Transfer Portal vs. Recruiting, retaining , developing

[tower912]

Rather than continue an argument that derails the Joshua Clark thread, I choose to start a new thread.    For the record, I don't hate the portal.  Clearly, it can be used to supplement what a team already has (UConn), or you can use it to start a new team every year.  (Xavier, DePaul)   

   Shaka is opting to eschew it for now, betting on himself and his culture.  Calipari is saying he only wants 8-9 scholarship players anyway.   
    Do you like what Shaka is doing?   Why or why not?   DienerTime thinks that Shaka is being shortsighted and not taking advantage of an available tool.   Certainly, a defensible position.    I am not even sure he is wrong.  What say you?

Let's beat it to death here, rather than other threads about recruits.

[brewcity77]

I am in favor of what Shaka is doing, for the most part. What we have seen on a yearly basis is a vetting process that has generated buy-in and led to springtimes without the chaos of other programs while delivering top-15 results consistently. Looking at the numbers some of these guys are supposedly getting and I can only imagine how much money TK, Kam, Oso, Gold, Chase, Stevie, or just about any of our other players could have been promised had they entered the portal these past couple years. But what the staff is doing is working to retain players, and I cannot applaud that enough.

I do think that if they can continue developing players, this is a brilliant model. It is zagging when everyone else zigs, and should allow for more consistency of results and as we've seen, continuity that leads to constant team improvement. I get the idea of being worried about how Amadou, Hamilton, and Smith will develop as unheralded prospects, but we've seen Oso develop, Gold is getting there, and when it didn't work out, Itejere moved on (though I think he still could've been a productive bench player here).

We have a small sample size, so it's too early to really read too much into it, and we need to see guys like Chase, Gold, Tre, and Zaide (among others) take the steps that TK, O-Max, Stevie, Oso, and Kam have before them, but if the staff can continue to identify and retain, it should sustain itself.

My biggest gripe is how much Shaka is out there saying that we aren't a transfer program. I don't think you have to do that to send a signal to the high school ranks. You will always be able to recruit high school players, but saying "we don't do transfers" kind of closes the door to it in the future. It will make it more difficult to create those relationships in a short period with handlers and players when you do need to dig into the transfer portal. I've already heard talk about some players being turned off by Marquette's portal aversion and NIL approach. You can choose to not take transfers and not openly talk about how you don't take transfers. That's the one thing I would change.

[GoldenWarrior11]

In favor of Shaka's model for two reasons:

1) he and the staff have shown it can successfully develop and keep players (thus putting the program in position to be successful at high level)
2) we have indirectly benefited from a market trend, as a majority of teams seek to utilize the portal to improve a team (and disregard recruiting/developing HS players to accomplish this).  We are the outliers here, and it can be helpful in recruiting.

If there's any "wish" I'd like to see is, eventually, Shaka reels in a big fish (HS stud) that could be a one and done or a two and done player.  At some point, the staff will miss on a HS player (or the development of a class would not come in at high level).  A transfer or high level one and done will undoubtedly be necessary. But it's not today and hopefully not next year either.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

I don't necessarily have a preference, I just want whatever system that is in place to be successful. Since Shaka has been successful with this model, I'm all in.

[willie warrior]

If he really is against using the portal, then he will either sink or swim with his philosophy. Personally against the whole concept of the portal, but it looks like it will be around for a while, so might as well use it for some players that seem to fit. Biggest concern is that other BEast teams are using it and some having success, like UCONN, and look what it has done for them. Nothing wrong with developing your players over time, and you can be successful with that, but it likely will not get you into the upper echelons of college BB. We shall see how it goes for Shaka's philosophy.

[nyg]

I'll bite.......Two portal players in the past would have helped the team, but Shaka declined that route as you described.  Shaka recruits for development and culture, other programs recruit for players ready now and to fill the voids from graduation and other departures. Huge concept differences and the culture development thing takes time. 

- Been regurgitated many times, but Shaka did not replace Omax with a portal player.  Instead one slot went to an unheralded player (Hamilton), who redshirted and provided nothing to the team because of the redshirt.  Shaka recruited players (Norman, Lowery and AL), who saw limited playing time, all of whom did not play a single minute in the last two NCAAT games, with a depleted and injured squad.  Still don't get that.  Now, Hamilton could be the next coming and maybe play, moving Gold to the four aspect, where he has played for two years and where he belongs.

