MBB Transfer Portal Thread: Moser Year 4

College basketball rosters are almost complete as the NBA Draft withdrawal deadline nears on May 29. Among the players in our transfer portal rankings, only seven players who aren’t in the NBA Draft remain on the board. Another 10 who are testing the waters are also unsigned.


Portal season has become the most important roster-building time on the college basketball calendar. It’s not just who you add but who you retain. The last six national title winners have all had at least one transfer in their rotation. UConn just won with two transfers in its starting lineup, both of whom were utilizing their extra COVID-19 year — which ends after this season.

With so much movement happening across the sports, let’s look at the winners, five transfers who I think will perform better than consensus and the teams hardest hit by the portal.

Portal winners​

Kansas

Portal additions: Rylan Griffen (Alabama), Zeke Mayo (South Dakota State), AJ Storr (Wisconsin), Noah Shelby (Rice)

Kansas needed shooting and a dynamic guard who can go get a bucket when the offense breaks down. In Mayo and Griffen, Bill Self landed two of the best shooters in the portal, who combined to make 166 3-pointers last season. Storr led Wisconsin in scoring last season and is a proven bucket-getter. And while Storr wasn’t very efficient, that’s an area where Self can probably help him based on his track record with big wings. The presence of Griffen, Mayo and Storr should help an offense that had some prolonged droughts and also make Hunter Dickinson look better. Storr and Griffen — both are 6-6 — also give Self some lineup flexibility he didn’t have last season. KU will be able to play some huge lineups and also go small, with one of those wings at the four, optimizing the floor spacing that was often lacking last year.

Indiana​

Portal additions: Oumar Ballo (Arizona), Myles Rice (Washington State), Canaan Carlyle (Stanford), Luke Goode (Illinois), Langdon Hatton (Bellarmine)

The way to boot a coach out of town these days is for donors to withhold NIL funds. The good news for Mike Woodson is the IU money folks obviously aren’t there yet, because Woodson retained four starters while landing what had to be one of the pricier portal hauls. Woodson obviously prefers a big frontline, and the Hoosiers stay huge with Ballo (7-0), Malik Reneau (6-9) and Mackenzie Mgbako (6-8). That should be one of the most talented frontcourt combos in the country. The key to it working is the added shooting and shot creation coming through. Woodson got a shooter in Goode and then shot creators in Rice and Carlyle, two young guards out of the Pac-12 with some upside. Both struggled shooting the 3, which is concerning, but there’s reason to hope that will improve with age. We’ll see how it all works, but Woodson has one of the deeper rosters in the country, and he’s at least addressed some deficiencies.

Michigan​

Portal additions: Vladislav Goldin (Florida Atlantic), Danny Wolf (Yale), Roddy Gayle Jr. (Ohio State), Sam Walters (Alabama), Tre Donaldson (Auburn), Rubin Jones (North Texas)

Dusty May is going with a twin towers approach, landing two 7-footers in Goldin and Wolf. They ranked as two of the top five centers in our portal rankings, so Michigan is stacked at that position. Wolf is at least a good enough shooter to play the four, so theoretically on paper, the pairing works. May won at FAU with smaller teams that could spread the floor and shoot a lot of 3s. He seems to be targeting positional size at Michigan.

I like the upside on the wing of this class. Gayle has the potential to be an alpha scorer and turn into May’s next Johnell Davis. Walters was one of the best shooters in the portal. As a freshman at Alabama, he shot 39.4 percent from 3 and made 3.4 3s per 40 minutes — and he’s 6-10. The question is whether there’s enough playmaking on the perimeter. Both Jones and Donaldson are solid defenders who should be able to make an open shot, but this team is probably missing a dynamic setup man. Still, this is one of the best collective portal classes of the cycle.

Baylor

Portal additions: Jeremy Roach (Duke), Norchad Omier (Miami), Jalen Celestine (California)

We don’t know NIL numbers because we won’t live in a transparent college basketball world until the NCAA truly adopts a professional model, but it’s likely that Baylor is as heavily invested in its starting lineup as anyone. Scott Drew’s budget benefitted from Louisville and Kentucky’s pursuit of the veteran coach. After landing a high school class that included five-star wing VJ Edgecombe, Baylor needed a veteran floor general to replace RayJ Dennis and a frontcourt starter to replace Yves Missi. Drew landed two of the top talents at those positions in Roach and Omier. Baylor also needed a shooter with some size and grabbed Celestine late. Celestine, who is 6-6, shot 44 percent from 3 this past season. The Bears are usually heavy in pick-and-roll usage, so Roach and Omier will be integral to their offense. The roster was also pretty young without them, so their experience — both have played in a Final Four — is another bonus.

