[stopandpop]

I think it's time to begin discussing our 2023-2024 season.

Already there are questions many of us have raised.  Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?  Will any of our 3 incoming freshmen have an immediate impact?  Where will the points come from besides from Brink? Will we see a modified offense that allows more creativity?  Who do we see upping their skill sets?  What lessons will be learned from last season?

Let the discussion begin.

[stopandpop]

I think it's time to begin discussing our 2023-2024 season.

Already there are questions many of us have raised.  Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?  Will any of our 3 incoming freshmen have an immediate impact?  Where will the points come from besides from Brink? Will we see a modified offense that allows more creativity?  Who do we see upping their skill sets?  What lessons will be learned from last season?

Let the discussion begin.

[BostonCard]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

[BostonCard]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

[WBB fan]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Totally agree re what Stanford can, will do. But others are definitely using the portal as free agency, both players and coaches

[WBB fan]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Totally agree re what Stanford can, will do. But others are definitely using the portal as free agency, both players and coaches

[chimera]

With the portal and NIL as it now is Stanford is going to have trouble keeping up with super teams formed via the portal like LSU was this season, or teams that simply fill holes using the portal so that they never have a down year.  Nobody has to develop younger players if they don't want to.  Just toss them and get new, more experienced ones.  Is it good for the sport that some players just never get a real chance to play because their team can just "portal" over them.  It is musical chairs.  Team brings in an experienced transfer so the players who now won't play end up transferring, and they maybe bump someone else down a notch, and then that player transfers, and on we go.  

We just had a record breaking F4 as far as viewership.  WCBB is on the upswing.  But how will diehard fans feel as they watch their team's roster turn over every year?  Don't get too attached, the players you hope to watch develop will probably be gone in a year or two.

[chimera]

With the portal and NIL as it now is Stanford is going to have trouble keeping up with super teams formed via the portal like LSU was this season, or teams that simply fill holes using the portal so that they never have a down year.  Nobody has to develop younger players if they don't want to.  Just toss them and get new, more experienced ones.  Is it good for the sport that some players just never get a real chance to play because their team can just "portal" over them.  It is musical chairs.  Team brings in an experienced transfer so the players who now won't play end up transferring, and they maybe bump someone else down a notch, and then that player transfers, and on we go.  

We just had a record breaking F4 as far as viewership.  WCBB is on the upswing.  But how will diehard fans feel as they watch their team's roster turn over every year?  Don't get too attached, the players you hope to watch develop will probably be gone in a year or two.

[81alum]

The transfer rate for public 4 year universities in California is 7%.  That means that 7% of the freshmen who enter that university transfer to another university within 6 years.  Naturally, for community colleges the number is very different.  It is also a little higher for private universities since there are a number of students who leave for financial reasons to go to a cheaper public institution.  But in general, transferring between 4 year universities is a fairly infrequent occurrence for "normal" students.

Now compare that with what we have seen recently in WBB.  Teams like Ole Miss and LSU were predominately transfer students.  It is a naked and obvious perversion of the stability necessary for sound academic development.  For anyone who hasn't noticed, universities have differing academic programs with differing requirements.  There is no such thing as a truly seamless transfer--except perhaps for some pre-arranged JC to 4 year pathways.  Otherwise it is likely that something is directly lost, that some requirements that were met are no longer met, that some units that were awarded don't count for the same things, etc.  Compounding this is the problem of articulation--when transferring it is likely that the sending and receiving institutions do not have a formal "articulation agreement" that specifies what the equivalent courses are at each institution.  This requires transcript evaluators to look at the courses taken and made decisions about what the equivalencies are.  This process at my own university can take nearly a full semester--meaning that for that semester a student is taking courses "blind" and not knowing if they are the right courses or not to count most efficiently toward the degree.

And even in the rare case that none of that is true, then at least the advantage of developing a long-term relationship with the faculty, who may be helpful to the student as advisors, mentors, writers of letters of rec etc. gets trashed.  Similarly the social development and maturation that takes place as students develop friendships with other students across campus is lessened, causing even more of a tendency for student-athletes to form cliques among themselves and not interact much with all those students who they will spend a year or maybe two with.

What is best for academic development is being relegated to last place in order to facilitate a sports enterprise that looks increasing professional.

