[VB Card]

Good luck to him, had some really impressive spurts at times this season. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/therealZiaire/status/1377290011792437253?s=20[/tweet]

[VB Card]

Good luck to him, had some really impressive spurts at times this season. 

[tweet]https://twitter.com/therealZiaire/status/1377290011792437253?s=20[/tweet]

[burger]

Good luck to Ziaire!  Also, hopefully this puts to rest the stupid rumors that Ziaire (or someone in the Stanford program) lied about his attending a funeral.

[burger]

Good luck to Ziaire!  Also, hopefully this puts to rest the stupid rumors that Ziaire (or someone in the Stanford program) lied about his attending a funeral.

[Ronnietrader]

No surprise.

[Ronnietrader]

No surprise.

[OutsiderFan]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

[OutsiderFan]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

[Goose]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

It is a data point, but not much more. One can't generalize the results from one player to another, especially in a COVID-19 altered year. Hopefully recruits will see it that way also. Other programs that normally have "one and done" also had issues this year because they couldn't practice. That made incorporating freshmen into the programs even harder than usual.

[Goose]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

It is a data point, but not much more. One can't generalize the results from one player to another, especially in a COVID-19 altered year. Hopefully recruits will see it that way also. Other programs that normally have "one and done" also had issues this year because they couldn't practice. That made incorporating freshmen into the programs even harder than usual.

[BostonCard]

I think the biggest learning from the Ziaire Williams saga is for us as fans not to get too carried away in landing (or not landing) any single recruit, especially one who is likely to be a one-and-done.  I think some fans were marking Williams' signing as an inflection point at Stanford, where landing whales would beget landing whales in route towards making Stanford an elite program.  I think at best, individual recruits can complement an effective nucleus, but, by and large, should not be considered the core of a successful program.  At worst, of course, they are a distraction that takes us away from building and developing the team.  If the stories about Haase writing Williams a daily handwritten letter are true, the opportunity costs for landing Williams were likely enormous.  If there had been a 4* player who could have followed the Oscar da Silva trajectory, wouldn't we have been better off?  Not to see we should turn down a whale who wants to come to Stanford, and, of course, this is an inexact science, as Terry didn't necessary project as a one-and-done.  But we should be weary of quick fixes that involve a brobdingnagian recruit coming in and "rescuing" the team.

BC

[BostonCard]

I think the biggest learning from the Ziaire Williams saga is for us as fans not to get too carried away in landing (or not landing) any single recruit, especially one who is likely to be a one-and-done.  I think some fans were marking Williams' signing as an inflection point at Stanford, where landing whales would beget landing whales in route towards making Stanford an elite program.  I think at best, individual recruits can complement an effective nucleus, but, by and large, should not be considered the core of a successful program.  At worst, of course, they are a distraction that takes us away from building and developing the team.  If the stories about Haase writing Williams a daily handwritten letter are true, the opportunity costs for landing Williams were likely enormous.  If there had been a 4* player who could have followed the Oscar da Silva trajectory, wouldn't we have been better off?  Not to see we should turn down a whale who wants to come to Stanford, and, of course, this is an inexact science, as Terry didn't necessary project as a one-and-done.  But we should be weary of quick fixes that involve a brobdingnagian recruit coming in and "rescuing" the team.

BC

[BobK]

Ingram coming in is far more likely to be one and done than Terry was when he arrived at Stanford. Recruit the best players. Or maybe shouldn’t have recruited Ryan since he was one and done at Stanford.

[BobK]

Ingram coming in is far more likely to be one and done than Terry was when he arrived at Stanford. Recruit the best players. Or maybe shouldn’t have recruited Ryan since he was one and done at Stanford.

[Goose]

Recruit the best players.