Louisville​

Portal additions: Terrence Edwards Jr. (James Madison), Chucky Hepburn (Wisconsin), Noah Waterman (BYU), Aly Khalifa (BYU), Kasean Pryor (South Florida), J’Vonne Hadley (Colorado),

Building an 11-man portal class seems impossible, but Pat Kelsey somehow pulled it off without the feeling that he made any big reaches. He also wisely landed one player who will sit out next year in Aly Khalifa so that not all 11 are expecting to be in the rotation. While Louisville’s top-end talent might not compare with the other blue bloods, it found some solid players who come from winning programs. Edwards, the Sun Belt Player of the Year, was the highest-ranked portal addition and could be Louisville’s star, but I’m most interested to see how Kelsey uses Pryor. He averaged only 13 points for South Florida, but he’s the type of playmaking big man who makes it possible to run five-out offense and play fast. Kelsey has a nice mix of skill and size and a roster that should be in consideration of the preseason Top 25, which is noteworthy considering how far Louisville had fallen.

Alabama

Portal additions: Clifford Omoruyi (Rutgers), Chris Youngblood (South Florida), Aden Holloway (Auburn), Houston Mallette (Pepperdine)

Nate Oats has one of the best-returning rosters, and he made it even better through the portal. Alabama’s biggest weakness last season was defense, so Oats landed arguably the best defensive center in the portal in Omoruyi, a two-time Big Ten all-defense honoree. Then Oats added shot-making guards who fit exactly how he wants to play. Youngblood is a plug-and-play starter who will replace Aaron Estrada, and then Holloway was insurance in case Mark Sears stays in the draft. If Sears returns, Holloway could be one of the most talented guards off the bench in the country and set up to be a star in 2025-26, when it’ll be time for him and former KU commit Labaron Philon to run the show. Mallette is the one wildcard. Alabama has so much talent on the perimeter that he could be a miss and it wouldn’t matter much, but it’s not bad when that player averaged 14.7 points and shot 41.5 percent from deep in the WCC.

Connecticut​

Portal additions: Aidan Mahaney (Saint Mary’s), Tarris Reed Jr. (Michigan)

We’re basically operating under the premise that whatever Danny Hurley touches right now turns to gold. Hurley needed a scoring guard who can shoot and landed one in Mahaney who has produced in a winning program. It feels like his best ball is still in front of him. Hurley has had so much success with two centers splitting minutes that he’s running that back with Reed and Samson Johnson. The last two years, UConn’s centers have had different strengths, and the Huskies are almost like two different teams depending on which center is on the floor. That should continue with Reed, more of a back-to-the-basket scorer, playing the yang to Johnson’s rim-rolling yin. UConn also landed McDonald’s All-American Liam McNeely during the spring. Sometimes portal season turns into programs just grabbing whatever talent they can grab and hoping to figure it out later. Hurley seems to always have a distinct plan.

Iowa State​

Portal additions: Joshua Jefferson (Saint Mary’s), Dishon Jackson (Charlotte), Nate Heise (Northern Iowa), Brandton Chatfield (Seattle)

T.J. Otzelberger also seems to be very intentional in the portal. The Cyclones work fast, adding guys early in the cycle before the bidding wars start. They got Jackson right away, giving them a good candidate to start at the five. Then late they grabbed a potential starting power forward in Jefferson, who gives them some low-post scoring they lacked and who is a terrific defender, which is a necessity to play for the Cyclones. More importantly than anything else, Otzelberger didn’t lose any of his rotational players to the portal and returns his four leading scorers. While Otzelberger has been active in the portal every year, his model is closer to the next group of teams than those that seem like they’re going on shopping sprees every spring.

Houston/Purdue/Marquette

Only Houston added a transfer out of this group of teams, with the Cougars adding Oklahoma guard Milos Uzan to replace Jamal Shead. The reason these schools are on the list is they are proving that if you either stay out of the portal or just dabble, retention is possible. They have NIL budgets, but most of the money is going toward returners rather than trying to lure the free agents in the portal. All three will be preseason top 25 teams and have won consistently by purposely focusing on high school recruiting and retention rather than turning their rosters over each season. It’s an old-school approach, and it’s working.

