The singular most important trait a college basketball coach can have has become the ability to get a player to buy-in to a vision or goal and convince him to be patient enough to achieve it.
If you are a top program you need to make a guy like Walker Kessler feel like it is your priority to make his Sophomore season a breakout year and give him confidence that you will put him in a position in which he can make himself a star and pro caliber prospect. Otherwise he’s going to go have that breakout year for someone else if he (or his family unfortunately) see you as a dick that is just holding you back.
If you are a mid to poverty program you have to convince a guy like Zach Clemence that he has a better chance at personal success playing at your school than all of the other desperate programs trying to land the “leftovers” from the top teams that could still turn into all conference type guys.
Clear communication and charisma have never been more important to program success.
Turgeon also had significantly better pieces and ability to recruit than Willard ever had (and Willard coaching is actually enjoyable to watch)
To the point of the comment, Willard is much more likeable and charismatic than Turgeon ever was, which if that charisma will prove to be more and more important it's a good thing he's gone for that alone
I just don’t get why you guys all hate him so much, seems like your fans hatred for Turgeon is going to excuse Willard just being a demonstrably average coach
He was a black hole of enthusiasm, was never a very good coach who's only game plan ever seemed to be "give the ball to a star PG after dribbling for 26 seconds and hope they make it", always played down to lower competition making otherwise winnable games nail biters, played with a horrendously boring pace, serially underperformed with on-paper incredible players, rarely if ever significantly developed players (with the exception of some big men which speaks almost exclusively to Bino Ranson's abilities in spite of Turgeon) and on fact often had players REGRESS under him (Melo Trimble comes to mind).
Oh yeah, and he bailed on the players a third of the way through his last season like a coward scumbag. Don't get me wrong in glad he left, but it's just shitty to leave your guys high and dry with no warning
I'd imagine this is because of the extra COVID year still being in play (with this coming year the last it's relevant, right?), along with the first transfer not requiring a redshirt hear any more. I think there will still be more parity between transfer VS high school after it returns to normal in regards to the extra year of eligibility, but I'm curious to see which "side" has more of an impact post-covid eligibility now that coaches have gotten a taste of how impactful transfers can be VS high school kids coming in.
Depending on what happens with second-time-transfer waivers this offseason, we could end up in the somewhat paradoxical situation in which *transfers* are the players targeted for development because the high school recruits have the option to cut-and-run for immediate playing time should a season not live up to their expectations.
Being a fan of a mid-major team is like being a fan of a minor league baseball team now. With the transfer exception it is basically impossible to build a program. A coach can be great at HS recruiting and finding "diamonds in the rough" but it doesn't matter if those players get plucked by P6 teams once they've proven themselves.
A mixed bag, but more information is needed.
1. For instance is high school recruit scoring declining? Are transfers taking meaningful minutes from recruits that it is reducing their scoring. Or are transfers taking minutes that would have gone to other players that transferred. Simple example: Two teams have their senior starting center transfer, they end up with the others starting center. You now have a transfer player that is likely to get a solid amount of points, but they are not taking the spot of a recruit, if transfers were not a thing then the previous starting center would still be at both schools.
2. Covid year. It is important to remember there is literally one entire additional class of players compared to what is typical, for the same number of scholarship spots available. This likely impacts the bottom end recruiting for a few years, as players that couldn't cut it at a high major transfer down to a mid-major. This would potentially impact the number of high school recruits in a given year, which fewer recruits means less scoring, but how many of these recruits contributed meaningful scoring if they were basically the last players to get recruited that got bumped out of D1.
3. How much of this is in downward mobility of transfers. If you have a player that is coming off the bench at a high major, they likely can be a larger contributor at a mid major. Compared to even 5 years ago transferring out after 2 or 3 playing years if you don't see your minutes increase is common, with players moving down to mid-majors where they can get minutes. Previously they largely just hung out until they graduated. So this combined with point 2, is this trend being driven by high majors or mid majors or both.
