This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

I think you missed the point by cbiebel

My point was that ND couldn't capitalize as much on the 2001 NC because unlike UConn's NC, it wasn't surrounded by years when ND went farther in the NCAAs than the Sweet Sixteen. As such, the 2001 NC could have been viewed as more of an outlier year for ND, since it was such a senior laden team.

However, having 5 straight Final Fours can't be considered an "outlier season" because it lasts longer than just one class (and having #1 seeds the two years after that, even if ND was upset earlier, helps reinforce that).

So basically, what I'm saying is that this year's NC, unlike 2001, will have a greater effect regarding recruiting, and you replied with "But UConn had a lot more #1 recruits in the past!" Isn't that exactly my point?

And I'm not talking about "top recruits" as just #1 ranked recruits. I'm talking elite recruits in general.

Everyone talks about #1 recruits as if #2 and #3 aren't worth that much.