- Shaka did not use the portal to recruit a point guard to replace Kolek, which I feel will bite him in the butt in upcoming year.  Instead he Shaka signed another unheralded player who is going to redshirt. Kam playing point guard as opposed to off guard is going to take a toll on him physically and will have to create a lot of his own shots. Norman must go through a very, very huge development/improvement over the summer to prove he is worthy as a point guard.

- Shaka could have went to portal and replaced Oso, leaving Gold to remain at the 4 spot, but maybe he knows something we do not for the center portion, so I trust him in that aspect.

Shaka being hard headed about the portal is his business and we can only provide opinions of what maybe should have done.  I'll stick with the belief of one portal player per year, the last two would have benefited the team.  Culture can only go so far, so next season will be based on the culture/development of Norman, Lowery, Al and the two freshmen.
Looking forward to see what happens in October. So many issues......

Now 2025 recruiting will be fun to watch, Shaka going to need a big haul and maybe he can get a top 50 recruit or so. 

[Its DJOver]

I'll bite.......Two portal players in the past would have helped the team, but Shaka declined that route as you described.  Shaka recruits for development and culture, other programs recruit for players ready now and to fill the voids from graduation and other departures. Huge concept differences and the culture development thing takes time. 

- Been regurgitated many times, but Shaka did not replace Omax with a portal player.  Instead one slot went to an unheralded player (Hamilton), who redshirted and provided nothing to the team because of the redshirt.  Shaka recruited players (Norman, Lowery and AL), who saw limited playing time, all of whom did not play a single minute in the last two NCAAT games, with a depleted and injured squad.  Still don't get that.  Now, Hamilton could be the next coming and maybe play, moving Gold to the four aspect, where he has played for two years and where he belongs.

- Shaka did not use the portal to recruit a point guard to replace Kolek, which I feel will bite him in the butt in upcoming year.  Instead he Shaka signed another unheralded player who is going to redshirt. Kam playing point guard as opposed to off guard is going to take a toll on him physically and will have to create a lot of his own shots. Norman must go through a very, very huge development/improvement over the summer to prove he is worthy as a point guard.

- Shaka could have went to portal and replaced Oso, leaving Gold to remain at the 4 spot, but maybe he knows something we do not for the center portion, so I trust him in that aspect.

Shaka being hard headed about the portal is his business and we can only provide opinions of what maybe should have done.  I'll stick with the belief of one portal player per year, the last two would have benefited the team.  Culture can only go so far, so next season will be based on the culture/development of Norman, Lowery, Al and the two freshmen.
Looking forward to see what happens in October. So many issues......

Now 2025 recruiting will be fun to watch, Shaka going to need a big haul and maybe he can get a top 50 recruit or so.

Ben ain't a 4.  Jop was the Omax replacement.

[Uncle Rico]

Roster continuity in college hoops is a great thing.  Stacking and sustaining success is a lot easier when you can allow players to get older on your roster.  Based on our small sample size, it appears this staff can identify and maximize talent.  OMax got drafted and it appears TKO and Oso are about to get drafted.  Those players also won a lot of games.

The portal is one-and-done on steroids.  There will be successes where rosters are built this way.  I wouldn't go that way, however.  Filling 3-4 spots yearly due to lost talent is yeoman's work.  Rebuilding chemistry and finding the right fits on the fly isn't easy.  I'd rather fill 1-2 spots this way based on early departures or a recruiting miss.

A couple of things will happen.  Eventually, the portal will be regulated and compensation for players will be tied into scholarships/contracts at specific schools.  The Covid extra year is ending as well.  Rosters and filling them will be different because of it.

Finally, Shaka isn't dumb.  He's selling something at the moment and sees a market imbalance.  This is fluid.  While I appreciate what he's selling, he's no dummy and will certainly utilize the portal when need be.  He's simply not doing it at the cost of one of his guys losing minutes or his spot on the depth chart.  Willing to bet a large chunk of the coaches across the country wish they were doing the same.

Things change fast.  At this moment, embrace his philosophy but don't get too attached because it's liable to change

[nyg]

Ben ain't a 4.  Jop was the Omax replacement.

Ben ain't a five, he plays at the three point line and waits for ball to shoot, but that's another discussion for the next season for you guys.

