NCAA MBB Transfer Portal

[AH1971]

2 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

You clearly have a reading comprehension problem.  Not at all what I said.  Several posts mention stats, go back and read them.  My summation is that mid-major players are mid-major players.  Are there a handful that move up and make a difference -- yes.  You pointed to the successes.  But do most of them?  I doubt it.  If you want to go that way, then good luck next year with your mid-major team part 2.    

So what makes you think a failed P4 player is suddenly going to become a good player at Indiana? Guys are misevaluated out of high school all the time, and not just in basketball either, look at our own football team for crying out loud. I don't know how you can watch college basketball these days and not understand this? There are former mid-majors littered all over P4 rosters. Some bad, some just ok, some all-conference caliber, and some are the best players in the entire country. Would be utterly foolish not to entertain a 22-23 year old who may have been misevaluated out of high school. 

[RaceToTheTop]

3 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

 My summation is that mid-major players are mid-major players. 

Then I guess that high-major players are high-major players, is that correct?

Your issue is you seem to think a finding a mid-major player who can play at the high-major level is like winning the Power Ball.  It's simply not true.  

[str8baller]

1 minute ago, RaceToTheTop said:

There were exactly 5 players on the Big Ten first through third teams that had transferred into the conference.  Every single one of them transferred from mid or low majors.  That's not confirmation bias.

This is what can be said:  high major talent putting up the same stats as a mid major talent will show that the high major talent is much more likely to be a better player.  But the truth is that their are going to be many more mid major players putting up good stats -- that's the nature of the beast.  High major guys who are important to their team are mostly retained.  So writing off mid major players just because they are mid major players limits your options unnecessarily.  It's where scouting comes in.

 

High major = higher floor

Low major = higher ceiling (obviously more risky). 
 

The simple fact is great high major guys aren’t switching teams very often or at all. So you get guys who would like a different role or coach. But their production is unlikely to be below where it was. 
 

Low major guys could be elite and are willing to transfer from small schools where they’re established for money and a chance to prove to everyone they are elite high major players too. They could also flop hard. 

 

Michigan is a great example. Their best player is a mid major transfer who still tore it up vs a high major schedule. Cadeau, Mara and Johnson are high major guys producing somewhat similarly to last year but in slightly different and in some cases expanded roles. Indiana is a good example of the variance (ie risk/reward) of going for mid majors. For every Wilkerson there are at least two Conerways and Baileys. 

[RaceToTheTop]

The top four ranked player transfer as rated by 247 were all from mid majors -- UAB, Memphis, Drake, and New Mexico.  14 of the top 50 were mid major transfers.  37 of the top 100.  That's not 37 'Cinderella stories'.....those are guys rated by their ability and stacking up.

 

[IUCrazy2]

13 minutes ago, str8baller said:

High major = higher floor

Low major = higher ceiling (obviously more risky). 
 

The simple fact is great high major guys aren’t switching teams very often or at all. So you get guys who would like a different role or coach. But their production is unlikely to be below where it was. 
 

Low major guys could be elite and are willing to transfer from small schools where they’re established for money and a chance to prove to everyone they are elite high major players too. They could also flop hard. 

 

Michigan is a great example. Their best player is a mid major transfer who still tore it up vs a high major schedule. Cadeau, Mara and Johnson are high major guys producing somewhat similarly to last year but in slightly different and in some cases expanded roles. Indiana is a good example of the variance (ie risk/reward) of going for mid majors. For every Wilkerson there are at least two Conerways and Baileys. 

Right, I am thinking of this in comparison to what Cignetti has done.  He has a pretty good evaluation process in place (so far) that helps him have better odds of picking a winner in the portal.  That is what we need.  Hopefully the NBA guy will help with that.

I don't think you put all your eggs in any basket.

[AH1971]

44 minutes ago, str8baller said:

High major = higher floor

Low major = higher ceiling (obviously more risky). 
 

The simple fact is great high major guys aren’t switching teams very often or at all. So you get guys who would like a different role or coach. But their production is unlikely to be below where it was. 
 

Low major guys could be elite and are willing to transfer from small schools where they’re established for money and a chance to prove to everyone they are elite high major players too. They could also flop hard. 

 

Michigan is a great example. Their best player is a mid major transfer who still tore it up vs a high major schedule. Cadeau, Mara and Johnson are high major guys producing somewhat similarly to last year but in slightly different and in some cases expanded roles. Indiana is a good example of the variance (ie risk/reward) of going for mid majors. For every Wilkerson there are at least two Conerways and Baileys. 

The variance in high major basketball is enormously large. Duke is a high major. Boston College is also a high major. There are probably 20-30 non-P4 schools chalked full of rosters with players who held zero P4 offers coming out of high school that would beat Boston College by double digits. I don't buy that you automatically have a higher floor because you chose to attend Boston College or DePaul over St. Mary's or San Diego St. Yes there are highly skilled guys who were passed over for P4 basketball because they lack desired size or athleticism just like there are insanely long and athletic guys who were passed over for P4 basketball because they lack an elite level skill set(s). If you put Indiana jerseys on VCU or St. Louis this year, nobody would say the Hoosiers are undersized or lack athleticism despite having a team full of "mid-major" players. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

Sad but true.

[HoosierHoopster]

19 minutes ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Hopefully the NBA guy will help with that.

 

While I'm extremely disappointed and still mystified by the end-of-season collapse, I'm really looking forward to what Carr does in the Portal. He was brought on largely if not specifically for what he is expected to do with the roster re-build. His tons of experience in evaluating players, including heading up the Pacers scouting department, is huge, not to mention 4 years of assistant coaching experience at the college level. 

[Stuhoo]

28 minutes ago, Class of '66 Old Fart said:

Sad but true.

