i guess it was too long ago for me to remember. i do remember jake being amazing with jamaal and kantrail setting him up, but struggling many times to score after they graduated.
if jake is the not the definition of set shooter i do not know what is. i guess i should have compared sc to lucca...
and don't get me wrong, i like jake and he was good at what he did (free throws and 3pters). but he was not nearly the creator that sc is. not as good at passing off the drive, not as many tricks in his bag at finishing the drive either.
Jake averaged the following:
Points:
-FR 11.4 pts
-SO 16 pts
-JR 17 pts
-SR 14.6
He played with Tinsley for the first two years and was the benefactor of a lot of great looks from Tinsley penetrating and dishing. But his junior year, he put up more points, without the help of Tinsley (Barnes was a poor man's Tinsley at best) and Sullivan still shot 45% from the field and 42% from 3pt.
His senior year, with Stinson and Blalock around, he did become more of a set shooter, but that was because of the style of play and the fact that those two had a considerable amount of possession of the ball.
The point I'm trying to make here, is that if you're just a "set shooter", like you say Sullivan was, it's going to be tough to average 14-17 points, especially in a conference that's full of great athletes that were much quicker, longer and stronger than Sullivan, and would be able to shut a "set shooter" down.
Sullivan was a great scorer. He wasn't just a set shooter. He played well without the ball (a la Rip Hamilton/Ray Allen) and he was an excellent mid-range shooter that could use a pump fake or step back fade away to get looks inside the 3pt line.
Sullivan, FH and SC are all very different players.