[81alum]

The transfer rate for public 4 year universities in California is 7%.  That means that 7% of the freshmen who enter that university transfer to another university within 6 years.  Naturally, for community colleges the number is very different.  It is also a little higher for private universities since there are a number of students who leave for financial reasons to go to a cheaper public institution.  But in general, transferring between 4 year universities is a fairly infrequent occurrence for "normal" students.

Now compare that with what we have seen recently in WBB.  Teams like Ole Miss and LSU were predominately transfer students.  It is a naked and obvious perversion of the stability necessary for sound academic development.  For anyone who hasn't noticed, universities have differing academic programs with differing requirements.  There is no such thing as a truly seamless transfer--except perhaps for some pre-arranged JC to 4 year pathways.  Otherwise it is likely that something is directly lost, that some requirements that were met are no longer met, that some units that were awarded don't count for the same things, etc.  Compounding this is the problem of articulation--when transferring it is likely that the sending and receiving institutions do not have a formal "articulation agreement" that specifies what the equivalent courses are at each institution.  This requires transcript evaluators to look at the courses taken and made decisions about what the equivalencies are.  This process at my own university can take nearly a full semester--meaning that for that semester a student is taking courses "blind" and not knowing if they are the right courses or not to count most efficiently toward the degree.

And even in the rare case that none of that is true, then at least the advantage of developing a long-term relationship with the faculty, who may be helpful to the student as advisors, mentors, writers of letters of rec etc. gets trashed.  Similarly the social development and maturation that takes place as students develop friendships with other students across campus is lessened, causing even more of a tendency for student-athletes to form cliques among themselves and not interact much with all those students who they will spend a year or maybe two with.

What is best for academic development is being relegated to last place in order to facilitate a sports enterprise that looks increasing professional.

[Card10Fan]

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...25-2023-24

Stanford is #9. Utah #2, UCLA #6, Oregon #18, Colorado #20, USC #21, WA State #25 - that's a LOT of Pac12 teams in the top 25. 

I think Utah seems too high as does UCLA. 
So many teams have top players returning and using their Covid year. Indiana (Holmes), Virginia Tech (Kitley), Tennesse (Jackson), Duke (Taylor), Ohio State (Sheldon). I think next year is going to be pretty wide open once again. If healthy, I expect Uconn to be at the top but as we watched this March, anything can happen.

[Card10Fan]

https://www.espn.com/womens-college-bask...25-2023-24

Stanford is #9. Utah #2, UCLA #6, Oregon #18, Colorado #20, USC #21, WA State #25 - that's a LOT of Pac12 teams in the top 25. 

I think Utah seems too high as does UCLA. 
So many teams have top players returning and using their Covid year. Indiana (Holmes), Virginia Tech (Kitley), Tennesse (Jackson), Duke (Taylor), Ohio State (Sheldon). I think next year is going to be pretty wide open once again. If healthy, I expect Uconn to be at the top but as we watched this March, anything can happen.

[WBB fan]

The transfer rate for public 4 year universities in California is 7%.  That means that 7% of the freshmen who enter that university transfer to another university within 6 years.  Naturally, for community colleges the number is very different.  It is also a little higher for private universities since there are a number of students who leave for financial reasons to go to a cheaper public institution.  But in general, transferring between 4 year universities is a fairly infrequent occurrence for "normal" students.

Now compare that with what we have seen recently in WBB.  Teams like Ole Miss and LSU were predominately transfer students.  It is a naked and obvious perversion of the stability necessary for sound academic development.  For anyone who hasn't noticed, universities have differing academic programs with differing requirements.  There is no such thing as a truly seamless transfer--except perhaps for some pre-arranged JC to 4 year pathways.  Otherwise it is likely that something is directly lost, that some requirements that were met are no longer met, that some units that were awarded don't count for the same things, etc.  Compounding this is the problem of articulation--when transferring it is likely that the sending and receiving institutions do not have a formal "articulation agreement" that specifies what the equivalent courses are at each institution.  This requires transcript evaluators to look at the courses taken and made decisions about what the equivalencies are.  This process at my own university can take nearly a full semester--meaning that for that semester a student is taking courses "blind" and not knowing if they are the right courses or not to count most efficiently toward the degree.

