"Adjusted Star Rating" and how ISU can compete using experience in years to come

[trajanJ]

This is a great topic. For the most part I agree with your rational, but it all depends on the players ability. If the player is very athletic and a late bloomer, he's capable of being a lot better player with experience. If not, he's not going to improve that much, he might have good games against weaker opponents, but against good teams he's not going to be athletic enough. The smaller conferences rely on upperclassmen for success, but for the most part they play each other, build up their record, get to the tournament and get beat by more athletic teams. If Drake or teams like that had to play in the Big 12 every week they would not see the success they enjoy now. But experience is huge and a big factor in success even for the teams like KU. They want to have a combination of both, but sometimes when you have a lot of success you have 4 players graduate and 3 leave early and your left with a down year because of inexperience.

For the most part I agree with what you are saying. I see ISU as having a good year next year, where they will have a combination of experience and athletes. The year after that I see their best player playing in the league and they are going to have to find a replacement for him. But looking at ISU, I think this will be their worst year. Greg will have a nice combination of experience and athletes to compete in the future.

 

[GoShow97]

Yes, but our stars go to ELEVEN

 

[tigershoops31]

I honestly think people are completely misunderstanding my intent. I don't expect Greg to have his young teams be very competitive. In another thread I said I'm going to do my best to temper my expectations for this season because I understand we're young and another offseason (and the overseas trip to Spain) will help this team gel.

For a lot of programs it's unrealistic to expect a young team to be competitive. I'm just saying that there are a lot of older teams out there that are just not very good either. Ken Pomeroy tracks "experience" for each player - basically how many years each player has been in D1. The oldest team in the country this year? Houston Baptist. I know that is an extreme example and I can't imagine our talent being that bad, but experience doesn't solve all problems.

Agree with most of your stuff here. I think we'll really start to gel next year when most of our key players have been playing together for a couple/three years. For everybody outside of the top 10 traditional powerhouses it's pretty unrealistic to expect big things from a team as young as ours is this year (aside from outliers like KSU selling their souls last year for some young blue chips).

Age/experience alone doesn't equate to success, but it is a big deal, especially at places outside of those top programs. To get back to where we all want to be (winning games in the NCAA tourney), we pretty much need to have experienced players. Look at all the underdogs that go to the Sweet Sixteen and Elite Eight every year. Their key players are going to be Juniors/Seniors almost every time, and they're able to beat more talented teams because they've had more time to work together and gel.

I think I said it before somewhere in here, but once we get to the point where we've got players like we have right now in our freshman/sophomore classes getting to the point where they're experienced juniors/seniors we can expect NCAA tournaments (and hopefully wins there) year in and year out. What sucks for everybody (including myself) is that it's going to take some growing pains yet to get there. If you can't handle it there's always the Kansas/UNCs/Dukes of the world that you could cheer for :wink:

 

[Final42b]

No, what he's saying that a 3 star guy who is now a Junior is very roughly equivalent to a 5 star true freshman on the court. The 5 star true freshman, if he's the real deal, will almost assuredly be gone in no more than 2 years.

Talent + Experience + coaching = performance, IMO.

You can't change the talent of a kid, but you can give them more experience, and you can coach them. Teams that bring in 4-5 star guys constantly are always "churning" when it comes to the experience and coaching part of the equation. That lack of continuity is the price you pay for bringing in elite athletes. We have an advantage in that respect, that we can build a team. It's a team sport, after all.

I wasnt addressing tigerhoops, i was adressing cyclonepower02 who said every recruit has the same chance to be great once they get on campus. I agree 100% that players can become great with experience.