• Hi Guest, want to participate in the discussions, keep track of read/unread posts and more? Create your free account and increase the benefits of your eGriz.com experience today!

Transfer Rule to Help UM

hunt-ducks

Well-known member
I have a feeling that the ability of kids to transfer programs will help some teams more than others. I believe that the bigger programs will be hurt by the transfer rules, while the Mid-Majors will be helped. The reason is that players who sign with the traditional dominant schools, but are not able to crack the starting line-ups, will look to transfer to programs where thy can start. And, within the universe of Mid-majors, the teams who traditionally compete to get into the NCAA playoffs will be the winners for these transfers, thus widening the gap between the top conference teams and the pretenders.
Within the Big Sky, I expect Montana and Weber to reap the transfer benefits, and to become even more dominant in the conference. What are your thoughts?
 
hunt-ducks said:
I have a feeling that the ability of kids to transfer programs will help some teams more than others. I believe that the bigger programs will be hurt by the transfer rules, while the Mid-Majors will be helped. The reason is that players who sign with the traditional dominant schools, but are not able to crack the starting line-ups, will look to transfer to programs where thy can start. And, within the universe of Mid-majors, the teams who traditionally compete to get into the NCAA playoffs will be the winners for these transfers, thus widening the gap between the top conference teams and the pretenders.
Within the Big Sky, I expect Montana and Weber to reap the transfer benefits, and to become even more dominant in the conference. What are your thoughts?

I think you will see players that perform well at the mids transfer up while players that did not perform well at P5 transfer down. I am not sure that really helps any mid school. Also, teams like Montana and Weber can only take a few in a given year, so you would think that other mid schools would do just as well just based on numbers.
 
HelenaHandBasket said:
hunt-ducks said:
I have a feeling that the ability of kids to transfer programs will help some teams more than others. I believe that the bigger programs will be hurt by the transfer rules, while the Mid-Majors will be helped. The reason is that players who sign with the traditional dominant schools, but are not able to crack the starting line-ups, will look to transfer to programs where thy can start. And, within the universe of Mid-majors, the teams who traditionally compete to get into the NCAA playoffs will be the winners for these transfers, thus widening the gap between the top conference teams and the pretenders.
Within the Big Sky, I expect Montana and Weber to reap the transfer benefits, and to become even more dominant in the conference. What are your thoughts?

I think you will see players that perform well at the mids transfer up while players that did not perform well at P5 transfer down. I am not sure that really helps any mid school. Also, teams like Montana and Weber can only take a few in a given year, so you would think that other mid schools would do just as well just based on numbers.

Interesting take. But where will these mid- players who perform well go to? How many are good enough to move-up to the power schools, and be anything more than back-ups? If they merely move-up from a mid-major to lower tier school in one of the top conferences, will they enhance their ability to play at the next level? I don't think they will. Any Mid-major player good enough to possibly play at the next level, will be scouted extensively by NBA scouts, like Damian Lillard was. He will be the star on his team. If he transfers to a power program, how many touches will he get to show his talents, among the other great players on his team? To me, he would be better-off staying with his Mid-major team to be "the man".
I think that the balance of benefits for the transfer rules are skewed towards the Mid-majors getting solid drop-downs who want to start to display their talents, but who also want to play for a team (like Montana and Weber), who gives them the best chance to make the dance.

I would love to hear Citay's take on the topic.
 
Interesting thoughts. My view is that it may be tougher for Montana to get some of these kids. The reasoning being Travis will always preach team and defense first.
Most of these kids will feel like they have already wasted 1-2 years at a P-5 and need to go to a place where they can immediately showcase their skills (trust me when I say EVERY D-1 player thinks he is going to be a pro somewhere).

A current example is NAU. NAU recently got a commitment from a kid from Virginia Tech. His main talking point was basically that he was sold on being able to take Cam Shelton’s place and average 20pts a game. NAU may be much improved, but it is unlikely they will be in the top 5 of any pre-season BSC poll. So the possibility of going to the NCAA tourney was likely not a big part of his process. Also, many of these kids may have already experienced the tourney once or twice.