West Virginia

Portal additions: Tucker DeVries (Drake), Javon Small (Oklahoma State), Amani Hansberry (Illinois), Sincere Harris (Illinois), Joseph Yesufu (Washington State), Toby Okani (UIC), Eduardo Andre (Fresno State)

New coach Darian DeVries had a major advantage in that arguably the best player in the portal was his son, Tucker, but DeVries also made some smart additions outside of just his family. I loved Hansberry on the Nike EYBL circuit, and while he struggled to crack the Illini rotation, he could turn into a really solid college big man. He’s super skilled and has great feel. He is undersized, but former Illinois assistant Chester Frazier (now at WVU) is a believer. Frazier also brought Harris from Illinois. The other big addition here was Small, one of the most athletic guards in the portal. The hope for the Mountaineers is they can replicate what Kansas State did in the first year under Jerome Tang, leaning heavily on two players (DeVries and Small) and then piecing it together with role players around them.

Saint Louis

Portal additions: Robbie Avila (Indiana State), Isaiah Swope (Indiana State), Kobe Johnson (West Virginia), Josiah Dotzler (Creighton), Kalu Anya (Brown), A.J. Casey (Miami)

The Billikens should be a preseason top-25 team with the roster that new coach Josh Schertz has put together. Schertz got off to a great start by convincing sharpshooting Gibson Jimerson to withdraw from the portal and stay at SLU. He then got both Avila and Swope to follow him from Indiana State when both could have gone the high-major route. Dotzler was a player Schertz recruited and really liked when Dotzler was in high school; that’s the same career arc Ryan Conwell had — recruited by Schertz, went elsewhere (South Florida for a year) and then transferred to play for Schertz. Conwell was one of the best and most efficient mid-major guards in the country last year. Johnson has the potential to be SLU’s version of Julian Larry, playing stopper for the Billikens. Then both Anya and Casey are the types of athletic fours you need next to Avila.

St. John’s​

Portal additions: Kadary Richmond (Seton Hall), Deivon Smith (Utah), Vincent Iwuchukwu (USC), Aaron Scott (North Texas)

I’m not sure how the Richmond and Smith backcourt will work because both are ball-dominant guards, but usually it’s smart to bet on Rick Pitino. Floor spacing could be a concern. Richmond and Smith are elite at getting into the paint, but shooting has never been a strength for either. Smith just shot a career-best 40.8 percent from deep, but the attempts (71) were low. Pitino is going with a game plan of accumulating talent and figuring it out from there. Iwuchukwu was a top-30 recruit out of high school, but heart issues delayed the start of his career. He’s an upside flier who could really hit. Then Pitino got a solid wing in Scott who played for a winning program at North Texas. This is a team I want to get eyes on early to see how Pitino uses Smith and Richmond.

McNeese State​

Portal additions: Sincere Parker (Saint Louis), Brandon Murray (Ole Miss), Quadir Copeland (Syracuse), Joe Charles (Louisiana), Jerome Brewer Jr. (Texas A&M-Commerce)

Will Wade brought in a haul that would have been solid for a high-major, and just like last season, it’s going to be very difficult for anyone in the Southland to compete with the talent he’s putting on the floor. Parker was the leading scorer at Saint Louis; Copeland just averaged 9.6 points at Syracuse; Murray struggled at Ole Miss but was a double-digit scorer at LSU (for Wade) and Georgetown, and both Charles and Brewer were double-digit scorers at their previous schools.

Four transfers I’m betting on​

Ryan Conwell, Xavier (from Indiana State): Conwell is the Sycamore whose game best translates to the high-major level. The lefty is an elite shooter (40.7 from 3) and can create his shot off the bounce. Xavier lost what would have been its leading returning scorer in Desmond Claude, who transferred to USC, but I see Conwell as an upgrade.

Deivon Smith, St. John’s (from Utah): Smith’s speed and ability to deliver pinpoint passes on the move with either hand is special. He’s a guy not a lot of people have heard of who could make St. John’s a must-watch team.

R.J. Godfrey, Georgia: He’s built like a defensive end and has some game too. He was behind P.J. Hall and Ian Schiefffelin at Clemson. Given a chance to play starter minutes, Godfrey could be a breakout star. His per-40 averages — 15.7 points, 8.7 rebounds, 1.6 blocks — support this argument.

