[BostonCard]

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.

Yeah, I think I am closer to WIM here than to others.  While having a one-and-done level talent can certainly help get teams into the tourney, it is not a prerequisite.  I think the key is to recruit more players like Reid Travis and Chason Randle and fewer guys like Pugh and Stenback.  Plus, it is not like Stanford is incapable of recruiting guys who leave to the NBA early; although we've never had a one-and-done, we have had guys like the Lopez twins, Josh Childress, and Casey Jacobsen, who each left before they exhausted eligibility.

I would be interested in figuring out how many NCAA tournament teams (excluding automatic qualifiers from single team conferences) do not have a one and done player on them.  I would guess more than half?  We should be amongst them, which is why I agree with the statement I bolded.

In any case, let's see what Haase can do.  I agree that he hasn't yet proven to be an overwhelming success, but as others have noted, a fair bit of the roster he inherited (especially the younger two classes) was made up of non-contributors.  Let's see what happens when the roster is made up of 75% with his recruits.

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

Yeah, I think I am closer to WIM here than to others.  While having a one-and-done level talent can certainly help get teams into the tourney, it is not a prerequisite.  I think the key is to recruit more players like Reid Travis and Chason Randle and fewer guys like Pugh and Stenback.  Plus, it is not like Stanford is incapable of recruiting guys who leave to the NBA early; although we've never had a one-and-done, we have had guys like the Lopez twins, Josh Childress, and Casey Jacobsen, who each left before they exhausted eligibility.

I would be interested in figuring out how many NCAA tournament teams (excluding automatic qualifiers from single team conferences) do not have a one and done player on them.  I would guess more than half?  We should be amongst them, which is why I agree with the statement I bolded.

In any case, let's see what Haase can do.  I agree that he hasn't yet proven to be an overwhelming success, but as others have noted, a fair bit of the roster he inherited (especially the younger two classes) was made up of non-contributors.  Let's see what happens when the roster is made up of 75% with his recruits.

BC