[DC 86]

And whether or not every championship team has transfers or one-and-dones in their starting lineups is kind of beside the point - no one disputes that one-and-dones and transfers make up a significant number of impact players across schools jockeying to be in the tournament and win their league conference championships.

I am disputing it. In the entire one-and-done era (2006 - present) there have only been five teams that have reached the final four with more than 20% of the total minutes played by one-and-dones. As demonstrated in my earlier post, a dozen of the most successful programs in this era have reached the pinnacle of the sport with virtually no contribution from one-and-dones. And there are dozens of programs in the next tier (Cincinnati types) who have never had a single one-and-done yet regularly qualify for the tournament. If Virginia can compete for the ACC title every year and win a national championship with no one-and-dones in its entire history it stands to reason that Stanford could at least reach the NCAA tournament once in a while.

Regarding transfers, it is helpful to be able to add role players to patch a roster, but who exactly are the high impact transfer replacements floating around? K.J. Okpala was drafted 32nd overall. There are very, very few players of that caliber who transfer in college basketball. It's not like college football where Dwayne Haskins moves to the NFL and Justin Fields transfers in to take his place. It would have been nice to replace Ryan or Travis with an incoming transfer but unrealistic to think that those replacements would have elevated Stanford from mid-Pac 12 (or below) to contender.

Of course we have to "nail our recruiting choices and develop them well". That's what Virginia, Villanova, Gonzaga, Michigan State, Michigan, Butler, Louisville et al have consistently done without benefit of one-and-dones or star transfers. I don't buy the argument that somehow Stanford is uniquely hampered by its dearth of one-and-dones and high profile transfers when there are so many schools who are succeeding under the same circumstances. And I am not demanding a Virginia/Villanova level of success either. I simply don't accept the argument that non-access to one-and-dones and role player transfers are an excuse for Stanford only reaching the NCAA tournament once in the last decade.

[DC 86]

And whether or not every championship team has transfers or one-and-dones in their starting lineups is kind of beside the point - no one disputes that one-and-dones and transfers make up a significant number of impact players across schools jockeying to be in the tournament and win their league conference championships.

I am disputing it. In the entire one-and-done era (2006 - present) there have only been five teams that have reached the final four with more than 20% of the total minutes played by one-and-dones. As demonstrated in my earlier post, a dozen of the most successful programs in this era have reached the pinnacle of the sport with virtually no contribution from one-and-dones. And there are dozens of programs in the next tier (Cincinnati types) who have never had a single one-and-done yet regularly qualify for the tournament. If Virginia can compete for the ACC title every year and win a national championship with no one-and-dones in its entire history it stands to reason that Stanford could at least reach the NCAA tournament once in a while.

Regarding transfers, it is helpful to be able to add role players to patch a roster, but who exactly are the high impact transfer replacements floating around? K.J. Okpala was drafted 32nd overall. There are very, very few players of that caliber who transfer in college basketball. It's not like college football where Dwayne Haskins moves to the NFL and Justin Fields transfers in to take his place. It would have been nice to replace Ryan or Travis with an incoming transfer but unrealistic to think that those replacements would have elevated Stanford from mid-Pac 12 (or below) to contender.

Of course we have to "nail our recruiting choices and develop them well". That's what Virginia, Villanova, Gonzaga, Michigan State, Michigan, Butler, Louisville et al have consistently done without benefit of one-and-dones or star transfers. I don't buy the argument that somehow Stanford is uniquely hampered by its dearth of one-and-dones and high profile transfers when there are so many schools who are succeeding under the same circumstances. And I am not demanding a Virginia/Villanova level of success either. I simply don't accept the argument that non-access to one-and-dones and role player transfers are an excuse for Stanford only reaching the NCAA tournament once in the last decade.