Coaches want to win. That could absolutely be what a coach said to that particular player, but does not necessarily attach to all coaches or even to teammates of that particular player. 

[Class of '66 Old Fart]

5 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Coaches want to win. That could absolutely be what a coach said to that particular player, but does not necessarily attach to all coaches or even to teammates of that particular player. 

But in today's world, a coach can spend a year really working to develop a player and then the following year the player bolts for the bigger buck.  And yes, coaches definitely want to win but it's a what did you do for me today environment.  Hypothetically let's assume Ristic, Drake, Harris and Acimovich all bail.  What's the benefit to IU in having spent a year developing them and collectively we got 31 minutes of court time from them?

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, RaceToTheTop said:

There were exactly 5 players on the Big Ten first through third teams that had transferred into the conference.  Every single one of them transferred from mid or low majors.  That's not confirmation bias.

This is what can be said:  high major talent putting up the same stats as a mid major talent will show that the high major talent is much more likely to be a better player.  But the truth is that their are going to be many more mid major players putting up good stats -- that's the nature of the beast.  High major guys who are important to their team are mostly retained.  So writing off mid major players just because they are mid major players limits your options unnecessarily.  It's where scouting comes in.

 

5 of 15.  Now how many didn't make those teams?  How many struggled, etc?  

Mid majors putting up "good stats" is the problem.  If you're looking at mid-major players, you need to look at the guys who dominate at the lower level.  That way you at least have some idea that he is better than most other's he is currently playing against.  Take our guy Wilkerson.  Averaged about 20 pts. last year -- 13.5 was the avg. of the leaders, so pretty dominant in his league.  And 20 pts. this year -- basically given the higher competition level, worked hard to stay about the same.  Taking a guy with "good" stats is a risk, so Carr better know what he is doing.    

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, AH1971 said:

So what makes you think a failed P4 player is suddenly going to become a good player at Indiana? Guys are misevaluated out of high school all the time, and not just in basketball either, look at our own football team for crying out loud. I don't know how you can watch college basketball these days and not understand this? There are former mid-majors littered all over P4 rosters. Some bad, some just ok, some all-conference caliber, and some are the best players in the entire country. Would be utterly foolish not to entertain a 22-23 year old who may have been misevaluated out of high school. 

I guess we'll see what Carr does.  

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, RaceToTheTop said:

Then I guess that high-major players are high-major players, is that correct?

Your issue is you seem to think a finding a mid-major player who can play at the high-major level is like winning the Power Ball.  It's simply not true.  

For every success you can point to, how many "failures" are there?  That's all I am asking to be considered.  It's a risk.  The IU experience has been pretty dismal.  Carr will have a job to do.    

[Golfman25]

1 hour ago, IUCrazy2 said:

Right, I am thinking of this in comparison to what Cignetti has done.  He has a pretty good evaluation process in place (so far) that helps him have better odds of picking a winner in the portal.  That is what we need.  Hopefully the NBA guy will help with that.

I don't think you put all your eggs in any basket.

Cig evaluates to a profile.  He has certain characteristics he looks for, both physical and mental.  For example, a kid's feet aren't right and he's off the board.  Then he develops the crap out of them.  

[Demo]

18 minutes ago, Stuhoo said:

Coaches want to win. That could absolutely be what a coach said to that particular player, but does not necessarily attach to all coaches or even to teammates of that particular player. 

I imagine there are gonna be a fair number of coaches who think that way, at least for a while. And it feels like it could create a situation where HS kids with HM talent but who aren’t necessarily considered ready to play big minutes on teams with high expectations, kids perceived as 50-100 prospects, could become somewhat undervalued assets for programs willing and able to to develop along more conventional lines. Kind of like DDV’s ‘26 class. I just think building through the portal on a more than supplemental basis year in/year out is gonna be tough because you’re gonna be paying top of the market on every kid every time.

[Uspshoosier]

19 minutes ago, Golfman25 said:

For every success you can point to, how many "failures" are there?  That's all I am asking to be considered.  It's a risk.  The IU experience has been pretty dismal.  Carr will have a job to do.    

I don’t the right answer but there is going to be failures regardless of where you get your players.    Low major to high major, mid major to high major and High major to high major. Every one of them is going to have failures and success stories.   Just got to hope the staff evaluate and chose wisely.    

[Uspshoosier]

Ohio St got a high major transfer this last cycle that late in the season had more fouls than points for the year.   Creighton got one of the top high major transfers  available last cycle and ended up benching him mid season.   There are risks regardless of what level you are getting players from 

[Uspshoosier]

Identify talent regardless of level or ranking and build a roster.  
 

relationships still matter.    Watching the Journey, Hoiberg knew Pryce through camps growing up and recruited him out of high school.   He knew it would be tonight to get him since playing with his brother would be hard to turn down.   The minute Pryce went into the portal Hoiberg was the first to contact him. Despite being 136 in the portal rankings Hoiberg went hard after him got him.   First team all B1G. Not bad for the 136th ranked kid out of the portal.  Talent is everywhere you just need the relationships and eye to identify it and then land them 

[Uspshoosier]

Atwell for Texas Tech was  138.  Took him a minute to get going but he has been huge for Tech lately.  Shooting the lights out.  Feel like he doesn’t miss. Example of mid major to high major success 

Jalen Washington High major to high Major success.  Playing high level at Vandy (165 in the rankings)

Jalen Carey in the 220 range is a load down low for Tenn who came from Vandy 

Talent is in spread out throughout the portal just got to find it 

[RaceToTheTop]

1 hour ago, Golfman25 said:

For every success you can point to, how many "failures" are there?  That's all I am asking to be considered.  It's a risk.  The IU experience has been pretty dismal.  Carr will have a job to do.    

But it’s been dismal guys like Myles Rice and Kanaan Carlyle as well.