[SamuelMcF]

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

There are actually very few transfers who are significant contributors to the top college basketball teams. Who are the transfers on this season's top ten teams (Kansas, Gonzaga, Dayton, FSU, Baylor, San Diego State, Creighton, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke) that you are thinking of? There also are few examples on recent final four teams as well. Some good players have transferred from mid-majors to bigger programs, but no game changers as in football.

4 of Dayton's, SDSU's, and Baylor's significant contributors are transfers. Gonzaga has 2 transfer starters (both guards). FSU has 2. Creighton has 3. Even the blue-bloods got into the action: Kentucky had a transfer from Bucknell, Nate Sestina, playing 20 mpg, and Kansas had a transfer from Iowa, Isaiah Moss, playing 24 mpg. Overall you're right though, none of these are "stars," except SDSU's Malachi Flynn, Wazzu transfer who was named MWC player of the year. But it's undeniable they are providing significant depth and a ton of starts.

[color=#111111][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]

The transfer portal has undoubtably changed college football and had major impact on top teams, e.g. Joe Burrow for LSU, Kyler Murray and Baker Mayfield at Oklahoma. But it's not the case in college basketball.

QB is the most important position on the field by a mile. That's not the case in basketball. Sure, one star player on the court is great, but there's no "most important position." They're all important, and if you can't match up everywhere you'll be exploited.

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).

[SamuelMcF]

I would love to see these numbers again, but with transfers this time. I seriously can't believe nobody else in this thread is talking about this more. Stop looking at the one-and-dones for about five damn seconds and look at just how many transfers are on top teams.

There are actually very few transfers who are significant contributors to the top college basketball teams. Who are the transfers on this season's top ten teams (Kansas, Gonzaga, Dayton, FSU, Baylor, San Diego State, Creighton, Kentucky, Michigan State, Duke) that you are thinking of? There also are few examples on recent final four teams as well. Some good players have transferred from mid-majors to bigger programs, but no game changers as in football.

4 of Dayton's, SDSU's, and Baylor's significant contributors are transfers. Gonzaga has 2 transfer starters (both guards). FSU has 2. Creighton has 3. Even the blue-bloods got into the action: Kentucky had a transfer from Bucknell, Nate Sestina, playing 20 mpg, and Kansas had a transfer from Iowa, Isaiah Moss, playing 24 mpg. Overall you're right though, none of these are "stars," except SDSU's Malachi Flynn, Wazzu transfer who was named MWC player of the year. But it's undeniable they are providing significant depth and a ton of starts.

[color=#111111][font=Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, sans-serif]

The transfer portal has undoubtably changed college football and had major impact on top teams, e.g. Joe Burrow for LSU, Kyler Murray and Baker Mayfield at Oklahoma. But it's not the case in college basketball.

QB is the most important position on the field by a mile. That's not the case in basketball. Sure, one star player on the court is great, but there's no "most important position." They're all important, and if you can't match up everywhere you'll be exploited.

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).

[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.

[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.

[2006alum]

Late to jump back into this, but agree with Sam that between one and dones and transfers, we are at a disadvantage both in initial recruitment and in patching holes where player transfers or early departures leave gaps. Think about how much more easily ANY other non-Ivy program than ours could have replaced Travis, Okpala, and Ryan with transfers. 

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. If we are unable to attract either, as Sam says, we have to absolutely nail our recruiting choices and develop them well.

And even when we do, such as with KZ, who was a very under the radar recruit, we still aren't able to reap four years of fruit due to the ability for players to go pro at any time. That obstacle doesn't exist in the same way for comparable sports like football and WCBB.

[2006alum]

Late to jump back into this, but agree with Sam that between one and dones and transfers, we are at a disadvantage both in initial recruitment and in patching holes where player transfers or early departures leave gaps. Think about how much more easily ANY other non-Ivy program than ours could have replaced Travis, Okpala, and Ryan with transfers. 

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. If we are unable to attract either, as Sam says, we have to absolutely nail our recruiting choices and develop them well.

