Related stats of interest that I have no time to check: How long in the program Came as freshman or transfer
What was the stat last year? The year before? We can spin this stat as "telling"...But we need more data to make a conclusive argument as to what exactly this is telling of. With a quick search, I am sure someone can find the opposing viewpoint: "25% of Final Four starters transferred in this season; catapult teams to historic March run"
So, "team" isn't just a collection of bodies? I am SHOCKED! Does Calipari know this??? Maybe I should just say "Expediency is THE work of the Devil." Okay, maybe I can add "Patience is a virtue." Nope, forget all this. I want it and I want it NOW!
I took a quick look, and this is subject to error… but it appears this stat would have been 17 out of 20 starters of last years Final Four were returning players. Duke had two starters who were freshman… Banchero/AJ Griffin. The lone starting transfer was Manek, at UNC.
I don’t disagree. There are certainly some very impactful transfers… Pack at Miami, Key at K State. But I think the intended illustration is that limited turnover may be an important factor in significant success.
Quickly looked at Rosters -- He said starters, but here are there top 5 scorers from each team. Transfers definitely played a role on San Diego and Miami San Diego top 5 pts per game Bradley - Cal Trammell – Seattle U Butler – San Diego State LeDee – TCU Parish - Oakland FAU top 5 pts per game Davis - FAU Martin - - FAU Goldin – Texas Tech Boyd - FAU Forrest – FAU Miami top 5 pts per game Wong - miami Miller – George Mason Pack – Kansas State Omier – Arkansas State Poplar - - Miami UCONN top 5 pts per game Sanogo - UCONN Hawkins - UCONN Newton - ECU Karaban - UCONN Clingan - UCONN
He also stipulated “returning players”. Goldin, for example, was initially a transfer… but was on the team a season ago. I am not sure if any other of the above listed transfers are returning players. Again, i think the intended illustration was less about where a player originates, but more so about year-over-year synergy w/returning rosters. Still, interesting info!
I mentioned in on of the other threads a Twitter conversation on the topic of how to build a program in the portal/NIL climate, and one of the big takeaways for me was the importance of player development. When you have so much attrition and so many new additions on an annual basis, continuity can be very hard to come by. 2-4 year players you can develop who know your system, find their place in it, and expand their games are worth their weight in gold. And it doesn't have to be an either/or between prep recruiting and transfers. By specifically targeting rising sophomores or juniors in the portal, you can ensure continuity, precisely because they can't transfer again until they graduate. That's the case for Richard and Fudge. We'll see if that holds again this season. You can always sprinkle in veteran (senior/grad) transfers and elite preps to fill needs. But it almost seems like your base needs to be these 2-4 year players.
Calipari's strategy is to get the best out of HS who are all at the top of their confidence levels and convince them that they can do the same at the next level. I would rather face those chances than grab discontents from other programs by the half dozen every year as we do.
I don't think it's limited (overall) roster turnover, it's more about year-over-year continuity. Miami has plenty of critical transfers, but only 1 transferred in for this season. The others have been there at least one additional season. I think allowing a team to gel "one season" makes sense and I think that's a solid takeaway IMO. Another takeaway is that adding an elite player at a position of need "completes" a team (Cue Jerry Maguire scene)....Not rocket science there, but I think there are a few takeaways here IMO.
Are there any teams that font have 20 or 25 percent transfers? That churn seems to be the new norm. The trick is finding a good fit - or have an unexpected boost just trying to fill holes in the roster.
I’d agree with all this. By “limited turnover”, I was referring to major year-over-year changes. I think having a season of playing together likely does make a big difference.
I agree for sure, but he is highlighting player retention matters, but here 50% of the leader scorers across all 4 teams in the final four are transfers from another school.
I'm not sure he is referring to 4-year… or even 3-year player retention. His statistic points back a single season, and suggests that having some year over year continuity could be huge. At least that how I perceived. I don’t think having transfers precludes player retention.
So I guess we can conclude we are going to continue to be a mediocre program for the foreseeable future because of the massive turnover we have had over the last three seasons. Add the lack of player development. Got it.
