Three squads, 1 top 20 player. Contrast that with the UK, UNC, Duke, etcs from those same classes. Dood wasn't saying they didn't have any good recruits, just that none of them were incredible gets. Obviously, you need good players to compete at that level but you don't have to have classes filled with 5 stars to compete at that level.
I know the quote referenced "incredible gets," but the article wasn't about just top 20 players:
As some coaches are now admitting, more and more players arrive on campus thinking that a top-100 recruiting ranking entitles them to something. As a coach, you need talented players for your program, but you don't always want everything that comes with them.
Since Florida and Georgetown had multiple top-100 recruits, the quote doesn't really fit the article. Anyway, I'm not sure how you can use Florida as an example of a team that succeeded despite a dearth of top recruits.
George Mason, yes; Butler, yes; Florida, no.
A more important point is that Butler and George Mason are exceptions. Someone pointed out in a recruiting thread that almost every team that's made it to the Final Four in recent times has had at least four top-75 recruits. It's possible to get there without, but the odds are stacked against you from the beginning. For all you tards who think that getting only 3-star recruits is fine, and that Frank's gonna "coach 'em up!", just be aware that history is stacked against you.