And even in the rare case that none of that is true, then at least the advantage of developing a long-term relationship with the faculty, who may be helpful to the student as advisors, mentors, writers of letters of rec etc. gets trashed.  Similarly the social development and maturation that takes place as students develop friendships with other students across campus is lessened, causing even more of a tendency for student-athletes to form cliques among themselves and not interact much with all those students who they will spend a year or maybe two with.

What is best for academic development is being relegated to last place in order to facilitate a sports enterprise that looks increasing professional.

Thanks for this, so well expressed.

[WBB fan]

The transfer rate for public 4 year universities in California is 7%.  That means that 7% of the freshmen who enter that university transfer to another university within 6 years.  Naturally, for community colleges the number is very different.  It is also a little higher for private universities since there are a number of students who leave for financial reasons to go to a cheaper public institution.  But in general, transferring between 4 year universities is a fairly infrequent occurrence for "normal" students.

Now compare that with what we have seen recently in WBB.  Teams like Ole Miss and LSU were predominately transfer students.  It is a naked and obvious perversion of the stability necessary for sound academic development.  For anyone who hasn't noticed, universities have differing academic programs with differing requirements.  There is no such thing as a truly seamless transfer--except perhaps for some pre-arranged JC to 4 year pathways.  Otherwise it is likely that something is directly lost, that some requirements that were met are no longer met, that some units that were awarded don't count for the same things, etc.  Compounding this is the problem of articulation--when transferring it is likely that the sending and receiving institutions do not have a formal "articulation agreement" that specifies what the equivalent courses are at each institution.  This requires transcript evaluators to look at the courses taken and made decisions about what the equivalencies are.  This process at my own university can take nearly a full semester--meaning that for that semester a student is taking courses "blind" and not knowing if they are the right courses or not to count most efficiently toward the degree.

And even in the rare case that none of that is true, then at least the advantage of developing a long-term relationship with the faculty, who may be helpful to the student as advisors, mentors, writers of letters of rec etc. gets trashed.  Similarly the social development and maturation that takes place as students develop friendships with other students across campus is lessened, causing even more of a tendency for student-athletes to form cliques among themselves and not interact much with all those students who they will spend a year or maybe two with.

What is best for academic development is being relegated to last place in order to facilitate a sports enterprise that looks increasing professional.

Thanks for this, so well expressed.

[BillBradley]

The P12 is going to be so tough next year. Highly doubtful anyone will run the table. I would guess 14-4 wins it, maybe even 13-5. Utah is good, but I don't think they are reliable enough being so dependent on the 3 ball. I've posted this before, and will stick to it again...I think we are going to naturally improve offensively without Haley in the lineup. Not a knock on Haley - I think she's tremendous. But it was never easy to blend her skills with the rest of the team. A lineup of Brink, Iriafen/Betts, Demetre/Bosgana, Lepolo/Nivar should naturally score more. There's way better role clarity, the ball will move, and it's a better shooting lineup. 

Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a brobdingnagian improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

[BillBradley]

The P12 is going to be so tough next year. Highly doubtful anyone will run the table. I would guess 14-4 wins it, maybe even 13-5. Utah is good, but I don't think they are reliable enough being so dependent on the 3 ball. I've posted this before, and will stick to it again...I think we are going to naturally improve offensively without Haley in the lineup. Not a knock on Haley - I think she's tremendous. But it was never easy to blend her skills with the rest of the team. A lineup of Brink, Iriafen/Betts, Demetre/Bosgana, Lepolo/Nivar should naturally score more. There's way better role clarity, the ball will move, and it's a better shooting lineup. 

Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a brobdingnagian improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

[BostonCard]

Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

I think there are some good thoughts there.  I think college athletes have been hit by three things all more-or-less at once that have combined to create significant changes to the landscape that have swung the pendulum too far, IMHO.
1) The development of the portal.  I agree with you that the transfer portal generally adds some order to a chaotic system, and probably benefits athletes by allowing them to match better with places where they can thrive.
2) NIL. Again, it is hard to argue against the idea that athletes should own the rights to their own name/image/likeness.  However, what has gone from one extreme (a blanket prohibition on profiting from your NIL) to the other (basically a thinly disguised veil for boosters to pay-to-play).
3) the COVID pandemic, which resulted in relaxation of transfer restrictions (sitting out for 1 year) plus the additional COVID year of eligibility.  Again, all of these seem to have been rational responses to the pandemic.

