Ah but according to Rivals and the 247 composite, Green is ranked 3rd. So he would only drop to 5. We’re safe.
Last edited:
I am super optimistic
- Thread starter davekersey
- Start date
Good grief. Just because people (rightly) point out that Calipari's teams are better when they have better players (shocked face), doesn't mean all hope is lost if we don't have a top-5 player on the roster.
For my part I think part of the downturn has to do with poor recruiting assistants. One year without a top-5 recruit can be explained 4 years in a row without one and there should be a staff shakeup.
For my part I think part of the downturn has to do with poor recruiting assistants. One year without a top-5 recruit can be explained 4 years in a row without one and there should be a staff shakeup.
We need elite talent, but an arbitrary number like "top 5" means nothing.
It's just a number.
There is no logic to it.
It's just a number.
There is no logic to it.
Not so. The best players in the class on a college floor as freshman are usually a composite top 5.
AD
Zion
Wall
Cousins
Randle
Knight
Parker
Ayton
And on and on and on. And I could keep going for days.
It’s not saying some don’t fall through and have major impacts down the line like Fox ( composite 6 I believe) But it’s not the guarantee your typical top 3-5 player is. And outside the top 10 it’s a crap shoot in the OAD.
I just don’t know why people aren’t getting this. It’s plain as day.
There are no guarantees.
It just fits your agenda.
But I don't care how many top 5 guys we get, we will never win another title until a Kentucky boy plays a significant role. We have never won a title without a Kentucky boy playing a significant role.
Allen is the key to us winning a title.
Dave,
What have you been hearing about Cooper? I heard from someone at Peach Jam that we were right there with Auburn and possibly the leader. What's your birdie saying?
There are no guarantees.
It just fits your agenda.
But I don't care how many top 5 guys we get, we will never win another title until a Kentucky boy plays a significant role. We have never won a title without a Kentucky boy playing a significant role.
Allen is the key to us winning a title.
It’s amazing to me that we have the best players every year essentially, that were top 5 players. The most impactful freshman of the last decade:
AD - top 5
Zion - top 5
Wall - top 5
Julius Randle - top 5
If Cal evaluates through out the ranks it would be different, but he doesn’t. He usually won’t touch anyone who’s not top 50 and even then he usually stays around the top 35.
For those players, the best for us, a program who relies on freshman producing, the top 5 is essential.
How do I know that?
John Calipari since Umass:
5 final fours.
John Calipari final fours since Umass without a composite top 5 player?
ZERO!
This isn’t hard. Typically your most impactful freshman who can avoid the youth factor and play deep into tournaments come from the composite top 5. There’s a reason they are composite top 5 players. It’s not guessing.
Jeez dudes, why not just accept it?
Nothing is a guarantee but it’s pretty close, yes?
Top 5 is just a number.
If you said, we will won't make a Final Four without at least one superstar, then I have no problem with your comment.
Saying that talent drops off after the magical number of five, is illogical.
Some years there are just two or three superstars in a class. Some years there are six or seven.
Williamson and Langford were both top five, but there was a world of difference between the two last year.
Labissiere was top five and Murray wasn't, but Murray was/is much better.
No it’s not just a number. This is driving me up the wall.
I just showed you the facts and you keep going back to this.
Nothing is a guarantee. There’s no reason to bring up Skal. He’s an outlier.
Cal has no final fours without a composite top 5 player in countless tries.
The best and most impactful players since his arrival have been composite top 5. We have no final fours in the last 10 years without them.
You can keep ignoring that, doesn’t matter. It’s the facts.
And don’t conflate this.
The way we recruit, typically, composite top 5’s are necessary. It’s just that simple.
When Cal starts having great success without them, I’ll buy what you’re selling.
The way we recruit, typically, composite top 5’s are necessary. It’s just that simple.
When Cal starts having great success without them, I’ll buy what you’re selling.
I have posted this before:
From the last 4 recruiting classes there have been 20 top 5 players. ZERO has played in the Final 4. Okafor and Towns from 2014 were the last top 5 guys to reach the final weekend.
