[SamuelMcF]

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.

I'm for sure not arguing your point there. The blue bloods are blue bloods for a reason. I haven't listened to Muir talk about this nor do I have any desire to. 

I guess I'll frame it this way: It feels to me that programs are increasingly using transfers to sort of "bootstrap" their teams and mask their developmental/recruiting failures. We can't really do that. The "steak eaters" are here for 4 years to get that degree. 

Of course, as you've stated (and to which I agree), signing promising players and developing them into upperclass studs is still a winning blueprint which is possible here, but given the transfer and one-and-done restrictions we absolutely have to nail it in recruiting and development pretty much across the board - otherwise the depth just doesn't pan out and we can't "bootstrap" it. We saw that this season when not-quite-ready-for-top-competition underclassmen Kisunas and Keefe (and hell, I'd probably throw White in there too) had to play because we had nobody else. Fortunately Delaire started coming into his own in the second half of the season, otherwise it could've been even uglier. Only 10 scholarship players out of 13 because Kodye Pugh tore his ACL. Those are worse self-sanctions than the football team has had!

FWIW I'm actually very excited about next year's team. Isaac might be gone, but everyone else (including the whole starting 5) is back. With an offseason of adequate development, and freshmen who look able to contribute the depth we were missing (3 (hopefully 4!) scholarship freshmen >>> 2 walk-ons and an injured player) it could be a very fun team. Assistant coach Adam Cohen said this year was "laying a foundation," and I see that. Of course, in my (and seemingly most others') view, this year has to be the year. No more excuses given how the team looks on paper.

[SamuelMcF]

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.

I'm for sure not arguing your point there. The blue bloods are blue bloods for a reason. I haven't listened to Muir talk about this nor do I have any desire to. 

I guess I'll frame it this way: It feels to me that programs are increasingly using transfers to sort of "bootstrap" their teams and mask their developmental/recruiting failures. We can't really do that. The "steak eaters" are here for 4 years to get that degree. 

Of course, as you've stated (and to which I agree), signing promising players and developing them into upperclass studs is still a winning blueprint which is possible here, but given the transfer and one-and-done restrictions we absolutely have to nail it in recruiting and development pretty much across the board - otherwise the depth just doesn't pan out and we can't "bootstrap" it. We saw that this season when not-quite-ready-for-top-competition underclassmen Kisunas and Keefe (and hell, I'd probably throw White in there too) had to play because we had nobody else. Fortunately Delaire started coming into his own in the second half of the season, otherwise it could've been even uglier. Only 10 scholarship players out of 13 because Kodye Pugh tore his ACL. Those are worse self-sanctions than the football team has had!

FWIW I'm actually very excited about next year's team. Isaac might be gone, but everyone else (including the whole starting 5) is back. With an offseason of adequate development, and freshmen who look able to contribute the depth we were missing (3 (hopefully 4!) scholarship freshmen >>> 2 walk-ons and an injured player) it could be a very fun team. Assistant coach Adam Cohen said this year was "laying a foundation," and I see that. Of course, in my (and seemingly most others') view, this year has to be the year. No more excuses given how the team looks on paper.