[DC 86]

How can you say the transfer portal has not "undoubtably changed" college basketball, when 6 of your aforementioned top 10 had at least 2 transfers playing significant time? It's how every team that isn't a major blue blood competes. There is now more parity because of it (though I would've loved to see how March Madness played out).

Fair enough, I concede that I underplayed the impact of college basketball transfers, as you point out the numbers are not insignificant. However the overall point remains that neither one-and-dones or transfers are the reason why Stanford is underachieving in the sport. Indeed Dayton has four transfers who play but they are the 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th leading scorers on the team. Depth is important but Toppin and Crutcher are the reason why they were national championship contenders instead of being a bubble team like us. Same situation at Gonzaga and FSU. You're right that Flynn was a transformative player for SDSU; similarly a counterpoint to my one-and-done analysis is how 2015 one-and-dones powered Duke to the title. But these are exceptions; the vast majority of final four and top ten teams (including the #1 team this year, Kansas) have been led by high school recruits who played multiple seasons, and my frustration remains when I hear Bernard Muir misleadingly point to one-and-dones (and I suppose transfers implicitly) as being the principal reason for the program's shortcomings.

[DC 86]

How can you say the transfer portal has not "undoubtably changed" college basketball, when 6 of your aforementioned top 10 had at least 2 transfers playing significant time? It's how every team that isn't a major blue blood competes. There is now more parity because of it (though I would've loved to see how March Madness played out).

Fair enough, I concede that I underplayed the impact of college basketball transfers, as you point out the numbers are not insignificant. However the overall point remains that neither one-and-dones or transfers are the reason why Stanford is underachieving in the sport. Indeed Dayton has four transfers who play but they are the 4th, 6th, 7th and 10th leading scorers on the team. Depth is important but Toppin and Crutcher are the reason why they were national championship contenders instead of being a bubble team like us. Same situation at Gonzaga and FSU. You're right that Flynn was a transformative player for SDSU; similarly a counterpoint to my one-and-done analysis is how 2015 one-and-dones powered Duke to the title. But these are exceptions; the vast majority of final four and top ten teams (including the #1 team this year, Kansas) have been led by high school recruits who played multiple seasons, and my frustration remains when I hear Bernard Muir misleadingly point to one-and-dones (and I suppose transfers implicitly) as being the principal reason for the program's shortcomings.