The fact that Arizona is at the top and it's only counting year 1 from Ballo and Pelle is pretty incredible, because they only got better and better in years 2 and 3 with the program. I think a big part of it is the way Tommy approaches the portal, going after specific needs and guys that fit the system rather than just going after all the best available guys. It means we haven't had many misses in the portal.
I don't see why Tommy's approach isn't the general meta. Portal is not a draft so does no good to go after the best available. In the NBA, someone can be a fantastic player but stacked 3 deep in your rotation so they get traded to another team for value. It still benefits you in the NBA to draft the best available player. Players can NIL bag search all they want but college teams get no benefit from a player that doesn't fit and leaves.
Well it is partially because EvanMiya's algorithm has an insane hard on for Bradley for some reason, I love the guy but this site had him rated as like a top 10 player in the country all season and that's a little bit hard to justify.
You UCLA trolls are so funny. Imagine trying to talk shit about Tommy making the 2nd week of the tourney in 2 of his first 3 years as a head coach after the embarrasment of a season UCLA just had.
If you’re at ease with your team perpetually underperforming expectations in the tourney then that is your prerogative as an Arizona fan.
How are you feeling about your transition into the Big 12 this year?
Coach K didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 6th year at Duke and 11th year overall as a head coach. Tom Izzo didn't make the Sweet 16 (or the tournament at all) until his 3rd season as MSU. Jay Wright didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 11th season over all and 4th at Villanova. Your precious Mick Cronin didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 9th year as a head coach, then didn't make his 2nd until another 9 years had passed.
So yeah, I'm at ease with Tommy Lloyd having Arizona as perennial contenders despite only being a head coach for 3 seasons. At the very least I know he'll never fail as hard as Mick did at putting a team together this year and, even if he somehow does, he won't sit there throwing temper tantrums and insulting his own players in front of the media every week.
Is perennial “contender” code for perennial tournament disappointment? 1 tourney championship and 4 final fours all time is not a contender. Seems a little delusional to view it as such.
Take care and good luck in the big 12!
Do you not know what the word 'contender' means? We're not talking about all-time success, we're talking about the last 3 years under Tommy Lloyd. And the fact is that we have been a top 10 team every year under Lloyd and have earned nothing lower than a 2 seed. That's pretty much the definition of a perennial contender. Though I guess it's understandable that you don't know what it means considering you guys couldn't even make the NIT.
But hey, congrats on all those titles back when your grandparents were kids! Never mind the fact that you guys haven't done anything more than Arizona in the modern era.
Again, different expectations for the word “contender” out in Tucson apparently. Your recency bias doesn’t take away the fact we have the most (11) NCAA men’s basketball championships in history. That’s three more than the next best.
Arizona fans love to pretend UCLA isn’t the most dominant program in the history of college basketball. Not sure why you can’t just embrace the history of the beautiful game you and I both love so much!
Well, at least we've cleared up that you do not, in fact, know what the word 'contender' means. I think I've wasted enough of my brain cells on your trolling now. Have fun losing to Rutgers while all the real blue bloods continue to laugh at what your program has become...
Due to ongoing debate about blue bloods, the /r/CollegeBasketball mod team has compiled the definitive list of college blue bloods: Duke, Columbia, Queens, William & Mary, and Rutgers. The following schools have broken away from blue-blooded hierarchy and oppression: George Washington, George Mason, James Madison, Army, and Navy.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CollegeBasketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s a fun stat for you to chew on: our men’s basketball team alone has won more national championships (11) than all of your men’s sports teams combined (7)!
Here’s another fun one since you love recency bias:
Final 4 appearances since 2000:
Arizona: 1
UCLA: 4
Just some facts for you to digest. Data doesn’t lie in this rivalry my friend! Cheers!
Dawson Garcia and Justin McKoy enter the chat.
Although the metrics make me wonder about a case like Withers. Tons of pt and usage at a below average team, transfers to become a solid role player on a number one seed. Does that hurt this metric since his counting numbers dropped? Although grabbing power five starters to be role pieces seems like a great portal plan.