The combination of the three things, which each might have made sense individually, has swung the pendulum too far from "it's too hard to transfer out of a bad situation" to "it's too easy to transfer on a whim for money".

BC

[BostonCard]

Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

I think there are some good thoughts there.  I think college athletes have been hit by three things all more-or-less at once that have combined to create significant changes to the landscape that have swung the pendulum too far, IMHO.
1) The development of the portal.  I agree with you that the transfer portal generally adds some order to a chaotic system, and probably benefits athletes by allowing them to match better with places where they can thrive.
2) NIL. Again, it is hard to argue against the idea that athletes should own the rights to their own name/image/likeness.  However, what has gone from one extreme (a blanket prohibition on profiting from your NIL) to the other (basically a thinly disguised veil for boosters to pay-to-play).
3) the COVID pandemic, which resulted in relaxation of transfer restrictions (sitting out for 1 year) plus the additional COVID year of eligibility.  Again, all of these seem to have been rational responses to the pandemic.

The combination of the three things, which each might have made sense individually, has swung the pendulum too far from "it's too hard to transfer out of a bad situation" to "it's too easy to transfer on a whim for money".

BC

[BobK]

People seem to forgot or simply don’t follow as many sports as I do lol but a transfer one time non sit out has been the rule in many sports for years. Maybe all but basketball baseball and football
So it’s not new really and yes the Order to this is good.
The mass exodus is not good agree with all on that.

[BobK]

People seem to forgot or simply don’t follow as many sports as I do lol but a transfer one time non sit out has been the rule in many sports for years. Maybe all but basketball baseball and football
So it’s not new really and yes the Order to this is good.
The mass exodus is not good agree with all on that.

[stopandpop]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Respectfully, you read way too much into my question, suggesting I was referring to free agency, but that's OK.  I'm actually happy you brought up the possibility of a grad student transfer, of whom there are several potentially interesting players.  One wonders why the SF Chronicle would mention two of them.  Does anyone believe they might have some inside information, or could they have simply been throwing out names because of their California connection?

Kayla Padilla from Penn would be a gift.

[stopandpop]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Respectfully, you read way too much into my question, suggesting I was referring to free agency, but that's OK.  I'm actually happy you brought up the possibility of a grad student transfer, of whom there are several potentially interesting players.  One wonders why the SF Chronicle would mention two of them.  Does anyone believe they might have some inside information, or could they have simply been throwing out names because of their California connection?

Kayla Padilla from Penn would be a gift.

[stopandpop]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Respectfully, you read way too much into my question, suggesting I was referring to free agency, but that's OK.  I'm actually happy you brought up the possibility of a grad student transfer, of whom there are several potentially interesting players.  One wonders why the SF Chronicle would mention two of them.  Does anyone believe they might have some inside information, or could they have simply been throwing out names because of their California connection?

Kayla Padilla from Penn would be a gift.

Nice story on Kayla Padilla and her interest in playing out West.

Kayla the magnificent | Penn Today (upenn.edu)

[stopandpop]

Will Tara use the portal to acquire an experienced quality guard who can score?

I disagree with the framing here, which implies that Stanford can use the portal like free agency.  We can't.  We can hope an experienced, quality guard who can score will apply and be accepted to a grad program, but that's about it.

BC

Respectfully, you read way too much into my question, suggesting I was referring to free agency, but that's OK.  I'm actually happy you brought up the possibility of a grad student transfer, of whom there are several potentially interesting players.  One wonders why the SF Chronicle would mention two of them.  Does anyone believe they might have some inside information, or could they have simply been throwing out names because of their California connection?

Kayla Padilla from Penn would be a gift.

Nice story on Kayla Padilla and her interest in playing out West.

Kayla the magnificent | Penn Today (upenn.edu)

[Jskass]

Love the Colgate connection too (as a proud alumna)!

[Jskass]

Love the Colgate connection too (as a proud alumna)!

