Ok, 3 out of the last 30, about what I figured. I’m good with an upperclassman PG then lol
Realistic 2025 Recruiting Class?
- Thread starter WhiskeyCityCat
- Start date
Ok, 3 out of the last 30, about what I figured. I’m good with an upperclassman PG then lol
Freshmen became eligible in 1975; it may be 3 in 49 years. I cannot recall any frosh PG champs before 2003.
Yes and most of them were surrounded by veterans.
Bibby had Simon and Terry in the backcourt with him.
Jones had Cook.
Teague bad Lanb and Miller. And a transcendent player in AD.
McNamara had a transcendent player in Carmelo Anthony. Warrick was a veteran.
Saul, Butler as a senior is way better than Ulis as a freshman. Ulis had a tremendous supporting cast which made him better. Butler is a heck of a player. His supporting cast is very good and I would say he has a better coach supporting him. We shall see. We both want the best for the cats. So glad the imposter is gone.
I think the argument isn't simply a matter of how many freshmen point guards have led their teams to a national title.
For one, how many freshmen point guards are at least of equal value as a veteran high-level point guard? Not many. That's part of the reason we don't see them winning the title very often.
Second, do you actually not take a Derrick Rose or John Wall because there haven't been many guys in their talent category?
I'm taking that type of talent regardless if I can, and so would anyone. The reality is that there just isn't that many guys in that level. Peterson might be, however, and he's certainly worth the recruiting investment if he's serious about UK being his "dream school."
I haven't made the argument that you construct a roster out of only freshmen. I'm making the argument that it's sensible to take a guy like Derrick Rose (if you can) and surround him with veteran players.
Find a Wayne Turner clone. In that I mean a player that can score from his position when needed but prides himself in distributing the ball with great passes. Quite thinking of anything traditional as pg guards going inside to find big men for layups. UK will be shooting 3 from every position and running teams into mistakes. 15 years of dribble drive was a waste. With Pope that scheme goes away.
Would you pass on a guy with Wall or Rose freshmen-level talent? How about a De'Aron level talent?
The reality is that many freshmen are simply not good enough to compete at a Final Four level, but some are. I don't think it's smart to throw the baby out with the bathwater when it comes to how to construct a team. Yes, having an all-freshmen centered team is a bad idea, but surrounding a De'Aaron Fox-level point guard with veterans isn't the worst idea in the world.
If he is the right fit for the system, you take him.
I would still rather have a veteran at that spot, if it comes down to it.
The formula is 1-2 Top 5 Freshman and Vets
The above is what Coach Cal couldn't get through his thick skull.
The above is what Coach Cal couldn't get through his thick skull.
I certainly wouldn’t pass on someone like that - but a guy like that comes along once every ten years, like an AD or MKG. Outside of a world class generational talent I’d prefer upperclassmen is all I was saying. It’s also really tricky to figure out who those guys are or if they’re going to be a bust.
So we now have Bibby, El Amin, Jones, Teague, and McNamara since 1997.
That's 5/27, or 19% of the time. When spread out over four years worth of point guards, freshmen starters winning it almost 20% of the time isn't really as horrific as some have made it sound.
Plus Rose was a rainbow three away. That would have been 6/27. That would have been a 22% success rate. A few others have been close: Jalen Suggs, Brandon Knight, Andrew Harrison, etc.
You'd think it wasn't possible based on how people have made it sound.
Last edited:
Why 97?
It’s 5 out of 49 (since Freshmen gained eligibility).
Don’t cherry pick. You’re better than that. LOL!
Are you a UCONN or Duke fan? It’s 5 out of 49 or basically 10%. 1 out of every 10 championship is with a freshmen PG, and no school has ever done it twice.
It doesn't matter if a kid is a freshman, sophomore, or 5th year senior, you try to fill every spot with the best, most talented players that you possibly can. RunninRichie said it best about there not being a science to it. I don't care if it comes from recruiting, the portal, or kids returning, we need the best of the best.
We’re not splitting the atom here guys, it’s not this complex life saving equation. Simply put, 45 out of 50 national championships have been won by upperclassmen PGs. A PG is like the quarterback, the head of the offense. All things being equal I’d prefer someone with more experience. It’s not really this off the wall concept. No shit I’d take a John Wall, but how often do those guys come around? I’d prefer an experienced center as well, even though AD was a freshman.