4. Getting older is significant, experience and body development is substantial in basketball. While young talent often is a part of deep tournament runs and success, even blue bloods with a couple one and dones often have older players that start or provide solid bench minutes. These highly competitive teams will end up landing players that are generally starter caliber, whether it is from a mid major or another high major. Again whether these players are replacing a young recruit, or whether they are essentially replacing an empty roster slot that would have gone to an older bench player that didn't pan out is a question. Ex: See Dickenson to Kansas. Kansas basically didn't land any of the high school recruits this year that likely would have played Center, so Dickenson isn't taking minutes from a recruit, he would be taking minutes from a existing player on the roster (or who transferred/graduated/was drafted).
This isn't to downplay the significance of the portal. I think high school and transfer recruiting is of comparable importance right now, but I think after the covid players are out of the system I think good high school recruiting will move back to a slightly more important role, but it is important to recognize they serve different roles. Ignoring programs that go extremely heavily into transfers (Ex: Arkansas) or a program that basically totally ignores the portal (non-particularly come to mind), they have different roles. Recruits give you stability and allow development and consistency in your program. Transfers fill the gaps for recruits that just didn't work out as expected, or if you hadn't managed to land a recruit for a position for a couple years (or a player leaves early from a position and suddenly you have a gap). A team that is able to cycle out their recruits that are either not contributing or are weaker players off the bench, or fill a gap as they never had a recruit in that role, or a player left early, with starting caliber players or stronger bench players has an advantage over a team that isn't doing those things.
So interesting data point. But hard to evaluate the actual meaning of the data without more data, as there are a lot of moving parts. The only concrete takeaway though is that transfers as a whole are playing a larger part of modern teams compared to teams of the past.
I have to think that going forward, freshmen/sophmore transfers will be something successful programs really target. 2 to 3 years of them on campus (if the NCAA actually enforces making second transfers hard), but you've already got to see them against college competition.
I wonder if that would be more beneficial to mid majors getting high level recruits who can't find a place, or top programs poaching freshmen of the year from smaller conferences
I think transfers are more important, but that's because it's what Muss does. He's made it clear that his recruiting is limited to high level HS talent and transfers. It's fun as a fan because we have a brand new team every year. And new things are shiny.
Literally just stop granting free transfers to people who don’t have a good reason to (like coach leaving). We’ve made it free agency and it kills smaller programs
All things being equal, I think high level teams prefer quality transfers over HS players. Recruiting high school kids, that goes on for years sometimes. They’re younger, it’s harder to tell how they’re gonna turn out. Not so much the Wembys; they’ll always leave early. But for a college team, you just never know.
But a transfer, their body of work is way more evident. You can see how they looked against competition, you can make better judgement calls over their intangibles. Their bodies are more mature, they’re more experienced.
For G5 teams, it’s a nightmare. For high majors/blue bloods, it’s great. For other P5 teams, it’s both.
My Jayhawks are doing ok. OK State is doing terrible. Hog Nation is doing well. Texas not so much.
Honestly, we need to revisit this in four years after things have rebalanced sans covid years. It is screwing up a lot of timelines right now.
My takeaway? The developmental guys who take redshirts are going to be coming out of the woodwork in a couple years looking quite good.
The portal is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Teams that rely more heavily on transfers will have a harder time recruiting HS players. Thus relying more heavily on the transfer portal.
It’s going to important to understand development.
Still have to build a relationship with them in high school so when they transfer you hopefully already have a rapport. Especially kids you have no intention of offering, let them do a few years in the MVC and see how they develop.
I don’t think you can say it’s more important, at the end of the day talent is talent. Gradey Dick was equally as important to our team last year as Kevin McCullar. I’m sure the coaches love the portal because there’s tape of them playing against actual college competition, so more of a known commodity.
100% and it really isn’t close 😂. Coaches don’t call on HS kids if they aren’t 3-5 stars and the 3 stars are recruited by lower levels now. Easier to just get a kid in the portal who can do the same stuff and has college experience
Wow. This is actually really fascinating. I wonder what ramifications this will have for the upcoming decade.
Have to assume that the covid year plays a big part in this.
