Recruiting One and Done Players

[LitlBuck]

Should Matta continue to recruit one and done players Please only vote for one. Thank you.

There are a couple posts that have recently been created in the B.J. Mullens thread regarding the pros and cons of recruiting one and done players and if they really benefit the program. The definite pro for the recruitment of these types of players is that for at least one year it gives the school a run at the NCAA tournament title. The cons are that it throws the recruiting classes out of whack along with team chemistry (players not playing together for 2-3 years) and the fact that it does not always guarantee a run to the Elite 8 or beyond. I am sure that there are other pros and cons and when voting it would be nice to hear the different viewpoints.

 

[mross34]

I voted for both yes and no for two reasons.

Number 1, because I could.

Number 2, he needs a balance between the two, kind of like Memphis has mastered lately.

The problem I see lies in the fact that Ohio State's recent basketball tradition pales in comparison to many, many other schools. There are not a lot of kids out there who were diehard tOSU basketball fans growing up and those are the kids who go to Michigan State, North Carolina, Kansas, Duke and stay for 3-4 years.

 

[Jake]

I said yes because who decides who is "one and done" during the recruitment stage? To eliminate talented players from recruitment solely based on the perception that they'll be "one and done" doesn't sound like a recipe for success to me.

 

[FCollinsBuckeye]

Since quality is greater than quantity, why not get the best quality players you are able to, regardless of the quantity of their contributing seasons?

I guess I could see the problems resulting in the holes left in recruiting classes as 'one and done' guys leave, but I stand by the quality > quantity argument.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

Seeing as one of our best and most memorable seasons in our entire history was facilitated a few seasons back by a trio of "one-and-done" recruits, I'd say yes...

 

[LitlBuck]

I had a difficult time wording, amongst other things, this poll but I would like Thad to back away from the one and done type of player and at least get some type of commitment from the player then he will stay at least 2 years if not three. I know that is a very difficult thing to do and I'm not even sure how it could be done.

I guess maybe losing one player a year to the NBA would not be too bad but when you start to lose 2/3 players it really puts down the program for a couple years after that. I would rather have a program that has consistent continuity and is always in contention for the Big 10 title and at least making it to the Sweet 16 if not more.

I know it has been mentioned that may be in 2010 the NBA will pass a new CBA which will make the player stay out of the NBA for 2 years after graduation from high school. I would almost like to see the NBA pass an agreement which would be like the college baseball rule. You either go professional right out of high school but the minute you step on a college campus you must stay for 3 years before turning professional.

I also think that once you start consistently finishing in the upper echelon of the Big 10 the best Ohio players will not leave the State but come to Ohio State to play basketball. One of the biggest reasons the Schott was built was to get a big-time basketball program going at Ohio State and that building was supposed to lure some of the top talent.

 

[jwinslow]

It's too early to properly judge this at OSU. The Thad 5 was the first wave of talent. When they left, OSU had very little remaining. Conversely, when the elite 2010 class comes in, OSU should have Lighty (sr), Diebler (sr), Lauderdale (sr), and should have had a junior PG in Crater. Kecman & Offutt would also be on roster.

Turner is likely gone, and Buford could be as well, but that's still a strong core to combine with elite freshman talent. That's what made 06 so special, not only an epic 5-man recruiting class, but a core of strong veterans in Butler, Lewis & good role players in Harris, Twigs, etc.

Plus once we get beyond 2010, the NBA should be bringing about a new 2 & done rule.

 

[jimotis4heisman]

i think the better question is has the ncaa/nba hurt itself with the one and done. they let the cat out of the bag with the straight out of hs kids.

would they be better off putting an age/years out of hs limit on it?

i look at every other major sport and some sort of serious "developmental" system is in place

systems in place
nfl-3 years out of hs min (mostly 3 years in ncaa)
mlb-drafted straight out of hs (college baseball and extensive -multiple level- minor league system
nhl-drafted by birth year 18ish. (canadian colleges, american colleges, canadian jrs, ushl, multiple minor league leagues).
patchwork systems
mls-american colleges mostly and euro developmental systems with some club owned developmental teams.
minimal system
nba-one year out of hs (colleges one year min, europe, nbdl-currently 16 teams)

 

[LitlBuck]

It's too early to properly judge this at OSU. The Thad 5 was the first wave of talent. When they left, OSU had very little remaining. Conversely, when the elite 2010 class comes in, OSU should have Lighty (sr), Diebler (sr), Lauderdale (sr), and should have had a junior PG in Crater. Kecman & Offutt would also be on roster.