Just curious, is there a Wall/Knight/Rose/Fox level PG in the ‘25 class?
And if so, do we have ANY chance at getting them?
If the answer is “no” to either question, then the whole point of this discussion is moot.
And if so, do we have ANY chance at getting them?
If the answer is “no” to either question, then the whole point of this discussion is moot.
I will say these numbers will be scewed due to a far great number of "non-freshmen" actually starting at the PG position than actual freshmen. There are far more upperclassmen such as sophomores, juniors, and seniors that start at the collegiate level. So of course the numbers will be heavily tilted in their favor. Therefore, people should not go off these ratios when theorizing age and class to National Championships.
Again, give me the best talent and most potential regardless of being a freshman or not. If there is a more talented PG that is a freshman than a kid that is a junior, give me the freshman and vice-versa.
And Teague was no world-beater as a freshman. By the end he was enough to get the job done, but half-way through the season I thought he would be the anchor that might sink the ship. Calipari should have at least had a backup plan there. But it worked out, so....
Silly argument. If a freshman PG has talent around him they can win. On the flipside is, if the talented freshman could be a John Wall type and if there is not any talent surrounding him, not winning. It is not JUST about can a freshman PG win, it is about what talent there is to go with him.
Tristen Newton was UConn's PG. He was a 2nd year portal addition and senior. Despite where he was drafted (generally not relevant to college impact or production) Castle was a role player at SF for UConn.
Well, we've all been around long enough to know how freshmen were looked at prior to the Fab 5. How many freshmen point guards even started for title contending programs prior to the Fab 5? It's an apples to oranges argument. We might as well mention that very few freshmen shooting guards, small forwards, power forwards, and centers won titles as freshmen as well. It still doesn't change the fact that you do everything you can to recruit them. Even our 1996 team relied on Mercer to put us over the top against Syracuse.
I think we all agree on the formula. Get a few elite guys and surround them with veterans. Is there anyone on this message board arguing outside of that template? My question remains: how many elite freshmen have been on the level of veteran title winning point guards? There's been more than a few. For example, were Rose, Fox, Wall, SGA, or Andrew Harrison more inept than El Amin, Teague, McNamara or Tyus Jones? The reality is that Rose, Wall, Fox, and a bunch of other guys could have also won titles on those teams. The formula is pretty simple, and it's one we all agree on: surround elite freshmen with upperclassmen and, if possible, allow the freshmen to be supplemental pieces like Mercer in '96 or Rhodes in '93.
None of those guys like Wall were less talented or less capable than guys like El Amin or Teague, but they're being somehow lumped into a category of "freshmen point guards couldn't get it done."
That's simply fallacy if it leads to the implication that those guys were somehow inferior. They weren't. The ball just didn't break their way. if we take everything into consideration. Most freshmen point guards can't get it done; but some can, and my view is that you continue to try to get the guys who are good enough to win it all and surround them with veteran studs.
Last edited:
But haven't they been a lot more common lately? I mean, in the Cal era alone (Memphis and UK), he landed a bunch of them: Rose, Knight, Wall, Fox, Teague, Maxey, Murray, Harrison. All those dudes balled out. I can't really rely on the thought that the ones from that group who didn't win a title were somehow inferior to guys like El Amin, or even guys like Lamont Butler or even Tristen Newton.
Wall, knight, and Murray all panicked and shot like shit in their last game. Teague was one of the only freshmen PGs under Cal to play his best in the tournament and I give him mad props for that. Maxey never played in a tournament and Harrison played well. I’m not saying I wouldn’t take them, but it’s also not like your rattling off champion after champion. Can’t I just name ten upperclassmen PGs that have won a championship lately and ask if you would rather have them? I kinda don’t really know what we’re arguing anymore either tbh 😂. I was just saying I’d prefer experienced PGs IN GENERAL, not that I would never take a top 5 star freshmen.
Agreed.
Not turning down a top 5 PG, but in general, I would rather have an experienced PG than a Freshmen.