I also think none of this hurts P-5 schools and other conferences such as the Big East. If anything it makes it easier for them to get rid of the non-performers and refresh with mid-major stars who are looking to get to a bigger stage. Not having to sit out a year makes both transfers up and transfers down more valuable.
 
GrizBall said:
Interesting thoughts. My view is that it may be tougher for Montana to get some of these kids. The reasoning being Travis will always preach team and defense first.
Most of these kids will feel like they have already wasted 1-2 years at a P-5 and need to go to a place where they can immediately showcase their skills (trust me when I say EVERY D-1 player thinks he is going to be a pro somewhere).

A current example is NAU. NAU recently got a commitment from a kid from Virginia Tech. His main talking point was basically that he was sold on being able to take Cam Shelton’s place and average 20pts a game. NAU may be much improved, but it is unlikely they will be in the top 5 of any pre-season BSC poll. So the possibility of going to the NCAA tourney was likely not a big part of his process. Also, many of these kids may have already experienced the tourney once or twice.

I also think none of this hurts P-5 schools and other conferences such as the Big East. If anything it makes it easier for them to get rid of the non-performers and refresh with mid-major stars who are looking to get to a bigger stage. Not having to sit out a year makes both transfers up and transfers down more valuable.

Agree somewhat, except with your comment that many of these kids have experienced the dance once or twice. They may have been on the team, but how many minutes did they play? How much exposure did they get to showcase their talents? I also disagree that Travis' preaches defense will be a detriment to recruiting these kids. These kids all watch the NBA play-offs, and none should miss the constant comments by the talking-heads about how critical playing defense is at the NBA level. Going to a coach who stresses defense may actually be a plus. My take.
 
I think it will hurt UM. Travis has a strong desire to build from the high-school level. He wants to recruit talent, let them gel for four years together, and put out a cohesive product where everyone can anticipate everyone else's move. It takes time and commitment as youth cannot compete well with experience, as evidenced by this year. But if we maintain this cohesive product over years, we will be REALLY good. Great formula and we are recruiting like UM never has before, so the biggest challenge now is keeping them around for four years. And along comes the portal and new transfer rules. Couldn't have come at a worst time for UM. But, so far we are keeping that nucleus and the players believe.
 
astutegriz said:
I think it will hurt UM. Travis has a strong desire to build from the high-school level. He wants to recruit talent, let them gel for four years together, and put out a cohesive product where everyone can anticipate everyone else's move. It takes time and commitment as youth cannot compete well with experience, as evidenced by this year. But if we maintain this cohesive product over years, we will be REALLY good. Great formula and we are recruiting like UM never has before, so the biggest challenge now is keeping them around for four years. And along comes the portal and new transfer rules. Couldn't have come at a worst time for UM. But, so far we are keeping that nucleus and the players believe.

Good post. My view is that Travis/UM are able to build a product that maximizes its talent, for the reasons you state. While the portal may allow UM to bring in a bit better talent, that undercuts the team play/chemistry aspects and doesn't mean that all or most transfers will get to that Travis-led team concept of play soon enough or at all. Also, if UM were to lose some of the great players they've had, that would really hurt. Think Qvale, Cherry, Oguine, Pridgett, Richardson, Krystko, etc. Also transfers like Rorie and Breunig. Lastly, I don't think bringing in a few good transfers every year leads to loyalty among the remaining player.
 
The way Legans built EWU and the way Travis decides his UM rosters is a proven championship winner. Transfers have become overvalued in my opinion, and should only be used to fill the holes, or in a situation where you lose a lot of production like UM did last year.
 
astutegriz said:
I think it will hurt UM. Travis has a strong desire to build from the high-school level. He wants to recruit talent, let them gel for four years together, and put out a cohesive product where everyone can anticipate everyone else's move. It takes time and commitment as youth cannot compete well with experience, as evidenced by this year. But if we maintain this cohesive product over years, we will be REALLY good. Great formula and we are recruiting like UM never has before, so the biggest challenge now is keeping them around for four years. And along comes the portal and new transfer rules. Couldn't have come at a worst time for UM. But, so far we are keeping that nucleus and the players believe.

