2025 Transfer Portal

[oldude]

What a pathetic state of affairs..........let's simply face the facts that players today (at least the more talented ones) are no longer student athletes, they are paid talent that use the excuse of being a student to make big bucks at a young age........I certainly can't blame them for it so at this point why doesn't the WNBA just lower the age limitations on college players so these bidding wars can be put to bed.......

If a player can make $300,000 per year staying in college vs $78,000 per year in the W, who is going to leave early for the pros?

 

[LwrcasefaN]

What a pathetic state of affairs..........let's simply face the facts that players today (at least the more talented ones) are no longer student athletes, they are paid talent that use the excuse of being a student to make big bucks at a young age........I certainly can't blame them for it so at this point why doesn't the WNBA just lower the age limitations on college players so these bidding wars can be put to bed.......

A lot of players who can make NIL money in college wouldn’t even make a WNBA roster so lowering the age may not attract them to the WNBA.

 

[oldude]

I think it's super naive to think UConn isn't competing with NIL dollars to players.

Sure UConn is king when it comes to exposure, SC is probably on that level, not sure anyone else really is. But if TCU offers you $300k to play ball for a year and UConn offers $10k and exposure are we to think said player is going to pass up that kind of money to get a few more games on TV?

I think in this day and age you have to be in the ball park. The coaching, culture, branding, exposure - all of that is secondary. It can push thins over the top, say TCU offers 300k and UConn offers 250k - ok yeah maybe that is close enough to say, you know what? Lemme chase a ring and get the best coaching possible and exposure for a 50k discount. But IMO you have to be in the ballpark unless it's a super unusual case. Girls are making more playing in college than the W. It's not like you can say I'll take a significant pay cut today to get better coaching and exposure because I'll make it up on the back end when Im in the W.

I think it’s important for college players to have good advisors around them, whether that’s their parents or someone else. $300,000 is a lot of money for someone in their early 20’s. But I would argue that it’s not “life changing money” for someone who’s going to presumably live for another 50-60 years, particularly after Uncle Sam takes a big bite out of it.

Other considerations should start with what are your long term goals? Do you want to play for a championship team? Do you want to play professionally? In this modern era of social media, many top players do consider the marketing aspect of how best to build their brand. Perhaps the most important question is simply, “Where will I be happy?”

In short, it’s easy to be dazzled by a big wad of money. But that should not be the only consideration for young athletes.

 

[cancontent]

A lot of players who can make NIL money in college wouldn’t even make a WNBA roster so lowering the age may not attract them to the WNBA.

And factor in a degree, they're further ahead when they graduate. That still matters to a lot of these athletes. They have a better footing once they leave school, which is huge in today's economy.

 

[cancontent]

I think it’s important for college players to have good advisors around them, whether that’s their parents or someone else. $300,000 is a lot of money for someone in their early 20’s. But I would argue that it’s not “life changing money” for someone who’s going to presumably live for another 50-60 years, particularly after Uncle Sam takes a big bite out of it.

Other considerations should start with what are your long term goals? Do you want to play for a championship team? Do you want to play professionally? In this modern era of social media, many top players do consider the marketing aspect of how best to build their brand. Perhaps the most important question is simply, “Where will I be happy?”

In short, it’s easy to be dazzled by a big wad of money. But that should not be the only consideration for young athletes.

For some of these athletes, it could be, even long term. That amount could a good head start coming out of college, and possibly helps them to avoid incurring debt.

 

[BobbyJ]

While I agree that UConn doesn’t necessarily “buy” players per se, in this day of NIL, even at UConn, I absolutely expect that there is a conversation with any prospective HS recruit or transfer about compensation and financial opportunities. We know that Madison Reed is a big financial backer of UConn WBB, as are a number of other companies.

Geno certainly does not want to get into bidding wars. But he can point to Paige, Azzi and other players success in leveraging their financial compensation as a member of the most successful “brand” in WBB.

Plus if they need to raise extra money for big ticket players, they can always run some car washes and flea markets to survive the competition.

 

[ConnMotors]

So if the WNBA lowers its age limit will more players enroll to get drafted? It’s possible but who knows. Look at this years draft. Some players that thought would get drafted did not. All three South Carolina draftees dropped to the second round. The whole NIL deal is a joke. I don’t mean that in a bad way. There are no rules and regulations. No standards. Chavez getting one million from Oklahoma. That is good for her but bad for the game.

