[jammin' jamey]

My main argument wasn't that Tubby should have recruited more in-state players, because I agree, Kentucky's talent pool isn't as D-1 ready as the pools in Florida, Texas, California, etc. And yes, he did have the #1 recruiting class back in 2004. But when you coach at Kentucky, you should have a top 5 recruiting class EVERY YEAR. I'm not saying go recruit every senior who attends a Kentucky high school, but Pettigrew, IMO, should be at UK next season, and Miller should be there in the Fall of 2008. And Mackey really impressed me at the State Tourney. Why not go after him? Smith had 1 very good class (2004), and I don't think this past year's class was bad either. According to Rivals, he also had 2 4-Star and a 3-Star recruit back in 2002. You can't blame him for wanting players who will stay for 4 years instead of those "1 and done" deals. But you can't recruit someone and try to mold them into your system. He would focus on what they could do in his system, and not what their strengths were as an individual. That's where I think he went wrong. IMO, Kentucky is a better program than Marquette, Villanova, and maybe even Texas A&M. I don't think there is any excuse for them having better recruiting class than the winningest program in NCAA history.

I was going on your 1st post where you said, "These coaches recruit players "close to home," and I believe it is safe to say, they've succeeded in doing so." That's where I was at odds in saying that Kentucky as a state just doesn't have the talent pool other states like Texas, Florida, etc have.

When you say they (coaches) have succeeded in recruiting players close to home, are you saying that their programs are better because they have players from close by because that's what I'm understanding you saying? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post.

So now, your argument is that UK should go after Pettigrew? But he's not in the coveted Top 150 either and if he turns into another "project" for the future coach, what benefit would he be to UK?