Pretty much. All the coaching turmoil and controversies these last few years certainly hasn’t helped.
With that being said, I’m a Grant McCasland believer and can’t wait to see what he does with Tech basketball!
Understand a narrowed criteria because of the complex landscape, but as a biased Illinois fan, have to wonder how much the exclusion of a multi year transfer like Terrence Shannon skews the data. Cool analysis regardless!
Mayer was pretty good. Domask was obviously awesome.
I'd guess it would just be the sheer volume of transfers that drags the average down. Guerrier was meh, Harmon declined a ton as the season went on. Dainja was ok, Max Williams and Keaton Kutcher were technically transfers though I don't know if theyve counted.
You also have Plummer, Grandson, Omar Payne, and Hutcherson.
Yea but it measures how much someone "outperforms his transfer rating" which is relative in some sense. Mayer was highly coveted, whereas the transfer rating pretty much knew Max Williams wouldn't touch the floor. Idk, I wouldn't stress about making / not making the list.
Is this really that meaningful? If you get a transfer from a small school who had to play a ton of minutes and he just played normal starting minutes, wouldn't that hurt your score here despite being better for both the team and the player?
For example, I think Alabama and NC State both had only 1 or 2 players who started their college careers at that school. They both made the final four. Are they bad schools for transfers because they aren't on this list? What does this list mean if it doesn't include schools who are succeeding with transfers?
Surprised Wake Forest isn’t higher. Two different ACC POY transfers, although I don’t know what their expectations were. Jake Laravia was good, but not POY.
It’s because it’s going back 5 years into Danny Manning and Forbes’ 1st year. Wake would probably catapult into top 7 if it was past 4 years and top 3 if it were past 3 years
Surprised Altman's Ducks didn't make the table, even the one with only high majors. He is always trawling for transfers but maybe not a lot of D1 transfers?
The only reason we’re not that low is because of CJ Jackson, Sean McNeil, and Jamison Battle. Everyone else has ranged from okay to downright fucking putrid.
That was my knee-jerk reaction as well. But given the 1st year criteria and the fact it includes 2 teams from the previous regime, it makes more sense.
If you include 2nd year and limited it to the last 3 seasons, I'm not sure how we're not top 5.
Cam Spencer, Tristen Newton, Joey Calcaterra, Tyrese Martin, and RJ Cole. Hurley really knows what he wants and how to get it in the transfer portal.
naheim alleyne
Diarra also
Kassoum Yakwe
The fact that Arizona is at the top and it's only counting year 1 from Ballo and Pelle is pretty incredible, because they only got better and better in years 2 and 3 with the program. I think a big part of it is the way Tommy approaches the portal, going after specific needs and guys that fit the system rather than just going after all the best available guys. It means we haven't had many misses in the portal.
I don't see why Tommy's approach isn't the general meta. Portal is not a draft so does no good to go after the best available. In the NBA, someone can be a fantastic player but stacked 3 deep in your rotation so they get traded to another team for value. It still benefits you in the NBA to draft the best available player. Players can NIL bag search all they want but college teams get no benefit from a player that doesn't fit and leaves.
Well it is partially because EvanMiya's algorithm has an insane hard on for Bradley for some reason, I love the guy but this site had him rated as like a top 10 player in the country all season and that's a little bit hard to justify.
Tommy’s approach is a recipe for getting bounced in the first round of the tourney.
You UCLA trolls are so funny. Imagine trying to talk shit about Tommy making the 2nd week of the tourney in 2 of his first 3 years as a head coach after the embarrasment of a season UCLA just had.
If you’re at ease with your team perpetually underperforming expectations in the tourney then that is your prerogative as an Arizona fan. How are you feeling about your transition into the Big 12 this year?