Joplin was his replacement, but who replaced Joplin?  Gold for Oso, Ross for the others and no one else on the team because the freshmen were non existent.   That was my opinion on a portal guy and I'll stand by it.

[Its DJOver]

Ben ain't a five, he plays at the three point line and waits for ball to shoot, but that's another discussion for the next season for you guys.

Joplin was his replacement, but who replaced Joplin?  Gold for Oso, Ross for the others and no one else on the team because the freshmen were non existent.   That was my opinion on a portal guy and I'll stand by it.

Ben's a modern 5. He defends the other teams 5.  He did so when he was on the court at the same time as Oso. A 6'-11" 245 lb player with the footspeed that Ben has is not going to be a 4.

We had 170 returning minutes last offseason.  That means you are either offering a potential transfer a bench position, which no transfer that would move the needle would take, or guaranteeing him a starting spot and then trying to replace both O-Max and Jop in the same offseason, and also sending the message to everyone on your roster that being the 6th man of the year the previous season is not enough to get a starting spot the following year.

[nyg]

I'll stick with my opinion on Gold.  He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.  But, that's a subject for a different thread. 

Bringing in a player to take Omax's spot, maybe would have Joplin to continue to coming off the bench and being a great contributor as a sixth man again.  Again, it's a culture, culture thing and to worry about hurting a player's feelings as opposed to what is best for the team is Shaka's decision then. He is the coach and again I'll stay with my opinion on the non portal replacement.

[Its DJOver]

I'll stick with my opinion on Gold.  He'll be in foul trouble within the first eight minutes.  But, that's a subject for a different thread. 

Bringing in a player to take Omax's spot, maybe would have Joplin to continue to coming off the bench and being a great contributor as a sixth man again.  Again, it's a culture, culture thing and to worry about hurting a player's feelings as opposed to what is best for the team is Shaka's decision then. He is the coach and again I'll stay with my opinion on the non portal replacement.

Could not disagree more about Ben.  His foul rate was remarkably similar to Oso's as a Sophomore.

What was best for the team was not having to replace two players.  Maybe Jop would have been okay with a transfer coming in ahead of him and continuing to come off the bench. I would highly doubt it, but maybe.  And it wouldn't be just hurting a players feelings, it would be sending a message to everyone of the underclassmen that being 6th man of the year is not enough to get a starting spot the next year.

[tower912]

As I said earlier, I see the portal as a tool.    No more, no less.    It is currently how a lot of teams are playing the game.   Shaka has chosen his path.   I agree that advertising you will not use the portal is not the way to go.    The season will come where the personalities and the culture don't match up and 3-4 guys leave.   He had better use the portal then.  And he will have to eat a little crow.  Until then, I am enjoying watching MU go against the zeitgeist.   
    NYG, I get your concerns.    Shaka is using an old school approach in a new school world.   Once upon a time, retention and development, getting old and staying old, recruiting a replacement two classes later was the goal.    Now, it feels like a bit of a high wire act, betting that 2 of the 4 of Hamilton, Amadou, Owens, and Parham are going to be able to be rotational players up front.   That Tre and Zaide take steps forward.   That Kam can handle the point for the majority of possessions.   (FWIW, I have not given up on Stevie running the point.    But that is my hang up)
   But then I see bidding wars.    And reported $2 million bag drops.   Granted, many of those numbers are probably as inflated as the heights listed in the program.   But I absolutely want MU to stay out of that as long as possible.     If that means that Shaka lands a good 3 man class for 25, nobody leaves unexpectedly, and MU is not a player for another season, cool.   

[brewcity77]

I think there are two important factors to consider when taking this model wholly into account:

1) If they go to the portal, who leaves? Part of the continuity model is that we've seen Tyler and Oso go from role-player to star, in large part because the portal wasn't used to bring someone in ahead of them. If instead of using scholarships on freshmen Gold and Sean in 2022 we instead brought in Manny Bates and Courtney Ramey? Might that have led Oso and Tyler to transfer? Or had a downstream effect on younger players? The one plus to staying out of the portal is sending a signal to your own team that they have the chance to play their way into those roles. In doing so, continuity breeds continuity.

