Freshman Ineligibility: Does it Help or Hurt MU?

[Benny B]

http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201309/john-u-bacon-fourth-long-book-reforms-college-sports-jim-delany-big-ten

Would an evolving of the D-League into a true minor-league system be a boon or bust for Marquette?  Since MU doesn't play in the one-and-done sandbox, it will lose much less talent (if any) than would a Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, etc.  But for a program like MU that finds itself needing to rely upon freshmen contributions occasionally, does it thin MU to the point where it can't field a competitive team?

What do you say, Al-era alums?  You've lived through this once before... could it work today?

[jesmu84]

But, if the blue bloods lost their one and dones, wouldn't they then go after the talent that MU currently seeks? ie. top 100 players

[LAZER]

I don't think it would change much.  I think the talent distribution would be exactly the same as it is now, just more 2-4 year players.

[bilsu]

In any year 0 to 10 players would go pro out of high school ( most likely 2 or 5). That is 0-10 players the blue bloods will not have on their team and they would replace them with the next level of recruits. That presumably would shift MU recruiting down a bit. However, overall removing the absolute studs means there is less talent discrepancies between the blue bloods and the rest of the country and therefore less chance that Kentucky, Kansas, Duke and North Carolina are going to win the NCAA title. Right now as it is they are going to win 4 out 5 titles.

[MerrittsMustache]

But, if the blue bloods lost their one and dones, wouldn't they then go after the talent that MU currently seeks? ie. top 100 players

That was my first thought, but those players would be staying in school longer so teams like Kentucky wouldn't be refilling their roster with a handful of top 10-20 recruits every season. IOW, the bluebloods would still be bringing in the top college-bound talent, but there were be other top players who would need to find schools a tier below that tip-top level.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

The only school it would really is Kentucky. They rely so heavily on the one and dones that Coach Cal's recruiting strategy would have to completely change. In theory, this means that blue bloods would have to start recruiting players that we usually target. I don't think it would effect us too much but it could.

[Galway Eagle]

The only school it would really is Kentucky. They rely so heavily on the one and dones that Coach Cal's recruiting strategy would have to completely change. In theory, this means that blue bloods would have to start recruiting players that we usually target. I don't think it would effect us too much but it could.

Memphis would get slammed to only difference between them and Kentucky is Kentucky actually has done something in the tournament with all the stud one and dones they get. 

[Brewtown Andy]

http://www.thepostgame.com/commentary/201309/john-u-bacon-fourth-long-book-reforms-college-sports-jim-delany-big-ten

Would an evolving of the D-League into a true minor-league system be a boon or bust for Marquette?  Since MU doesn't play in the one-and-done sandbox, it will lose much less talent (if any) than would a Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina, etc.  But for a program like MU that finds itself needing to rely upon freshmen contributions occasionally, does it thin MU to the point where it can't field a competitive team?

Depends on how the DLeague would be paying the players and how long they'd be tied to the parent team.

[Benny B]

That was my first thought, but those players would be staying in school longer so teams like Kentucky wouldn't be refilling their roster with a handful of top 10-20 recruits every season. IOW, the bluebloods would still be bringing in the top college-bound talent, but there were be other top players who would need to find schools a tier below that tip-top level.

This is what I'm inclined to believe.

Moreover, if you took the "elite" talent who goes to the minors after HS off the recruiting charts completely, the difference between a 5-star college recruit and a 4-star college recruit (amongst who remains) becomes a lot less distinct than it is today.  It's not as though MU is chasing "second tier" talent which would become "first tier" with a minor league system in place (and thus, targeted by the blue bloods)... sure, the Three Amigos may have been more heavily courted by the blue-bloods, but guys like Butler, Crowder, Novak, Gardner, etc. would still be attainable for MU.

Seemingly, Buzz excels at sourcing the "hidden" talent and developing them as opposed to letting a recruiting service do the dirty work.  Heck, even his predecessor found a diamond in the rough.  I'm curious as to what it was like in the 70s... granted, that was a different time (without video, internet, Rivals, AAU, etc.), but was Al going up against the big boys in recruiting, or was he going after the less-heralded guys who fit his system?