Top recruits? So what?

So you bring in a one-and-done player? What have you gained? For one thing, whatever you have is for only one year. You get no long-term value, and then you have to expend all that energy and money all over again. Second, it is very likely that you brought in an ego with the talent. There may be some character issues that you had to overlook in order to get the talent.

My point is that talent is not everything. It is the team that is going to win, not the player. So, the player's contribution toward winning, all things considered, needs to be the biggest net positive. So, you have to factor in character and work ethic. You have to factor in how good a teammate he is going to be. Then you have to evaluate him according to how effective he is going to be in your particular system. What Beard requires in his system are not going to be the same things that Huggy Bear requires.

When all those factors get factored into the player's evaluation, it may turn out that a three star net out better than the higher-ranked players. Plus, the three-star may stay for four years. Plus, if he is a coachable kid, the three-star may actually improve during his stay at your school. I think that the factors I have mention, plus others, are the reason that the two teams we saw in the NCAA finals last season were not nearly the most talented teams in the tournament - but they were the best teams. It is not about the best recruits; it is about the best recruits for you.