General recruiting question discussion

[dad's couch]

We're all waiting anxiously for our first '21 verbal but let me throw something out for discussion. The NCAA is probably going to pass in January that every player is allowed to transfer once without sitting out a year. I believe this will flood the market of transfers. Just this year 800 people were in the portal.

The question/discussion is this. What's more preferable? A top 40-60 high school recruit or a former top 40 - 60 ranked player who played a year or two and wants to transfer? An example would by a Symir type player vs a Jalen Carey type of player. Both were similarly ranked coming out of HS. If this was last season, what would be your preference.

As a side note. The transfer is not leaving his school because of disciplinary issues is a problem kid. Maybe a coaching change, home sickness or just didn't like the school.

[brewcity77]

I would prefer the four-year player simply because you have more time with them. In addition, for some reason it seems like transfers can take a little longer to settle in.

The longer a guy spends in your program, the more of an asset they will be as an upperclassmen. I'd rather have a guy who gets to know the system for 2 years then has 2 years to be an impact player than someone who you don't know what you have until they're almost gone.

[brewcity77]

Also...if it doesn't work out, the freshman can leave the program with fewer obstacles. They can sit out if necessary or (under the expected new rule) simply move on and it won't be difficult. If you take a transfer that's immediately eligible and it doesn't work out, they are now an upperclassman that likely won't want to transfer again because they HAVE to sit out (presumably). Sure, you can always just not renew the scholarship and move them on, but I think it's cleaner and easier to do when it's a student-athlete who's been there since the start of their collegiate career.

I get the devil's advocate position of "well then they can just leave on you" which is true, but if they are that good, they should be getting enough minutes and being featured enough that, in a high-major league, they will want to stay because they see themselves as an integral part of a winning program. If that isn't the case, I find the issue to be less with the player and more with the person in charge of the program, which is a totally different discussion.

[muguru]

I have a little different take then Brew on this..If they are one of a handful top available transfers on the market like a Carton or a Sarr(even though he wouldn't qualify under your criteria) then I take them everyday over a HS kid. Guys like that have experience, and even though it might take them a bit of time to adjust to a new environment, they still at least have experience playing D1 BB at a high level. They could be final pieces to your puzzle for at least the first year depending on your roster make up and such. Where as with a HS kid, there is almost always a steep learning curve, and that could set you back a bit at least that first year. That's to say, I will always take the more talented guy 1000x out of 1000. The transfer is likely(if he's high level) is going to step in and start right away, a Freshman likely won't(their are exceptions of course based on current roster make up). That being said, whatever their ranking was coming out of HS, if they haven't really shown much in their first year or two at the other school, I likely would just opt for the HS kid, but if he has been a big time impact player(like my above examples) for that year or two, I'm all over them.

[brewcity77]

I get the impact argument, but even that is only a marginal predictor of future success. Katin Reinhardt and Trent Lockett were high-major, productive players that contributed, but weren't big time impact players. Or look at Kerry Blackshear last year. The expectation was that he would make Florida a NC contender. He was fine, but he couldn't even make the nine-player SEC first team.

I feel transfers, especially the high-impact ones, can be just as much a destabilizing force on a team. That "missing piece" can just as easily be the guy who takes too many touches from the guys that know and trust each other already. And one of the real advantages I've felt to transfers is having that guy that sits out and can contribute in practice without requiring minutes. With the immediately eligible option likely the new normal soon, that won't be as likely, so I feel some of those sit-out transfers actually lose value if they don't sit.

Talent isn't the only or even most important thing. Yes, talented teams win more often than not, but if it was the be-all end-all, Duke and Kentucky would win the title every year. That teams like Virginia, Villanova, UConn, and Louisville have won titles in the past decade shows the importance of player development and upperclassmen leaders. Talent is great, but only when it fits within the system.

[Its DJOver]

There are pros and cons to both avenues.  Right now it's looking like we have 5 openings for 21-22.  I would be amazed if 100% of those are filled only via high school recruits or only via transfers.  Finding the right balance can be just as important as finding the right players.

[Herman Cain]

I would prefer 4 year players that stay within the system . I don't put much emphasis on high school rankings. There  are many variables that lead to college success. Those aren't really measure until a kid is in the the program and starts going through the mental and physical maturation process.

Not a big fan of the immediate transfer rule.  Although I can see where it will benefit a lot of players and programs. I just think it will make team cohesion tough if every kid is out there looking for immediate gratification. Obviously this year MU is getting a nice boost from Carton immediate eligibility.

However, I do like the one year sit out and two or three year play transfers. Those guys can take a year to work on strength conditioning and skills development, have a year to blend in with the team and then you get them for two/three years of hopefully solid value. 

[mileskishnish72]

The discussion sort of reminds me of trades in baseball when a proven major leaguer is acquired by trading prospects. Often you are acquiring a player who has already demonstrated the talent
that you can only hope the prospect will develop. Getting someone like Carton is truly a no-brainer, he's already shown what he can do against real college competition. Many, many HS kids that are highly-rated develop only into busts.

That said, it must be taken into consideration that a college basketball program is a very different
animal compared to a professional team. As has been noted, there are all kinds of variables which can impact the situation. I think it's a spooky situation when you consider that college coaches are dealing with kids who are essentially adolescents - true, older adolescents if you will, but these are not emancipated adults.

[Viper]

I have a little different take then Brew on this..If they are one of a handful top available transfers on the market like a Carton or a Sarr(even though he wouldn't qualify under your criteria) then I take them everyday over a HS kid. Guys like that have experience, and even though it might take them a bit of time to adjust to a new environment, they still at least have experience playing D1 BB at a high level. They could be final pieces to your puzzle for at least the first year depending on your roster make up and such. Where as with a HS kid, there is almost always a steep learning curve, and that could set you back a bit at least that first year. That's to say, I will always take the more talented guy 1000x out of 1000. The transfer is likely(if he's high level) is going to step in and start right away, a Freshman likely won't(their are exceptions of course based on current roster make up). That being said, whatever their ranking was coming out of HS, if they haven't really shown much in their first year or two at the other school, I likely would just opt for the HS kid, but if he has been a big time impact player(like my above examples) for that year or two, I'm all over them.

Agreed. Talent w/experience checkmates inexperienced talent.

[franklinjerry]

Asked the question several months back. Moving forward do you recruit the transfer portal with greater gusto than the high school AAU circuit? Look what MU and others spend to have coaches chase kids all over the country at AAU events. Very small hit ratio for these recruits. In the new normal I suspect there will be far less travel and far fewer showcase events.

Yes we like 4 year players who become faces of the university but the landscape of college sports is changing rapidly.

[MarquetteMike1977]

Asked the question several months back. Moving forward do you recruit the transfer portal with greater gusto than the high school AAU circuit? Look what MU and others spend to have coaches chase kids all over the country at AAU events. Very small hit ratio for these recruits. In the new normal I suspect there will be far less travel and far
fewer showcase events.


Yes we like 4 year players who become faces of the university but the landscape of college sports is changing rapidly.

Also Transfers would have the “Value” of being more likely to “Stick” than AAU, since transfers already used up their non sit out transfer and would have to sit out a year if they transferred again. Is that correct

[WarriorFan]

Don't forget that the future will be different.
The top 20-30 kids from HS will go pro.
Each year the top 20 or so underclassmen will also go pro.
So the transfer pool starts with the 30-40th best player (approximately) in his class.

If the guy is in the top 20 of that group, can play 2-3 more years, and meets a team need - that would be my priority.