Michigan, UNC and Kansas are sort of head scratchers but I agree with most of both lists.
Last edited:
What, if anything, do you disagree with on the less with more side?What a joke of a list
What, if anything, do you disagree with on the less with more side?
Indiana should be higher up IMO.
Michigan, UNC and Kansas are sort of head scratchers but I agree with most of both lists.
I agree. The five teams you mentioned, get what seems like, a good deal of the talent.The less with more? I would say Kentucky has done more than fine. Duke? I would say they have had a lot of success. I didn't know Arizona state had than much talent. I'd say Arizona has been successful.
The other side is more of a joke. Villanova? Michigan? Kansas? Unc? Baylor? Wtf, these guys get elite/top talent
I agree. The five teams you mentioned, get what seems like, a good deal of the talent.
I don't think the More With Less list is exclusively about talent. It includes schools that aren't considered traditional basketball powers, e.g. Baylor, Texas Tech; schools that aren't considered to have the "top of the line" facilities, or huge fan bases e.g., Villanova. Schools that are far away from recruiting hot beds, Creighton...etc.Agree, 10 times more than the hawks get. And yeah iowa is right to be where there are I believe. But to say unc/Kansas/Villanova/ Baylor even Michigan aren't loaded with talent usually is just crazy talk
Indiana should be higher up IMO.
The Mike Davis years hurt them, the Archie Miller years hurt them...The Creen years hurt them...
The Mike Davis years hurt them, the Archie Miller years hurt them...
Indiana has become to basketball what Nebraska has become to football