And even when we do, such as with KZ, who was a very under the radar recruit, we still aren't able to reap four years of fruit due to the ability for players to go pro at any time. That obstacle doesn't exist in the same way for comparable sports like football and WCBB.

[Papa John]

For the heck of it, I looked at Stanford's Ken Pomeroy's EOY ratings since 2002:
Montgomery
2002: 15 (NCAA 2nd round)
2003: 39 (NCAA 2nd round)
2004: 12 (NCAA 2nd round)
(Montgomery leaves for NBA)

Johnson
2005: 69 (NCAA 1st round)
2006: 78 (NIT 2nd round)
2007: 66 (NCAA 1st round)
2008: 12 (NCAA Sweet 16)
(Johnson leaves for LSU)

Dawkins
2009: 52 (CBI Semifinals)
2010: 106
2011: 102
2012: 40 (NIT champs)
2013: 48 (NIT 2nd round)
2014: 34 (NCAA Sweet 16)
2015: 39 (NIT champs)
2016: 101

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87
2019: 112
2020: 43

Given that this year was Haase's best year *by far* at Stanford, I think it would be irresponsible to fire him now. But I also agree with SamuelMcF: Stanford must make the NCAA tournament next year (if there is college basketball in 2020-21).

[Papa John]

For the heck of it, I looked at Stanford's Ken Pomeroy's EOY ratings since 2002:
Montgomery
2002: 15 (NCAA 2nd round)
2003: 39 (NCAA 2nd round)
2004: 12 (NCAA 2nd round)
(Montgomery leaves for NBA)

Johnson
2005: 69 (NCAA 1st round)
2006: 78 (NIT 2nd round)
2007: 66 (NCAA 1st round)
2008: 12 (NCAA Sweet 16)
(Johnson leaves for LSU)

Dawkins
2009: 52 (CBI Semifinals)
2010: 106
2011: 102
2012: 40 (NIT champs)
2013: 48 (NIT 2nd round)
2014: 34 (NCAA Sweet 16)
2015: 39 (NIT champs)
2016: 101

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87
2019: 112
2020: 43

Given that this year was Haase's best year *by far* at Stanford, I think it would be irresponsible to fire him now. But I also agree with SamuelMcF: Stanford must make the NCAA tournament next year (if there is college basketball in 2020-21).

[SamuelMcF]

Dawkins
2009: 52 (CBI Semifinals)
2010: 106
2011: 102
2012: 40 (NIT champs)
2013: 48 (NIT 2nd round)
2014: 34 (NCAA Sweet 16)
2015: 39 (NIT champs)
2016: 101

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87
2019: 112
2020: 43

Given that this year was Haase's best year *by far* at Stanford, I think it would be irresponsible to fire him now. But I also agree with SamuelMcF: Stanford must make the NCAA tournament next year (if there is college basketball in 2020-21).

Quick amendment here:

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87 (NIT 2nd round)
2019: 112
2020: 43 (borderline NIT/NCAA, but probably the former)

So far the similarities between Haase and Dawkins aren't encouraging. However, it appears the biggest "sin" Dawkins committed was not making the tourney with THREE teams that at least appeared capable of it by their ranking (a tourney of 64 teams should have the #39, 40, and 48 ranked teams in it, don't you think?), and not even making the NIT with #52. Really?!

Also of note is KenPom's "luck" metric, defined as "a measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky)." This year's team was ranked #330, one of the unluckiest teams in the entire country.

Bottom line: basically all the pieces from the nation's #43 team come back, along with a few frosh who should contribute (or at the very least, provide better depth than 2 walk-ons and an injured player). The team's "bad luck" should experience some form of regression to the mean. Any coach who wants to keep his job MUST make the tourney given this favorable scenario. And dare I say it, there's really no reason it shouldn't be the highest-ranked Stanford team of the past dozen years.

[SamuelMcF]

Dawkins
2009: 52 (CBI Semifinals)
2010: 106
2011: 102
2012: 40 (NIT champs)
2013: 48 (NIT 2nd round)
2014: 34 (NCAA Sweet 16)
2015: 39 (NIT champs)
2016: 101

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87
2019: 112
2020: 43

Given that this year was Haase's best year *by far* at Stanford, I think it would be irresponsible to fire him now. But I also agree with SamuelMcF: Stanford must make the NCAA tournament next year (if there is college basketball in 2020-21).

