I don't believe inexperience is a valid excuse for losing games

I know that is the rallying cry for BYU apologists and I understand it, I just don't believe that it's particularly valid.



With regular, run of the mill talented teams I can believe that, but lets remember, we're talking about teams here with 4+ top 100 players on them. Not your Little Sister's of the Poor team.



Why is it that several teams out there with ESPN top 100s load their rosters full of Sophmores and Freshmen and have deep NCAA tournament runs even though their players have never played basketball together.



Meanwhile, BYU has had their ESPN top 100 players not only play basketball together for the last 4 or 5 years, but have their old high school coach too and yet we don't expect a deep NCAA run with them?

hawkwing wrote:



Meanwhile, BYU has had their ESPN top 100 players not only play basketball together for the last 4 or 5 years, but have their old high school coach too and yet we don't expect a deep NCAA run with them?

They didn't play together in 2015, or 2014, they last played together in the first half of 2013. I cannot help but think that time off from playing together (2 1/2 years) has hurt them.

ABYUFAN wrote:

Meanwhile, BYU has had their ESPN top 100 players not only play basketball together for the last 4 or 5 years, but have their old high school coach too and yet we don't expect a deep NCAA run with them?

They didn't play together in 2015, or 2014, they last played together in the first half of 2013. I cannot help but think that time off from playing together (2 1/2 years) has hurt them.

But certainly they have played together far more than any other group of starters of top 100 players.

One difference is that our kids are coming off of missions.

The same type of excuses are made for a poor performing offensive or defensive line - oh, the players are young, are adjusting to the game, getting used to each other, just got back from missions, new coaching scheme, blah, blah, blah. Meanwhile, Alabama and the rest of the top dogs put together championship-level teams year in and year out.



My personal opionion, our 4* top recruits really aren't on par with other school's top recruits. There is a huge difference between Haws and Jarbari Parker, and other schools have kids that are a lot more athletic and a lot closer to the Jarbari Parkers of the basketball world than we do.



We have some great players, no question, but even our best player right now wouldn't go in the 1st round.



Think about it. Arguably the best player BYU has had in the last 20 years couldn't/didn't make it in the NBA. Meanwhile, bench players on other teams are getting contracts.



Our top players aren't equal to the rosters of the Duke's and Kentucky's.



Coaches at those school's also have the luxury of instilling a scheme or system and then recruiting towards that scheme. It's much more plug and play. Their recruiting pool is a lot wider with talented athletes lining up to play. The coaches can pretty much pick the players they feel best fit their scheme.



Rose does not have that luxury. He's essentially limited to how talented the LDS pool is. If there aren't any explosive big men in the pool, Rose doesn't have an explosive big man, can't run his offense through the post, and can't play inside out. He therefore needs to adjust his scheme accordingly.

Comparing BYU's players to Alabama's in football is ridiculous.

hawkwing wrote:
I know that is the rallying cry for BYU apologists and I understand it, I just don't believe that it's particularly valid.



With regular, run of the mill talented teams I can believe that, but lets remember, we're talking about teams here with 4+ top 100 players on them. Not your Little Sister's of the Poor team.



Why is it that several teams out there with ESPN top 100s load their rosters full of Sophmores and Freshmen and have deep NCAA tournament runs even though their players have never played basketball together.



Meanwhile, BYU has had their ESPN top 100 players not only play basketball together for the last 4 or 5 years, but have their old high school coach too and yet we don't expect a deep NCAA run with them?

I wrote a really long response. But in the end you are confusing that fact that some teams get 2-3 top 20 guys and a few 20-100 prospects. But in basketball the very best players are many times more impactful than the merely good players.

frdbtr wrote:
Comparing BYU's players to Alabama's in football is ridiculous.

Comparing BYU's basketball players to Duke and Kentucky's is also rediculous.

I compare BYU to St. Mary's, Gonzaga, SDSU, Utah, etc. And we don't compare very favorably at the moment.

And Duke can't win a game on the road.

Maybe I read the post differently, but he isn't necessarily saying that BYU players compare to Duke or Kentucky, the point that is being made is that when its said that there are 4* recruits, that they are possibly of a different caliber than other 4* recruits.



In my opinion he was mostly pointing out either that there is a vast difference between 4 star recruits, or that BYU's 4* recruits are lesser than others, and as such should not be necessarily expected to achieve the same level of success as easily.



Just my 2 cents.

BYU won't ever be a true contender for anything. We're limited by the culture, honor code, etc. So, enjoy the awesome moments (beating no. 3 Gonzaga) and roll with the crappy ones (losing to SD...)