For sure. However, "best" is a vector with many components. That is what makes it less than obvious who to recruit. A player with great physical skills that might be "great" in a few years if he stays around is of little use if he will not stay around. OTOH, a player who can shoot the lights out that will leave after a year is for sure useful during his time at Stanford. In all cases it will take some time to incorporate recruits into the system. Recruits that "fit", no matter how long they stay, are more useful than recruits that do not "fit". Obviously recruits that fill holes are more valuable than ones who duplicate players we already have. It is anything but simple IMHO.

[Goose]

Recruit the best players.

For sure. However, "best" is a vector with many components. That is what makes it less than obvious who to recruit. A player with great physical skills that might be "great" in a few years if he stays around is of little use if he will not stay around. OTOH, a player who can shoot the lights out that will leave after a year is for sure useful during his time at Stanford. In all cases it will take some time to incorporate recruits into the system. Recruits that "fit", no matter how long they stay, are more useful than recruits that do not "fit". Obviously recruits that fill holes are more valuable than ones who duplicate players we already have. It is anything but simple IMHO.

[BobK]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit.
As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football
No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win. And winning now is best
Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily. As your top priority ?

[BobK]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit.
As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football
No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win. And winning now is best
Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily. As your top priority ?

[needle]

I feel bad for Ziaire. He's among the very, very few Stanford alums to never take an in-person class on The Farm.

I can't help but wonder if in his heart-of-hearts he'd have rather played his year at a school like North Carolina that had a lot of sick kids but also in-person classes.

I am heartened to hear him say of his teammates that they "all had nothing but unconditional love and support for me," and that they feel like brothers to him. That line also gives me hope that the team chemistry can recover relatively quickly.

[needle]

I feel bad for Ziaire. He's among the very, very few Stanford alums to never take an in-person class on The Farm.

I can't help but wonder if in his heart-of-hearts he'd have rather played his year at a school like North Carolina that had a lot of sick kids but also in-person classes.

I am heartened to hear him say of his teammates that they "all had nothing but unconditional love and support for me," and that they feel like brothers to him. That line also gives me hope that the team chemistry can recover relatively quickly.

[BostonCard]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

[BostonCard]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

[lex24]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

4.

[lex24]

How does the Ziaire Williams story impact Stanford Hoops?

1. No impact at all
2. Landing a 5 star one and done recruit helps legitimize the program, even if no tournament berth
3. It shows Stanford can't make hay with one and done recruits, which will make landing them more difficult now
4. Stanford shouldn't be wasting its time with one and done recruits, period

Any thoughts on this?

4.

[Spiny_Norman]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

[Spiny_Norman]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

[SamuelMcF]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

My time to shine! Copying my post from another board (sorry for wonky formatting):

I was inspired by another post to track the number of transfer (4 year and JuCo) contributors at all Sweet Sixteen teams. "Starter" is defined as starting at least half of the team's games, and "Rotator" is defined as playing in most games and averaging at least 10 mpg.

No particular order - teams are listed how they appeared on my bracket.

School	Transfer Starters	Transfer Rotators	Total Contributors
Gonzaga	1	1	2
Creighton	2	2	4
USC	3	1	4
Oregon	4	1	5
UCLA	1	0	1
Alabama	2	2	4
Baylor	2	2	4
Villanova	1	0	1
Arkansas	3	2	5
Oral Roberts	2	1	3
Loyola Chicago	3	1	4
Oregon State	2	2	4
Syracuse	1	0	1
Houston	4	2	6
AVERAGE	2.06	1.25	3.31

The results sadden me, but aren't surprising in the slightest. Every single Sweet Sixteen team has a transfer starter (and a majority have 2+), and almost all have transfer reinforcements off the bench too. Look at that average - over 3 transfer contributors per team. Just unreal.

None of the Final Four teams have had a one-and-done in the last 3 years. In fact, Houston has had just two players drafted since 2000, and this year's team is basically a mercenary squad. SIX transfers in the rotation.

