Crawfoso1973 said:

---

And that is fine. They are quality rotation players with inconsistencies and flashes of greatness. My argument is that the coaches did not bring them in with the expectation that they would come in and dominate the big 12 and lead the team. We need the veteran players to do that. RayJ was brought in the be the engine to drive the team,and so far has been adequate in that role. Love has been great and continues to get better. However Bridges (grown man) has underperformed relative to his talent. Much more was expected from Nunn and Lohner (grown men) who have been busts. Grimes (another grown man) quit and left the team. If you are looking to blame and scapegoat players when the team doesn't meet your expectations, there is plenty of blame to go around.

---

And my point is if these guys don't dominate as freshmen, they don't help your program. You underachieve while they're here and are rebuilding your entire roster the next year.

It's a treadmill of hype and excuses that I'm ready to get off of.

Bridges hasn't underperformed. Your expectations for him have always been unrealistic. He's a great hustle/glue guy who has helped us win a lot of games the last two years.

And Nunn has largely been in Waco what he was at VCU. He's just not -- and has never been -- a great player.

Lohner is the only transfer we have who has significantly underachieved expectations, and that's been a problem.

But our veterans have largely done what they were brought in to do. When you recruit five-star freshmen to be stars, they have to be stars. Ours are occasionally. But when they're not, we put way too much pressure on the two or three guys we have who show up every game.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Every team in college basketball is stuck in the cycle of rebuilding the roster every year.

---

You keep saying this and it's not true. There are a lot of programs that return bigger and more experienced nucleuses than we have the last three years. Our recruiting strategy is a choice.

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has data on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has date on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

---

Florida Atlantic brought back most of its roster from last year's team. So you'll have to excuse me for believing its possible.

If Florida Atlantic can retain talent, anyone can.

There are lots of teams with more than one returning starter and more than three or four returning lettermen.

NIL and the transfer portal have certainly had an impact. But this idea that our recruiting strategy is the only one is a joke.

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has date on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

---

Florida Atlantic brought back most of its roster from last year's team. So you'll have to excuse me for believing its possible.

If Florida Atlantic can retain talent, anyone can.

There are lots of teams with more than one returning starter and more than three or four returning lettermen.

NIL and the transfer portal have certainly had an impact. But this idea that our recruiting strategy is the only one is a joke.

---

Again, no one has said - in any thread on this site - that this way is the only way to build a roster. You're either being intentionally obtuse about this, or you cannot logically reason. And I've interacted with you over various sites for more than a decade, so I know you're a rational person.

FAU is a good example. They brought back most of their roster from a Final 4 team last season, and in every available metric, we are a superior team to them. Kenpom, NET, RPI (even though it's trash), projected NCAA seed, etc. It seems like what we're doing can work, no?

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has date on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

---

Florida Atlantic brought back most of its roster from last year's team. So you'll have to excuse me for believing its possible.

If Florida Atlantic can retain talent, anyone can.

There are lots of teams with more than one returning starter and more than three or four returning lettermen.

NIL and the transfer portal have certainly had an impact. But this idea that our recruiting strategy is the only one is a joke.

---

Again, no one has said - in any thread on this site - that this way is the only way to build a roster. You're either being intentionally obtuse about this, or you cannot logically reason. And I've interacted with you over various sites for more than a decade, so I know you're a rational person.

FAU is a good example. They brought back most of their roster from a Final 4 team last season, and in every available metric, we are a superior team to them. Kenpom, NET, RPI (even though it's trash), projected NCAA seed, etc. It seems like what we're doing can work, no?

---

I'll believe it can work when it does. I've watched Calipari's program devolve into an inconsistent mess and watched Coach K's teams consistently disappoint in the final years of his career.

We're not leaning on one-and-done talent to the degree that those two did/are. But we're leaning more heavily on it than anyone in our league and watching teams with less "talent" beat us because they're tougher and more mature than we are.

Scott Drew's best teams have never been soft. Our last two have definitely been. We can debate the reasons for that, but it's hard to make a case that our program is in better shape now than it was when we were making Sweet 16 or better trips with some regularity from 2010 to 2017.

And it's impossible to make a case that our rosters the last two years have looked anything like our championship team in composition or grit.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has date on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

---

Florida Atlantic brought back most of its roster from last year's team. So you'll have to excuse me for believing its possible.

If Florida Atlantic can retain talent, anyone can.

There are lots of teams with more than one returning starter and more than three or four returning lettermen.

NIL and the transfer portal have certainly had an impact. But this idea that our recruiting strategy is the only one is a joke.

---

Again, no one has said - in any thread on this site - that this way is the only way to build a roster. You're either being intentionally obtuse about this, or you cannot logically reason. And I've interacted with you over various sites for more than a decade, so I know you're a rational person.

FAU is a good example. They brought back most of their roster from a Final 4 team last season, and in every available metric, we are a superior team to them. Kenpom, NET, RPI (even though it's trash), projected NCAA seed, etc. It seems like what we're doing can work, no?

