A guy on twitter @ThatTonk put all 963 players in the D1 hoops transfer portal in a spreadsheet. We can access it here.
Full of interesting stuff!
I donât know about the ratings/transfer correlation; it might exist, but I need to see more proof.
One thing that the easy transfer has enabled is novel ways of building programs. That, and that upsets (the lifeblood of college hoops) have increased! No Kentucky or Duke in the tourney? More please!
3 Likes
Darn, copy access has been disabled so hard to do some quick analysis. And we need more data for some questions
I wonder how many fall into each category:
- Young player (FR/SO) that played well (starter) in a lower tier school looking to move up
- Senior starter looking for one last harrah and a different experience
- Junior/Senior looking for more playing time and exposure
- Players taking the opportunity to choose their new coach (school fired coach like us)
126 FR | 45 RS FR (181)
176 SO | 51 RS SO (227)
165 JR | 126 RS JR (291)
189 SR | 84 RS SR (273)
Obviously, this data doesnât have all the information needed to understand (production, games started/minutes played) but with the conference and class, some inference could be made. Of course there are players that may want to play closer to home (family ties, health, etc.), some that are looking for more playing time, some that just donât get along with the coach or are not the right fit for the system, or maybe some that just donât want to put the work in and hoped for an AAU experience.
With eligibility due to the covid year, I hope that this is a one time big shuffle. A game of musical chairs. I donât think there are enough spots for all of these, but I could be wrong.
34 BIG10
32 ACC
30 SEC
22 BIG12
20 PAC12 (5 Utah, 5 Washington, 3 AZ, 3 Wash St., 2 AZ St, 1 Ore, 1 Ore St.)
Edit: For other conferences, see the Per Conference tab, some listed here for interest:
42 A10
24 Big East
32 Conf USA
27 MWC
22 WCC
Edit: didnât see the breakdown tab, but will keep below
Only could do a quick glance, but whatâs up with Albany (8), Eastern Kentucky (7), George Washington (8), Grambling State (7), Green Bay (9), Idaho (7), Indiana (7), Indiana State (7), Jacksonville (10!), Kansas City (8), NC Central (9), Portland (10), USF (7), Tenn St (8), UT Martin (15! are they shutting down the program?), Valpo (7)?!
I would imagine coaching changes, but are some programs shutting down (UT Martin)?
2 Likes
Yes, itâs hard learning a whole new team each year. Itâs nice to know the players, backstory, how they did last year, etc. and have some continuity. Otherwise itâs like pick-up - you donât know how theyâll fit/play together. Itâs also the shift from loving a team to loving a few individual players and enjoying their play while they are here.
For player ratings:
742 were 2*
17 2.3*-2.7*
103 3*
33 3.3*-3.7*
60 4* (7 SR [davidson, miami, uconn, wisc, az, mizz, tex southern], 11 JR [inc. Timmy Allen, Riley Battin], 25 SO, 17 FR)
3 4.3* (JR - Texas, JR - AZ St, RS JR - Vandy)
1 4.5* (SO - UGA)
3 5* (all freshman - UNC, Texas Tech, Indiana)
By position:
66 Centers - 1 5*, 7 4*
202 PF - 9 4*
129 SF - 15 4* (3 4.3*, 1 4.5*)
277 PG - 1 5*, 21 4*
288 SG - 1 5*, 12 4*
Why recruit HS anymore? Portal gives you kids that you know how they played in college (and dealt with college life). But also comes with the baggage they carry or inability to commit and stick to it.
1 Like
I know Iâm a nerd, but someone should point out that transferring usually sets a student back in progress towards a degree.
Iâm not sure it needs to be harder to transfer (Iâm generally very pro-player), but maybe there needs to be a stronger academic caveat where players need to be on-track to graduate before they can play at a different school.
So, transfer away, but it might be a smidge harder to be eligible to play.
2 Likes
I think the normal 1 year loss of eligibility (can RS) is helpful so this year being a âfreeâ year to move hasnât helped, but tying it to progress towards graduation makes sense. What, are you trying to say they are student-athletes or something 
.
1 Like
That should be Utah basketballâs new motto: âAt least weâre not UT Martinâ.
5 Likes
I The last time the University of Utah had a player transfer in from a D1 institution was 2018 (Novak Topalovic). Since that time, we have lost 12 scholarship players to transfer; 9 of those before Larry was let go.
Craig Smith has a shopping list by now. KW can offer pointers.
1 Like
This is a fair point, and I think there must be some kind of middle ground.
As I see it, the problem stems from paying coaches huge money to win, while expecting student-athletes to pretend to be amateurs and to not pursue the same win-at-all-costs mentality (this is not an original thought; Ron Smith made this point decades ago in his book Sports and Freedom). Either we ditch the big-time coaches and allow students to pursue sports avocationally (seems unlikely, at least in football and mens bball), or we go all-in with the winning model and let the players pursue their best options in order to maximize their exposure and experience. As it is, we are trying to have it both ways.
If we wanted to get really radical, we could ditch the last vestiges of Victorian-era amateurism and allow players to sign college contracts for 1-4 (+redshirt) years, with buyouts and incentives. That way, both players and schools would have some kind of assurance and protection.
I wonder if the Transfer Portal has had an overall positive or negative impact on college sports. (recognizing the inherent difficulty of defining and measuring those terms and outcomes).
It certainly has made it easier to transfer and continue to play.
1 Like
If coaches can switch jobs at will & can run off players they donât âwantâ on the team any more,
then players should be free to come & go.
Currently they can only transfer once, wonder if that will be challenged or changed.?
1 Like
Saw this on twitter:
Gonzaga FR post Oumar Ballo in the portal. 7â0" 260 lbs. From Mali. Was the top ranked international prospect in his class.
I wish people would stop blaming ratings dropping on X. Ratings are dropping because there are tons of entertainment options and not all ways people watch the games are measured. Ticket prices are through the roof. They arenât down.
Also, I love that a player has the right to change schools like a coach.
Also, I could be biased. Lol. Duke thought they had a transfer until today. x.com
1 Like
You sound like like a professor or
something.
Duck Fuke.
2 Likes
Utah got one:
3 Likes
Nothing I love more than Nate Oats sticking it to Coach K. Coach K whined about his shot at him:
I think theyâll get a bunch with the new coach.
You have no chance of ever being a pro player. None. Zero. Thus spake the oracle. (Iâm telling you this for your own good.)
Pay the players for their likeness and youâll see the transfers go way down. Itâs hard to build a brand if youâre bouncing around from team to team. Take it further and restrict the endorsements to 75% local business 25% unrestricted and youâll really lock these players into their established market.
lâm not sure what advantages this would give certain teams but it seems like it would prevent a national brand like Nike from spending insane amounts of money to buy players for Oregon or huge market teams like USC or Texas.
75/25 is a guess, you could tweak the ratios as needed to better create an equilibrium. If you got the numbers correct, players could maintain their freedom to switch teams but you would create a financial incentive for them not to. This way the team stability of the old days could be restored without restoring the practice of treating the players like property.