 

[Charliebball]

A lot of players who can make NIL money in college wouldn’t even make a WNBA roster so lowering the age may not attract them to the WNBA.

I'm talking about top recruits who can make or break an NC run........do you think Sara Strong or Paige as a freshman couldn't make a WNBA team? The fact that recruits at this level are basing their commitments on the amount of NIL money they will receive over the quality of the school, the coaching staff/teammates and a winning environment is a new world that I will never get used to........let's end the charade and get these stars into the League already........if they are that good the NIL cash will be there for them........btw.......I'm being slightly facetious.......but just slightly........

 

[jdote33]

I love the discussion and different perspectives. I never thought of lowering the age limit to allow them to be pros. The idea being that if you want to play for money and for endorsement deals just be a pro. That's interesting. Everything happened so fast but it's interesting that the universities have the money to just give out now. Do people have a dollar amount that they would be comfortable with players receiving? Would people prefer if all players are paid the same? On the flip side is it fair to put a cap on players? It just all gets tricky and I really should do more reading on the rules and regulations of it. I thought initially the coaches and universities weren't supposed to be involved at all. Like it makes sense if I'm KK Arnold and I am loved on social media and have a buzz I can take advantage of that monetarily. Or if a college kid wants to do a camp where ppl pay, that makes sense as well. But it seems it has evolved into so much more than that.

 

[azfan]

ering as a fan to realize you aren’t playing the same game as the top dogs in the portal.

The game is resources. So yes there is a clear division, as there always has been, between the haves (top 20 resourced schools) and have nots.

This is now impacting WBB but has always been the case.

Case in point: in Flagstaff Taylor Feldman comes to NAU and sits behind Regan Schrenk for a year. Develops her sophomore year and as a junior becomes a star in the Big Dky. She now receives some compensation and gets to play in the Big 10 with Purdue

Sophie Glancey a double double machine, player of the Year in the Big Sky her sophomore year completes her studies in 3 years. Now is a graduate transfer, the grapevine has her being considered by LSU and Missouri. She will receive a paycheck and get a chance to play a P4 conference - perhaps.

As a Lumberjack fan I celebrate their success and while I will certainly miss their performance on the floor at Flagstaff I'm so glad that they have the opportunity to advance their careers and receive a slice of the revenue that they generate.

 

[Bone Dog]

As a Lumberjack fan I celebrate their success and while I will certainly miss their performance on the floor at Flagstaff I'm so glad that they have the opportunity to advance their careers and receive a slice of the revenue that they generate.

I know this swerve has gone far afield, though perhaps it’s inevitable at this point in the portal window.

I’m a supporter of NIL merely on the basis of restraint of trade issues. The players own property and shouldn’t be prevented from trading in it, as long as there’s no fraud involved. But this remark about revenue goes further.

The business of college sports has always traded on the work and appearance of players. This means they are entitled to a share of the profits. Traditionally, we have treated the free education and the training as their share, as well as the school’s own brand that they share in. This picture is murkier when it comes to the NCAA, which is not directly involved in education or training but is a primary director of the business. But the issues are the same. Haven’t the athletes already been paid for their service?

This question doesn’t sound the same as it might have 40 years ago. Athletic programs are more independent from the educational activities of the university than they once were. Coaches and ADs are not paid on the same salary scale as faculty or administrators. And they wield immense influence over fundraising and donors.

Perhaps in addition we now don’t value a college education at the same rate we once did. The more we, as a nation, view it as career prep or vocational training, the clearer its monetary equivalent becomes. It may soon (or even already has) come to seem like the education players get is inadequate compensation for the value they give the university.

Caitlin Clark received tuition room and board worth ~$100,000 over 4 years (as an in-state student) but surely created revenue 50 or 100 times that amount or more. And her personal brand began to overshadow that of the university even when she was a student. At some point, we may see a reconsideration of the way schools (not outside advertisers) compensate athletes.

 

[LwrcasefaN]

I'm talking about top recruits who can make or break an NC run........do you think Sara Strong or Paige as a freshman couldn't make a WNBA team? The fact that recruits at this level are basing their commitments on the amount of NIL money they will receive over the quality of the school, the coaching staff/teammates and a winning environment is a new world that I will never get used to........let's end the charade and get these stars into the League already........if they are that good the NIL cash will be there for them........btw.......I'm being slightly facetious.......but just slightly........

