Cripes for arguments sake in this thread. Unless you want to come back to this in Aug/Sept??
I am sure you are a nice guy. Please don't take this personally.
But you have been making statements about rosters as if they are facts about worse talent from 3 years ago on a roster WITH a winning record of what--9-4, and comparing it to the most recent game roster WITHOUT a winning record of the almost reverse record of 4-8 and saying the latter is better.
I, truthfully don't understand how you, actually, think there is any factual basis for an argument because all these attempts to judge the quality of a roster are extremely subjective (except the win loss record) The exception to this was what davecisar pointed out about relatively equal ratings by the recruiting services for the respective years.
Nevertheless, one of the few (and maybe only) real and most empirical ways to measure that are the respective win-loss records. 2 deep rosters don't mean anything because riley didn't use 2 deeps in several positions, so can we really measure how good they were? They probably weren't that great, because they might have been playing, but we can't really tell, so How do you know they are better than those of 3 years ago?
As I think about it though, this discussion must be only for arguments' sake as you have said because there is no basis in fact as to which talent is greater. A 2 deep roster of a 9-4 team vs. that of a 4-8 team? Logic would say that of the better record would be better. That could only be for hypothetical arguments sake, I guess, because there can't be any factual basis on your side of backing up your claims. Again, these statements are totally subjective on your part in your perceived judgement as to better talent from 3 years ago. Someone else could just as easily say the opposite.
Again, the only measurable parameters that I can see to judge the talent to compare the 2 rosters are the respective records, and in that fact, there really isn't any valid argument here, as it is obvious that 9 and 4 is much greater than 4 and 8. So, what are you basing your statements on that can, actually, be measured?