Two thoughts. First, Travis historically liked to build by recruiting high school kids. But may have to change if we are to stay at the top of the conference. It should surprise no one the number of kids entering the transfer portal now, at every level. Building a roster of 13 players from strictly high school recruits will cause us to lose our competitive edge in the conference. We need depth at every position, and hitting-on 12-13 high school recruits able to excel at this level is a stretch. Thus, many of the fringe starters will transfer, leaving open scholarships each year. If Travis fills all of these with high school recruits, how many will be able to make an impact as freshmen? UM has had several transfers who immediately "fit-in" with the team, Bruenig, Rorie being mentioned as well as another 6'7" forward who played two years here whose name I can't recall, but who quickly became the star of the team (was his name Williams???)
Secondly, the other Big Sky teams will be signing transfers, which has the potential to make them much better. If we don't adapt to the new environment, I believe we will regret it.
I equate the transfer portal to the drain in a sink.......... water can escape down the drain, and water can be added via the spout. My belief is that there will be more water added (transfer players moving down to mid-majors to get more PT), than water going down the drain (great players moving up from Mid-major to elite programs).
I think many of you will use the two EWU brothers as example of losing kids to bigger programs. But, there were extenuating circumstances with that program with the coach leaving, uncertainty about the school's commitment to Div.I sports, etc. I think it will rare that Big Sky players transfer upward.
 
hunt-ducks said:
astutegriz said:
I think it will hurt UM. Travis has a strong desire to build from the high-school level. He wants to recruit talent, let them gel for four years together, and put out a cohesive product where everyone can anticipate everyone else's move. It takes time and commitment as youth cannot compete well with experience, as evidenced by this year. But if we maintain this cohesive product over years, we will be REALLY good. Great formula and we are recruiting like UM never has before, so the biggest challenge now is keeping them around for four years. And along comes the portal and new transfer rules. Couldn't have come at a worst time for UM. But, so far we are keeping that nucleus and the players believe.

Two thoughts. First, Travis historically liked to build by recruiting high school kids. But may have to change if we are to stay at the top of the conference. It should surprise no one the number of kids entering the transfer portal now, at every level. Building a roster of 13 players from strictly high school recruits will cause us to lose our competitive edge in the conference. We need depth at every position, and hitting-on 12-13 high school recruits able to excel at this level is a stretch. Thus, many of the fringe starters will transfer, leaving open scholarships each year. If Travis fills all of these with high school recruits, how many will be able to make an impact as freshmen? UM has had several transfers who immediately "fit-in" with the team, Bruenig, Rorie being mentioned as well as another 6'7" forward who played two years here whose name I can't recall, but who quickly became the star of the team (was his name Williams???)
Secondly, the other Big Sky teams will be signing transfers, which has the potential to make them much better. If we don't adapt to the new environment, I believe we will regret it.
I equate the transfer portal to the drain in a sink.......... water can escape down the drain, and water can be added via the spout. My belief is that there will be more water added (transfer players moving down to mid-majors to get more PT), than water going down the drain (great players moving up from Mid-major to elite programs).
I think many of you will use the two EWU brothers as example of losing kids to bigger programs. But, there were extenuating circumstances with that program with the coach leaving, uncertainty about the school's commitment to Div.I sports, etc. I think it will rare that Big Sky players transfer upward.

It may be rare, but when it happens to your team, it is still devistating.
 
FIRST TEAM
Isiah Brown* Guard Senior Weber State (transfer)
Tanner Groves* Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Kim Aiken Jr. Guard/Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Tevian Jones Guard Junior Southern Utah (transfer)
Cameron Shelton Guard Junior Northern Arizona

SECOND TEAM
Name Position Class School
Ethan Esposito Forward Senior Sacramento State (transfer)
Maizen Fausett Forward Junior Southern Utah
John Knight III Guard Senior Southern Utah (transfer)
Seikou Sisoho Jawara Guard Sophomore Weber State (transfer)
Xavier Bishop Guard R-Senior Montana State (transfer)

THIRD TEAM
Name Position Class School
Amin Adamu Guard Senior Montana State (transfer)
Bodie Hume Guard Junior Northern Colorado
Tarik Cool Guard Senior Idaho State (transfer)
Jubrile Belo Forward Junior Montana State (transfer)
Matt Johnson II Guard R-Junior Northern Colorado


9/15 top players were transfers.