I hear ya, but the vast majority of these kids in the portal aren’t of that caliber. Their chance is NOW not in the WNBA. And as @cancontent mentioned there’s the value of a degree that factors into leaving prematurely. And I don’t even see the momentum in such a direction considering the limitation of WNBA teams and rosters. If I’m not the cream of the crop, then my favorable path forward is to maximize NIL money in college, work professionally under my degree or go play overseas (better than the avg. WNBA salary)…or some order of the last two.

 

[FanInNC]

The game is resources. So yes there is a clear division, as there always has been, between the haves (top 20 resourced schools) and have nots.

This is now impacting WBB but has always been the case.

Case in point: in Flagstaff Taylor Feldman comes to NAU and sits behind Regan Schrenk for a year. Develops her sophomore year and as a junior becomes a star in the Big Dky. She now receives some compensation and gets to play in the Big 10 with Purdue

Sophie Glancey a double double machine, player of the Year in the Big Sky her sophomore year completes her studies in 3 years. Now is a graduate transfer, the grapevine has her being considered by LSU and Missouri. She will receive a paycheck and get a chance to play a P4 conference - perhaps.

As a Lumberjack fan I celebrate their success and while I will certainly miss their performance on the floor at Flagstaff I'm so glad that they have the opportunity to advance their careers and receive a slice of the revenue that they generate.

I don't argue that to an extent there have always been haves and have nots. But the criteria has changed for what defines a have and a have not. And to be clear I'm not begrudging anyone for making their money and bettering their situation, I'm just making an observation.

I think before the have vs have not was more about, where can I get more exposure? Where can I get playing time? Where can I win? Where can I develop? Where am I a good fit within a roster or within a scheme/style of play? Schools with proven coaches, proven programs, fan support and brands that were recognized (UConn, ND, Tenn, Stanford etc) to the front of the line.

Now the first question is more often than not, Where can I get the most money? So now schools like TCU, UVa, Ole Miss become the haves and perhaps a Stanford becomes a have not.

I am most intimately informed about NC State. State has never been in the same breath as the "haves" such as UConn, ND, Tenn etc. However I see a major change comparing today's world from the one of just 3 or 4 years ago. IMO, Wes Moore had major successes in the portal acquiring Saniya Rivers, Madison Hayes, Mimi Collins and River Baldwin. I also think the reasons they chose State were much more to do with things like being close to home, comfort with the coaching staff (he had recruited them all out of HS), style fit, recent success of the program and having a chance to win. In today's climate I'm not sure how many of those ladies end up in Raleigh. All of those girls were former McDonald AAs, I'm sure they all would have been offered more money than State could offer. Maybe they still would have chosen State over the money, I sort of doubt they all would have and I don't blame anyone if that's the case.

When State got Hayes, Rivers and then Baldwin and Collins (and throw Diamond Johnson in there too) they were also bringing back known commodities with Jada Boyd, Jackia Brown-Turner, Elisa Cunane, Raina Perez, Kayla Jones and Kai Crutchfield...compare that to the last 2 or 3 years and what State has done in the portal as the money as grown and players are having increases in pay.

The last 2 years State has only signed players from mid majors. No power 4 (or 5) transfers (Hayes, Rivers, Collins, Johnson, Baldwin were all P4 transfers with pedigree). I suspect whatever NIL State has to work with has gone to player retention, making sure James, Rivers, Hayes and Brooks were taken care of. This year I'm confident the priority was to make sure Zoe and Zam and Tilda stayed. There were reports of SEC schools hitting up Zoe before the end of the season already working her to move. I think State poured their resources to retain their roster and now are fishing in lesser ponds because they can't afford to both keep players like Zoe AND turn around and offer a Kara Dunn the same amount USC does.

 

[FanInNC]

I think it’s important for college players to have good advisors around them, whether that’s their parents or someone else. $300,000 is a lot of money for someone in their early 20’s. But I would argue that it’s not “life changing money” for someone who’s going to presumably live for another 50-60 years, particularly after Uncle Sam takes a big bite out of it.

Other considerations should start with what are your long term goals? Do you want to play for a championship team? Do you want to play professionally? In this modern era of social media, many top players do consider the marketing aspect of how best to build their brand. Perhaps the most important question is simply, “Where will I be happy?”

In short, it’s easy to be dazzled by a big wad of money. But that should not be the only consideration for young athletes.

I 100% agree. I also don't think those things are being considered heavily enough and doubt they ever will. When I was 18 or 20 I wasn't thinking big picture and unfortunately any agents representing players are certainly not concerned with such things.

