Tweet
Great observations, Royal, especially about Butler as a trailblazer when it played for back-to-back championships. How often do teams do that, regardless of whether they win? (Hint: so far this century, there have been two: Florida, which won both, and Butler, which lost both.)
As you observed, one of the things that was special about Butler was how they proved it's possible even without the roster full of fourth and fifth year players who typically play for FFFs (Final Four flukes). And, for those who get too caught up in the absence of Hall and Armstead, Butler also proved it's possible with the right coach, nucleus, culture, and enough quality players, to make a return trip even after losing your biggest individual star.
But maybe the most important point you observed was that we can now see it doesn't take a bunch of four and five star recruits to reach for the brass ring (e.g., again, the lightly recruited Gordon Hayward). This is actually a point that came up recently in connection with the Super Bowl, too. Football signing day is tomorrow, so I've been spending some time lately on sites that cover my long-time personal favorite, Alabama. They're expected to reel in the consensus "#1" recruiting class again this year, and they collect four and five star guys like no one else.
But one of the articles that appeared in their recruiting coverage recently looked at the question of how many such players were actually on the Super Bowl rosters for Seattle and Denver this year, and the answer was startling. The Seahawks had a TOTAL on their roster of 11 guys who had received consensus ratings of four or five stars coming out of high school (and not all were major contributors in the game); Denver had a total of 13 (plus Manning, who's been around so long that his recruiting actually predates the star ratings). Thus, the vast majority of players on what were genuinely this season's two best NFL teams -- no flukes in this year's Super Bowl -- were NOT highly coveted, superstar recruits.
Obviously basketball, with five starters who play both ways, isn't the same as football with its 22 starters and several specialists. The impact of a great player or two is proportionately larger when there are fewer guys in action at any given time. Still, it highlights the point that recruiting stars don't necessarily equate to actual performance down the line. Butler proved that with its run and a player like Hayward; WSU is doing so now with Baker, Early, and Cotton; and even FVV, who barely cracked the top 100 before becoming one of the top handful at his position after just one semester as a starter. We'll see how it goes the rest of this season (and next!), but what Marshall and his staff have done in terms of talent is assemble a group that, with no four or five star big names, is competitive against anyone, if not necessarily quite their equal "on paper," and the majority of which is not seniors; and he says his current group of signees is his best yet.
Lots still has to happen -- the Shocks have to stay healthy; they have to play up to their ability and expectations; they have to avoid that one tough night that ended the 2012 season prematurely. They also have to get to the championship game instead of coming up just short. But they are absolutely in position to take what Butler showed was possible, and conceivably even build on it over the next couple of seasons and maybe beyond. If they keep it going -- and there's no reason to think they can't -- they'll definitely open the eyes of some skeptics and the closed minds of some power conference shills.
As you observed, one of the things that was special about Butler was how they proved it's possible even without the roster full of fourth and fifth year players who typically play for FFFs (Final Four flukes). And, for those who get too caught up in the absence of Hall and Armstead, Butler also proved it's possible with the right coach, nucleus, culture, and enough quality players, to make a return trip even after losing your biggest individual star.
But maybe the most important point you observed was that we can now see it doesn't take a bunch of four and five star recruits to reach for the brass ring (e.g., again, the lightly recruited Gordon Hayward). This is actually a point that came up recently in connection with the Super Bowl, too. Football signing day is tomorrow, so I've been spending some time lately on sites that cover my long-time personal favorite, Alabama. They're expected to reel in the consensus "#1" recruiting class again this year, and they collect four and five star guys like no one else.
But one of the articles that appeared in their recruiting coverage recently looked at the question of how many such players were actually on the Super Bowl rosters for Seattle and Denver this year, and the answer was startling. The Seahawks had a TOTAL on their roster of 11 guys who had received consensus ratings of four or five stars coming out of high school (and not all were major contributors in the game); Denver had a total of 13 (plus Manning, who's been around so long that his recruiting actually predates the star ratings). Thus, the vast majority of players on what were genuinely this season's two best NFL teams -- no flukes in this year's Super Bowl -- were NOT highly coveted, superstar recruits.
Obviously basketball, with five starters who play both ways, isn't the same as football with its 22 starters and several specialists. The impact of a great player or two is proportionately larger when there are fewer guys in action at any given time. Still, it highlights the point that recruiting stars don't necessarily equate to actual performance down the line. Butler proved that with its run and a player like Hayward; WSU is doing so now with Baker, Early, and Cotton; and even FVV, who barely cracked the top 100 before becoming one of the top handful at his position after just one semester as a starter. We'll see how it goes the rest of this season (and next!), but what Marshall and his staff have done in terms of talent is assemble a group that, with no four or five star big names, is competitive against anyone, if not necessarily quite their equal "on paper," and the majority of which is not seniors; and he says his current group of signees is his best yet.
Lots still has to happen -- the Shocks have to stay healthy; they have to play up to their ability and expectations; they have to avoid that one tough night that ended the 2012 season prematurely. They also have to get to the championship game instead of coming up just short. But they are absolutely in position to take what Butler showed was possible, and conceivably even build on it over the next couple of seasons and maybe beyond. If they keep it going -- and there's no reason to think they can't -- they'll definitely open the eyes of some skeptics and the closed minds of some power conference shills.
Comment