I think this is a preconceived idea that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny over recent years. There were hundreds of transfers in the last years that ended up on hundreds of teams. You almost can't watch a game without watching players that started with other teams. You can quibble with 'defining success', but defining it as being competitive at high division 1, teams like Texas Tech, Houston, Seton Hall, Marquette, Xavier, Butler, Gonzaga, Baylor, Memphis, Iowa, Uconn, Syracuse, etc etc have transfers making key contributions. Good players from low majors are rounding out D1 rosters, and lots of good players like Sid Wilson are transferring down.
And yet look how much value they have added.
5-10 years ago I would have agreed. But the transfer market is the "new way" of college basketball. And teams that don't adapt and buy in will have difficulty competing on the court. Even the traditional blue bloods who can bring in five stars have started to utilize the transfer market
I just don't understand the "banking" a scholarship argument when we're discussing grad transfers. Whether you take a grad transfer or leave that scholarship open, the scholarship will be available for 2022. That's the beauty of the grad transfer. Even if they don't end up seeing the court, there is zero downside.
Gonzaga has been picking up solid additions from the transfer market for years. Even before it was as common as it is now.
"We don't want transfers until we do."
We don't need an immediate impact player for next year. This could scare off some recruits. We could use a serviceable big to give Sanogo a breather.