Out of the remaining 6, 3 redshirted their first year (Groves, Aiken, Johnson) and 1 went on a mission for 2 years so going strictly by age would have graduated last year (Fausett).

Everyone has their own thoughts, which are all valid. However in my opinion in order to win with primarily HS recruiting, you have to be extremely accurate in your scouting (almost no misses), no injuries that reduce the players ability, must have the proper development programs in place and you have to be able to retain these players for 4 years, which with the new transfer rule just got a lot more more difficult. I guess EWU's model is the North Star, but nearly impossible to recreate and maintain.
 
Great topic, hunt-ducks. As much as I relish verbal combat, I prefer thought-provoking topics like this.

We're a mid-major. Which means we're always going to be a low seed at the Big Dance. Which means we're always going to be up against 5-star-one-and done's and future NBA'ers. Recent evidence: Mo Wagner and Jordan Poole of Michigan whom we last faced twice in the tournament. Wagner now with the Magic, and Poole a blossoming star with the Warriors.

How to compete?

Start with high school kids. A redshirt year if possible. By the time they've been in the program four or five years, they know the system. They're physically mature. The NCAA tournament is rife with experienced mid-majors that have knocked off higher seeds. Recent example: Eastern Washington. That's exactly how Shantay Legins built that program. And while they didn't beat Kansas and all their high-school stars, Eastern was right there with them.

So what about the transfer portal? I see it as the equivalent of free agency in the pro's. Where again, I prefer to build through the draft, but augment that with the occasional free agent.

And that's just what our staff has done. They have not lost a single high school player from their core high school talent except for Eddy Egun. And I don't think Egun left of his own volition. I believe the staff felt this was a chance to improve the team in the transfer portal, i.e. free agency, and they took it.

So as happy as I am to see Blakney, Lopez and Martin transfer in, I'm even happier that our staff has not taken its eye off the core high school recruits--Braggs, Soloman, the 6'5" kid whose name I have forgotten and the Reynolds brothers, Rhett and Langston. (Just kidding.)
 
hunt-ducks said:
astutegriz said:
I think it will hurt UM. Travis has a strong desire to build from the high-school level. He wants to recruit talent, let them gel for four years together, and put out a cohesive product where everyone can anticipate everyone else's move. It takes time and commitment as youth cannot compete well with experience, as evidenced by this year. But if we maintain this cohesive product over years, we will be REALLY good. Great formula and we are recruiting like UM never has before, so the biggest challenge now is keeping them around for four years. And along comes the portal and new transfer rules. Couldn't have come at a worst time for UM. But, so far we are keeping that nucleus and the players believe.

Two thoughts. First, Travis historically liked to build by recruiting high school kids. But may have to change if we are to stay at the top of the conference. It should surprise no one the number of kids entering the transfer portal now, at every level. Building a roster of 13 players from strictly high school recruits will cause us to lose our competitive edge in the conference. We need depth at every position, and hitting-on 12-13 high school recruits able to excel at this level is a stretch. Thus, many of the fringe starters will transfer, leaving open scholarships each year. If Travis fills all of these with high school recruits, how many will be able to make an impact as freshmen? UM has had several transfers who immediately "fit-in" with the team, Bruenig, Rorie being mentioned as well as another 6'7" forward who played two years here whose name I can't recall, but who quickly became the star of the team (was his name Williams???)
Secondly, the other Big Sky teams will be signing transfers, which has the potential to make them much better. If we don't adapt to the new environment, I believe we will regret it.
I equate the transfer portal to the drain in a sink.......... water can escape down the drain, and water can be added via the spout. My belief is that there will be more water added (transfer players moving down to mid-majors to get more PT), than water going down the drain (great players moving up from Mid-major to elite programs).
I think many of you will use the two EWU brothers as example of losing kids to bigger programs. But, there were extenuating circumstances with that program with the coach leaving, uncertainty about the school's commitment to Div.I sports, etc. I think it will rare that Big Sky players transfer upward.