Dain Dainja, Illinois: Brad Underwood decided to embrace a more modern, five-out style at Illinois, and Dainja didn’t fit. But he produced when he was on the floor. His per-40 averages for his career: 20.2 points, 11.7 rebounds and 2.3 blocks while shooting 64.8 percent from the field. Not many bigs possess his combination of touch, hands and footwork. If given touches and minutes, he could put up big numbers.

The portal was unkind to …​

Low- and mid-majors: There were 53 players who entered the transfer portal after earning first-team all-conference honors from leagues outside the Power 6. Of those, only 35 returned to their team.

Wisconsin: The Badgers would be a preseason top-25 team if they could have retained everyone with eligibility. But they lost Storr, Hepburn and key reserve Connor Essegian, who bizarrely went from averaging 11.7 points in 27.4 minutes per game as a freshman to 3.2 points in 7.3 minutes per game as a sophomore. The Essegian departure wasn’t surprising, but losing Storr and Hepburn had to be frustrating for Greg Gard.

Saint Mary’s: Mahaney grew up going to Saint Mary’s games and played youth ball with Randy Bennett’s son. Jefferson was a top-150 recruit who developed into one of the best forwards in the WCC. These are the kind of guys a winning program retained pre-NIL. Now, both will play next season for high-majors.

Washington State: You could take your pick of schools that lost their head coach and were depleted by the portal, but I’m going with the Cougars as the hardest hit. Wazzu, which hadn’t to the NCAA Tournament since 2008, advanced to the second round in March before Kyle Smith left for Stanford. The program is now moving to the WCC — and must replace 12 of the 13 players who saw the floor last season.

Oklahoma: The Sooners climbed to No. 7 nationally in mid-December and were one of the darlings of the nonconference season behind strong guard play from Javian McCollum, Otega Oweh and Uzan. An injury-riddled Big 12 season saw them just miss the NCAA Tournament, but at least the core would be returning. Unfortunately, it didn’t. McCollum transferred to Georgia Tech, Oweh to Kentucky and Uzan to Houston. OU also lost backup big man John Hugley IV to Xavier, and freshman Kaden Cooper also hit the portal.

Seton Hall: Richmond and Dre Davis started their careers in the ACC. They transferred to Seton Hall before Shaheen Holloway showed up, but he helped turn them into stars. Now he has to coach against Richmond, who transferred in league to St. John’s while Davis left for Ole Miss. The Pirates may have been a top-25 team had everyone returned to go along with their portal additions. Instead, sixth man Isaiah Coleman is the only returner from the NIT champs.

Minnesota: Minnesota climbed out of the Big Ten cellar for the first time in Ben Johnson’s tenure and had a core returning that would have given the Gophers a good shot at making the NCAA Tournament. Then three of the starters —Elijah Hawkins, Pharrell Payne and Cam Christie — all hit the portal.

Harvard: The Crimson have had a rough stretch post-COVID, but Tommy Amaker had one of the youngest teams in college basketball this season and there was hope with freshman star Malik Mack (the league’s rookie of the year) and sophomore forward Chisom Okpara. Turns out an Ivy League education is not enough to stiff arm the portal, as both left.
Meh this guy puts a LOT more stock in Oweh, Uzan, mccollum and the rest, than i do. The only guy i would take back out of those 3 is mccollum and thats only if he hits the gym all summer to get his 3 % up drastically

I'm much more bummed that hes high on Godfrey at Georgia and i think we had a chance at him...
 
There are 300+ D-1 schools, and we are one of 7 mentioned by name in a negative light. Whether the phrasing is loser, unkind, or whatever word you choose, I don't know how it can be any more clear that the writer/Athletic staff view OU's roster as worse as a result of portal turnover this offseason. It's perfectly fine to have a different view and disagree with the writer, but he clearly is not impressed by how the offseason went for us.

Let's think of this another way. His first category of teams is listed as "winners." Does it not stand to reason that while he maybe didn't want to label the other group as "losers," that is a reasonable and obvious conclusion? And if he thought that we landed a good incoming class of transfers, why would we even be in the "unkind" grouping?
A bit hyperbolic...you can just as easily spin it as:

"Only 15 teams mentioned as winners out of 300+ D-I schools! How many didn't win???"