[81alum]

.
Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

The premise of your analysis is that it is better for the athlete, but you say nothing about the student-athlete.  Transferring always comes with academic costs.  If one says that such costs are irrelevant in this day and age, then my answer is "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business" if the academic well being of the player is irrelevant.

I do think that some flexibility for transferring is reasonable.  But multiple transfers is bad for the academic well being of students, bad for the stability of basketball programs, and very bad for the fans who choose to watch college athletics rather than the pros for the express reason of enjoying their attachment to the player and the purity of the game.  What we are seeing now is worse than professional free agency--no professional team turns over as completely as the LSUs of the NCAA world.

[81alum]

.
Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

The premise of your analysis is that it is better for the athlete, but you say nothing about the student-athlete.  Transferring always comes with academic costs.  If one says that such costs are irrelevant in this day and age, then my answer is "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business" if the academic well being of the player is irrelevant.

I do think that some flexibility for transferring is reasonable.  But multiple transfers is bad for the academic well being of students, bad for the stability of basketball programs, and very bad for the fans who choose to watch college athletics rather than the pros for the express reason of enjoying their attachment to the player and the purity of the game.  What we are seeing now is worse than professional free agency--no professional team turns over as completely as the LSUs of the NCAA world.

[BobK]

Osborne returning to UCLA

[BobK]

Osborne returning to UCLA

[BillBradley]

.
Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

The premise of your analysis is that it is better for the athlete, but you say nothing about the student-athlete.  Transferring always comes with academic costs.  If one says that such costs are irrelevant in this day and age, then my answer is "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business" if the academic well being of the player is irrelevant.

I do think that some flexibility for transferring is reasonable.  But multiple transfers is bad for the academic well being of students, bad for the stability of basketball programs, and very bad for the fans who choose to watch college athletics rather than the pros for the express reason of enjoying their attachment to the player and the purity of the game.  What we are seeing now is worse than professional free agency--no professional team turns over as completely as the LSUs of the NCAA world.

81, your point is perfectly valid when it comes to Stanford. Athletes who take their academics seriously factor it into their decision, and the transfer numbers show that. You'll find way less transfers leaving the higher academic institutions. The ones who do transfer way from the better schools are mostly all-conference type players (e.g. Harrison Ingram, Jayda Curry) who prioritize their sport higher than the academic piece, largely because of the potential for a career in their sport. I understand that and support their decisions. The decision for players like Silva or Van Gytenbeek to transfer is more questionable in my mind. But again, none of us really know what's driving it and how miserable they might be. 

On the other end of the spectrum, does it really matter much to their academics if a player transfers from one big state school to another? I doubt it. When it comes to the major sports, these players are consumed by the time, effort, commitment required to compete. They spend way more time on their sport then they do their academics. They are athlete-students, not student-athletes. Your question of "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business?" is on point. For many schools and sports, the answer IMO is "they shouldn't". Athletics have evolved to a point where things just don't make sense anymore under an educational system umbrella. I'm quite sure in 50 years the organization of "sports for 18 to 23 year olds" won't even resemble what we have now.

[BillBradley]

.
Lots of posts on transfers and the portal. Just wanted to comment on that. Outside of Stanford, the transfer portal is a of immense proportions improvement for the athlete. Previously, players who were miserable at their university were pretty much stuck. They could always transfer, but it was very difficult to find a new deal so not many did. Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old and pick your poison from one of these: 1) Abusive coach 2) Over the top physical demands 3) Poor academics 4) Bad culture 5) Not playing 6) Getting recruited over, etc. etc. etc. Kids make bad choices. Or sometimes things just don't work out. The argument of "but you're getting a 4 year scholarship" still might work for Stanford but it doesn't in most programs. The portal undoubtedly shifts leverage to the player and I think that's a great thing. Why not allow them to go somewhere else to seek happiness? I'm just challenging the sentiment that the transfer portal ruins everything. It might not be your cup of tea as a fan (and this is a fan board so I get that), but I guarantee it's a great thing for a lot of miserable players. If you buy that, then what's the issue with other programs using the transfer portal to build out their roster? Why are they evil for doing it? The players are the ones who make their moves first. I'm not a Mulkey fan, but she didn't have much choice when she started there. And look how it worked out for LSU. A bunch of players who found a place that was a better fit for them and they won the whole thing. It's actually a pretty cool story.

