Hey all, since Marquette keeps getting mentioned as the only D1 team who did not take a transfer player the last 3 seasons, I thought I'd see what the schools in this year's NCAA Tournament looked like in comparison regarding transfers. Since this is also the last year of players with the extra COVID year of eligibility, I looked at how many schools had 5th (and even 6th) year players on the roster. This info comes from looking up player bios on Yahoo Sports (please forgive an inaccuracy here or there).
This season, of the teams in the NCAA tournament, two did not have any transfer players - Marquette and Purdue. Yale and Troy had one transfer each. Michigan State, Duke and St. Mary's had two transfers, while every other school had 3 or more.
On average, the teams in this year's tourney averaged 5.8 transfers per school, with 2.9 transfers as starters, with transfers comprising 59.4% of all starters in the tournament. These are players who transferred at any point in their career to their current school, not just those that transferred this season. For teams who made the Sweet 16, the percentage of transfer starters went up to 62.5%.
For 5th/6th years players, 29.1% of the starters in this year's tournament were 5th/6th year players. For Sweet 16 teams, this percentage goes up to 32.5%. If you include seniors to this, 52% of all the starters in the tournament were 6th/5th/Sr players, almost all of whom will have no eligibility left next year. This percentage moves up slightly to 55% for Sweet 16 teams.
Here's how it broke out in terms of total transfers on the team roster for this years tournament teams (bolded teams are Sweet 16 teams):
10+ transfers: Louisville, Memphis, Drake, McNeese State, High Point
9: Kentucky, Oklahoma, Grand Canyon
8: Mississippi, Maryland, Missouri, Vanderbilt, Texas Tech, Xavier, Norfolk State
7: Alabama, Michigan, Iowa State, Kansas, St. John's, Gonzaga, UCLA, Bryant, SIUE, Montana, Robert Morris
6: Auburn, Texas A&M, Florida, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oregon, Mississippi State, Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado State, UNC-Wilmington, Lipscomb, Utah State, Liberty, Akron
5: Clemson, Georgia, Illinois, VCU
4: Wisconsin, North Carolina, Baylor, Mount St. Marys, Omaha, Alabama State
3: Houston, Connecticut, Creighton, BYU, UC-San Diego, Wofford
2: Duke, Michigan State, St. Mary's
1: Yale, Troy
0: Purdue, Marquette
Among starters, here's the number of starters who are transfers per team (starters for the first game in the NCAA tournament):
5: Kentucky, Arizona, Michigan, Louisville, Memphis, Vanderbilt, Drake, Grand Canyon, McNeese State, Norfolk State
4: Auburn, Florida, Mississippi, Arkansas, Texas Tech, St. John's, UCLA, Oklahoma, Missouri, High Point, Lipscomb, UNC-Wilmington, VCU, Montana, Robert Morris
3: Alabama, Tennessee, Maryland, Mississipi State, Gonzaga, Xavier, Oregon, Iowa State, Bryant, Kansas, SIUE, Utah State, Liberty, New Mexico, Akron, Wofford
2: Houston, BYU, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Colorado State, Clemson, Creighton, Baylor, North Carolina, Omaha, UC-San Diego, Illinois
1: Duke, Michigan State, Connecticut, Georgia, Yale, St. Mary's, Alabama State, Mount St. Mary's
0: Purdue, Troy, Marquette
Looking at teams with 5th/6th year players, here are the breakouts of the numbers of 5th/6th year players on their roster:
7: Xavier
6: Kentucky
5: Alabama, Mississippi, VCU
4: Arizona, Texas A&M, Wisconsin, Oregon, Missouri, Oklahoma, Colorado State, Drake, Grand Canyon
3: Houston, Michigan, BYU, Creighton, Louisville, Kansas, Bryant, Norfolk State, Memphis, UNC-Wilmington, SIUE, Utah State, Mount St. Mary's, Montana
2: Auburn, Duke, Maryland, Texas Tech, Tennessee, North Carolina, Iowa State, Lipscomb, New Mexico, St. John's, Gonzaga, Georgia, Clemson, High Point, Wofford, Baylor, Liberty, St. Mary's, Vanderbilt
1: Florida, Arkansas, Michigan State, Connecticut, Mississippi State, McNeese State, Robert Morris
0: Purdue, Marquette, Illinois, Yale, Omaha, UCLA, UC-San Diego, Troy, Akron, Alabama State
Combining 6th/5th/Sr players, these teams had the most players who will have exhausted their eligibility:
8: Auburn, Mississippi, Texas A&M, Louisville, Memphis
7: Kentucky, Oregon, Xavier, Gonzaga, McNeese State, Norfolk State
6: Alabama, Tennessee, Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, Wisconsin, High Point
5: Houston, BYU, Kansas, Iowa State, Yale, Lipscomb, Bryant, Colorado State, Grand Canyon, UNC-Wilmington, SIUE, Clemson, Utah State, Liberty, VCU, Montana
4: Michigan, Maryland, Creighton, New Mexico, Drake, Mount St. Mary's, Baylor, Akron
3: Florida, Michigan State, Texas Tech, Arkansas, Marquette, North Carolina, St. John's, UCLA, Mississippi State, St. Mary's, Vanderbilt, Robert Morris, Wofford
2: Duke, Connecticut, Georgia, Omaha
1: Purdue, Alabama State, Troy
0: Illinois, UC-San Diego
So, looking at this info, while lots of teams depended on transfers, there are those that are still successful without relying too much on them - i.e., Purdue, Duke, Michigan State. However, all three of those schools recruit high school players at a better clip than Marquette does.
One other thing that stands out are the number of SEC teams that had a heavy reliance on 6th/5th/Sr players, many of them transfers. Auburn, Texas A&M, Mississippi, Kentucky, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma and Missouri all stand to lose 6 or more 6th/5th/Sr players. That's a lot of roster space to fill next year.
On the younger side, looking at current roster makeup and assuming they do not lose too many players to the portal, the teams that should be poised for good seasons next year include Purdue, Michigan State, Illinois, Connecticut and Georgia.
Anyway, thought MUScoop might find these numbers interesting, especially as we debate building teams through the portal.
Hmmmm....Guess we can learn something here....what it is ain't exactly clear...we better stop, look around..everybody look what is going down.
Apologies to Buffalo Springfield
I'd also be curious to know where transfers are going.
Is it from "lower" conferences to upper? For example, MVC to ACC?
Are there a lot of players transferring between equal programs?
Is it super successful players transferring or bench players?
Is there anywhere compiling this data?
I don't know. From my perspective I'm thinking the numbers show that going back to four year eligibility is going to be a BFD.
Basically collapsing 4, 5, 6 year talent pool.
Looks like things may be vestly different next year with the 5th of COVID eligibility out.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 24, 2025, 08:29:32 PMLooks like things may be vestly different next year with the 5th of COVID eligibility out.
This is the conclusion I drew as well.
Quote from: MU Fan in Connecticut on March 24, 2025, 08:29:32 PMLooks like things may be vestly different next year with the 5th of COVID eligibility out.
Sweater vestly different?