You know no one is going to write about 300+ teams and I would bet that OU is ahead of at least 200+ D-I schools.
Only 4 out of 22 teams mentioned were not P-5 schools: McNeese St (winner), Saint Louis (winner), Saint Mary's (unkind), Harvard (unkind)

The writer also doesn't mention ANY of the unkind teams portal-in players. So if you want to read into anything, he is saying how unfortunate the schools losing players was, nothing about gaining players.

Just low hanging fruit there.
 
Totally agree! I don’t like where our program is right now, but the attacks on Moser here are personal. I wonder what he did to a few posters?
Robbed us of joy in march for a historic 3 years in a row (going for a 4-peat this year)
 
There are 300+ D-1 schools, and we are one of 7 mentioned by name in a negative light. Whether the phrasing is loser, unkind, or whatever word you choose, I don't know how it can be any more clear that the writer/Athletic staff view OU's roster as worse as a result of portal turnover this offseason. It's perfectly fine to have a different view and disagree with the writer, but he clearly is not impressed by how the offseason went for us.

Let's think of this another way. His first category of teams is listed as "winners." Does it not stand to reason that while he maybe didn't want to label the other group as "losers," that is a reasonable and obvious conclusion? And if he thought that we landed a good incoming class of transfers, why would we even be in the "unkind" grouping?
My point is the article and the writer says nothing about the incoming roster being worse than what left. The writer made absolutely zero reference to the incoming players.

His angle was they lost more to the portal, along with the other teams mentioned. In his "The portal was unkind to" part of the article, he talks about the talent lost on each of the teams that was significant. On none of those teams does he mention incoming players to those 7 teams- only departing ones. That's why, IMO, it shouldn't be referenced as losers. Maybe most decimated, but not the biggest losers.

To your point on 350 D1 schools that only 7 were mentioned "negatively", that certainly doesn't mean that we are one of the worst 7, especially when the recruiting services rank 5 of those schools somewhere in their top 75 in rankings in the portal. Not the bottom 7. Just like those schools listed as "winners" in the portal weren't the only schools that improved the roster. Just those the writer selected as notable. Not even the best, at least according to rankings, just notable to the writer.

Certainly, it can be debated whether the incoming roster is as good as what left. But that would be personal conjecture or opinion, not anything opined or rated in The Athletic.

Easy to pick out articles to support one's opinion when that is what one is searching to find. But PM can't coach, can't develop players, or can't recruit isn't found in this article.
 
Last edited:
A bit hyperbolic...you can just as easily spin it as:

"Only 15 teams mentioned as winners out of 300+ D-I schools! How many didn't win???"

You know no one is going to write about 300+ teams and I would bet that OU is ahead of at least 200+ D-I schools.
Only 4 out of 22 teams mentioned were not P-5 schools: McNeese St (winner), Saint Louis (winner), Saint Mary's (unkind), Harvard (unkind)

The writer also doesn't mention ANY of the unkind teams portal-in players. So if you want to read into anything, he is saying how unfortunate the schools losing players was, nothing about gaining players.

Just low hanging fruit there.
That kind of proves my point -- he only chooses a very small number of teams to write about, which suggests that he views the ones he does feature as having especially good or bad portal years. And obviously it is relative to a degree -- a P5 (now P4) team clearly is judged differently than, say, Arkansas Pine Bluff. (Something tells me they will be on our noncon sooner than later.)
 
That kind of proves my point -- he only chooses a very small number of teams to write about, which suggests that he views the ones he does feature as having especially good or bad portal years
I mean, not really at all. It suggests nothing to that matter.


Here are the rankings of the teams he wrote about:

Kansas - 27
Indiana - 91 (blue blood)
Michigan - 128 (blue blood, new blood)
Baylor - 15
Louisville - 185 (back to relevance?)
Alabama - 14
UConn - 1
Iowa St - 8
Houston/Purdue/Marquette - 2/3/13(for not losing players - retention)
West Virginia - 144 (an outlier, will admit)
Saint Louis - 199 (cinderella - new coach from Indiana St, good story)
St. John's - 21 (Pitino - back to relevance?)
McNeese St - 67 (Will Wade - out of ordinary)

He briefly mentions low-mid- majors in the unkind section meaning, they are basically not going to be talked about, bc why?

Wisconsin - 17
Saint Mary's - 20
Washington St - 42 (new coach, who dis?)
Oklahoma - 46
Seton Hall - 50
Minnesota - 78
Harvard - 228 (Ivy League comparison, fun tidbit, and got decimated)

Every team he wrote about was for a specific reason to some sort of relevance. West Virginia being an outlier. Every other team is a top team or has NIL bringing back their crappy results into blue blood status again. Either with a bigtime head coach or NIL money (ie Michigan, Indiana, Louisville).