The question was: will the new transfer rules hurt or help us, not should we adapt and use them. I maintain it hurts us. But we clearly have to adapt. Build the core with High School, work on retention of the good ones, add accordingly. Balance chemistry and commitment with steady talent. But again, I maintain the new rules hurt us overall.
 
GrizBall said:
FIRST TEAM
Isiah Brown* Guard Senior Weber State (transfer)
Tanner Groves* Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Kim Aiken Jr. Guard/Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Tevian Jones Guard Junior Southern Utah (transfer)
Cameron Shelton Guard Junior Northern Arizona

SECOND TEAM
Name Position Class School
Ethan Esposito Forward Senior Sacramento State (transfer)
Maizen Fausett Forward Junior Southern Utah
John Knight III Guard Senior Southern Utah (transfer)
Seikou Sisoho Jawara Guard Sophomore Weber State (transfer)
Xavier Bishop Guard R-Senior Montana State (transfer)

THIRD TEAM
Name Position Class School
Amin Adamu Guard Senior Montana State (transfer)
Bodie Hume Guard Junior Northern Colorado
Tarik Cool Guard Senior Idaho State (transfer)
Jubrile Belo Forward Junior Montana State (transfer)
Matt Johnson II Guard R-Junior Northern Colorado


9/15 top players were transfers.

Out of the remaining 6, 3 redshirted their first year (Groves, Aiken, Johnson) and 1 went on a mission for 2 years so going strictly by age would have graduated last year (Fausett).

Everyone has their own thoughts, which are all valid. However in my opinion in order to win with primarily HS recruiting, you have to be extremely accurate in your scouting (almost no misses), no injuries that reduce the players ability, must have the proper development programs in place and you have to be able to retain these players for 4 years, which with the new transfer rule just got a lot more more difficult. I guess EWU's model is the North Star, but nearly impossible to recreate and maintain.

Back to the original question of if the new transfer rules helps or hurts us (as opposed to how to adapt), the other side of the coin is how many of these players are remaining for next year? If not a lot, would you agree the new rules hurt us given none of these players transferred in under the new rules.
 
astutegriz said:
GrizBall said:
FIRST TEAM
Isiah Brown* Guard Senior Weber State (transfer)
Tanner Groves* Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Kim Aiken Jr. Guard/Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Tevian Jones Guard Junior Southern Utah (transfer)
Cameron Shelton Guard Junior Northern Arizona

SECOND TEAM
Name Position Class School
Ethan Esposito Forward Senior Sacramento State (transfer)
Maizen Fausett Forward Junior Southern Utah
John Knight III Guard Senior Southern Utah (transfer)
Seikou Sisoho Jawara Guard Sophomore Weber State (transfer)
Xavier Bishop Guard R-Senior Montana State (transfer)

THIRD TEAM
Name Position Class School
Amin Adamu Guard Senior Montana State (transfer)
Bodie Hume Guard Junior Northern Colorado
Tarik Cool Guard Senior Idaho State (transfer)
Jubrile Belo Forward Junior Montana State (transfer)
Matt Johnson II Guard R-Junior Northern Colorado


9/15 top players were transfers.

Out of the remaining 6, 3 redshirted their first year (Groves, Aiken, Johnson) and 1 went on a mission for 2 years so going strictly by age would have graduated last year (Fausett).

Everyone has their own thoughts, which are all valid. However in my opinion in order to win with primarily HS recruiting, you have to be extremely accurate in your scouting (almost no misses), no injuries that reduce the players ability, must have the proper development programs in place and you have to be able to retain these players for 4 years, which with the new transfer rule just got a lot more more difficult. I guess EWU's model is the North Star, but nearly impossible to recreate and maintain.