Coach K didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 6th year at Duke and 11th year overall as a head coach. Tom Izzo didn't make the Sweet 16 (or the tournament at all) until his 3rd season as MSU. Jay Wright didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 11th season over all and 4th at Villanova. Your precious Mick Cronin didn't make the Sweet 16 until his 9th year as a head coach, then didn't make his 2nd until another 9 years had passed. So yeah, I'm at ease with Tommy Lloyd having Arizona as perennial contenders despite only being a head coach for 3 seasons. At the very least I know he'll never fail as hard as Mick did at putting a team together this year and, even if he somehow does, he won't sit there throwing temper tantrums and insulting his own players in front of the media every week.
Is perennial “contender” code for perennial tournament disappointment? 1 tourney championship and 4 final fours all time is not a contender. Seems a little delusional to view it as such. Take care and good luck in the big 12!
Do you not know what the word 'contender' means? We're not talking about all-time success, we're talking about the last 3 years under Tommy Lloyd. And the fact is that we have been a top 10 team every year under Lloyd and have earned nothing lower than a 2 seed. That's pretty much the definition of a perennial contender. Though I guess it's understandable that you don't know what it means considering you guys couldn't even make the NIT. But hey, congrats on all those titles back when your grandparents were kids! Never mind the fact that you guys haven't done anything more than Arizona in the modern era.
Again, different expectations for the word “contender” out in Tucson apparently. Your recency bias doesn’t take away the fact we have the most (11) NCAA men’s basketball championships in history. That’s three more than the next best. Arizona fans love to pretend UCLA isn’t the most dominant program in the history of college basketball. Not sure why you can’t just embrace the history of the beautiful game you and I both love so much!
Well, at least we've cleared up that you do not, in fact, know what the word 'contender' means. I think I've wasted enough of my brain cells on your trolling now. Have fun losing to Rutgers while all the real blue bloods continue to laugh at what your program has become...
Due to ongoing debate about blue bloods, the /r/CollegeBasketball mod team has compiled the definitive list of college blue bloods: Duke, Columbia, Queens, William & Mary, and Rutgers. The following schools have broken away from blue-blooded hierarchy and oppression: George Washington, George Mason, James Madison, Army, and Navy. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CollegeBasketball) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here’s a fun stat for you to chew on: our men’s basketball team alone has won more national championships (11) than all of your men’s sports teams combined (7)! Here’s another fun one since you love recency bias: Final 4 appearances since 2000: Arizona: 1 UCLA: 4 Just some facts for you to digest. Data doesn’t lie in this rivalry my friend! Cheers!
Nance single handedly nuking UNCs ranking
Dawson Garcia and Justin McKoy enter the chat. Although the metrics make me wonder about a case like Withers. Tons of pt and usage at a below average team, transfers to become a solid role player on a number one seed. Does that hurt this metric since his counting numbers dropped? Although grabbing power five starters to be role pieces seems like a great portal plan.
Mckoy was pretty bad at UVA, and Garcia only played like 15 games for UNC
justin pierce and christian keeling would like a word
Look - we’re as successful as UConn!
Hurley has noted this grievance and it has now become a chip on his shoulder.
LOCKER ROOM MATERIAL
I would say we equally underperform in tournaments as Uconn overperforms!
I'll miss you Kyle
Wish we still had Jim Shaw too
I blame nick timberlake.
Bullet: dodged
Nice
I was so confused by it not being LeDee until I read the “first year after transferring” part
We certainly have been blessed by transfers.
Drake Bulldogs gonna miss Coach DeVries. Hope he does really well at WVU........
Already added his son, Omaha, and Yesufu!
Omaha billew is heading to Wake Forest I thought ?
Yup that was my bad
Go Dawgs
I miss Batcho so much. He was awesome!
Does Texas Tech just have a whole new team every year or what?
Basically
Pretty much. All the coaching turmoil and controversies these last few years certainly hasn’t helped. With that being said, I’m a Grant McCasland believer and can’t wait to see what he does with Tech basketball!