2) The portal is about to become a lot less valuable and more expensive. One of the big positives of the COVID year has been the influx of players into the portal. Because of COVID seniors, we are getting about 300-400 extra players in the portal, of which probably 100-150 are good enough to either start or at least be contributors at the high major level. Next year, that extra year dries up, which means the number of high-value players in the portal will be roughly cut in half. Yes, I know there are 1,800+ players in the portal, but at the highest level, maybe 250-300 are HM caliber, and of those half are fifth year players. That will lead to a decrease in portal supply and an increase in how much the players that are worth it in the portal are getting. Programs that are highly reliant on the portal are about to either pay far more to keep getting the level of talent they are or will be priced out of the market and left with depleted rosters come the start of the season. Staying the course could pay off as everyone else has to deal with a sharply changing reality next spring.

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

Brew if that happens (portal supply down and salaries way up) it will mean high majors will have to pay more to retain. I think it's actually bearish for shakas strategy.

The bigger swing factor in my mind is the amount of dough going into NIL by individuals/boosters.  If that stays high the portal will remain active until NIL salaries find an equilibrium.

[MUfan12]

The portal is one-and-done on steroids.  There will be successes where rosters are built this way.  I wouldn't go that way, however.  Filling 3-4 spots yearly due to lost talent is yeoman's work.  Rebuilding chemistry and finding the right fits on the fly isn't easy.  I'd rather fill 1-2 spots this way based on early departures or a recruiting miss.

A couple of things will happen.  Eventually, the portal will be regulated and compensation for players will be tied into scholarships/contracts at specific schools.  The Covid extra year is ending as well.  Rosters and filling them will be different because of it.

Finally, Shaka isn't dumb.  He's selling something at the moment and sees a market imbalance.  This is fluid.  While I appreciate what he's selling, he's no dummy and will certainly utilize the portal when need be.  He's simply not doing it at the cost of one of his guys losing minutes or his spot on the depth chart.  Willing to bet a large chunk of the coaches across the country wish they were doing the same.

Things change fast.  At this moment, embrace his philosophy but don't get too attached because it's liable to change

This is really well said. I don't think it's a blanket anti-portal policy as much as anti-this version of the portal.

[nyg]

Could not disagree more about Ben.  His foul rate was remarkably similar to Oso's as a Sophomore.

What was best for the team was not having to replace two players.  Maybe Jop would have been okay with a transfer coming in ahead of him and continuing to come off the bench. I would highly doubt it, but maybe.  And it wouldn't be just hurting a players feelings, it would be sending a message to everyone of the underclassmen that being 6th man of the year is not enough to get a starting spot the next year.

Again, if sending messages hurts a player's feeling, then they should move on.  They have to earn the starting spots based on performance on the court, not just sitting on the bench awaiting it. All the major programs recruit/transfer portal players and their feelings/messages are not a concern.  This is not elementary school, this is a major college basketball program, where expectations are or were extremely high the past two years, with two players who about to be drafted into the NBA. There are many others on this board who felt the same way about replacing Omax with a portal guy.  Maybe Joplin happy/OK with  coming off bench and continuing his performance, yes.  But, it didn't happen and it is in the past, and we'll never know what difference it would have made. 

[brewcity77]

I don't think what we're seeing will sustain itself. First, I'm sure that the announced dollar figures players are getting are not real. When you hear Great Osobor is making $2M, I'm guessing that's the best case scenario if he hits every possible parameter of his contracts. And as results don't measure up to dollar spent, I don't think you'll see boosters continue to pour this much in. Look at Villanova, who reportedly spent big last year, but have been comparatively quiet this year, not adding nearly the perceived level of talent or production. I am guessing that's a booster signal saying they aren't going to shell out big bucks for an NIT team. As more and more boosters see money being spent to produce mediocre results (which will be the case for most schools as only 16/year make the second weekend and 4 make the Final Four, no matter how much is spent) I'm guessing the excitement to splash big bucks for menial reward will wear off.

[nyg]

As I said earlier, I see the portal as a tool.    No more, no less.    It is currently how a lot of teams are playing the game.   Shaka has chosen his path.   I agree that advertising you will not use the portal is not the way to go.    The season will come where the personalities and the culture don't match up and 3-4 guys leave.   He had better use the portal then.  And he will have to eat a little crow.  Until then, I am enjoying watching MU go against the zeitgeist.   
    NYG, I get your concerns.    Shaka is using an old school approach in a new school world.   Once upon a time, retention and development, getting old and staying old, recruiting a replacement two classes later was the goal.    Now, it feels like a bit of a high wire act, betting that 2 of the 4 of Hamilton, Amadou, Owens, and Parham are going to be able to be rotational players up front.   That Tre and Zaide take steps forward.   That Kam can handle the point for the majority of possessions.   (FWIW, I have not given up on Stevie running the point.    But that is my hang up)
   But then I see bidding wars.    And reported $2 million bag drops.   Granted, many of those numbers are probably as inflated as the heights listed in the program.   But I absolutely want MU to stay out of that as long as possible.     If that means that Shaka lands a good 3 man class for 25, nobody leaves unexpectedly, and MU is not a player for another season, cool.