Since 2009, there have been 50 top 5 players who are no longer in college. 10 signed with UK. Of the 40 non-UK top 5 recruits (RSCI rankings) exactly 2 played in a Final 4; Sullinger of Ohio State and Duke's Okafor.
Of UK's top 5 guys, 6 played in the Final 4 (Knight, AD, MKG, Randle, Andrew H in 2, Towns).
From the last 4 recruiting classes there have been 20 top 5 players. ZERO has played in the Final 4. Okafor and Towns from 2014 were the last top 5 guys to reach the final weekend.
Since 2009, there have been 50 top 5 players who are no longer in college. 10 signed with UK. Of the 40 non-UK top 5 recruits (RSCI rankings) exactly 2 played in a Final 4; Sullinger of Ohio State and Duke's Okafor.
Of UK's top 5 guys, 6 played in the Final 4 (Knight, AD, MKG, Randle, Andrew H in 2, Towns).
Exactly. We lost to UNC on a buzzer beater and to Auburn in OT because we had no top 5 guys.
Aaron Harrison hit all those last second shots because Randle and the twins were top 5, and we pulled out all of those games in ‘11 because Brandon Knight was top 5. Top 5 players are like magic beans.
The problem is that we have a very small sample size of seasons without a top 5 player. 3 seasons, if you don’t count either Fox or Monk (they were both top 5 when they committed).
We’ve narrowly missed the Final Four in 2 of those 3 seasons. BUT WE DIDN’T MAKE IT! ok. It still wasn’t enough seasons to judge anything.
There was very little difference between our tourney runs in ‘11, ‘14, ‘17, and ‘19. Just a couple of bounces here and there.
We can all agree that we’d rather have the most elite players, and our odds of winning go up when we have them. But the “can’t make it because we haven’t” arguments are silly. IMHO, of course.
Not saying it cannot happen, it’s just that:
Cal has been coaching the last 15 years landing top players doing so. He has 5 final fours in that time. He has zero final fours without a composite top 5 player.
How is that not enough sample size to say, yea, we might need them?
The way I’m gonna go about this is simple. When Cal makes a final four without a composite top 5 player let me know.
yes we have a shot at Cooper but in my opinion less of a shot than we do to land the others I spoke of. I took in one of sherif's games at the city of Palms in Fort Myers and he was outstanding there and got the MVP. I was hoping he would become a wildcat from that moment on and there is a chance for that to happen
This is silly, there's no magical cutoff at number five. It just doesn't work that way.
Prove a causal relationship between Cal, top 5's , and Final Fours and I will believe it. Prove it scientifically, since this is scientific law.
He wasn't top five across the board, and Towns was ranked 9th by one of them. I can only think of four Cal players at UK who were a consensus top five player. I consider the star system much more reliable than the exact ranking.
Because there are very few seasons without top 5 guys. Even if you want to roll Memphis into the conversation, you open the door to include UMASS as well. But then somehow that doesn’t count.
It’s goalpost moving. Yeah, get the best players and our chances improve. But the top 5 stuff is a shell game.
Cals best teams all had really good shot blockers. When the guards get beat off the dribble there was always a rim protector there to clean up the mess. Simple as that.
I don't put much stock in it, after Irving blew up Knight fell out of the rivals top 5 and the fans who are never satisfied were complaining that Cal didn't go after Irving.
well I am of the opinion that if you had five upperclassmen that were four star coming out of high school that you can win the big dance look at Virginia Villanova some of the others
None in their right mind are.
Who ever said anything about logic?
It’s not about anyone else. It’s about Cal. He’s proven to be the best at coaching extreme young talent and heavily relies on it.
You can make it work whatever way you want. That’s the beauty of it.