 

[Charliebball]

I hear ya, but the vast majority of these kids in the portal aren’t of that caliber. Their chance is NOW not in the WNBA. And as @cancontent mentioned there’s the value of a degree that factors into leaving prematurely. And I don’t even see the momentum in such a direction considering the limitation of WNBA teams and rosters. If I’m not the cream of the crop, then my favorable path forward is to maximize NIL money in college, work professionally under my degree or go play overseas (better than the avg. WNBA salary)…or some order of the last two.

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned but perhaps we should remember what the term student-athlete used to mean and what it means today........clearly the majority of these kids will never play for a professional team so for them getting a free college degree while collecting some cash makes their lives easier but for the best players, they are already professional athletes who are just biding their time in college collecting as much cash as they can get until they turn full pro.......if they can get a better deal as a soph they just pick up and leave for another school and if they have a really good soph season why not hit the portal again as a junior to get even more.......it's great for them but not great for the schools, their teammates they are leaving or for the fans.......there's got to be a better way......

 

[Surly1]

Call me hopelessly old-fashioned but perhaps we should remember what the term student-athlete used to mean and what it means today........clearly the majority of these kids will never play for a professional team so for them getting a free college degree while collecting some cash makes their lives easier but for the best players, they are already professional athletes who are just biding their time in college collecting as much cash as they can get until they turn full pro.......if they can get a better deal as a soph they just pick up and leave for another school and if they have a really good soph season why not hit the portal again as a junior to get even more.......it's great for them but not great for the schools, their teammates they are leaving or for the fans.......there's got to be a better way......

Unfortunately, the genie has been released and is intent on granting wishes. There are schools with boosters, flush with cash, ready to "buy" the best talent available. The problem is not endemic to college sports & NIL. It is systemic in our capitalistic society. The belief "to the winner goes the spoils" has permeated government, business, professional sports and entertainment. No one who has a specialized skill to offer wants to be capped on what they can earn or bring in.

I believe one way to address the year-to-year leapfrogging from one program to another is to stipulate a minimum "salary" for all players. For example, if you are a second-tier player, your monetary value would be the same at every P5 school. There could be a step-down for other Div I programs, outside the power schools.

Top talent could continue as "free agents" and look for a better deal if their performance on the court warrants. I realize this doesn't address the issue of poaching or players skipping around, but if there was some type of standardized payment system, it would address a majority of players who think they can continually shop around for a better deal.

Let's face it. This is here to stay, and the deep pocket schools will have an advantage. However, the current system has a lot of collateral damage that goes unreported. Of the 1200+ players entering the portal, how many actually find a better arrangement? If the monetary payout is standardized, and that applies to all but the top 100 players, the reasons for transferring go back to coach/player conflicts, coaching hires, desire for more playing time etc.

 

[cancontent]

Unfortunately, the genie has been released and is intent on granting wishes. There are schools with boosters, flush with cash, ready to "buy" the best talent available. The problem is not endemic to college sports & NIL. It is systemic in our capitalistic society. The belief "to the winner goes the spoils" has permeated government, business, professional sports and entertainment. No one who has a specialized skill to offer wants to be capped on what they can earn or bring in.

I believe one way to address the year-to-year leapfrogging from one program to another is to stipulate a minimum "salary" for all players. For example, if you are a second-tier player, your monetary value would be the same at every P5 school. There could be a step-down for other Div I programs, outside the power schools.

Top talent could continue as "free agents" and look for a better deal if their performance on the court warrants. I realize this doesn't address the issue of poaching or players skipping around, but if there was some type of standardized payment system, it would address a majority of players who think they can continually shop around for a better deal.

Let's face it. This is here to stay, and the deep pocket schools will have an advantage. However, the current system has a lot of collateral damage that goes unreported. Of the 1200+ players entering the portal, how many actually find a better arrangement? If the monetary payout is standardized, and that applies to all but the top 100 players, the reasons for transferring go back to coach/player conflicts, coaching hires, desire for more playing time etc.

I think this is why revenue sharing is coming into effect, but I haven't read up enough on it yet.

 

[azfan]

Caitlin Clark received tuition room and board worth ~$100,000 over 4 years (as an in-state student) but surely created revenue 50 or 100 times that amount or more. And her personal brand began to overshadow that of the university even when she was a student. At some point, we may see a reconsideration of the way schools (not outside advertisers) compensate athletes.