Thats why next year should be very interesting. There are so, so many questions and as you said it will be a high wire act, betting on the development of every player not named Kam, Joplin and Mitchell. 

[Its DJOver]

Again, if sending messages hurts a player's feeling, then they should move on.  They have to earn the starting spots based on performance on the court, not just sitting on the bench awaiting it. All the major programs recruit/transfer portal players and their feelings/messages are not a concern.  This is not elementary school, this is a major college basketball program, where expectations are or were extremely high the past two years, with two players who about to be drafted into the NBA. There are many others on this board who felt the same way about replacing Omax with a portal guy.  Maybe Joplin happy/OK with  coming off bench and continuing his performance, yes.  But, it didn't happen and it is in the past, and we'll never know what difference it would have made. 

It doesn't just send a message to one player, it sends a message to every player.  That message is the opposite of the bolded. It's that even if you earn it on the court by being the 6th man of the year, you will still get recruited over.

[brewcity77]

Again, if sending messages hurts a player's feeling, then they should move on.  They have to earn the starting spots based on performance on the court, not just sitting on the bench awaiting it. All the major programs recruit/transfer portal players and their feelings/messages are not a concern.  This is not elementary school, this is a major college basketball program, where expectations are or were extremely high the past two years, with two players who about to be drafted into the NBA. There are many others on this board who felt the same way about replacing Omax with a portal guy.  Maybe Joplin happy/OK with  coming off bench and continuing his performance, yes.  But, it didn't happen and it is in the past, and we'll never know what difference it would have made.

Correct, but it just as easily could've upset team chemistry and led to worse results. Maybe we could've added top-50 transfer Jordan Minor, who went to Virginia. The idea would've been "perfect, we have our O-Max replacement" but might that have led Joplin or someone else to transfer? Minor played less than 15 mpg, averaging 4 ppg/3 rpg for a team that barely made the NCAA Tournament.

This isn't a video game. Adding a player doesn't guarantee team or individual success, and can make both things worse.

[tower912]

NYG, I think Shaka using the portal in non-desperate times will come down to these things:
Is there an opening?
Does the coaching staff perceive a need?
Is the player a clear upgrade?
Will they fit culturally?
Will they come to MU without a huge bag drop?

Go 5-5 in non-desperate times and we will see.   

[Jay Bee]

It depends on the year & particular circumstances.

PS- no judging of Shaka allowed for another two years.

[Big Papi]

I think there are two important factors to consider when taking this model wholly into account:

2) The portal is about to become a lot less valuable and more expensive. One of the big positives of the COVID year has been the influx of players into the portal. Because of COVID seniors, we are getting about 300-400 extra players in the portal, of which probably 100-150 are good enough to either start or at least be contributors at the high major level. Next year, that extra year dries up, which means the number of high-value players in the portal will be roughly cut in half. Yes, I know there are 1,800+ players in the portal, but at the highest level, maybe 250-300 are HM caliber, and of those half are fifth year players. That will lead to a decrease in portal supply and an increase in how much the players that are worth it in the portal are getting. Programs that are highly reliant on the portal are about to either pay far more to keep getting the level of talent they are or will be priced out of the market and left with depleted rosters come the start of the season. Staying the course could pay off as everyone else has to deal with a sharply changing reality next spring.

Or the sharks start swimming in our waters and throw money out that anyone would be a fool to say no to and then they leave.

I don't think Shaka's strategy is sustainable.  Furthermore, I feel that we had a great window of opportunity to be serious national title contenders.  I am with nyg in that we should have probably added a portal player last year to replace Omax and this year to fill in at pg, 3-point shooter or a big.  I believe we wasted a chance last year and are going to waste it again this year.

[tower912]

Big Papi, do you see the Pitino, Calipari, Sean Miller, Holtmann model as sustainable?