This train of thought is mind numbing. The debate over how much weight to put on recruiting rankings in the first place is understandable and will never end. But those who go gaga over recruiting rankings AFTER SOMEONE HAS ACTUALLY PLAYED A YEAR IN COLLEGE AND YOU CAN TELL HOW GOOD HE IS I just don't understand.
Might he end up being a good player? Absolutely. You don't write talented kids off as freshmen. But based on his first year is he reasonable likely to be Kemba Walker? Or even Rodney Purvis (go back and look at his rookie year stats in the ACC). Absolutely not. I truly don't get this. Do folks judge NFL youngsters by their star ratings in high school? Or how they perform?
But the point is (and Superjohn and I fight over this quite a bit actually) - is that transfers are transfers for a reason. And most of the time -when they leave a program - it's because they're not good enough to be there. There were something like 650 DI transfers last year. Half of them ended up at another D1 school. What do you think happened to the other half?
And guys like MAL, this kid... they're leaving *because they aren't good enough to get playing time at their present program*. There's no way you can look at that track record and go 'oh, cool - yeah he should play more next year and should get BETTER". Not when you're Villanova, Providence or UConn. Maybe he gets better, maybe he doesn't - but other than some goof slapping star ratings on a guy on an online 'recruiting' bureau - there's not much from his track record that suggests he is.
Transfers can make a huge impact if you're getting the right guy. If the numbers look good, etc. This kind of wish casting on players like him is what can kill programs.
Especially when you're in our shoes - we have good guards. It's not a weakness. And if we need to get one for whatever reason - we could get something proven that is better and doesn't string us out for 3 years of eligibility so you can play the lottery.