Quick amendment here:

Haase
2017: 102
2018: 87 (NIT 2nd round)
2019: 112
2020: 43 (borderline NIT/NCAA, but probably the former)

So far the similarities between Haase and Dawkins aren't encouraging. However, it appears the biggest "sin" Dawkins committed was not making the tourney with THREE teams that at least appeared capable of it by their ranking (a tourney of 64 teams should have the #39, 40, and 48 ranked teams in it, don't you think?), and not even making the NIT with #52. Really?!

Also of note is KenPom's "luck" metric, defined as "a measure of the deviation between a team’s actual winning percentage and what one would expect from its game-by-game efficiencies. Essentially, a team involved in a lot of close games should not win (or lose) all of them. Those that do will be viewed as lucky (or unlucky)." This year's team was ranked #330, one of the unluckiest teams in the entire country.

Bottom line: basically all the pieces from the nation's #43 team come back, along with a few frosh who should contribute (or at the very least, provide better depth than 2 walk-ons and an injured player). The team's "bad luck" should experience some form of regression to the mean. Any coach who wants to keep his job MUST make the tourney given this favorable scenario. And dare I say it, there's really no reason it shouldn't be the highest-ranked Stanford team of the past dozen years.

[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.

[BostonCard]

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.

>20% of minutes basically means the team would have had to have at least two one-and-dones, because even the best players are not going to play every minute of every game.  I would be interested in knowing how many national champions had at least one one-and-done.

BC

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

>20% of minutes basically means the team would have had to have at least two one-and-dones, because even the best players are not going to play every minute of every game.  I would be interested in knowing how many national champions had at least one one-and-done.

BC

BC

[DC 86]

>20% of minutes basically means the team would have had to have at least two one-and-dones, because even the best players are not going to play every minute of every game.  I would be interested in knowing how many national champions had at least one one-and-done.

BC

In the one-and-done era (14 tournaments, 2006 - 2019) there have been four national champions that included at least one one-and-done on their roster:

2012: Kentucky had three (Teague, Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist) - accounted for 48% of total minutes.
2015: Duke had three (Jones, Okafor, Winslow) - accounted for 46% of total minutes.
2017: North Carolina (Bradley) - accounted for 7% of total minutes.
2018: Villanova (Spellman) - accounted for 14% of total minutes.

So there are two champions that relied very heavily on their one-and-dones, and two that received some contribution from a one-and-done.

The other ten national champions had no one-and-dones on the roster.

Reasonable point about the 20% threshold, so let's drop the threshold and just look at teams that had any one-and-dones on the roster, regardless of how many minutes they played:

4 of 14 national champions.
4 of 14 national runners-up.
5 of the remaining 28 final fours teams.
13 of the remaining 56 elite eight teams.
11 of the remaining 112 sweet sixteen teams.
17 of the remaining 224 round of thirty-two teams.
21 of the remaining 448 teams that played in the main tournament (i.e. not including losers in the play-in games).

21 teams with one-and-dones weren't selected for the NCAA tournament at all during this time.

In summary, of the 896 teams that participated in the round of 64, 75 (8%) included at least one one-and-done and 821 (92%) did not.

[DC 86]

>20% of minutes basically means the team would have had to have at least two one-and-dones, because even the best players are not going to play every minute of every game.  I would be interested in knowing how many national champions had at least one one-and-done.

BC

In the one-and-done era (14 tournaments, 2006 - 2019) there have been four national champions that included at least one one-and-done on their roster:

2012: Kentucky had three (Teague, Davis, Kidd-Gilchrist) - accounted for 48% of total minutes.
2015: Duke had three (Jones, Okafor, Winslow) - accounted for 46% of total minutes.
2017: North Carolina (Bradley) - accounted for 7% of total minutes.
2018: Villanova (Spellman) - accounted for 14% of total minutes.