One-and-dones are usually a bandage. Sure, they're good, but we see time and time again teams that don't make the tourney despite having one. (And sometimes 2, like UW last year.) It's way easier - and clearly more of a payoff - to load up on multiple seasoned veterans in the transfer market. Who gives a crap that 4 5* whales are going to Kentucky? Give me the guy leaving there because he didn't start. He'll probably be even better in a year or 2.

[SamuelMcF]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

My time to shine! Copying my post from another board (sorry for wonky formatting):

I was inspired by another post to track the number of transfer (4 year and JuCo) contributors at all Sweet Sixteen teams. "Starter" is defined as starting at least half of the team's games, and "Rotator" is defined as playing in most games and averaging at least 10 mpg.

No particular order - teams are listed how they appeared on my bracket.

School	Transfer Starters	Transfer Rotators	Total Contributors
Gonzaga	1	1	2
Creighton	2	2	4
USC	3	1	4
Oregon	4	1	5
UCLA	1	0	1
Alabama	2	2	4
Baylor	2	2	4
Villanova	1	0	1
Arkansas	3	2	5
Oral Roberts	2	1	3
Loyola Chicago	3	1	4
Oregon State	2	2	4
Syracuse	1	0	1
Houston	4	2	6
AVERAGE	2.06	1.25	3.31

The results sadden me, but aren't surprising in the slightest. Every single Sweet Sixteen team has a transfer starter (and a majority have 2+), and almost all have transfer reinforcements off the bench too. Look at that average - over 3 transfer contributors per team. Just unreal.

None of the Final Four teams have had a one-and-done in the last 3 years. In fact, Houston has had just two players drafted since 2000, and this year's team is basically a mercenary squad. SIX transfers in the rotation.

One-and-dones are usually a bandage. Sure, they're good, but we see time and time again teams that don't make the tourney despite having one. (And sometimes 2, like UW last year.) It's way easier - and clearly more of a payoff - to load up on multiple seasoned veterans in the transfer market. Who gives a crap that 4 5* whales are going to Kentucky? Give me the guy leaving there because he didn't start. He'll probably be even better in a year or 2.

[76lsjumb]

I feel bad for Ziaire. He's among the very, very few Stanford alums to never take an in-person class on The Farm.

I can't help but wonder if in his heart-of-hearts he'd have rather played his year at a school like North Carolina that had a lot of sick kids but also in-person classes.

I am heartened to hear him say of his teammates that they "all had nothing but unconditional love and support for me," and that they feel like brothers to him. That line also gives me hope that the team chemistry can recover relatively quickly.

Right now that description would apply to every Stanford freshman, no?  In fact, he’s probably spent a lot more time on campus than most frosh. He’s choosing to make himself an alum, at least for the time being, so that’s not being forced on him. Plus, he says he’s going to come back to get his degree, so he will have plenty of days on campus...just not on the basketball court.

[76lsjumb]

I feel bad for Ziaire. He's among the very, very few Stanford alums to never take an in-person class on The Farm.

I can't help but wonder if in his heart-of-hearts he'd have rather played his year at a school like North Carolina that had a lot of sick kids but also in-person classes.

I am heartened to hear him say of his teammates that they "all had nothing but unconditional love and support for me," and that they feel like brothers to him. That line also gives me hope that the team chemistry can recover relatively quickly.

Right now that description would apply to every Stanford freshman, no?  In fact, he’s probably spent a lot more time on campus than most frosh. He’s choosing to make himself an alum, at least for the time being, so that’s not being forced on him. Plus, he says he’s going to come back to get his degree, so he will have plenty of days on campus...just not on the basketball court.

