I agree there are upsides and downfalls with every approach, the lone issue I have is with the insistence that there is some inevitable late game issue with young players. People put all of this importance on experience that has literally nothing to back those statements up. I forget the exact stat, but Cal at UK has won like 70% of his tournament games decided by 5 points or less, far better than every coach, yet continually has the youngest team year after year. Most people will use games like UNC this year, and Wisconsin in 2015 as examples of why experience matters. Yet seem to forget that a team that started 5 freshman won 4 consecutive games by 5 points or less, all against teams that went to the final four either that year or the year before, and all against teams that were playing with a lot more experience. Did that experience help them?
The games come down to who makes plays down the stretch, and who doesn't. While experience may be a small part of that, talent and aggressiveness are much bigger factors. People tend to look for simple reasons as to why we lose the games we do, when in fact the reasons are much more complex than most want to give it credit for.
![[thumb2]](https://ct.yimg.com/mr/uploads/891/1684387.png "Thumbs Up 2 [thumb2]")
