[CTcard]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.

[CTcard]

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "significant impact," but I'd argue Stanford has consistently had true freshman contributors:

And I would agree that Shaw has consistently had true frosh contributors, but I would also think that for the most part their contributions have not affected the won-loss column.

I think that the three most likely exceptions to that rule are Carter, Meeks, and Herbig.
But three possiblies over six years does not seem to indicate one should count on the most recent years frosh class to color the essence of a team.