What would you rather have?

Solid guys, as Coach Beilien has shown he can win without NBA talent. I think the optimal situation is a foundation of solid to good upperclassmen, with a freshman phenom every few years to provide a spark, so to speak.

Well, McNamara's a douche, so not him. But I'd take Neitzel over Beasley or Mayo if I knew he'd stay for four years and the other two would only stay for one. I'd rather build a good program than hire a mercenary for one year and then have to pick up the pieces once he's gone.

No, I would not want to be Ohio State.

One of Beilein's best skills is player development. Every single player on the roster has improved from last year. Why would you want to neutralize this advantage by taking 1 and done players? Ther perfect recruits for Beilen systems are players like Manny and Deshawn who are future pros but not quite good enough to go pro early.

I watched Bobby knight do an interview about the subject of one and done kids. He said that these kids only had to be eligible for their 2nd semester to be able to play through the first season, so all they had to do to achieve that was to take 6 credit hours in their first semester. That is considered a part time student and in my poinion it makes a mockery of college athletics. The entire purpose of the NCAA is to help fund the college and provide an education for kids who would normally not be able to get an education otherwise. I think it belittles this whole process when we are getting these kids in here for one year. The most important thing is that the integrity of the university is not compromised and this does not show much integrity when we are putting winning above education. Let tO$U have the one and dones I say we don't need them win or lose.

I personally take the NBA guys, like Mayo, but then again I'm an NBA guy. Granted, the 4 year guys fit our system much better, but I personally would love be in Memphis' shoes next year with Xavier Henry (#3 overall player to rivals), DeMarcus Cousins (#2 overall), and they will also probably end up with John Wall (#1 overall). Couple that with 3 other 4 stars who are within the top 15 at their position and we could very well be talking about a recruiting class that tops the fab 5.

I think the one-and-doners have more time on their hands to get in trouble by accepting illegal perks than real students do. Not only that, but they are more likely to because they know they will be gone in a year and feel no real loyalty to the university.

We all have seen first-hand that a Chris Webber can set your program back ten years. I'll go for kids who need three or four years of development to go pro.

But I am really, really sick of seeing them be the shortest team on the floor almost every game.

As for the one and done vs. 4-year guys...hard to say. With the guys that you know will be one and done, there is a certain amount of sketchiness (see Durant and Beasley), although basketball recruiting as a whole is knee deep in filth.

I tend to subscribe to the theory that you need a majority of 3/4 year players with perhaps one or two "diaper dandies" mixed in to be title contenders. OSU had Oden, Conley and to a lesser extent Cook in 07, but several upperclassmen around them. Memphis had Rose last year, but upperclassmen like CDR, Anderson, Dorsey and Dozier around him.

Next year's Memphis team will be an intriguing thing to watch. Tyreke Evans will almost assuredly be gone, but they're bringing in three star freshmen who could very possibly all be lottery picks after one year in college. I'm excited to see how they perform together next season.

I don't want one and done. But someone who sticks two to three years is fine by me (think Jalen Rose, Juwan Howard, both at UM 3 yrs.) BTW, it remains mind-boggling to think of recruiting 4 players in the top 10 of high school grads in 1991 (see wiki article for info.) I wonder if Beilein would take that kind of class?

On a related but different topic, it will be interesting to see how the current state of affairs in the NBA affects current college ball. If the NBA is in the tank financially, it would make sense for any but the top 10 college players to stay in school an extra year or two, rather than "leaving early" for an uncertain future.

AIDS.

I tend to agree that we need 3-4 yr kids to build up the program. However you could argue that having kids like mayo come to UM and then succeed in the NBA might be attractive to potential recruits. Althou im not sure you could attribute those kids' successes to college development.

To be a legit contenders, you need both of these kinds of talents. You can not regularily ignore the cream of the crop because they might go pro in a year or two.

If Michigan keeps progressing forward under John Beilein as I expect the program will, it will have the ability to land ready-made pro's. The key is to recruit these guys without losing sight of the program' long term needs.

There is a balance to be struck and the good coaches do that.

What's interesting is of all the one-and-done scenarios outlined above, none found the programs decimated in the wake of the departures. The coaches knew the score and were ready to adjust. Texas, Ohio State and USC have maintained their postseason statuses in the wake of one-and-doners because they kept on recruiting. Even KSU had a nice post-Beasley/Walker first season, are in the NIT and in position to contend for a bid next year.

But, if you want to win Final Fours, you have to bring in talent. If a kid ends up as an Uber-Talent and leaves after a year or two, so be it.