The premise of your analysis is that it is better for the athlete, but you say nothing about the student-athlete.  Transferring always comes with academic costs.  If one says that such costs are irrelevant in this day and age, then my answer is "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business" if the academic well being of the player is irrelevant.

I do think that some flexibility for transferring is reasonable.  But multiple transfers is bad for the academic well being of students, bad for the stability of basketball programs, and very bad for the fans who choose to watch college athletics rather than the pros for the express reason of enjoying their attachment to the player and the purity of the game.  What we are seeing now is worse than professional free agency--no professional team turns over as completely as the LSUs of the NCAA world.

81, your point is perfectly valid when it comes to Stanford. Athletes who take their academics seriously factor it into their decision, and the transfer numbers show that. You'll find way less transfers leaving the higher academic institutions. The ones who do transfer way from the better schools are mostly all-conference type players (e.g. Harrison Ingram, Jayda Curry) who prioritize their sport higher than the academic piece, largely because of the potential for a career in their sport. I understand that and support their decisions. The decision for players like Silva or Van Gytenbeek to transfer is more questionable in my mind. But again, none of us really know what's driving it and how miserable they might be. 

On the other end of the spectrum, does it really matter much to their academics if a player transfers from one big state school to another? I doubt it. When it comes to the major sports, these players are consumed by the time, effort, commitment required to compete. They spend way more time on their sport then they do their academics. They are athlete-students, not student-athletes. Your question of "why should academic institutions be in the athletics business?" is on point. For many schools and sports, the answer IMO is "they shouldn't". Athletics have evolved to a point where things just don't make sense anymore under an educational system umbrella. I'm quite sure in 50 years the organization of "sports for 18 to 23 year olds" won't even resemble what we have now.

[BostonCard]

Osborne returning to UCLA

Good for her.  In this era, it is great to see.  UCLA with Osborne and Rice is going to be a load next year.

BC

[BostonCard]

Osborne returning to UCLA

Good for her.  In this era, it is great to see.  UCLA with Osborne and Rice is going to be a load next year.

BC

[BobK]

A friend’s first thought will Jones now leave ucla ?

[BobK]

A friend’s first thought will Jones now leave ucla ?

[joemontes]

A friend’s first thought will  Jones now leave ucla ?

UCLA, so far, will only have 3 legit guards in OSBORNE, RICE and JONES next season.

[joemontes]

A friend’s first thought will  Jones now leave ucla ?

UCLA, so far, will only have 3 legit guards in OSBORNE, RICE and JONES next season.

[jk1926]

A friend’s first thought will  Jones now leave ucla ?

It will surprise if Jones leaves.

Until Osborne and Cam Brown announced they will return for their Covid extra year the UCLA roster was down to two guards - pgs Jones and Rice - next season.  Osborne prefers the two guard while Brown plays the wing position.  Coach Close played the freshmen a lot of minutes from the onset.  Jones averaged 20 min/game and 23 min/game during conference play.  With pg Gina Conti (27 mpg) leaving I expect Jones will play as many if not more mpg as she will become the sole backup point guard and can also play the two guard given her shooting ability.

That could change of course depending on who else ucla lands from the transfer portal.  UCLA has been fortunate not to experience a lot of roster departures via the transfer portal.  I think the staff values roster stability and is mindful of the negative consequences (ala Arizona) of recruiting over freshmen and sophomore team members.

[jk1926]

A friend’s first thought will  Jones now leave ucla ?

It will surprise if Jones leaves.

Until Osborne and Cam Brown announced they will return for their Covid extra year the UCLA roster was down to two guards - pgs Jones and Rice - next season.  Osborne prefers the two guard while Brown plays the wing position.  Coach Close played the freshmen a lot of minutes from the onset.  Jones averaged 20 min/game and 23 min/game during conference play.  With pg Gina Conti (27 mpg) leaving I expect Jones will play as many if not more mpg as she will become the sole backup point guard and can also play the two guard given her shooting ability.

That could change of course depending on who else ucla lands from the transfer portal.  UCLA has been fortunate not to experience a lot of roster departures via the transfer portal.  I think the staff values roster stability and is mindful of the negative consequences (ala Arizona) of recruiting over freshmen and sophomore team members.