UCLA is on the verge of their third consecutive top-5 recruiting class. Only six other schools have done that since the RSCI composite rankings began. Top-5 classes should be an advantage since you get the best high school players, but a disadvantage, since many leave early. So are three in a row a significant tournament boost for a program? Successful regular seasons which end up with an early exit in the tournament are quite unsatisfying for most fans.

First of all, let's look at the year following a top-5 class when the recruits are freshmen and still in school. Until 2009, when Kentucky started grabbing super classes with multiple top-10 players, having a #1 recruiting class had little if any positive effect on the next season. From 1998-2008, seven of the eleven #1 classes failed to win a single tournament game their freshman year (three failing to even make the tournament), one won one game, two made the Sweet 16 and one the Elite Eight. After that, the loaded #1 classes, all Kentucky or Duke, made at least the Elite Eight six times with two championships in eight years.

Of the 56 classes ranked #2-5 since 2002:

No tournament  25.0%
1st round loss 19.6%
2nd round loss 28.6%
Sweet Sixteen  12.5%
Elite Eight    8.9%
Final Four     5.4% (one champion)

So having a class ranked #2-5 doesn't have a lot of immediate effect when they are freshmen. A 73% chance of one tournament win or less is not what most fans would expect.

How about three top-5's in a row? That would give a better indication of a longer term effect. Here is a list of the schools with three or more consecutive top-5 recruiting classes and the NCAA tournament result in the 4th year where the recruits would be freshmen, sophs and juniors:


Duke      2005-06-07 (2nd round)
          2013-14-15 (S16)
          2014-15-16 (1st round)
          2015-16-17 (???)
UNC       2000-01-02 (NIT)
          2008-09-10 (E8)
Ohio St   2006-07-08 (1st round)
Kansas    2003-04-05 (1st round)
          2013-14-15 (E8)
Arizona   2015-16-17 (???)
Kentucky  2009-2017  (1 NC, 4 F4, 1 E8, 1 2nd round, 1 NIT)

Aside from Kentucky (who had mostly #1 classes), no team has ever made the Final Four the season after three consecutive top-5 recruiting classes. In fact, out of the eight which the last of the three classes was prior to 2017, four did not win an NCAA tournament game, one won 1, one won 2 and two won 3. So three consecutive top-5 recruiting classes have not been much help in the NCAA tournament the following year and no better than having any single top-5 class. Deep runs in the tournament by both Duke and Arizona in this year's tournament could improve the numbers, but at this point, results have been underwhelming.

This is most likely due to early exits, but not entirely. There are examples of two other reasons: overrated recruits and poor coaching.

In 2003, UNC was an NIT team on the heels of recruiting classes ranked #5, #1 and #2. The 2000 class was a complete bust who all transferred after one or two seasons (including BMo). But six highly rated recruits, (five ranked in the top-25) from the 2001 and 2002 classes were playing in 2003 (although one was injured part of the year). Three were 1st round NBA draft choices. The problem? Coach Matt Doherty, who was replaced by Roy Williams after the season. A few years later he ended up at Florida Atlantic for one season and then spent six years at SMU with a record of 80-109.

On the other hand, having highly rated recruiting classes, although nice to have and will win you a lot of regular season games, isn't really necessary to have great success in the NCAA tournament. Of the last 64 Final Four teams, 23 had no top-10 classes in the previous three years, including four champions and 38 had no top-5 classes, including eight champions. The vast majority of those teams had excellent coaching. The 26 who did have a top-5 class sometime in the previous three years most likely retained some of those players. This past season's national champ, UNC, had only one top-5 class the pevious four years (2014) and retained all of the players from that class. The other three Final Four participants had no top-10 classes the previous four years.

(Note that there are other ways to obtain talented players that do not show up in class rankings such as transfers and foreign players, but these compose a much smaller number than freshmen.)

Although one might not necessarily conclude that unless you are bringing in #1 classes every year, a run of highly rated recruiting classes over a several year period is no guarantee of NCAA tournament success, coaching is arguably just as important if not more so. Bottom line is that even though a string of top-5 classes indicates a great ability to recruit and is certainly beneficial to a program in a number of ways, advancing in the NCAA tournament depends on a lot more than that.