Riley
- Thread starter BucN1Cat
- Start date
I’d take him. My preference would be to sign him for next year but if he insists on reclassifying I’d take him and roll the dice.
He's really good but the question for me is will his thin build would hold up in the very brutal sec which has a ton of grown men.
In the old days you definitely take him. Nowadays Im not so sure. You take him, pay him NIL and he leaves next season because he may not play as much as he thinks he should.
I'm sure he's got a lot to learn but I'm not sure I've seen his combination of athleticism and skills. You have to take him if you can get him. If he played for Oak Hill Academy instead of in Canada he's be #1 in everybody's rankings and he could easily be a force by the end of his freshman season, even if he reclassed.
My question.. how does Pope handle playing his freshman? You know with Cal, we would take Riley and play him 30min, no matter what. But I have to imagine Pope is thinking/saying "we have our guys, and you're likely not going to be able to get huge minutes and touches this season.. are you good with that?"
I just assume Pope is going to play guys that earn playing time in practice. I also assume guys didn't come to Kentucky because they were just expecting to start without having to earn it.
Weird revolutionary stuff, I know.
IMO, no. Next year, yes. THIS roster is not the one where you want a 5 * stud who will expect a lot minutes in his only year to prove he is NBA ready. Whos minutes would you take his from ? I would say he is expecting 25 mpg, there is just not those kind of minutes available next year to spend on a young freshman to cut his teeth in college basketball. Super talented kid, but kind of a "get mine" volume shooter that would not have the minutes to get the shots.
This is a real good point and it gives me an idea. Why not give kids structured contracts.
You want $2 million from Kentucky? Done. Two years———$200k the first year. If handled right I could actually see that starting to turn this portal craziness around.
Contracts, caps, team-based incentives, actual sharing in revenue, etc. They need to figure out a framework but the ncaa appears to falling apart.
I’m all for people making money and doing what’s best for them, but the product will continue to suffer without significant changes.
I don't like it when they re-class. It does us no favors.
I only want a young reclass if they stay two years. I don’t know how that expectation plays out anymore in this climate.
Until Quaintance, most every re-class guy was actually just returning to their original class. Riley, for instance, is older than Boogie Fland.
Secondly, it worked out really well for us early on with Noel, Towns, and Murray - All in a row. Later on, Calipari did get some multi-year re-class guys in Humphries, Wynyard, Hagans, and Juzang. However, our next two were Askew and Clarke.
Returning to their original class still brings them here younger than they could be. We're better off if they are older.
With the roster build I’ve had that same question . Gonna be hard for most freshmen to impress in practice out of the gate against a team full of upperclassmen.
As opposed to the previous rosters where freshmen went against a roster full of younger players .
Why take an unproven freshman at all at this point. I'm dead serious, when you have numerous proven grown men in portal every year. In 12 years of getting the best freshmen in country what did it get UK one title. I really believe the finite money we have for NIL would be better spent on portal guys. To me at least the whole paradigm of college basketball (and football) has changed irrevocably. You really don't HAVE to rely or recruit 5 star freshman to play a man's game. Many people are still way behind the curve on accepting the new reality of college sports.
I am not really into this reclassifying but if Riley want to reclassify then UK should see if he want to be at UK. Pope would figure out the playing time for him.
Yeah, but you can't rebuild the whole roster every year with portal guys either...so, you still need some freshmen to come in and develop. Even if they stay only 2 years, the second year they help incoming freshmen and transfers to learn the offensive & defensive systems quicker, and that helps the coaching be more efficient in practice.
So, even if they transfer out after 2 or 3 years, they can add significant value to the team... not even counting their on-court contributions.
Why can't you do it every year, whats to stop you. Also it's a fantasy to think the 5 star kid will stay around 2 years in today's environment. As for developing players , why do you need to when you can find already developed players in the portal.
I'm with you. The exception would be if you have one of those generational type freshman like Wall, Davis, KAT ect. Someone that you know will make an immediate impact as a freshman and can take you to the next level. Otherwise, if you get freshman, I would lean more towards the guys you think may stay 2 or 3 years so you have some experienced system guys. High 3 star and 4 star players. The portal is where it's at in my opinion.
Trying to replace 10-11 guys each year to rebuild the roster seems like it would ultimately be just as unsuccessful as trying to do it with 5 star freshmen. I agree there are attributes portal guys have over incoming freshmen
- they've played more college ball
- more proven against college players
- more developed physically
However, it still means the TEAM is rebuilt almost entirely every year. There HAS to be value in having a good chunk of your guys play together in the same system for more than a year.
I am not saying a team full of transfers couldn't gel and be outstanding (in fact, I'm hoping Pope & Co. can pull it off this upcoming season). I just think a more consistent method would be having more guys familiar with both one another AND the system in which they are playing. Also, to clarify, I am assuming roughly equal talent either way (i.e. I am not recommending a lesser team just for the sake of continuity... that's a failure waiting to happen).
As far as 5 star guys returning for a second year... seems like it has happened a lot over the last decade everywhere but under Cal. With a recruit like Riley, I think it's all about honesty and expectations...if he sees the roster and agrees with a2 year plan so he can be more physically developed when he gets to the NBA, maybe he still goes for it? If he doesn't like that plan (or something similar), then he probably won't commit as a reclass to 2024.
I don't know why you wouldn't want him. He's a five star recruit. Especially now when we're not relying on him. Either he's a stud and you play him or he develops and hopefully is a stud next season.
The issue is viewing this as if Cal is still coaching. The downfall was never because he recruited 5 star 1 and done type players. The issue is that Cal fostered a culture of being 1 and done as the ultimate goal. On top of that, he tried to fill his roster with those types to the point that everybody that came to UK under Cal expected to leave after 1 year, even if they weren't really ready.