[BostonCard]

Houston has had no one-and-dones since the 2017/18 season.  It lost one sophomore last year who went to play professionally (Nate Hinton, who went undrafted).
Baylor has had no one-and-dones since the 2017/18 season.  It has not lost any early departures to the NBA.
UCLA has not had a one-and-done since the 2017/18 season.  They lost Jaylen Hands as a sophomore to the 2019 NBA draft; he would have been a senior. They also lost Aaron Holiday as a sophomore to the 2018 draft, but he would have exhausted eligibility before this year.
Gonzaga has not had a one-and-done since the 2017/18 season.  They lost sophomore Filip Petrušev after the 2019 season to a Euro team, and Brandon Clarke and Rui Hachimura, who as juniors would have exhausted eligibility last year.  They had a one-and-done (Zach Collins) during the 2016/17 season; he would have exhausted eligibility last year.

So, four teams, none of whom had one-and-dones who, had they stayed, would have been on the final-four rosters.

BC

---

he will have plenty of days on campus...just not on the basketball court.

He will be a terror for somebody's IM squad.  Didn't Mark Madsen do that when he came back for business school?

BC

[BostonCard]

Houston has had no one-and-dones since the 2017/18 season.  It lost one sophomore last year who went to play professionally (Nate Hinton, who went undrafted).
Baylor has had no one-and-dones since the 2017/18 season.  It has not lost any early departures to the NBA.
UCLA has not had a one-and-done since the 2017/18 season.  They lost Jaylen Hands as a sophomore to the 2019 NBA draft; he would have been a senior. They also lost Aaron Holiday as a sophomore to the 2018 draft, but he would have exhausted eligibility before this year.
Gonzaga has not had a one-and-done since the 2017/18 season.  They lost sophomore Filip Petrušev after the 2019 season to a Euro team, and Brandon Clarke and Rui Hachimura, who as juniors would have exhausted eligibility last year.  They had a one-and-done (Zach Collins) during the 2016/17 season; he would have exhausted eligibility last year.

So, four teams, none of whom had one-and-dones who, had they stayed, would have been on the final-four rosters.

BC

---

he will have plenty of days on campus...just not on the basketball court.

He will be a terror for somebody's IM squad.  Didn't Mark Madsen do that when he came back for business school?

BC

[AlbanyCardinal]

The question I have: for a team that can't rely on getting transfers -- when the best teams out there are relying on them mightily -- is the occasional qualifying one-and-done whale a help or a hindrance? I get that many teams avoid them and for good reason, but they have access to transfers. Is Stanford at liberty to avoid them, too? My hunch is no, not in this moment, Stanford needs all the talent it can get from year to year. But I go back and forth on this question.

[AlbanyCardinal]

The question I have: for a team that can't rely on getting transfers -- when the best teams out there are relying on them mightily -- is the occasional qualifying one-and-done whale a help or a hindrance? I get that many teams avoid them and for good reason, but they have access to transfers. Is Stanford at liberty to avoid them, too? My hunch is no, not in this moment, Stanford needs all the talent it can get from year to year. But I go back and forth on this question.

[Goose]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit.

Actually Bob, I think a lot of coaches do that. They have a guy who is really, really good but that may have problems fitting in. Many coaches say " I can manage this situation" and take the guy anyway. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but for sure it happens. It is often too great a temptation to resist, especially in basketball where one guy make more difference.

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football
No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

I agree that you take the guy that will help you win. This gets back to the "take the best available player regardless of need" vs. "take the player that fills your greatest needs". I think neither strategy is always right. First of all, you don't have an infinite number of slots so you have to chose a subset of available recruits. I would argue that in basketball especially you do need to look at need. Having lots of great guards is fine, but you do need somebody to rebound the ball and defend other "bigs". It is reasonable to take a center who is perhaps not as "good" as another guard (and you have plenty of good guards) because you believe the center will make you a better team and help you win. The judgement call is obviously how much better does a potential guard recruit that may not play have to be to become more valuable than the center who certainly would play.

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

Both :). The good news is that everybody knows you are in a rebuild mode, so now is the time you can get away with not winning as much. The HS recruits are the ones that will save your job in three years, so you need them to be good. You need to rebuild this pipeline and you can't ignore it at the beginning of your tenure, hoping to "fix it later". There will be much higher expectations "later". However, to be a good team you need to learn how to win. If you can find transfers that are high character that you think can help you, even if they are "short timers", take them. Be careful the transfers are for solid reasons and don't take "problem children", but take good players that can help.