His writing was deliberate and not to say here were the worst portal teams, just here were the relevant teams that got hit hard with transfers out.
 
I mean, not really at all. It suggests nothing to that matter.


Here are the rankings of the teams he wrote about:

Kansas - 27
Indiana - 91 (blue blood)
Michigan - 128 (blue blood, new blood)
Baylor - 15
Louisville - 185 (back to relevance?)
Alabama - 14
UConn - 1
Iowa St - 8
Houston/Purdue/Marquette - 2/3/13(for not losing players - retention)
West Virginia - 144 (an outlier, will admit)
Saint Louis - 199 (cinderella - new coach from Indiana St, good story)
St. John's - 21 (Pitino - back to relevance?)
McNeese St - 67 (Will Wade - out of ordinary)

He briefly mentions low-mid- majors in the unkind section meaning, they are basically not going to be talked about, bc why?

Wisconsin - 17
Saint Mary's - 20
Washington St - 42 (new coach, who dis?)
Oklahoma - 46
Seton Hall - 50
Minnesota - 78
Harvard - 228 (Ivy League comparison, fun tidbit, and got decimated)

Every team he wrote about was for a specific reason to some sort of relevance. West Virginia being an outlier. Every other team is a top team or has NIL bringing back their crappy results into blue blood status again. Either with a bigtime head coach or NIL money (ie Michigan, Indiana, Louisville).

His writing was deliberate and not to say here were the worst portal teams, just here were the relevant teams that got hit hard with transfers out.
I agree -- I have not suggested that his article means we have one of the seven worst portal classes. Clearly that would be ridiculous to suggest. There are dozens of low majors who we would never rank behind. But again, to suggest that he is simply going off "portal out" is naive and a bit disingenuous. Again, let's think this this through. If we had lost the same guys we lost, but brought in Richmond, another top 50 guy, and a couple more top 100 guys, there is zero chance we would have been on his "unkind" list, even though the outgoing players would have been identical. So even if he doesn't spell it out in the short amount of space he had, it is inherent in the premise of the column that he is taking stock of the totality of a team's portal experience this offseason.
 
I agree -- I have not suggested that his article means we have one of the seven worst portal classes. Clearly that would be ridiculous to suggest. There are dozens of low majors who we would never rank behind. But again, to suggest that he is simply going off "portal out" is naive and a bit disingenuous. Again, let's think this this through. If we had lost the same guys we lost, but brought in Richmond, another top 50 guy, and a couple more top 100 guys, there is zero chance we would have been on his "unkind" list, even though the outgoing players would have been identical. So even if he doesn't spell it out in the short amount of space he had, it is inherent in the premise of the column that he is taking stock of the totality of a team's portal experience this offseason.
That is fair. I think we just disagree on that slight contextual difference on the portal-ins. But at the same time, can also see your POV on reading into the unkind list in the same manner as he presents the "winners" portion. Not too much of a leap, so can agree to disagree with you on this one, respectfully. You may very well be right on the portalers, but only time will tell.

One more year of this Moser-speriment.
 
I agree -- I have not suggested that his article means we have one of the seven worst portal classes. Clearly that would be ridiculous to suggest. There are dozens of low majors who we would never rank behind. But again, to suggest that he is simply going off "portal out" is naive and a bit disingenuous. Again, let's think this this through. If we had lost the same guys we lost, but brought in Richmond, another top 50 guy, and a couple more top 100 guys, there is zero chance we would have been on his "unkind" list, even though the outgoing players would have been identical. So even if he doesn't spell it out in the short amount of space he had, it is inherent in the premise of the column that he is taking stock of the totality of a team's portal experience this offseason.
That is the point- in the section "The portal was unkind to..." he is not talking or taking stock in any way of the TOTALITY of a team's portal experience. Only the losses, or half of the portal experience, of those teams noted. Not the total experience in the portal.

And again, I'm not implying that means we won or are better off. That is debatable, would be optimistic to say we are, and only time will be the judge for sure. But it is not discussed in the article nor implied.
 
That is the point- in the section "The portal was unkind to..." he is not talking or taking stock in any way of the TOTALITY of a team's portal experience. Only the losses, or half of the portal experience, of those teams noted. Not the total experience in the portal.