Colleges and universities as are all institutions governed by a set of incentives and goals. A primary objective or goal is to obtain the "best" labor force. In this way and colleges and universities are no different than a construction company, a law firm, a transportation company, or a textbook publisher.

On the supply side there's often been rigorous and interesting competition for professors, coaches, and administrators.

The institutions that fall under the have category access broad networks of resources in order to employ the most desirable professors, administrators, and coaches.

The have network has and always will have broader and deeper resources.

Institutions also grant this portion of their labor supply some extraordinary benefits that are non financial including tenure, multi-year contracts, buyouts, and some rather breathtaking perks.Their ability to do this rests partially upon the umbrella of government and nonprofit involvement in the education market both within and outside the sporting arena. The non market nature of this industry leads to predictable and often perverse outcomes including malinvestment and misinvestment.

The haves access a much more attractive set of inducements due to their resource base. Beyond tenure and multi-year contracts and salary and benefits think of the social status of employment at the have institutions. (As if the above market salaries, perks and autonomy weren't enough)

In the past they have institutions have clearly compensated athletes over the last hundred years in a non-transparent manner. We don't need to go into Red Grange, Duke basketball players, SMU, the fab 5 or Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, North Carolina or Texas football players or ASU baseball players back in the day but we all know that the have institutions made use of their resources to attract (compensate) talent. Automobiles, parental jobs, make work jobs, to more unsavory on transparent benefits just think of Rick Pitino.

The movement toward transparency, inclusion, and as a perceptive BYer posted the rule of law, that is not engaging in activities in restraint of trade, violation of labor law or conspiracies to monopolize or set wages, seem to me to be an advancement in women's basketball.

 

[BRS24]

Here's a portal announcement-



And another -

 

[BRS24]

 

[ConnMotors]

As the portal deadline to enter without consequence approaches you will see a bunch of names toss their names into the pool. Sadly, dreams of many will not be fulfilled. With recruits coming into the school year how many portal players are not going to latch on to another team. I’m still hopeful that this portal and NIL thing gets an overhaul.

 

[Geew1992]

 

[JstVisiting]

The game is resources. So yes there is a clear division, as there always has been, between the haves (top 20 resourced schools) and have nots.

This is now impacting WBB but has always been the case.

Case in point: in Flagstaff Taylor Feldman comes to NAU and sits behind Regan Schrenk for a year. Develops her sophomore year and as a junior becomes a star in the Big Dky. She now receives some compensation and gets to play in the Big 10 with Purdue

Sophie Glancey a double double machine, player of the Year in the Big Sky her sophomore year completes her studies in 3 years. Now is a graduate transfer, the grapevine has her being considered by LSU and Missouri. She will receive a paycheck and get a chance to play a P4 conference - perhaps.

As a Lumberjack fan I celebrate their success and while I will certainly miss their performance on the floor at Flagstaff I'm so glad that they have the opportunity to advance their careers and receive a slice of the revenue that they generate.

I too, with ancestral memories of 42-39 Four Corners, cheap shots crippling Todd Ellis, and general Tobacco Roadery, encourage NC State fans to think of themselves as Northern Arizona.

 

[Stagnant]

Here is an interesting one. UConn offered her out of high school. I was actually surprised she didn’t pick South Florida.

Also. What is this? Two from UCF today?

 

[Charliebball]

Colleges and universities as are all institutions governed by a set of incentives and goals. A primary objective or goal is to obtain the "best" labor force. In this way and colleges and universities are no different than a construction company, a law firm, a transportation company, or a textbook publisher.

On the supply side there's often been rigorous and interesting competition for professors, coaches, and administrators.

The institutions that fall under the have category access broad networks of resources in order to employ the most desirable professors, administrators, and coaches.

The have network has and always will have broader and deeper resources.

Institutions also grant this portion of their labor supply some extraordinary benefits that are non financial including tenure, multi-year contracts, buyouts, and some rather breathtaking perks.Their ability to do this rests partially upon the umbrella of government and nonprofit involvement in the education market both within and outside the sporting arena. The non market nature of this industry leads to predictable and often perverse outcomes including malinvestment and misinvestment.