Back to the original question of if the new transfer rules helps or hurts us (as opposed to how to adapt), the other side of the coin is how many of these players are remaining for next year? If not a lot, would you agree the new rules hurt us given none of these players transferred in under the new rules.

I think it probably hurts Montana more than it helps. It is my belief that talented transfers are more valuable and for the most part less risky acquisitions than HS players. And that these transfers are going to want to play in higher tempo offenses such as last year EWU (27th fastest), Weber (33) and SUU (92) and shoot more 3's. So based on that, just based on the sheer number of transfers that will be available and eligible to play right away I think it helps the true BSC competitors more than Montana.

Based on the information I have come across, everyone on the 2nd and 3rd teams are returning and just Tevian from the 1st team (11/15 returning).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that some of the transfers were from JCs, which can still have immediate eligibility under both the new and old rules.
 
astutegriz said:
GrizBall said:
FIRST TEAM
Isiah Brown* Guard Senior Weber State (transfer)
Tanner Groves* Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Kim Aiken Jr. Guard/Forward R-Junior Eastern Washington
Tevian Jones Guard Junior Southern Utah (transfer)
Cameron Shelton Guard Junior Northern Arizona

SECOND TEAM
Name Position Class School
Ethan Esposito Forward Senior Sacramento State (transfer)
Maizen Fausett Forward Junior Southern Utah
John Knight III Guard Senior Southern Utah (transfer)
Seikou Sisoho Jawara Guard Sophomore Weber State (transfer)
Xavier Bishop Guard R-Senior Montana State (transfer)

THIRD TEAM
Name Position Class School
Amin Adamu Guard Senior Montana State (transfer)
Bodie Hume Guard Junior Northern Colorado
Tarik Cool Guard Senior Idaho State (transfer)
Jubrile Belo Forward Junior Montana State (transfer)
Matt Johnson II Guard R-Junior Northern Colorado


9/15 top players were transfers.

Out of the remaining 6, 3 redshirted their first year (Groves, Aiken, Johnson) and 1 went on a mission for 2 years so going strictly by age would have graduated last year (Fausett).

Everyone has their own thoughts, which are all valid. However in my opinion in order to win with primarily HS recruiting, you have to be extremely accurate in your scouting (almost no misses), no injuries that reduce the players ability, must have the proper development programs in place and you have to be able to retain these players for 4 years, which with the new transfer rule just got a lot more more difficult. I guess EWU's model is the North Star, but nearly impossible to recreate and maintain.

Back to the original question of if the new transfer rules helps or hurts us (as opposed to how to adapt), the other side of the coin is how many of these players are remaining for next year? If not a lot, would you agree the new rules hurt us given none of these players transferred in under the new rules.


Yes, the original question was whether it hurts Montana more than it helps us. I guess we will just have to disagree on that. I think it helps us. I think Grizball's post about the number of All-Conference players who were transfers should be revealing. Using EWU's season as an example of the superiority of building only through high school recruits is not valid, in my opinion. They recruited two local brothers who turned-out to be studs, and who were missed by the elite schools, much like Larry K was missed while a high school player in Missoula. To me, the EWU situation is a "one-off". Remember, most of the kids who transfer down from elite schools were rated higher coming out of high school, than the kids Travis is able to recruit. There is no mystery why the very best in-state kids sign with Oregon State or Utah, and not by Montana.
I am all for recruiting high school kids as our recruiting base. But, I would jump at the chance to add a couple of stud transfers to augment our team. The other thing I don't buy is the argument that these transfers can not easily "fit-in" with Travis' system. Did Rorie fit in? Did Bruenig fit in? Determining whether a kid will fit-in should be a huge factor when deciding whether to sign him as a transfer. Not all will fit in, but I am sure the coaches should be able to decide this during their recruiting process. These transfers decide to enter the portal for a myriad of reasons...PT...not liking their coach, or his style of play...girlfriends...home-sickness, etc., etc.
 
GrizBall said:
astutegriz said:
Back to the original question of if the new transfer rules helps or hurts us (as opposed to how to adapt), the other side of the coin is how many of these players are remaining for next year? If not a lot, would you agree the new rules hurt us given none of these players transferred in under the new rules.

