First, there have been years with top 5 talent that didn't result in a title, title game or even a final four.
Of course, that's because the best team won't always win it. I don't think every team needs the top of the landscape to win titles, but at UK during Cal's tenure, without returning players or top 5ish (legitimate) players, it ain't happening without them.
There are a lot of coincidences in life that people can try to connect, but in the end, they are just coincidences.
Yea, I just can't accept that. We are going on a decade, I think it's fair to say it's not a coincidence. I think it's a fact that the record is what it is.
It's just like the we have never won a championship without a player from Kentucky on the roster. Yea, that's true, but is it really a requirement?
Not the same thing.
Secondly, even the "Top 5" is an opinion of someone or someones. It isn't a black and white curriculum. It's people's opinion. If the top 5 consisted of 5 players in the mold of Skal, and 6-10 were in the mold of Knight, MKG, and AD, would you still believe that you had to have a "Skal" on the roster to go to the Final Four?
Well, there never has been a top 5 class consisting of 5 Skal's. What if the moon were made of cheese?
The top 5 is just a way of saying we aren't getting the highest sought out players who are more likely to have an impact as a freshman during the 10 months he's on campus.
When we LOSE our entire roster, and do not fill the void where AD was standing, or a 3rd/4th year senior would be standing, and instead bring in a fringe second rounder and expert him to be enough.....hello?
If the argument wasn't changed it's easy to understand. Today we have balance, scores, shooters, upperclassman, returning NBA talent, and top 8-20 freshman. You don't need AD when you do this. When you dont, you need him. I dont understand why this is hard.
Ok you got me. Because Cal hasn't retired yet I guess 4 freshman fringe second rounders and a sophomore Poythress could win the title in the next decade at some point.
The facts as of the last decade are it won't work. It's not a knock on Cal to admit he needs dominant NBA ready talent if hes not going to have upperclassman or returning second round talent / and balance. Why some or you won't just admit that, I dont know. It is a fact that as of this moment, that's reality.
So I admit that I quoted the above message before reading completely through the thread, and I'm too lazy to go back and unquote it, so I'm releasing it here.
Having said that, over the course of this thread, we have almost hit the nail on the head of what it really takes with Cal teams, and possibly just teams in general. Cal teams need 1 player at every position that can hold their own and be natural at that position. That player doesn't have to be a top 5 freshman, or an upperclassman, or some big-time transfer, but he has to have it. The years he has failed to take the team far are years where he had to search within the team to fill a position, and/or had to play someone out of position to get them on the court.
2010 was really talented, had 2 top 5 freshmen, and returning talent and put 5 guys in the first round of the NBA draft, but we searched all season for SF consistancy, and played a PG at SG.
2011 wasn't near as talented, but did have a top 5 freshman, a little returning talent, and a couple of other really good freshman. They also had a player that could contribute and be comfortable at all 5 positions, whether that player was young or old, Elite talented or just really talented, he filled all 5 positions naturally.
2012 had 3 of the top 6 players (pay attention to this Duke fans), a couple returning guys, but more importantly was able to have players to contribute at all 5 positions naturally. Nobody played out of position for more than a few minutes a game just to spell someone else because that team wasn't deep. As a side note, that team was also the most balanced in terms of perimeter and paint play.
2013 likely just needs to be left out due to a key injury, and without that injury, not sure how we would have finished. But that team certainly lacked a player to contribute at every position, especially post injury.
2014 ranking wise was Cal's most top heavy class. They struggled early, but they had a player that could comfortably contribute at every position, and went all the way to the title game. And they did that with 1 sophomore as the only non-freshman contributor.
2015 was probably Cal's most talented team overall to date (numbers and talent). The main thing is that they had contributors at all five positions, and hence went to the final four.
2016 had a top 5 player, in fact had the number 1 player, and a couple of returning players. The problem with that team is we struggled to find anybody to contribute consistently inside, and we played a PG at SF.
2017 didn't have a top 5 player, but a top flight recruiting class, and some returning players. The top ten players were able to overcome a lot, but we again played a PG at SF, and struggled to find a consistent post player opposite Bam.
2018 didn't have a top 5 player, and barely had any top 10 talent, but in reality, that team struggled because we played a PF at SF, struggled to consistently get contributions from our SG spot, and struggled to find a consistent post player opposite PJ.
So in the end, really talented players at 5 positions that are natural at those positions. My biggest problem with the argument is that "top 5" is arbitrary. There is no system to determine that other than people's opinion, and the difference between the 5th rated player and the 10th rated player really isn't that much most years, though I admit that there are some years where it could be significant. We need players who can consistently contribute naturally at every position on the floor, whether that is a returning JR, or an elite talented freshman, or even a lower rated freshman (Shai comes to mind), it doesn't matter. Contributions and balance matter, not arbitrary numbers pulled out of the sky. This has always been my argument.