So there are two champions that relied very heavily on their one-and-dones, and two that received some contribution from a one-and-done.

The other ten national champions had no one-and-dones on the roster.

Reasonable point about the 20% threshold, so let's drop the threshold and just look at teams that had any one-and-dones on the roster, regardless of how many minutes they played:

4 of 14 national champions.
4 of 14 national runners-up.
5 of the remaining 28 final fours teams.
13 of the remaining 56 elite eight teams.
11 of the remaining 112 sweet sixteen teams.
17 of the remaining 224 round of thirty-two teams.
21 of the remaining 448 teams that played in the main tournament (i.e. not including losers in the play-in games).

21 teams with one-and-dones weren't selected for the NCAA tournament at all during this time.

In summary, of the 896 teams that participated in the round of 64, 75 (8%) included at least one one-and-done and 821 (92%) did not.

[winflop]

There's a world of difference between being a team with national title aspirations and being a team that makes the NCAAs and contends for a conference title. Transfers may hurt/eliminate Stanford's chances of the former, but the latter is still very achievable.

Also, I don't buy for one second that one-and-dones hurt Stanford and have it argued directly with Muir. How much better would Kentucky be if Calipari's players stayed for a minimum of three years? We agreed to disagree.

All of that aside, transfers and one-and-dones are no excuse for the last 12 years of mediocre men's basketball. Haase will get next year (not my preference), but the mediocrity needs to end.

[winflop]

There's a world of difference between being a team with national title aspirations and being a team that makes the NCAAs and contends for a conference title. Transfers may hurt/eliminate Stanford's chances of the former, but the latter is still very achievable.

Also, I don't buy for one second that one-and-dones hurt Stanford and have it argued directly with Muir. How much better would Kentucky be if Calipari's players stayed for a minimum of three years? We agreed to disagree.

All of that aside, transfers and one-and-dones are no excuse for the last 12 years of mediocre men's basketball. Haase will get next year (not my preference), but the mediocrity needs to end.

[BostonCard]

The alternative for those players wasn’t staying at Kentucky three years, it was going straight to the NBA.  How good would a college team that signed Kobe Bryant or Lebron James had been, even if they only were there for one year?

All that being said, in thinking about this further, while one-and-dones do disadvantage Stanford, the bar we are talking about here is making the NCAA’s, and most teams who make the NCAA’s do so without a one-and-done, and the teams that make the NCAA’s with a one-and-done are big name teams that probably would have made the tournament anyways.

BC

[BostonCard]

The alternative for those players wasn’t staying at Kentucky three years, it was going straight to the NBA.  How good would a college team that signed Kobe Bryant or Lebron James had been, even if they only were there for one year?

All that being said, in thinking about this further, while one-and-dones do disadvantage Stanford, the bar we are talking about here is making the NCAA’s, and most teams who make the NCAA’s do so without a one-and-done, and the teams that make the NCAA’s with a one-and-done are big name teams that probably would have made the tournament anyways.

BC

[BobK]

White will be Grad transferring. Great for him and the degree.

Read way down and past the other White

https://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2020/3/14...recruiting

Thanks Gavin for finding this

[BobK]

White will be Grad transferring. Great for him and the degree.

Read way down and past the other White

https://www.vanquishthefoe.com/2020/3/14...recruiting

Thanks Gavin for finding this

[teejers1]

There's a world of difference between being a team with national title aspirations and being a team that makes the NCAAs and contends for a conference title. Transfers may hurt/eliminate Stanford's chances of the former, but the latter is still very achievable.

Also, I don't buy for one second that one-and-dones hurt Stanford and have it argued directly with Muir. How much better would Kentucky be if Calipari's players stayed for a minimum of three years? We agreed to disagree.

All of that aside, transfers and one-and-dones are no excuse for the last 12 years of mediocre men's basketball. Haase will get next year (not my preference), but the mediocrity needs to end.

Well said.  The one-and-dones are probably a wash for Stanford, but if they lean any direction, my gut says it favors Stanford.  If the one-and-dones did not go to Duke, how many good players would Stanford not even sign?