And again, I'm not implying that means we won or are better off. That is debatable, would be optimistic to say we are, and only time will be the judge for sure. But it is not discussed in the article nor implied.
I simply don't think there is any way that is what he is doing. If our entire roster had left and we had replaced them with the entire Houston roster, we wouldn't have been on the unkind list. Perhaps he could/should have been more explicit in his wording, but, again, it seems like a pretty clear concept that in a column discussing which teams won and lost in the portal, he is looking at the entirety of the situation. I mean, the title of the article does say "who won, who lost," so he is clearly using unkind and lost/losers interchangably.
 
But I think a bunch of people who work in college sports are probably better/more equipped to make these decisions than most of us on this board.

Do you think that a college coach who has led a mid-major to its only ever Final 4 is better/more equipped to make roster decisions than the posters on this board?
 
Do you think that a college coach who has led a mid-major to its only ever Final 4 is better/more equipped to make roster decisions than the posters on this board?
Who said anything about decisions? He tried and failed to get several better portal players and this is what we ended up with. And he didn't choose to have the four guys from last season leave -- those guys made their own decisions.
 
Who said anything about decisions? He tried and failed to get several better portal players and this is what we ended up with. And he didn't choose to have the four guys from last season leave -- those guys made their own decisions.

Playing Norweather, not playing Cooper enough, not playing Oweh enough as a freshman, etc.
 
Yeah, for the talent Capel had those couple years, it was just inexcusable how horrible the team was. If Kruger or maybe even PM had the amount of talent on one team he had they undoubtedly would have won a couple rounds in the NCAA tourney. I think Kruger would have, anyway. But chemistry does matter, and in this case these great players just didn't play well together, and sometimes a team full of 'lesser' talent plays much better together and is a better team than teams with high profile guys that don't play well with others at their level. That's how i'm hoping this upcoming season will turn out for us anyway.
 
247 released a way-too-early power ranking for the SEC in basketball next year and had us 12th in the league ahead of Georgia, South Carolina, Vandy, and LSU in that order. Texas was 9th FWIW.
 
The only schedule metrics that the coach is responsible for is the noncon. Period. There is nothing a head coach can do to control the quality of their league or which teams they play twice as opposed to once. We missed the tournament last season because of our noncon. The numbers showed that and the committee came right out and said it. Conversely, we MADE the tourney at least once under Lon precisely because we scheduled (and did well against) a tough noncon. The OP’s point was that Moser for some reason doesn’t get the same benefit of the doubt from the committee. In reality, there is a very clear and rational reason for that, especially this season.


The SOS measures the totality of the schedule. You can't pick and choose. You are trying to pick out a portion of the schedule to complain about the the total schedule was similar. You want to point out the SOS so I fave you comparable SOS with Lon.

As far as the Athletic article you are misquoted it...you're latching on to one part and projecting your own opinion in it to attempt to prove a point. The article only pointed out OU losing players...nothing else.

The new guys may or may not succeed and you 100% have a right to your opinion but please stop stating your opinion as facts or twist someone else's words (the Athletic) into something it isn't.

I AM curious though. Since you are so stuck on PMs failure and using not getting into the tournament for your argument.....if we made the tournament this year, would you still be grandstanding about PM and this team being a total failure? Same record....same everything....but we get in the tournament?
 
There are 300+ D-1 schools, and we are one of 7 mentioned by name in a negative light. Whether the phrasing is loser, unkind, or whatever word you choose, I don't know how it can be any more clear that the writer/Athletic staff view OU's roster as worse as a result of portal turnover this offseason. It's perfectly fine to have a different view and disagree with the writer, but he clearly is not impressed by how the offseason went for us.

Let's think of this another way. His first category of teams is listed as "winners." Does it not stand to reason that while he maybe didn't want to label the other group as "losers," that is a reasonable and obvious conclusion? And if he thought that we landed a good incoming class of transfers, why would we even be in the "unkind" grouping?

No...it doesn't stand to reason......why make up stuff to argue? It doesn't say losers....if he meant lovers, wouldn't it stand to reason he would have put "losers"?
 
No...it doesn't stand to reason......why make up stuff to argue? It doesn't say losers....if he meant lovers, wouldn't it stand to reason he would have put "losers"?
The headline at the top of the article: "Who won, and who lost, in college basketball's transfer portal?" For the people in the back, LOST IS IN THE FREAKING HEADLINE.
 
Back
Top