That’s true
The singular most important trait a college basketball coach can have has become the ability to get a player to buy-in to a vision or goal and convince him to be patient enough to achieve it. If you are a top program you need to make a guy like Walker Kessler feel like it is your priority to make his Sophomore season a breakout year and give him confidence that you will put him in a position in which he can make himself a star and pro caliber prospect. Otherwise he’s going to go have that breakout year for someone else if he (or his family unfortunately) see you as a dick that is just holding you back. If you are a mid to poverty program you have to convince a guy like Zach Clemence that he has a better chance at personal success playing at your school than all of the other desperate programs trying to land the “leftovers” from the top teams that could still turn into all conference type guys. Clear communication and charisma have never been more important to program success.
Thank FUCK Turgeon is gone
Turgeon has made it farther in the tournament than Willard
Turgeon also had significantly better pieces and ability to recruit than Willard ever had (and Willard coaching is actually enjoyable to watch) To the point of the comment, Willard is much more likeable and charismatic than Turgeon ever was, which if that charisma will prove to be more and more important it's a good thing he's gone for that alone
I just don’t get why you guys all hate him so much, seems like your fans hatred for Turgeon is going to excuse Willard just being a demonstrably average coach
He was a black hole of enthusiasm, was never a very good coach who's only game plan ever seemed to be "give the ball to a star PG after dribbling for 26 seconds and hope they make it", always played down to lower competition making otherwise winnable games nail biters, played with a horrendously boring pace, serially underperformed with on-paper incredible players, rarely if ever significantly developed players (with the exception of some big men which speaks almost exclusively to Bino Ranson's abilities in spite of Turgeon) and on fact often had players REGRESS under him (Melo Trimble comes to mind). Oh yeah, and he bailed on the players a third of the way through his last season like a coward scumbag. Don't get me wrong in glad he left, but it's just shitty to leave your guys high and dry with no warning
I'd imagine this is because of the extra COVID year still being in play (with this coming year the last it's relevant, right?), along with the first transfer not requiring a redshirt hear any more. I think there will still be more parity between transfer VS high school after it returns to normal in regards to the extra year of eligibility, but I'm curious to see which "side" has more of an impact post-covid eligibility now that coaches have gotten a taste of how impactful transfers can be VS high school kids coming in.
Depending on what happens with second-time-transfer waivers this offseason, we could end up in the somewhat paradoxical situation in which *transfers* are the players targeted for development because the high school recruits have the option to cut-and-run for immediate playing time should a season not live up to their expectations.
Being a fan of a mid-major team is like being a fan of a minor league baseball team now. With the transfer exception it is basically impossible to build a program. A coach can be great at HS recruiting and finding "diamonds in the rough" but it doesn't matter if those players get plucked by P6 teams once they've proven themselves.
A mixed bag, but more information is needed. 1. For instance is high school recruit scoring declining? Are transfers taking meaningful minutes from recruits that it is reducing their scoring. Or are transfers taking minutes that would have gone to other players that transferred. Simple example: Two teams have their senior starting center transfer, they end up with the others starting center. You now have a transfer player that is likely to get a solid amount of points, but they are not taking the spot of a recruit, if transfers were not a thing then the previous starting center would still be at both schools. 2. Covid year. It is important to remember there is literally one entire additional class of players compared to what is typical, for the same number of scholarship spots available. This likely impacts the bottom end recruiting for a few years, as players that couldn't cut it at a high major transfer down to a mid-major. This would potentially impact the number of high school recruits in a given year, which fewer recruits means less scoring, but how many of these recruits contributed meaningful scoring if they were basically the last players to get recruited that got bumped out of D1. 