[teejers1]

There's a world of difference between being a team with national title aspirations and being a team that makes the NCAAs and contends for a conference title. Transfers may hurt/eliminate Stanford's chances of the former, but the latter is still very achievable.

Also, I don't buy for one second that one-and-dones hurt Stanford and have it argued directly with Muir. How much better would Kentucky be if Calipari's players stayed for a minimum of three years? We agreed to disagree.

All of that aside, transfers and one-and-dones are no excuse for the last 12 years of mediocre men's basketball. Haase will get next year (not my preference), but the mediocrity needs to end.

Well said.  The one-and-dones are probably a wash for Stanford, but if they lean any direction, my gut says it favors Stanford.  If the one-and-dones did not go to Duke, how many good players would Stanford not even sign?

[winflop]

The alternative for those players wasn’t staying at Kentucky three years, it was going straight to the NBA.  How good would a college team that signed Kobe Bryant or Lebron James had been, even if they only were there for one year?

All that being said, in thinking about this further, while one-and-dones do disadvantage Stanford, the bar we are talking about here is making the NCAA’s, and most teams who make the NCAA’s do so without a one-and-done, and the teams that make the NCAA’s with a one-and-done are big name teams that probably would have made the tournament anyways.

BC

My point about one-and-dones is that prior to that being an option, a player had to stay 3 years before they could enter the draft. So maybe those players would never go to college which I hadn't considered.

Suffice to say I preferred that system. One-and-done is just plain stupid - in any sport. But it's incumbent on the pro leagues to enforce this, not the NCAA. Nothing will ever prevent a kid from dropping out of school and going pro any time they want. But the leagues can set rules on who is eligible for their drafts.

[winflop]

The alternative for those players wasn’t staying at Kentucky three years, it was going straight to the NBA.  How good would a college team that signed Kobe Bryant or Lebron James had been, even if they only were there for one year?

All that being said, in thinking about this further, while one-and-dones do disadvantage Stanford, the bar we are talking about here is making the NCAA’s, and most teams who make the NCAA’s do so without a one-and-done, and the teams that make the NCAA’s with a one-and-done are big name teams that probably would have made the tournament anyways.

BC

My point about one-and-dones is that prior to that being an option, a player had to stay 3 years before they could enter the draft. So maybe those players would never go to college which I hadn't considered.

Suffice to say I preferred that system. One-and-done is just plain stupid - in any sport. But it's incumbent on the pro leagues to enforce this, not the NCAA. Nothing will ever prevent a kid from dropping out of school and going pro any time they want. But the leagues can set rules on who is eligible for their drafts.

[BostonCard]

I agree with you that the idea of one-and-dones is counterproductive to the idea of college athletics.  In particularly, I have a problem when high school players are disallowed from turning pro, but one-and-dones are allowed.  That means you get a significant fraction of freshmen who wanted to turn pro but couldn't, going to college just to bide their time to be able to enter the draft.  At least if you allow high school players to go pro you know that every freshman at least weighed the option to go pro and decided to go to college.

My preferred option is baseball.  Players can go pro out of high school or chose to go to commit to college for (at least) three years.  My second choice would be that players can go pro any time, but for the NCAA to penalize teams whose players don't graduate with loss of that scholarship for at least three years.

BC

[BostonCard]

I agree with you that the idea of one-and-dones is counterproductive to the idea of college athletics.  In particularly, I have a problem when high school players are disallowed from turning pro, but one-and-dones are allowed.  That means you get a significant fraction of freshmen who wanted to turn pro but couldn't, going to college just to bide their time to be able to enter the draft.  At least if you allow high school players to go pro you know that every freshman at least weighed the option to go pro and decided to go to college.

My preferred option is baseball.  Players can go pro out of high school or chose to go to commit to college for (at least) three years.  My second choice would be that players can go pro any time, but for the NCAA to penalize teams whose players don't graduate with loss of that scholarship for at least three years.