You know he hasn’t won a title without some black players? Or won at Rupp on a night the game wasn’t on tv? Or that he’s never been up by 20 at half without at least one player dunking? All are just as true and stupid as the top 5 fact but only one of those things seem to agitate some people. Don’t be hostile to the people bringing it up. Be mad at Cal I guess. It’s a pretty decent little cutoff number to illustrate the type of talent he USED to get every year from 2009-2014 when UK went to four Final Fours in 6 years. Hasn’t happened since. Guess you could make it top 4 if ya want but then Brandon Knight becomes an outlier and that would be really dumb.
Not at all. Cal didn’t go all in on the OAD at Umass. He built traditional rosters.
At Memphis he started pushing early entrees later on and actually had OAD’s on the roster. He pushed Rozier and CDR to go ahead to the draft early when everyone was against it.
At UK I mean come on.
So after Umass he’s been to 5 final fours in an era where he encouraged early entrees of guys that normally wouldn’t, or had OAD dominant teams. It’s not moving goalpost, it’s categorizing the eras properly.
I don’t see how it’s so hard.
You know how when you believe something is right so much but it really isn’t that you just ignore what’s really right and the thing you want to be right becomes the really right thing?
That’s kinda what’s been going on every time it gets brought up.
It’s kinds as if some folks can’t see the train coming right at em because they’re looking past it into the clouds.
It’s just like that but I don’t know why they’re refusing to accept it? Oh well.
Maybe they know it’s true since it is but just wanna pick a fight. You should give em your address and fight em over it.
I am cool with it. You guys at least admit there is no logic to what you believe.
I can live with that.
So if Keldon Johnson kicks it to Herro last Spring and he knocks down a jumper to put Auburn out, what then? You guys will find another goalpost to move.
The premise isn’t absurd, but the specific are. When we have the most elite players we are more likely to win. Of course we are. But top 5 is not some magical number.
Are you really saying that if we had hit one more shot against Auburn (thus going to the FF without a top 5 guy) that you would drop this argument?
But since we didn’t, it somehow proves you right?
Over one shot???
Do you guys really not see how illogical that is?
The premise isn’t absurd, but the specific are. When we have the most elite players we are more likely to win. Of course we are. But top 5 is not some magical number.
Are you really saying that if we had hit one more shot against Auburn (thus going to the FF without a top 5 guy) that you would drop this argument?
But since we didn’t, it somehow proves you right?
Over one shot???
Do you guys really not see how illogical that is?
This is UK b-ball.,, always looking ahead and hoping the team two years from now will be THE team that can win a title.
Could you give me a heads up where you’re going to move the goalposts to next? Brandon Knight was a 5* recruit. Nobody disputes that.
Dang. I just used a goalpost metaphor without seeing yours.
I think what gets lost in this discussion is that criticism of the current recruiting isn't the same as saying everything is awful and we can never win. You can be critical and supportive at the same time. At least I feel I can be. The goal is to dominate college basketball. That’s easier to do with the most talented players. I want Kentucky to land more of the most talented players. I can't believe anyone would be against that.
We haven’t been to the final four in the last 4 seasons. During that same time-frame we have only had one top-5 player. In the previous 6 seasons we made the final four 4 times. We had 10 top-5 recruits.
Is this magic? No. Is it possible to win without top-5 players? Of course. But I would prefer to get the top recruits and feel like something should be changed if we keep missing out.
They don’t wanna do that. I’m 6’7 300 lbs online.
Let’s stick to reality.
Calipari. 5 final fours in the era with OAD players.
All 5 had a composite top 5 player.
Games have to be played, not sure why you act as if there’s another method to winning and losing games other than the things that happen in games. This isn’t that deep.
But lets play it the way you want.
Keldon Kicks it to Herro, Herro draws defenders and leaves “Zion Williamson”, a composite top 5 player on Kentucky single teamed under the basket, game won.
Or would you like to suggest with that top 5 player Zion we would have fell short of the final four?
And no if Cal starts making final fours without them or wins a title without them it all goes away. Are you trying to defend Cal or find the right answer?
I just found out that there's reason to be a little bit more optimistic on Dante. The staff believes that if he gets his coursework done and his placement test passed that he will enroll at UK this year. They also feel Oregon is the only competition but that UK is out front
Similar threads
