In Reply to: Re: You're moving around a lot posted by Dr.Bruin on June 13, 2026 at 13:13:34
But that wasn't your original statement. You said "greatest". Now you're trying to downgrade to the word "great".
Also, I don't believe he was All-SEC. That itself does not sound right. Look at the all-time list of All-SEC teams on Wikipedia and Wikiwand and his name does not appear on even the third team. That sounds like more internet hype that doesn't survive a fact check.
How many of UCLA's "greatest" players did not at least get a cup of coffee in the NBA? You tried to cite O'Bannon but that's not true. Same with Tyus Edney. Same with Toby Bailey, Earl Watson, Matt Barnes, Jason Kapono, Jerome Moiso, and many others. I would not consider most of those to be among the greatest UCLA players but, as one poster said, I guess it depends on how you define "greatest".
One could conceive of an undersized, less physically talented guy being a great college player but not having the talent to get a look from the NBA. I was thinking like Scott Brooks or Bobby Hurley, but even those guys played in the NBA. That was not Cotton.
If Schea Cotton had "greatest" potential at UCLA, with his physical tools, he would have garnered a lot more interest from the pros. The NBA has drafted a lot of bums just on potential alone.
What exactly stopped Schea Cotton? He was an all-American in the JC ranks, and was a starter on a (bad) SEC team. It's not like he didn't get an opportunity to showcase himself. I would say, nothing really stopped him. He just lacked the tools to go beyond being a good college player.
You're obviously free to believe he could have been one of the greatest, though. People believe a lot of things, often because they just want to believe them. But as I said in my original response, "very doubtful".