I agree, on a personal level. I don't want to become Kentucky. Calipari gears his program around the expectation that he will lose his top players after a year to the NBA, and will have to re-load with highly ranked replacements. I don't find fault with him. The top college recruits now generally have both eyes on the NBA and hope/intend to leave after a season. College programs are short-term renting top players.
I don't prefer that as a matter of personal preference, but it is what it is, and I don't see it ever going back. Rather, I see it becoming fully the norm, with relaxed rules about attending college or playing overseas for a year. It would be more straightforward, for example, for the NBA to sponsor a transitional developmental league for players under a certain age. A player's participation would be decided by him and the team that drafts him. Since in most jurisdictions, 18-year-olds are considered "adults", it's hard to justify restricting their athletic and economic freedom of movement.
From a nostalgic perspective (also selfish), I miss the days of college basketball being authentically collegiate, with players staying for their college careers.
But let's be realistic. The one-and-doners aren't collegians. They are pro players in waiting, compelled to defer their careers. No meaningful D-1 program can afford to ignore reality.
I'd like to see Illinois be in the running for top talent, but not sell out fully to stacking its roster perennially with players likely to stay no more than a year. Having, say, 1-2 such players a season, complemented by solid, but not "Top 100" level talent might be a good mix (assuming the personal/relational wrinkles can be ironed out). A danger is development of a class system, with studs, not-quite studs, and fillers. That's where the relational art comes into play.