Hawkins showed up in last year's tournament, so there's that. Still, I'm arguing for something of a blend, with the system being obviously top-heavy with younger elite players (even the 2012 and 2015 clearly exhibited this blend).
In fact, there has never been a national champion in the history of the sport to have featured a team with all freshmen/sophomore rotation players.
Is that a tiny sample size of anecdotal evidence - the entire history of college basketball?
Yes, it actually is because the number of attempts is insignificant.
If a guy asks three girls on a date and they all say no it doesn't mean that no one can ever have a date. Other guys get dates so we can rule that out. Whew!
It doesn't even mean that guy can't get a date, it just means those three didn't work out.
Hell, old boy might try a different cologne or speak with a bit more confidence and convert one of those turn downs but regardless we know nothing based off the sample.
I guess there was a time where prevailing thought might be you were doomed if you started a true freshman until that became a joke.
Depending on how one wants to deploy the goalposts on the definitions (which seems to move a good bit to me) we might be talking like one attempt or something. Maybe up to like less than a handful by others and won one of those (all underclassmen starting 5).
How many such teams have even been in the tournament? Then you start talking contender material? Pretty low number.
Physics doesn't restrict it nor does logic so we are talking probability not possibility and it is a tall order to come up with any real numbers and that is exacerbated by the whole situation being a bit of a crap shoot anyway. The favorite seldom wins and never has overwhelming odds, the field is king.
I remember clear as a bell that Pitino's style "couldn't win it all" am called BS. Then it was impossible that Calipari could win depending on so much youth but we sure as hell did on both accounts.
It would be different if there weren't some reasonable goalposts being reached but that isn't the case here at all.
We have multiple Final Fours and even Championship game appearances now so this argument is just refusal to accept the idea that something is possible even when it hasn't happened yet.
I tend to believe this line of reasoning is way, way closer to superstition than any kind of science.
In an alternate universe I'll gladly take my chances with swapping out Freshman Big Cuz or KAT for Senior Jorts.
Give me the Freshman versions of Knox and MKG and I'll swap them right out for the Kentucky bred seniors Hawkins and Willis and will happily try my luck.
Put Fox on the 96 over probably my favorite player Epps and I'm not afraid history would be subverted. Gimmie Wall over my man Turner in 98 and maybe we don't even need to come back.
I don't even believe you guys think it is impossible as you put on at all but rather are largely engaging a coping mechanism so you don't have to deal with how difficult titles are to win no matter how you put teams together.
It is easier to find a whipping boy than deal with the bitter reality that even the best laid plans fail and even the best efforts come up short.
Sometimes even if you do everything right you still lose especially in one off scenarios, man. That's life.
You can't have the level of success we have been able to and say something is impossible or even particularly unlikely.
We are talking the stuff of bad bounces here not some fundamental flaws.
We are effectively averaging an Elite 8 on this run. Get too damn snooty about that and you are demanding a harsh lesson on the perfect being the enemy of the great.
Of course I'm not of the type of mind that is itching to swap places with Villanova and especially UCONN (I'm left to believe that group is truly batcrap crazy) or even UNC because I'm not going to see the most as important thing as the only important thing.
I'd rather get over disappointments and have consistent swings at the bat than to spend half or more of the seasons thinking about in two or three years if things work out that we're gonna be nice.
Usually to also come up short.
That's not even an argument. That is a reminder. There is no magic formula for this. You have lived it yourself but have become well fed and extra finicky in your diet.
All kinds of great coaches have had their day and then nothing ever again or trudge on forever before hitting. Guys have hit then years later strike again.
In the current environment where evaluating who is going to be both quality and present in three and four years is a complete crap shoot, especially the former.
It's really easy to talk about Joe Random 3 Star blowing up with the benefit of hindsight, go on about that is what is needed, and puff up about how Coach X can do so what's our malfunction
it than it is to get everyone to forget all these scrubs they flamed out with with the same methods, evaluation, and development but then deservedly winning cures everything. 
