I now want to expand the analysis beyond just champions. Let's look at the two ranges SkyBrickey mentions (2015 to 2021 and 2006 to 2021) and see how each champion (plus a few other top teams) performed in the NCAA tournament in the range.
First 2015 to 2021:
Code:
Team 16 8 4 1 Pts
Gonzaga 6 4 3 0 23
Villanova 3 2 2 2 21
UNC 4 2 2 1 18
Duke 4 3 1 1 17
Virginia 2 2 1 1 13
Kentucky 4 3 1 0 13
MSU 2 2 2 0 12
Kansas 3 3 1 0 12
Baylor 2 1 1 1 11
Michigan 4 2 1 0 11
UCLA 3 1 1 0 8
Louisville 1 1 0 0 3
Florida 1 1 0 0 3
UConn 0 0 0 0 0
To calculate the "points," I gave 1 point for the Sweet 16, 2 additional points for the Elite 8, 3 additional points for the Final Four, and four additional points for champion. Which means 10 points total for champion, 6 points for Final Four, 3 points for Elite Eight, and 1 point for Sweet 16. It's completely arbitrary, and heavily weighted toward the end of the tournament, but that's what SkyBrickey seemed to be looking for, so I went with it.
It's interesting to note that Gonzaga, despite the lack of a championship, has had the most tournament success in the six-year period, BUT coach Mark Few has recently changed from whatever model he was using in the past (basically get a bunch of foreign players and transfers, go 32-2 in a low-major conference, and take advantage of the resultant #1-seed) and now seems to be going after top 10 players, just like Duke. It's not conclusive of anything, but to me that says something.
It's also interesting to see Duke as the 4th-most successful team in the period, and Kentucky 6th, each with only one Final Four and UK without even a championship. To me, this suggests the OAD model consistently creates strong teams, even if the team can't always break through to the final tournament weekend.
Now, let's look at 2006 to 2014:
Code:
Team 16 8 4 1 Pts
Florida 6 6 3 2 35
UConn 4 4 3 2 29
Kentucky 4 4 3 1 25
UNC 5 5 2 1 25
Kansas 6 4 2 1 24
Louisville 5 4 2 1 23
UCLA 4 3 3 0 19
MSU 6 3 2 0 18
Duke 5 2 1 1 16
Villanova 3 2 1 0 10
Michigan 2 2 1 0 9
Baylor 3 2 0 0 7
Gonzaga 2 0 0 0 2
Virginia 1 0 0 0 1
In this period, Duke wasn't really using the multiple top 10 recruit model, and our tournament success was worse (9th in the same list of teams as above, the lowest number of points of any team with a championship in the period). Kentucky is 3rd, and Kansas (which used a similar model but not as successfully as Kentucky) was 5th. UNC was also successfully chasing top 10 recruits in this period, and came in 4th.
Duke successfully recruited 6 top 10 players in this period, plus 4 additional top 15 players, and 2 others in the high teens. We didn't exactly use SkyBrickey's model, but we were a lot closer. And even with 7 of those 12 top recruits staying at least 3 years, our performance was worse than the later period when we start adding multiple top 10 guys most years.
It may be worth noting that teams like Villanova, Gonzaga, and Virginia, all of which were top performers in the six most recent tournaments, didn't do much in the earlier period. For Virginia, getting a new, successful coach certainly had something to do with it, but in general, it shows whatever approach those teams are using may not have staying power over a longer period of years.
Finally, let's add them together:
Code:
Team 16 8 4 1 Pts
UNC 9 7 4 2 43
Florida 7 7 3 2 38
Kentucky 8 7 4 1 38
Kansas 9 7 3 1 36
Duke 9 5 2 2 33
Villanova 6 4 3 2 31
MSU 8 5 4 0 30
UConn 4 4 3 2 29
UCLA 7 4 4 0 27
Louisville 6 5 2 1 26
Gonzaga 8 4 3 0 25
Michigan 6 4 2 0 20
Baylor 5 3 1 1 18
Virginia 3 2 1 1 14
Here's the entire period SkyBrickey wanted us to look at. The teams that have most successfully chased top 10 players (Kentucky, Duke, UNC, Kansas) occupy four of the top 5 spots (and frankly, the 5th team, Florida, was also bringing in a fair number of top 10 guys in the period). Those teams also show the most consistent tournament success, with the most Sweet 16s and the most Elite Eights.
I'd also note that no team in the time period has more championships than Duke.
Ultimately, looking at my three very long posts (and I apologize for the length), I think it's hard to argue that any approach will offer more consistent tournament success than simply going after the best players you can get. You may not win every year, but if you're a legitimate contender two-thirds of the time (as Duke has been from 2015 to 2021), I think that's about the best you can ask.