[Roberton3]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
Is it one-and-dones?

This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding.  Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years?  Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)?  UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean?  Give me a friggin break.  Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened.  If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).

[Roberton3]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=14714.msg158255#msg158255 date=1457584539]

[quote author=washingtonismoney link=topic=14714.msg158240#msg158240 date=1457573665]
Is it one-and-dones?

This is one of the most illogical and convoluted arguments I've ever heard, and when Muir tried to make it to me I told him he had to be kidding.  Are you going to tell me that Arizona would have been tougher to beat if Sean Elliot, Mike Bibby, Damon Stoudamire, Gilbert Arenas, Chris Mills, Jason Terry, Andre Iguodola, Richard Jefferson, etc. etc. had only played one or two years?  Oregon State better with one year of Gary Payton (Sr)?  UCLA with one year of Reggie Miller or Don McLean?  Give me a friggin break.  Stanford's roster is not be materially impacted by one and dones but many of its competitors' are WEAKENED by it not strengthened.  If anything, the era of one & dones should have made it EASIER for Stanford to be successful, not harder.

[/quote]

I'm not planning on getting anywhere near this thread as a general matter, since I've learned not to get between Trump and his supporters or Dawkins and his detractors.  But I found your comment on one-and-dones puzzling.  I think the argument is that Stanford won't take one-and-dones [and, conversely, one-and-dones aren't likely to do what's necessary to meet admissions requirements], so our recruiting pool is necessarily more limited than other schools, particularly with respect to the most talented players coming out of high school.  Thus, for example, K.al has access to an Ivan Rabb or a Jaylen Brown, but Stanford doesn't.  Sure, K.al might be even better in 2-3 years if Rabb and Brown stick around than it will be if they don't (unless they get replaced by some new, talented one-and-dones), but it seems clear that K.al is DEFINITELY better this year than it would have been without them.  One and dones, as a general matter, are higher quality players than those in the "4-year pool."  Thus, any school that is capable of regularly [or even only occasionally] getting a player from the "one-and-done" pool to supplement its "4-year pool" players should, all other things being equal, be better off than those schools who can't get them.  Seems logical and not particularly convoluted to me, but maybe I'm missing your point.
[/quote]

You're making a different comparison than winflop is.  You're arguing that Stanford would have a better basketball team (on average) if it could recruit the one-and-dones.  That's entirely correct, but it's not the relevant comparison (or perhaps a better way to put it is that it's only half of the relevant comparison).

The comparison winflop is making -- which is the relevant comparison -- is whether having the very, very best players play only one year helps or hurts Stanford relative to other teams.  That changes two things: it makes Stanford unable to recruit those players, and it means those players spend much less time in college.  The first of those hurts Stanford, but the second hurts other teams a lot more.  Very few (if any) of those players would have played for Stanford anyway (how many players did we get during the Montgomery era who would have been one-and-dones today?), so being unable to get them hurts Stanford very little.  And having those players stay for only one year hurts the teams that get them a lot (20 years ago, recruiting one of those guys might mean they'd have an elite player for 3 years, and now it means they only get him for 1 year).