[washingtonismoney]

WIM, I agree that it's not the main reason (I think admissions issues is), but it doesn't help. Unlike football, basketball teams can be carried by just a couple of key players. In a universe where some combo of UCLA, Arizona, Oregon, Washington (remember, they had Fultz just two years ago, and he went #1 in the draft), California (they had Jaylen Brown in 2016, who went 3rd), and USC (which used to have regular one-and-dones before the sanctions imposed in the early 2010s) lose several of their best players over the past decade, at the margins, we might have picked up the extra 3-4 wins we needed to make the tournaments all the times we weren't too far from the wrong side of the cut line. Between 2011-12 and 15-16, we went between 8-10 and 10-8 each year in the conference. Convert that to between 11-7 and 13-5 every year and suddenly you're looking at tournament-resume-level teams.

And if you doubt the importance of one-and-dones, imagine how much better we'd be this year if Travis had stayed. That's precisely the impact one player can have on a team, and several schools like Arizona and UCLA often have multiple on the court at the same time.

It also means many of the top 20-30 players per year are almost categorically off limits to us, so then we're scraping to find 2-4 every year among the remaining 70 or thereabouts, most of whom have no chance of being admitted. In a universe where there's no one-and-dones, more of the top 100 players are interested in us, and a higher % may be admissible.

Sure, but I think your example helps prove my point. Sometimes one-and-dones catapult a team like Kentucky. Sometimes they can't elevate a terrible team and the coach gets fired -- like Fultz at Washington.

Meanwhile, plenty of schools succeed without one and dones -- or with gettable players. Villanova this year recruited Jahvon Quinerly, the #30 player in his class. Stanford recruited him too. 

I just don't buy that it's as big a handicap as claimed. If we're talking national championship level, sure, then I think it's probably right. If we're talking "making the tournament more often than not" -- what I think is a modest, and achievable standard -- then it shouldn't be a big issue.

[washingtonismoney]

WIM, I agree that it's not the main reason (I think admissions issues is), but it doesn't help. Unlike football, basketball teams can be carried by just a couple of key players. In a universe where some combo of UCLA, Arizona, Oregon, Washington (remember, they had Fultz just two years ago, and he went #1 in the draft), California (they had Jaylen Brown in 2016, who went 3rd), and USC (which used to have regular one-and-dones before the sanctions imposed in the early 2010s) lose several of their best players over the past decade, at the margins, we might have picked up the extra 3-4 wins we needed to make the tournaments all the times we weren't too far from the wrong side of the cut line. Between 2011-12 and 15-16, we went between 8-10 and 10-8 each year in the conference. Convert that to between 11-7 and 13-5 every year and suddenly you're looking at tournament-resume-level teams.

And if you doubt the importance of one-and-dones, imagine how much better we'd be this year if Travis had stayed. That's precisely the impact one player can have on a team, and several schools like Arizona and UCLA often have multiple on the court at the same time.

It also means many of the top 20-30 players per year are almost categorically off limits to us, so then we're scraping to find 2-4 every year among the remaining 70 or thereabouts, most of whom have no chance of being admitted. In a universe where there's no one-and-dones, more of the top 100 players are interested in us, and a higher % may be admissible.

Sure, but I think your example helps prove my point. Sometimes one-and-dones catapult a team like Kentucky. Sometimes they can't elevate a terrible team and the coach gets fired -- like Fultz at Washington.

Meanwhile, plenty of schools succeed without one and dones -- or with gettable players. Villanova this year recruited Jahvon Quinerly, the #30 player in his class. Stanford recruited him too. 

I just don't buy that it's as big a handicap as claimed. If we're talking national championship level, sure, then I think it's probably right. If we're talking "making the tournament more often than not" -- what I think is a modest, and achievable standard -- then it shouldn't be a big issue.