[SamuelMcF]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

My time to shine! Copying my post from another board (sorry for wonky formatting):

I was inspired by another post to track the number of transfer (4 year and JuCo) contributors at all Sweet Sixteen teams. "Starter" is defined as starting at least half of the team's games, and "Rotator" is defined as playing in most games and averaging at least 10 mpg.

No particular order - teams are listed how they appeared on my bracket.

School	Transfer Starters	Transfer Rotators	Total Contributors
Gonzaga	1	1	2
Creighton	2	2	4
USC	3	1	4
Oregon	4	1	5
UCLA	1	0	1
Alabama	2	2	4
Baylor	2	2	4
Villanova	1	0	1
Arkansas	3	2	5
Oral Roberts	2	1	3
Loyola Chicago	3	1	4
Oregon State	2	2	4
Syracuse	1	0	1
Houston	4	2	6
AVERAGE	2.06	1.25	3.31

The results sadden me, but aren't surprising in the slightest. Every single Sweet Sixteen team has a transfer starter (and a majority have 2+), and almost all have transfer reinforcements off the bench too. Look at that average - over 3 transfer contributors per team. Just unreal.

None of the Final Four teams have had a one-and-done in the last 3 years. In fact, Houston has had just two players drafted since 2000, and this year's team is basically a mercenary squad. SIX transfers in the rotation.

One-and-dones are usually a bandage. Sure, they're good, but we see time and time again teams that don't make the tourney despite having one. (And sometimes 2, like UW last year.) It's way easier - and clearly more of a payoff - to load up on multiple seasoned veterans in the transfer market. Who gives a crap that 4 5* whales are going to Kentucky? Give me the guy leaving there because he didn't start. He'll probably be even better in a year or 2.

[SamuelMcF]

Well not many coaches would recruit some who would not fit. 

As to duplicate just look at last years ILBers in Football

No I disagree Goose you recruit the best players who will fit, which includes team play, and will help win.  And winning now is best

Now if you’re the new women’s coach at Washington with your top players all leaving do you go to the quick fix transfer portal or recruit HS heavily.  As your top priority ?

There are opportunity costs.  Not only are there caps on the total number of scholarship players, so a scholarship that goes to a one-and-done can't go to a three or four year player that can be developed into a long-term contributor, but there are limits to a coach's time and attention.  It also makes it harder to build a nucleus and team cohesion.  It is also somewhat incompatible with our educational mission.

How much do one-and-dones help you?  Well, let's look at the four final-four teams:

Of the 20 starters in the final four, one is a freshman (and likely one-and-done).  

Houston started 2 seniors, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore and no freshmen in their elite eight match
Baylor started 2 seniors, 3 juniors, no freshmen or sophomores in their elite eight match
Gonzaga started 1 senior, 2 juniors, 1 sophomore, and 1 freshman in their elite eight match.  The freshman (Suggs) is a likely one-and-done projected to go in the lottery of this year's draft.
UCLA started no seniors, 2 juniors, 3 sophomores, and no freshmen in their elite eight match

Overall, there are 5 seniors, 9 juniors, 5 sophomores, and 1 freshman.  70% of final-four starters are upperclassmen (juniors and seniors).  One-and-dones are neither necessary nor sufficient to get to the final four.  One question I have, but am too lazy too look up, is how many one-and-dones did these teams have in the last three years (that is, how many guys did they recruit who aren't with the teams any more).  Because the question that I have is whether one-and-dones are actively harmful, by mortgaging the future.

BC

Transfers have been much more important than 5 star recruits for the Final Four teams. UCLA's leading scorer Johnny Juzang is from Kentucky. Baylor has double digit scorers Davion Mitchell (Auburn) and MaCio Teague (UNC Asheville). Gonzaga has PG Andrew Nembhard from Florida. Houston has 4 starters who were transfers - leading scorer Quentin Grimes (Kansas), 3rd leading scorer DeJon Jarreau (Massachusetts), Justin Gorham (Towson) and Reggie Chaney (Arkansas).

We know that transfers were big for USC, Oregon and Oregon State too.

My time to shine! Copying my post from another board (sorry for wonky formatting):

I was inspired by another post to track the number of transfer (4 year and JuCo) contributors at all Sweet Sixteen teams. "Starter" is defined as starting at least half of the team's games, and "Rotator" is defined as playing in most games and averaging at least 10 mpg.

No particular order - teams are listed how they appeared on my bracket.

School	Transfer Starters	Transfer Rotators	Total Contributors
Gonzaga	1	1	2
Creighton	2	2	4
USC	3	1	4
Oregon	4	1	5
UCLA	1	0	1
Alabama	2	2	4
Baylor	2	2	4
Villanova	1	0	1
Arkansas	3	2	5
Oral Roberts	2	1	3
Loyola Chicago	3	1	4
Oregon State	2	2	4
Syracuse	1	0	1
Houston	4	2	6
AVERAGE	2.06	1.25	3.31

The results sadden me, but aren't surprising in the slightest. Every single Sweet Sixteen team has a transfer starter (and a majority have 2+), and almost all have transfer reinforcements off the bench too. Look at that average - over 3 transfer contributors per team. Just unreal.

None of the Final Four teams have had a one-and-done in the last 3 years. In fact, Houston has had just two players drafted since 2000, and this year's team is basically a mercenary squad. SIX transfers in the rotation.

One-and-dones are usually a bandage. Sure, they're good, but we see time and time again teams that don't make the tourney despite having one. (And sometimes 2, like UW last year.) It's way easier - and clearly more of a payoff - to load up on multiple seasoned veterans in the transfer market. Who gives a crap that 4 5* whales are going to Kentucky? Give me the guy leaving there because he didn't start. He'll probably be even better in a year or 2.