I think it probably hurts Montana more than it helps. It is my belief that talented transfers are more valuable and for the most part less risky acquisitions than HS players. And that these transfers are going to want to play in higher tempo offenses such as last year EWU (27th fastest), Weber (33) and SUU (92) and shoot more 3's. So based on that, just based on the sheer number of transfers that will be available and eligible to play right away I think it helps the true BSC competitors more than Montana.

Based on the information I have come across, everyone on the 2nd and 3rd teams are returning and just Tevian from the 1st team (11/15 returning).

Also, it needs to be pointed out that some of the transfers were from JCs, which can still have immediate eligibility under both the new and old rules.


Esposito is NOT coming back...he is going pro in Europe most likely....
 
hunt-ducks said:
astutegriz said:
Back to the original question of if the new transfer rules helps or hurts us (as opposed to how to adapt), the other side of the coin is how many of these players are remaining for next year? If not a lot, would you agree the new rules hurt us given none of these players transferred in under the new rules.


Yes, the original question was whether it hurts Montana more than it helps us. I guess we will just have to disagree on that. I think it helps us. I think Grizball's post about the number of All-Conference players who were transfers should be revealing. Using EWU's season as an example of the superiority of building only through high school recruits is not valid, in my opinion. They recruited two local brothers who turned-out to be studs, and who were missed by the elite schools, much like Larry K was missed while a high school player in Missoula. To me, the EWU situation is a "one-off". Remember, most of the kids who transfer down from elite schools were rated higher coming out of high school, than the kids Travis is able to recruit. There is no mystery why the very best in-state kids sign with Oregon State or Utah, and not by Montana.
I am all for recruiting high school kids as our recruiting base. But, I would jump at the chance to add a couple of stud transfers to augment our team. The other thing I don't buy is the argument that these transfers can not easily "fit-in" with Travis' system. Did Rorie fit in? Did Bruenig fit in? Determining whether a kid will fit-in should be a huge factor when deciding whether to sign him as a transfer. Not all will fit in, but I am sure the coaches should be able to decide this during their recruiting process. These transfers decide to enter the portal for a myriad of reasons...PT...not liking their coach, or his style of play...girlfriends...home-sickness, etc., etc.

Agreeing to disagree is a mature and appreciated response. Thank you!

I agree the new rules help many programs in the Big Sky. I just don't think the changes help UM as much because of how Travis wants to build and recruit. Recruit well, RETAIN, build chemistry, add transfers as needed (we've added many transfers, so we are doing this). They've had three outstanding recruiting classes of Freshman, both in talent and in character. The new transfer rules make it easier to add, but harder to retain. Chemistry suffers with turnover. For those that rely on transfers more than chemistry, like many Big Sky schools, the new rules will help them more than UM.

That said, even with the new environment, I still prefer Travis' approach. I appreciate the value of chemistry and team play. And if the current nucleus stays for three more years.... watch out. We're going to make noise on the national stage. Because then we will have the right formula - talent, experience, and chemistry.
 
That's the plan anyway. Let's hope and pray it works out. Many things could happen between now and then.
 
When Rorie and Bruenig and Manuel came they were the sole transfer, unlike close to a quarter of the roster like last season. That seems like it would be far easier to integrate new teammates singly versus 3 or 4 as we found out. I'd guess the staff will try to keep upping the level of our HS recruits and add transfer talent if it fits in the big picture of need (Griz leaving or injury).

I think people are overestimating the amount of quality talent that will end up in te Big Sky. Easy to forget we had a down year, worst since Tinks' second year if I'm remembering right and that we usually have at least 2 and sometimes 3 on all conference squads, so last year was a historical outlier. Just a take like everyone else, no one really knows how this thing will shake out for a couple years. Baylor was heavy on transfers so the usual suspects will probably try to mimic them until it quits working. Big Sky teams won't be able to bring in guys that good, so a complete retool could fizzle like UM last season as often as it succeeds. I trust the staff will weigh the options carefully to keep the program at a high level for our peers.
 
Back
Top