BC

[BobK]

While I mostly agree with you BC and especially agree on the baseball model I have these notes and thoughts

A HSer is eligible for the NBA draft if 19. Yes that’s seldom but has happened

A college baseball player can transfer to a JC and be draft eligible

Most college baseball players who are drafted, more than 90%, have not graduated from college. To penalize would be very unfair, or I missed your point

Your better point is so right on that one and dones ok but out of HS not. Yes beyond dumb. Has any one and dine completed their college year ?

[BobK]

While I mostly agree with you BC and especially agree on the baseball model I have these notes and thoughts

A HSer is eligible for the NBA draft if 19. Yes that’s seldom but has happened

A college baseball player can transfer to a JC and be draft eligible

Most college baseball players who are drafted, more than 90%, have not graduated from college. To penalize would be very unfair, or I missed your point

Your better point is so right on that one and dones ok but out of HS not. Yes beyond dumb. Has any one and dine completed their college year ?

[DC 86]

My point about one-and-dones is that prior to that being an option, a player had to stay 3 years before they could enter the draft. So maybe those players would never go to college which I hadn't considered.

Staying in college for three years (or any number of years for that matter) was not a requirement prior to the implementation of the one-and-done rule in 2006. For example, Marvin Williams played only one season at North Carolina before being drafted second overall in 2005 (the final draft before the one-and-done was implemented). Prior to that you had one-and-dones such as DaJuan Walker, Luol Deng, Kris Humphries and Trevor Ariza in 2004, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh in 2003 ...

The one-and-done rule was put in place to stop players from going directly from high school to the NBA. Leaving college after one year or two years (e.g. Magic Johnson) basically dates back to Spencer Haywood prevailing in his anti-trust suit against the NBA in the early 1970s (until then a player wasn't eligible to be drafted until his college class graduated, i.e. four years).

There were one-and-dones for 35 years prior to the one-and-done rules, the difference is that since 2006 you have some players compelled to go to college for one year who would have gone directly to the NBA if allowed, which in many cases creates the farcical situation of athletes being students in name only, as BC implied.

---

[DC 86]

My point about one-and-dones is that prior to that being an option, a player had to stay 3 years before they could enter the draft. So maybe those players would never go to college which I hadn't considered.

Staying in college for three years (or any number of years for that matter) was not a requirement prior to the implementation of the one-and-done rule in 2006. For example, Marvin Williams played only one season at North Carolina before being drafted second overall in 2005 (the final draft before the one-and-done was implemented). Prior to that you had one-and-dones such as DaJuan Walker, Luol Deng, Kris Humphries and Trevor Ariza in 2004, Carmelo Anthony and Chris Bosh in 2003 ...

The one-and-done rule was put in place to stop players from going directly from high school to the NBA. Leaving college after one year or two years (e.g. Magic Johnson) basically dates back to Spencer Haywood prevailing in his anti-trust suit against the NBA in the early 1970s (until then a player wasn't eligible to be drafted until his college class graduated, i.e. four years).

There were one-and-dones for 35 years prior to the one-and-done rules, the difference is that since 2006 you have some players compelled to go to college for one year who would have gone directly to the NBA if allowed, which in many cases creates the farcical situation of athletes being students in name only, as BC implied.

---

[SamuelMcF]

Back on topic: Isaac has committed to Cal Baptist. Should be a good opportunity to start as they lose both starting guards.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IsaacLewisWhite/status/1241916482667163649[/tweet]

[SamuelMcF]

Back on topic: Isaac has committed to Cal Baptist. Should be a good opportunity to start as they lose both starting guards.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IsaacLewisWhite/status/1241916482667163649[/tweet]

[PalmTree]

Back on topic: Isaac has committed to Cal Baptist. Should be a good opportunity to start as they lose both starting guards.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IsaacLewisWhite/status/1241916482667163649[/tweet]

Casey Jake's brother, Adam, who starred at UoP, an assistant there....

[PalmTree]

Back on topic: Isaac has committed to Cal Baptist. Should be a good opportunity to start as they lose both starting guards.

[tweet]https://twitter.com/IsaacLewisWhite/status/1241916482667163649[/tweet]

Casey Jake's brother, Adam, who starred at UoP, an assistant there....

[BobK]

Very interesting. Thanks

[BobK]

Very interesting. Thanks