[Goose]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit.

Actually Bob, I think a lot of coaches do that. They have a guy who is really, really good but that may have problems fitting in. Many coaches say " I can manage this situation" and take the guy anyway. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but for sure it happens. It is often too great a temptation to resist, especially in basketball where one guy make more difference.

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football
No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

I agree that you take the guy that will help you win. This gets back to the "take the best available player regardless of need" vs. "take the player that fills your greatest needs". I think neither strategy is always right. First of all, you don't have an infinite number of slots so you have to chose a subset of available recruits. I would argue that in basketball especially you do need to look at need. Having lots of great guards is fine, but you do need somebody to rebound the ball and defend other "bigs". It is reasonable to take a center who is perhaps not as "good" as another guard (and you have plenty of good guards) because you believe the center will make you a better team and help you win. The judgement call is obviously how much better does a potential guard recruit that may not play have to be to become more valuable than the center who certainly would play.

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

Both :). The good news is that everybody knows you are in a rebuild mode, so now is the time you can get away with not winning as much. The HS recruits are the ones that will save your job in three years, so you need them to be good. You need to rebuild this pipeline and you can't ignore it at the beginning of your tenure, hoping to "fix it later". There will be much higher expectations "later". However, to be a good team you need to learn how to win. If you can find transfers that are high character that you think can help you, even if they are "short timers", take them. Be careful the transfers are for solid reasons and don't take "problem children", but take good players that can help.

[BostonCard]

The question I have: for a team that can't rely on getting transfers -- when the best teams out there are relying on them mightily -- is the occasional qualifying one-and-done whale a help or a hindrance? I get that many teams avoid them and for good reason, but they have access to transfers. Is Stanford at liberty to avoid them, too? My hunch is no, not in this moment, Stanford needs all the talent it can get from year to year. But I go back and forth on this question.

You do it if you have a good nucleus where your one-and-done can put you over the top.  You don't do it if you are looking to build long-term.  Williams would have been great had we had an NIT caliber team without him and he could take us to the tournament (or take us from "making the tournament" to getting to the sweet sixteen).  But, now with him and Oscar both leaving, we are back to the drawing board.  I think we will have the same problem assuming Ingram leaves next year.  The team is unlikely to be good, so having Ingram for a year doesn't really help us much.  But who knows, maybe he will blow up and the supporting cast will develop more than I expect.

BC

BC

[BostonCard]

The question I have: for a team that can't rely on getting transfers -- when the best teams out there are relying on them mightily -- is the occasional qualifying one-and-done whale a help or a hindrance? I get that many teams avoid them and for good reason, but they have access to transfers. Is Stanford at liberty to avoid them, too? My hunch is no, not in this moment, Stanford needs all the talent it can get from year to year. But I go back and forth on this question.

You do it if you have a good nucleus where your one-and-done can put you over the top.  You don't do it if you are looking to build long-term.  Williams would have been great had we had an NIT caliber team without him and he could take us to the tournament (or take us from "making the tournament" to getting to the sweet sixteen).  But, now with him and Oscar both leaving, we are back to the drawing board.  I think we will have the same problem assuming Ingram leaves next year.  The team is unlikely to be good, so having Ingram for a year doesn't really help us much.  But who knows, maybe he will blow up and the supporting cast will develop more than I expect.

BC

BC

[TrumpCard]

This should be combined with the thread on the Supreme Court case. I predict schools will be permitted to pay players and the guys who currently play for free as one-and-dones will not be interested in Stanford anymore, so this debate will be moot.

[TrumpCard]

This should be combined with the thread on the Supreme Court case. I predict schools will be permitted to pay players and the guys who currently play for free as one-and-dones will not be interested in Stanford anymore, so this debate will be moot.