But you're totally ignoring the fact that Chatman was the guy we recruited to be the instant impact player. If DJ was the only guy we recruited to be our four, and it took him three years to develop, your argument is a better one.
With that said, I think it's expecting A LOT for coaches to figure out, in advance, that Player X is going to be "good," but not good enough to leave early for the NBA.
By your logic, the fact that Wagner (who tested the draft waters) returned means he was worth recruiting, but if he had left (which he easily could have), we shouldn't have bothered.
Also, Wilson was a very big part of our postseason success this year. We don't beat Purdue in the Big Ten tourney without his huge game, and we don't beat either Louisville or Oklahoma State without him playing well. So I don't see how a lesser player would have helped.
Look, it's exceedingly rare to get good players, and keep them four years. Most guys leave for the NBA as soon as they have a good shot of getting drafted. Look at GR3. He could have easily left after his freshman year. Still, even if he had, he was worth recruiting because his contribution to that team was significant.
Are you telling me we shouldn't recruit Pete Nance, simply because it may take him a few years to develop?
Now, if you want to argue we should recruit guys like Johns, Hunter, or Iggy ahead of Nance, because they will be more ready to immediately contribute, sure. But what if we can't get them? Pass on Nance anyway?
That was the situation with DJ. We landed Chatman, who was supposed to be an immediate contributor. In that situation, it makes all the sense in the world to recruit Wilson.
And finally, I'm again struggling with the logic of how it's not a good idea to recruit a player who ends up being a pretty important starter on a pretty good team, even if it's only for one year?