I'll cop that my team's pace probably influences that, same for the fact the best team in UW history had almost no bench to speak of, and the deepest team couldn't absorb and injury and struggled late.
This is what I always come back to: These college teams don't play all that much. You get five guys on the court at the same time, and the good ones can play a lot. Most really good teams roll about 7-8 deep in big games, give or take a few breather minutes.
Anyway, food for thought.
I wonder if it's similar to the old adage...
"If you have two QBs, you have zero QBs."
I think if you have 5 guys who all deserve 30+ minutes, you do your best to give them 30+ minutes. Last year Purdue had Carsen at 35.4 mpg and Cline at 33.9 mpg. Why? Because you're not taking them off the floor unless you have to. This year the only player averaging over 30 is Eric Hunter at 31.5.
If you've got 8-9 guys really sharing minutes, it either means you've got 8-9 guys who are SO DAMN GOOD that they all should be on the court. More likely at the college level, though, what you've really got is 8-9 guys, none of whom can differentiate themselves from each other to the point that you don't want to take them off the court.
I think this is especially true of programs like Purdue and Wisconsin, and less programs like Kansas and Kentucky. If you're loaded with blue chip recruits, SOMEONE is going to prove by their play on the court that they deserve 30+ mpg. If your 5* player is struggling, you've got a 5* hotshot behind him that's ready and willing to step over his grave and onto the court. If you're not, you HOPE that you get a couple of completely stalwart studs and then that their backups can at least give you spot minutes. But if your experienced players aren't producing, chances are that the 3*/4* guys behind them who may not be ready to contribute as freshmen/sophomores might be good enough to deserve minutes, but it's not because they've "won the job". It's because nobody has won the job.
