We are in the enviable position at UK of having a debate on whether it would be better to sign the #1 or the #3 point guard prospect in the country. When you get right down to it, is there a real difference to a UK program that lacks a true point guard? If we look at it that way, either prospect can only be a boon to us. So the debate might be better framed in terms of the future of UK basketball for the next two-to-four years.
Wall, as I understand it, has made it clear that he's one and done. Has Bledsoe? I honestly don't know if he has or hasn't , but I have not seen that phrase associated with his name in the reading I've done over the last few days, so I'll proceed on the assumption that he's a two-year man at least. That gives him a clear lead in desirability for the program which, in spite of all the euphoric talk about FF potential in Cal's first year, will in all probability need at least two years to become serious contenders. A point guard carousel would be a disaster for the rebuilding process, given that the PG position is key to the entire offense.
My thinking is that it might be better to forget Wall altogether and focus on Bledsoe and one other slightly lower rated PG who can then work together to provide stability in that position over the next few years. Bledsoe, in my view, would be the starting PG and this other hypothetical recruit would share floor time. Both would learn the DDMO and how to run it at the same time, which would in my mind be a more solid foundation for the long haul.
Don't get me wrong about Wall, he's fantastically talented and will be a real thrill to watch wherever he goes. But is UK thinking it through by recruiting him heavily? I wonder...