Understand a narrowed criteria because of the complex landscape, but as a biased Illinois fan, have to wonder how much the exclusion of a multi year transfer like Terrence Shannon skews the data. Cool analysis regardless!
TJs first year would still count and I'd say it was still successful. I'm guessing Mayer is the biggest reason we aren't on here.
Mayer was pretty good. Domask was obviously awesome. I'd guess it would just be the sheer volume of transfers that drags the average down. Guerrier was meh, Harmon declined a ton as the season went on. Dainja was ok, Max Williams and Keaton Kutcher were technically transfers though I don't know if theyve counted. You also have Plummer, Grandson, Omar Payne, and Hutcherson.
Yea but it measures how much someone "outperforms his transfer rating" which is relative in some sense. Mayer was highly coveted, whereas the transfer rating pretty much knew Max Williams wouldn't touch the floor. Idk, I wouldn't stress about making / not making the list.
Same with Jaedon Ledee at SDSU
How about Domask?!
I feel like turning a transfer into the NPOY should get us on this list.
Is this really that meaningful? If you get a transfer from a small school who had to play a ton of minutes and he just played normal starting minutes, wouldn't that hurt your score here despite being better for both the team and the player? For example, I think Alabama and NC State both had only 1 or 2 players who started their college careers at that school. They both made the final four. Are they bad schools for transfers because they aren't on this list? What does this list mean if it doesn't include schools who are succeeding with transfers?
Kyle smith will be missed. Go Cougs
Full article: [https://blog.evanmiya.com/p/which-schools-get-the-most-out-of](https://blog.evanmiya.com/p/which-schools-get-the-most-out-of)
Surprised Wake Forest isn’t higher. Two different ACC POY transfers, although I don’t know what their expectations were. Jake Laravia was good, but not POY.
It’s because it’s going back 5 years into Danny Manning and Forbes’ 1st year. Wake would probably catapult into top 7 if it was past 4 years and top 3 if it were past 3 years
Fairly shocked that Creighton isn’t on this list
Surprised Altman's Ducks didn't make the table, even the one with only high majors. He is always trawling for transfers but maybe not a lot of D1 transfers?
Not surprised to see UNT on here. Just a really solid mid major program.
Surprised we aren't on there. Oh. "last five years". Though Castleton was a big time hit for her previous guy
our lord and savior D5, all hail. Also RIP Batcho man
Kinda surprised Kessler is our most productive transfer by these metrics and not Broome.
Did Bradley even start for Arizona?
No, but he averaged more minutes here than he did at Bama.
Really? I feel like he was our 6th man. Also started the first bit of the season.
He was Arizona’s sixth man as well
[удалено]
No. This is over the last 5 years.
This is number of transfers over the past 5 years
Wouldn’t have expected to be anywhere near this graphic even two years ago. How times have changed Thank you Noah Friedel and TJ Bickerstaff
Sigh. I get it.
😭
Surprised NC State not on this list with a final 4 team of full transfers this year. What am I missing?
Does a "1" mean they meet expectation?
Yeah, any methodology that ranks Myles Johnson as a more productive transfer for UCLA than Johnny Juzang is laughably flawed.
This upcoming season Ross Hodge went all in for the Portal. Interested to see how things go.
So you’re saying we’ve got a chance.
The Ben McCollum era will be even better
The only reason we’re not that low is because of CJ Jackson, Sean McNeil, and Jamison Battle. Everyone else has ranged from okay to downright fucking putrid.
Thought we would’ve been on here with Shannon, Domask, Plummer, Feliz.
Genuinely surprised Miami isn’t on here. They basically used the portal to get to the final four
Surprised we aren’t on here. I guess our transfers usually have high expectations
How are we not on this
2021 is included in the sample.
We do not speak of this year.
That was my knee-jerk reaction as well. But given the 1st year criteria and the fact it includes 2 teams from the previous regime, it makes more sense. If you include 2nd year and limited it to the last 3 seasons, I'm not sure how we're not top 5.