You are right, of course, in that getting really good players is the key to sustained success, and that rankings are very often a good measuring stick for how good a kid will be at the college level. Dave is also right in that the goal should be to get really talented kids and coach them up.
Given when he was hired and where we are as a program, I'm going to reserve judgment on Anderson's recruiting ability. Perhaps some of these kids end up better than the rankings predict, through coaching, player development and the staff's ability to find some diamonds in the rough. Perhaps we start getting higher level kids in the next class now that the staff has more time to develop relationships and won't be "late to the game".
Willard's been at the Hall for almost a decade and was terrible for half that period. Yes, he sold his soul and God knows what else to get Whitehead/Angel in the door, which turned things around and got him an extension. But if you look at their squad now, ranked consensus top 15 in the country, I believe it only has 2/3 kids who were ranked in the top 100 out of HS (Powell, Cale and the FSU transfer, and Powell/Cale were closer to 100 than 50 as I recall). They've had success the past few years developing kids who were not rated as highly as the kind of recruits we'd want, making sure they are happy and stay through their junior/senior years so as to receive maximum benefit of that development. Anderson's coaching resume is better than Willard's, and so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the staff can develop the kids they've brought on into solid contributors, with some on-court success and additional recruiting investment time leading to us getting some more highly ranked kids in future classes.
Two questions:
1. Can you name some high major programs or coaches that have had sustained success recruiting inferior players?
2. If good coaching and inferior players is a recipe for success why do so many elite coaches risk their livelihoods paying for highly ranked players?