I get it on the individual level - it doesn't make sense to stay at a mid-major if you're averaging 15/game and a place like Mizzou will pay you - but from the coaching/investment side if you look at the teams that did really well this past year, they almost without exception had a core of guys who'd been there multiple years. We hit a home run in the portal last year but 5/8 of our rotation were returners including the two best players. We're not going to have that next year barring Domask and Hawkins both coming back. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out over time. My guess is that two years from now people will realize that the transfer market is not a great place to rebuild the core of your basketball team, or vice-versa on the players end that the grass sometimes really isn't greener.
I don't really agree, although it seems somewhat like the staff does - all four of our current transfer gets have multiple years of eligibility I think. The problem with that obviously is that these days you have to re-recruit them every year. I think what's winning games is having guys who have played a ton of college basketball already, regardless of whether most of it was together 'as a unit' or not.
The days of getting young guys and developing them so that by the time they're old they're really good are just past. Pretty much every team that made a deep run other than Purdue and to a lesser degree Tennessee did so with a large percentage of transfers.
UConn's top two scorers (and 3 of their top-6) were transfers in, one of which was in their first year with the team.
Alabama's top three (and 5 of their top-6) were transfers in, including 3 in their first year with the team.
NC State's top seven were transfers in, including 5 in their first year with the team.
For a non F4 team, Illinois' top two (and 5 of their top-8) were transfers in, including 3 in their first year with the team.
RecentWTF is wrong with the lef... by alum74
TOTTM 2026
by murphstahoe WTF happened to the WTF h... by Reacher
Total Members: 142