He’s a little goofy, but a national treasure nonetheless
2 Likes
It’s kind of funny and ironic that Shaq and Kenny made fun of Charles and said he’s going to gain all of his weight back. Now, Shaq is pitching Zepbound.
3 Likes
Their wallets are all gaining weight.
3 Likes
@uncleju since we were just discussing this… its big east media day, multiple of the coachs have said they will not be recruiting high school anymore, or as hard for some people
some noted 5 for 5… would rather invest in keeping their players longer and recruiting less (more selective and keeping them longer)
some noted transfers portal and getting experienced players and more developed bodies
Hurley take was different… he wants to introduce a transfer rule that limits the amounts of times you transfer to just 1 time to reduce the madness
2 Likes
I hear you. I think it’s the 5 for 5 for sure, combined with transfer portal. Get a kid year 3 who is better than most freshman and you know what he will do at the collegiate level. I agree with Hurley, 1 free transfer and then sit out a year and it takes up one year of eligibility. 5 for 5 is great for the guys outside of the top 20. I can get a guy for 4 or 5 years of production, rather than a one and done. Thats how I’d look at it. Only way I’d want a one and done is if my team was this one guy away from a championship this year.
As long as they are coachable I see no reason to shy away from the most talented guys
1 Like
I can think of two reasons. One, they cost a LOT of money, and two, they’re gone after only one year. Maybe one of these guys is OK, but as we saw this year, one year isn’t enough to get two or three up to Sampson standards, and then they leave a big hole to be filled after only that one year.
1 Like
I think there’s better value in recruiting in the 30-100 range. Our experiment with the 5 stars last year shows exactly why. You’re basically guaranteed to only have a guy for a year. Because they can over perform like Kingston and end up with insane draft stock and leave. Or they can under perform like Harwell and be discontent and transfer. Or they can slightly underperform relative to their recruiting dranking/early draft hype, like Cenac and leave for the draft even though they might benefit from one more year of college. That 5 star tag, especially if a player enters college already showing up on draft boards, just makes it so unlikely they’re going to stay and develop. Which if you’re a program that doesn’t know how to develop guys isn’t a big deal but when development is your bread and butter, I think you’re losing some value not recruiting multi year guys. Especially when you consider that 5 star recruits are going to be even more expensive to land.
5 Likes
Tough to build a program with a revolving door. One of Sampson’s magic as a coach is to bring in talent and work with them a few years so they can master Sampson’s system. That cannot happen in one year. I think the Sampson approach works better with 3- and 4-star players, that stay in the program. A three year 3-star player is better equipped to play in Sampson’s system than a 5-star freshman player.
5 Likes
There was a lot of excitement on this board last year about landing all those 5-stars, a lot of talk about the natty at last–an excitement I didn’t share precisely for those reasons. Look at Kentucky under Calipari. He sucked up five stars like a vacuum cleaner the whole time he was there, and only won one natty (and even that required three miracle game saving threes from Aaron Harrison), producing disappointment year after year. And that was when the fives were free.
You really believe they were “free” 
4 Likes
good point