Turner is likely gone, and Buford could be as well, but that's still a strong core to combine with elite freshman talent. That's what made 06 so special, not only an epic 5-man recruiting class, but a core of strong veterans in Butler, Lewis & good role players in Harris, Twigs, etc.

Plus once we get beyond 2010, the NBA should be bringing about a new 2 & done rule.

I thought the NBA players were against the one and done rule one and it was initially brought up in the last CBA so I have a hard time wondering what they are going to do when management suggest a 2 year rule. I also do not understand why NBA players would want more competition for their rosters especially the more veteran players.

I see where you are saying about the 2010 class but to phrase Al Maguire there is not a "aircraft carrier" in that class and I think that is what gets you to the top unless you have 5 very good upperclassman.

 

[mross34]

One of the biggest reasons the Schott was built was to get a big-time basketball program going at Ohio State and that building was supposed to lure some of the top talent.

The funny thing is if you look at the AP top 15, you don't see many schools with sparkling new arenas up there.

#1 UNC - Dean Smith Center - Opened 1986 - Capacity of 21,750
#3 UConn - Gampel Pavilion - Opened 1990 - Capacity of 10,167
#5 Louisville - Freedom Hall - Opened 1956 - Capacity of 18,865
#6 Oklahoma - Lloyd Noble Center - Opened 1975 - Capacity of 11,528
#7 Michigan State - Breslin Center - Opened 1986 - Capacity of 16,280
#8 Wake Forest - Joel Coliseum - Opened 1989 - Capacity of 14,665
#9 Duke - Cameron Indoor - Opened 1940 - Capacity of 9,314
#10 Villanova - The Pavilion - Opened 1986 - Capacity of 6,500
#11 Kansas - Allen Fieldhouse - Opened 1955 - Capacity of 16,300
#13 Washington - Hec Ed - Opened 1927 - Capacity of 10,000
#15 UCLA - Pauley Pavilion - Opened 1965 - Capacity of 12,829

St. John would fit right in with a lot of those.

 

[BB73]

Yes, and not just because they'll soon be 'two-and-done'.

 

[BuckeyeTillIDie]

I voted yes.

But, tOSU gets the shaft when it comes to the one year player, it seems. Teams like UNC, Duke, MSU, Memphis etc, get these great players that come in year after year. For example, I remember when they said UNC's class in 2006 was better than tOSU. tOSU has only 1 member from that class still on the team, while UNC has only lost 1 player from the same class.

Then last year we lost a 5* center, who (IMO) should definitely not have left early. Then there is this year where there is the possibility to lose Mullens, Buford, and Turner (at least he played 2 seasons). You would have to figure that at some point the great classes would start to blend like the UNC's et al, but instead the teams are being held together by JUCO/other transfers while the revolving door to the NBA continues to spin.

 

[FrancisSoyer]

I would hate to have Matta's job. The pay would be nice but recruiting star players one year only to have them leave the next would be pretty frustrating. I really don't think Mullens is ready for the big time. Turner is gone.

 

[Fungo Squiggly]

Another issue, especially in OSU's case, as opposed to a UNC or Duke or Kentucky, is that there doesn't to seem as much of a deep-rooted relationship with the program. I don't see OSU being a "dream school" for a lot of these kids when they were younger, so there isn't necessarily the same attachment to the school that there is with a premier program like those I mentioned. Heck throw in IU, UCLA, Uconn, as well as several other....

I don't want to say these guys are mercenaries because that comes with far more connotation than is intended, but it just seems that OSU right now is still just a stepping-stone to the NBA. If OSU continues to win and can get to the level of an MSU (quite away off, I know), I think we may find more guys sticking around for an extra year or three.

It's pretty fantastic to be having this discussion in a year where OSU only won 20 games and is probably going to be a lower NCAA-seed. It was not too many years ago that it would have be pretty thrilling to make the tourney at all.

 

[Wingate1217]

I voted "yes." Do we really want Jim O'Brien back and his recruiting philosophy??????