In contemporary discourse, the debate surrounding recruiting strategies appears to have evolved significantly, particularly in light of the ongoing Covid super senior era. Recent reports suggest that certain coaches have adopted a stance wherein they refrain from recruiting freshmen outside the top 75 recruiting rankings. Their rationale extends to the assertion that failing to secure a transfer of comparable caliber would equate to a dereliction of their duties. This perspective aligns with our own observations, corroborated by empirical data. Nonetheless, pinpointing the precise tipping point at which recruiting via the transfer portal supersedes traditional freshmen methods warrants further examination.
Freshmen
We’ll be using sports references consensus recruiting rankings. These are the top freshmen in the class and their ranking in the top 100. As you can see it’s a mixed bag with many of the top 10 freshmen failing to even register. Even of those that statistically have solid efficiency many are subjected to more 5th man type of minutes and roles.
Consequently, a pertinent question arises: when given the choice, which player archetype would coaches genuinely prefer to integrate into their programs? Experience versus upside, proven talent versus potential ceiling. Duke seems to be the catalyst for this as they remain heavily invested in recruiting freshmen.
For instance, among a pool of over two dozen D1 coaches this summer, there has been a consensus that freshmen hold diminished value compared to previous years. Queries have been raised regarding Duke’s decision to secure the commitment of the 50th ranked freshman in this class when there may be numerous transfers available who could potentially offer greater immediate impact, particularly considering that the team’s weaknesses may not be fully apparent until the spring.
Elite Recruits
For the select few elite talents such as Cooper Flagg, the decision may not appear particularly challenging most years. Any coach would certainly prioritize them due to their perceived greater talent and upside. However, does their value in college of an 18 year old elite freshmen truly equate to that of a older proven transfer?
Even within the consensus top 5 picks, there are often instances of underperformance. While you might secure a player like Paolo Banchero, you could also end up with those like Dariq Whitehead or Dereck Lively, who averaged 8 points per game and 5 points per game respectively at Duke. Despite being consensus top 2 players, all of them departed after just one year. Is this fleeting talent really more valuable in the aggregate than acquiring a proven All-American such as Hunter Dickinson, who was the consensus top-rated transfer last year?
Given the choice, opting for the known entity seems prudent, especially considering the likelihood of only having one year with these highly touted freshmen recruits. The only scenario where this strategy might not pan out is if they significantly underperform they may stay long. However, even in cases where players like Whitehead and Lively didn’t have major impacts on the team, they still opted to go pro after a year.
Furthermore, now there’s the potential of getting two years from a player like Dickinson with NIL value today. Those type of players may stick around. It’s a fascinating debate with individual coaching preferences likely deciding where you go or how you may choose to spend your NIL funds, almost like a salary cap you have to allot. Do you take a chance and hope you land a Zion Williamson but end up with a Dariq Whitehead, or would those funds be spend better on Hunter Dickinson or even a player like Cam Spencer.
The Tipping Point
While coaches universally seek out the top high school players, the strategic balance between recruiting high school talent and pursuing transfers merits examination. We can all agree swings for the fences to try to find an Anthony Davis or Zion are warranted. At what juncture does this dynamic shift? For instance, does the 20th ranked high school recruit typically surpass the 20th ranked transfer player in overall value?
Indeed, while there’s potential to secure a player of Brandon Miller‘s caliber for a single season through transfers, there exists an equal chance of acquiring a talent akin to Dillon Mitchell. Miller was also 20 years old, so he was more prepared than most.
In recent years finding these good players has been a mixed bag as even Miller was 11th in his class while 3 of the top 5 players in last years (Whitehead, Liveley, and Mitchell) class averaged 8ppg or less and were disappointing. Meanwhile noteworthy examples such as Mark Sears, Tristen Newton, and Johni Broome illustrate how transfers can profoundly impact the sport, often demonstrating excellence over multiple seasons at their respective institutions. Kyle Filipowski stayed at Duke, but that’s not as typcial most years for players that could have entered the draft.
Furthermore, some coaches opt not to recruit freshmen whom they foresee as unlikely to secure playing time, as these players may depart to the portal. Consequently, this approach inadvertently cultivates talent for other programs, minimizing the emphasis on genuine internal player development within basketball. In today’s landscape, the prevalence of free transfers has diminished the traditional role of schools as developmental platforms, as institutions are increasingly reluctant to serve as mere stepping stones for other programs.
Conclusion
These were the premier statistical players nationwide the past 2 seasons in among transfer and freshmen pools. Our transfer model, which is founded on efficiency adjusted for strength of schedule. The data suggests a heightened level of certainty regarding player performance among transfers. With the advent of free transfers, individuals who might otherwise have languished on the bench or remained at mid major schools or previous schools in lesser rolse are now able to seek opportunities elsewhere, allowing talent to find its proper level.
While there’s a possibility that the landscape could revert to the model of a decade ago, where freshmen held greater value, especially considering the diminished presence of fifth (and sixth) year players due to COVID-related extra years, it’s not solely attributable to this factor. Indeed, while some transfers may have been sitting out previously and consequently accrued five years of collegiate experience as well, that also isn’t happening now so the situation isn’t entirely explained by this phenomenon. The prevalence of fifth-year, 23-year-old players in college basketball today is noteworthy, but such individuals have always been part of the collegiate scene to some extent.
A significant aspect contributing to this shift is the increased ease with which players can now position themselves for success. This trend is likely to relegate all but a select few freshmen to a less influential role. Past a certainly point coaches don’t really want to deal with developing them. The disparity is palpable at this juncture. Transfers indisputably offer greater value and certainty, particularly evident when considering the top 20 prospects. Beyond this threshold, outcomes become more unpredictable, thus underscoring the importance of prioritizing transfers after the top 20 freshmen. That seems to be the tipping point.