The haves access a much more attractive set of inducements due to their resource base. Beyond tenure and multi-year contracts and salary and benefits think of the social status of employment at the have institutions. (As if the above market salaries, perks and autonomy weren't enough)

In the past they have institutions have clearly compensated athletes over the last hundred years in a non-transparent manner. We don't need to go into Red Grange, Duke basketball players, SMU, the fab 5 or Reggie Bush, Cam Newton, North Carolina or Texas football players or ASU baseball players back in the day but we all know that the have institutions made use of their resources to attract (compensate) talent. Automobiles, parental jobs, make work jobs, to more unsavory on transparent benefits just think of Rick Pitino.

The movement toward transparency, inclusion, and as a perceptive BYer posted the rule of law, that is not engaging in activities in restraint of trade, violation of labor law or conspiracies to monopolize or set wages, seem to me to be an advancement in women's basketball.

Unlike the leading football and men's basketball teams, how many WBB programs actually make money for their schools? I'd bet not many if any at all.........the economic model doesn't make sense in WBB on the college or pro level.......boosters can spend millions to recruit the best women players but it's nothing other than a vanity project......now players like Chavez have the pressure of meeting the expectations of grabbing all that money.......what happens if she turns out to be just a good basketball player but not a superstar.....do they not pay her as much for the next season? That's a lot of pressure to put on anybody never mind an eighteen-year-old living away from home for the first time......I think we are going to see some sad stories in the next few years but that's the way it is......

 

[Centerstream]

Here's a portal announcement-



And another -

Wow! An actual portal entry post. And a 2fer at that!!!

 

[WBBTakeover]

It was pure?

You beat me to it! People acting as if under-the-table benefits and negative recruiting weren't a "thing" in WCBB in the not-so-distant past.

 

[WBBTakeover]

Why did Zoe Brooks take a stray here?

Sorry about that--I'm not a fan of her playing style. She is talented, though--probably the second most talented returning ACC guard behind Hannah at the moment.

 

[DEFCONN1]

If a player can make $300,000 per year staying in college vs $78,000 per year in the W, who is going to leave early for the pros?

I don’t know. Maybe we should ask Azzi. I’m thinking she made a wise decision.

 

[YKCornelius]

I think it's super naive to think UConn isn't competing with NIL dollars to players.

Sure UConn is king when it comes to exposure, SC is probably on that level, not sure anyone else really is. But if TCU offers you $300k to play ball for a year and UConn offers $10k and exposure are we to think said player is going to pass up that kind of money to get a few more games on TV?

I think in this day and age you have to be in the ball park. The coaching, culture, branding, exposure - all of that is secondary. It can push thins over the top, say TCU offers 300k and UConn offers 250k - ok yeah maybe that is close enough to say, you know what? Lemme chase a ring and get the best coaching possible and exposure for a 50k discount. But IMO you have to be in the ballpark unless it's a super unusual case. Girls are making more playing in college than the W. It's not like you can say I'll take a significant pay cut today to get better coaching and exposure because I'll make it up on the back end when Im in the W.

Nah. You are speaking like a player agent. Nobody at UConn (or other universities for that matter) would know what the market value of a player is, because the market value has not been established. As things stand right now, the WCBB environment is in an undefined marketplace. The "price" of an athlete's participation is thrown out there by agents and/or parents. The value of the player's abilities - much less the return on investment - is purely speculative, also inflamed by agents and parents.

Nobody is saying UConn is not playing in the NIL arena. Of course they are. Just not in the way you think they should be - i.e., throwing six figure bags of money at unproven players.

What makes UConn (and South Carolina) at the top of the WCBB pyramid, is their ability to play championship caliber team basketball. Geno takes very specific top talent and molds it into a top performing team. Dawn endeavors to do the same in Columbia. Team basketball requires more than getting extremely talented and exciting young women on a court. It takes time, effort and a team-oriented focus by each of the players. UConn has been the proof of this for the past 40 years.

There is so much top talent in WBB today that there is no reason to be throwing six-figure bags of money at unproven transfers or high school players. Player agents and some parents of these players would like the fans to think so, and are great fanning the flames of "if you don't get so-and-so, another school will and you will eventually fall behind and be unable to recover". Poppycock and balderdash.

It only requires a look at the teams in the National Championship game for the past 13 years in order for one to see the importance of team chemistry. Of the 12 National Champions, only LSU (three years ago in Mulkey's second year) had a starting line-up with more than two transfers. Six champions (Four UConn, Stanford, and S.Carolina) sent out starting line-ups with nothing but homegrown players, and three champions (ND, Baylor and UConn) won with only one transfer starting. Twice the Gamecocks started two transfers. Conclusion: team chemistry matters.