Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="BRS24, post: 5014513, member: 197"] Lots of offseason topics saved in my Notes app, however I thought I'd start with this one, as Barker and Dauda were the final two playes from top 25 HS rankings that finally committed. Some of these thoughts were from last year, and I never posted them (I think?), so I updated my thoughts and removed some untimely references, ie, the huge portal movements from this time last year. I give you - Program & Process vs Portal, or, if you prefer, Tradition vs. Transfers. NOTE - this thread was created after having a bunch of thoughts rolling around my head about how and when coaches use the portal, especially after seeing UCLA/USC make a big splash this year, coaching movements making a significant impact to the portal. It is not intended to discuss specific transfers, who should transfer, etc. Please be careful when using examples, either real or rhetorical. Let’s try to avoid veering off into another discussion of specific players shall we? It’s more about the changing of the process and philosophies of coaches and programs, than the specific stats of any one player, especially now that there’s no rule that players must sit out if they transfer more than once. In this era of NIL and the transfer portal with the ability to immediately play, will this change the way coaches recruit and coach players? Will some coaches stay true to how they’ve recruited over the course of their career? We’ve seen Geno make the change to recruiting/offering early, however the portal is a whole new universe. UConn has a rep for preparing players for life after college, whether the WNBA, overseas teams, or other professional opportunities. Not everyone that played at UConn will play professional hoop, as some will decide that another career is a priority. Is this still a big enough draw for players to want to stay for four years? Two way loyalty between the coaches and players is incredibly significant. From The Athletic article a while back - “… departure really signals something to high mid-major programs: You’re only going to be able to keep your best players for a year or two.” The impact to the mid-majors could be brutal. Look at how well Villanova, Creighton, Marquette in the BE had been doing, so what happened when the best player(s) went elsewhere? The recruiting relationships that those coaches built over years is gone in an instant. The rich may get richer. Will coaches get a reputation for pillaging other programs and “portalling” over players they spent years recruiting? Will that even matter in this new landscape of college athletics and the NIL? Once you dip into the portal well and optics are less than stellar, there’s no turning back. With all of that said, the next few posts will show the recruiting classes from 2019 to 2023, with some random stats, In the tables, the gray cells indicate the player is done with college, and the green means they are still active. Here are some initial stats, grouped by 5 to see where the bulk of movement occurred. The 2nd table shows % of transfers within each grouping of 5 (totaling 100%), and the last column shows the same for all 5 years combined. [ATTACH type="full" width="520px"]101230[/ATTACH] Now onto each class year .... and if I missed any transfers, give me a shout and I'll update my xls file, as I may have lost some updates when my laptop decided to restart. [/QUOTE]

Verification: First name of men's bb coach