kentucky or Kansas level. We need a coach who is way better than average to get to the NCAA Finals. Let's hope Cuonzo is that guy.
:gobears: