on needing more studs, better players are always a positive. Of course, that point was not readily discernible from the one line question of "What did we win?" and could be interpreted borderline disrespectful to the actual contributions made by the players identified in the original post.

Is it easier to win with a roster of 4 and 5 star guys? Sure and much more probable too. However, it may not be impossible to get there with less 4 and 5 star guys if a program's evaluation and development skills can get players undervalued or misevaluated and supplement them with a few more highly rated players or, as we have already seen, one generational talent that levels the field. Note I am not advocating the high probability of catching lightning in a bottle twice but, the other scenario has a higher probability and, based on the resources currently available to VT, a much more realistic chance of succeeding at VT. I could be wrong but, I think that is what the original poster was really getting at.