The best roster building is going to be exactly what Pope has described numerous times. Get a few freshmen, some star 1 and dones, some multi year players, back fill with a few portal players, and the remaining players are returning players. Dan Hurley has said the same thing. Portal guys are proven, but have are limited on what they can do. If they weren't limited, they wouldn't still be in college.
Right now, if everybody returns that has eligibility left, you are looking at 5 returning players. Under Pope, I would expect at least 3, and possibly all 5 return. That gives a great nucleus for next year. Add in 3-4 freshmen, maybe 2 studs that may only stay 1 year, and 3-4 portal guys, with maybe one of those guys having multiple years remaining. Riley would add a 6th guy that could return, and if he doesn't, then it is likely that he played well enough that he significantly added to the team's success.
And one last thing, it is hard to build a complete team from the portal every year and be competitive, because the portal guys are generally the most expensive when it comes to NIL dollars.
I may not have been very clear in my post because I think we mostly agree. So my mistake. I don't want to bring in a complete team of portal guys every year like we did this year. Actually the way Hurley has been going about it is what I believe is the sweet spot. So if you like his method I'm with you. I think the biggest thing we need to avoid is bring in players who only want to get to the NBA as quick as possible and give us nothing in return.
If I’m coach Pope I tell everyone I recruit that they will have to fight for their time. So in the case of a Riley or Peterson reclass I’m telling both of them:
“Look, you’re not joining a freshmen dominated team. All the guys on my depth chart have proven they can handle this level and they will be getting the minutes at the start of the season. However, if you show up and prove to me they don’t deserve those minutes and that you do, I will gladly give them to you. But it will be a season-long battle because I only recruit fighters and these older guys will come gunning at you to take their spot back.”
I probably wouldn’t be a successful recruiter but I would be an honest one.
“Look, you’re not joining a freshmen dominated team. All the guys on my depth chart have proven they can handle this level and they will be getting the minutes at the start of the season. However, if you show up and prove to me they don’t deserve those minutes and that you do, I will gladly give them to you. But it will be a season-long battle because I only recruit fighters and these older guys will come gunning at you to take their spot back.”
I probably wouldn’t be a successful recruiter but I would be an honest one.
If Riley is truly a high end 5 star talent it wouldn't be hard for him to start at the 3 or at least be the sixth man on this roster.
If he's Livingston or Edwards level then no.
If he's Livingston or Edwards level then no.
Isn't it crazy that Edwards is actually be talked about as a late first rounder. I just don't see it
He reportably didn't like being told the truth, that he would be unlikely to play much at UK as a freshman. Maybe he will play a lot at Texas or maybe he prefers being lied to. Time will tell us the answer.
I think the two things are, number one, having at least a few players back for possibly two or three years as a base for the roster does not put as much pressure finding a portal guy for every position. You have a more experienced player with this system to start the season off with without every player having to learn on the fly. And second, it looks like Pope will be having a few Kentucky kids on the roster every year and they would have a tendency to stay here longer on average. JMO
That was the problem for Cal, that was the only type of player he recruited at the end. Basically, he didn't change, but he created a monstar he just wasn't able to feed. His first couple of years here he used the pitch of winning and going to the league, and it worked. But even the high end guys were interested in being here and winning at a high level. John Wall on his podcast mentions that he was in culture shock when he got to the NBA, and wanted to go back to college because he hated losing. Cousins was the same way. But slowly that trait started disappearing in the guys Cal was recruiting, and it was less of a mutual partnership between UK and the player, and more of players just using the university as a stepping stone.
But all that was a Cal problem, not a one and done problem. Not every 1 and done is that way. We just had a lot of them the last several years under Cal. But Pope is starting with a fresh culture, and based on his interviews, getting to the league as fast as possible isn't a selling point for him. While I am sure he will allow guys to leave after a year if they are ready, he isn't creating a culture that says you have to do that. In that sense, if he is recruiting Riley, and Riley comes here as a reclass, I suspect he knows the deal of he will have to earn playing time.
We already have 12 scholarship players and are gonna have at least 2 players that never really play much IMO. If Riley comes, he knocks that to 3 or is one of the 3 himself.
It's a big challenge to keep everyone happy with minutes, even if you play 10.
It's a big challenge to keep everyone happy with minutes, even if you play 10.
Riley visiting today. Visited Illinois yesterday and heading to Bama Thursday. Would he be open to RS his first year if he reclassified?
Sure - and then he can go to the draft after his Redshirt season. Sounds like a good fit for Arkansas.
Why on earth would anyone redshirt anymore? The NCAA gives you 8 years of eligibility already after COVID.
Also, no one of Riley's abilities would have ever considered red shirting at any point in modern basketball.
Also, no one of Riley's abilities would have ever considered red shirting at any point in modern basketball.
It will probably start looking a lot more like those 90s practices soon, where the best players play, regardless of high school accolades.
Pitino brought along Rhodes, Turner, Walker, and Mercer very slowly. Tubby did the same thing with guys like Crawford and Prince.
I imagine Pope will better identify guys who are willing to adjust to the college game. I also see him trying for the AJ Dybantsas of the world, who can play immediately. But I imagine most of his incoming freshmen will have a mentality similar to Perry and Chandler, where they're willing to pump the brakes a bit regarding adaptation to the college game.
IMO, Riley doesn't need a redshirt year. I'm sure he'll make too many turnovers and play poor defense to start out but I do not want to see him suiting up for 'bama or Arky because I think he's very, very good. I think if we get Riley we will lose somebody or somebody else will need to redshirt. If they don't want the competition I'll hold the door open for them if Pope doesn't.