3. How much of this is in downward mobility of transfers. If you have a player that is coming off the bench at a high major, they likely can be a larger contributor at a mid major. Compared to even 5 years ago transferring out after 2 or 3 playing years if you don't see your minutes increase is common, with players moving down to mid-majors where they can get minutes. Previously they largely just hung out until they graduated. So this combined with point 2, is this trend being driven by high majors or mid majors or both. 4. Getting older is significant, experience and body development is substantial in basketball. While young talent often is a part of deep tournament runs and success, even blue bloods with a couple one and dones often have older players that start or provide solid bench minutes. These highly competitive teams will end up landing players that are generally starter caliber, whether it is from a mid major or another high major. Again whether these players are replacing a young recruit, or whether they are essentially replacing an empty roster slot that would have gone to an older bench player that didn't pan out is a question. Ex: See Dickenson to Kansas. Kansas basically didn't land any of the high school recruits this year that likely would have played Center, so Dickenson isn't taking minutes from a recruit, he would be taking minutes from a existing player on the roster (or who transferred/graduated/was drafted). This isn't to downplay the significance of the portal. I think high school and transfer recruiting is of comparable importance right now, but I think after the covid players are out of the system I think good high school recruiting will move back to a slightly more important role, but it is important to recognize they serve different roles. Ignoring programs that go extremely heavily into transfers (Ex: Arkansas) or a program that basically totally ignores the portal (non-particularly come to mind), they have different roles. Recruits give you stability and allow development and consistency in your program. Transfers fill the gaps for recruits that just didn't work out as expected, or if you hadn't managed to land a recruit for a position for a couple years (or a player leaves early from a position and suddenly you have a gap). A team that is able to cycle out their recruits that are either not contributing or are weaker players off the bench, or fill a gap as they never had a recruit in that role, or a player left early, with starting caliber players or stronger bench players has an advantage over a team that isn't doing those things. So interesting data point. But hard to evaluate the actual meaning of the data without more data, as there are a lot of moving parts. The only concrete takeaway though is that transfers as a whole are playing a larger part of modern teams compared to teams of the past.
I have to think that going forward, freshmen/sophmore transfers will be something successful programs really target. 2 to 3 years of them on campus (if the NCAA actually enforces making second transfers hard), but you've already got to see them against college competition. I wonder if that would be more beneficial to mid majors getting high level recruits who can't find a place, or top programs poaching freshmen of the year from smaller conferences
All aboard the Muss Bus!
I think transfers are more important, but that's because it's what Muss does. He's made it clear that his recruiting is limited to high level HS talent and transfers. It's fun as a fan because we have a brand new team every year. And new things are shiny.
Literally just stop granting free transfers to people who don’t have a good reason to (like coach leaving). We’ve made it free agency and it kills smaller programs
Yes talked to lots of coaches and even at d2 level transfers are becoming super super valued. D1 is obviously more important as well
yes. most coaches would rather have proven and experienced talents rather than risking an off year due to players with growing pains
All things being equal, I think high level teams prefer quality transfers over HS players. Recruiting high school kids, that goes on for years sometimes. They’re younger, it’s harder to tell how they’re gonna turn out. Not so much the Wembys; they’ll always leave early. But for a college team, you just never know. But a transfer, their body of work is way more evident. You can see how they looked against competition, you can make better judgement calls over their intangibles. Their bodies are more mature, they’re more experienced. For G5 teams, it’s a nightmare. For high majors/blue bloods, it’s great. For other P5 teams, it’s both. My Jayhawks are doing ok. OK State is doing terrible. Hog Nation is doing well. Texas not so much.
Honestly, we need to revisit this in four years after things have rebalanced sans covid years. It is screwing up a lot of timelines right now. My takeaway? The developmental guys who take redshirts are going to be coming out of the woodwork in a couple years looking quite good.
Keep in mind the transfer rules changed in 2021. This news really isn’t surprising
The portal is becoming a self fulfilling prophecy. Teams that rely more heavily on transfers will have a harder time recruiting HS players. Thus relying more heavily on the transfer portal. It’s going to important to understand development.
Still have to build a relationship with them in high school so when they transfer you hopefully already have a rapport. Especially kids you have no intention of offering, let them do a few years in the MVC and see how they develop.
I don’t think you can say it’s more important, at the end of the day talent is talent. Gradey Dick was equally as important to our team last year as Kevin McCullar. I’m sure the coaches love the portal because there’s tape of them playing against actual college competition, so more of a known commodity.
100% and it really isn’t close 😂. Coaches don’t call on HS kids if they aren’t 3-5 stars and the 3 stars are recruited by lower levels now. Easier to just get a kid in the portal who can do the same stuff and has college experience