---

I'll believe it can work when it does. I've watched Calipari's program devolve into an inconsistent mess and watched Coach K's teams consistently disappoint in the final years of his career.

We're not leaning on one-and-done talent to the degree that those two did/are. But we're leaning more heavily on it than anyone in our league and watching teams with less "talent" beat us because they're tougher and more mature than we are.

---

We're 2 possessions and a missed FT from being 7-0 in conference. I'm as frustrated with anyone that we haven't been able to close out tight games against inferior teams, but people are acting like we've gotten taken to the woodshed by TCU, UT, and KSU.

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Not being snarky, but I would like data on this. If anyone has date on the transfer portal and roster turnover in programs.

---

Florida Atlantic brought back most of its roster from last year's team. So you'll have to excuse me for believing its possible.

If Florida Atlantic can retain talent, anyone can.

There are lots of teams with more than one returning starter and more than three or four returning lettermen.

NIL and the transfer portal have certainly had an impact. But this idea that our recruiting strategy is the only one is a joke.

---

Again, no one has said - in any thread on this site - that this way is the only way to build a roster. You're either being intentionally obtuse about this, or you cannot logically reason. And I've interacted with you over various sites for more than a decade, so I know you're a rational person.

FAU is a good example. They brought back most of their roster from a Final 4 team last season, and in every available metric, we are a superior team to them. Kenpom, NET, RPI (even though it's trash), projected NCAA seed, etc. It seems like what we're doing can work, no?

---

I'll believe it can work when it does. I've watched Calipari's program devolve into an inconsistent mess and watched Coach K's teams consistently disappoint in the final years of his career.

We're not leaning on one-and-done talent to the degree that those two did/are. But we're leaning more heavily on it than anyone in our league and watching teams with less "talent" beat us because they're tougher and more mature than we are.

---

We're 2 possessions and a missed FT from being 7-0 in conference. I'm as frustrated with anyone that we haven't been able to close out tight games against inferior teams, but people are acting like we've gotten taken to the woodshed by TCU, UT, and KSU.

---

Cincinnati can make the exact same claim. They're about to lose another close one tonight.

Winning teams win. And we've consistently struggled to finish games in league play. Tonight's game is a big opportunity to flip the script.

I stand corrected on Cincy losing tonight. I thought Isaacs was going to break their heart again.

blackie said:

---

Big12Bear said:

---

Since the move from the Ferrell Center, the men have gone from the best 3 point shooting team in the land, to a much lower percentage. Same goes for the Lady Bears.

Hope we can figure out this Foster thing pretty quickly.

---

My observation as well. It is like they are on a neutral court at best. But my understanding is that they don't get to practice there because of the construction. Is that correct?

---

Correct. They practice at the Farrell practice facility usually. Then, the day before the game, they practice at Foster.

Drew was on the Coach's show from Rudy's and said they are doing it just like NBA teams. I'm guessing that is how you sell it to the players.

I appreciate his hustle and 6 rebounds, but he was 2-10 from the field tonight and completely out of the action offensively.

I'm mad that he's leaving after this year. Would love to have him stick around after this year and be better. He can be better.

This is the exact reason a lot of people don't think it's wise to recruit one and dones. They have loads of talent that will never be realized for your team.

It is frustrating because I believe Walter will get better though this i just don't think it will be for us and his training is going to cost us games

Walter has not cost us games. Last night he was arguably our best player, despite the poor shooting night. We would not have won that game without him. He was all over the boards and played his best defensive game to date. Multiple steals and deflections and continues to make winning plays that don't always show up in the box score. The only bad play I saw him make was a turnvover when he attempted an ill-advised bounce pass in traffic to one of our bigs. He is a good shooter and I believe his shooting %s will regress to the mean. He is not playing hero-ball or taking bad shots. He is getting good looks they just aren't dropping for him. Missi and Walter were terrific but if we would have lost the same group of posters on this site would have found a way to blame them for the loss. It is getting old.

Walter has not shot well in conference play. That is inarguable. Where he has played well is as a ball handler and distributor. Those were the knocks on him as a prospect, and he's improved in both areas since the start of the season. It's been nice to see. It'll be even better if/when he starts shooting better.

Definitely needs another year at the college level. But....NBA drafts on potential unfortunately.

Hotsauce said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

the thing I love about Walter is that he continues playing with energy and effort even when his shot isn't falling.

---

I loved Keyonte, but he shot us out of some games last year. We should appreciate that JW doesn't do that. I also think he's our best FT shooter besides LL.

---

There also seemed to be some pouting body language with Keyonte when things weren't going well. I don't see that with Walter.

The parity in the Big 12 this year is insane. Every game seems like a one or two possession game at the end.

Competition levels have to be considered as well…. Feasted on several cupcakes ooc. He did light up Auburn though

dstaylor57 said:

---

The parity in the Big 12 this year is insane. Every game seems like a one or two possession game at the end.

---

So true. Except for what Kansas & Houston did to some opponents.

historian said:

---

dstaylor57 said:

---

The parity in the Big 12 this year is insane. Every game seems like a one or two possession game at the end.

---

So true. Except for what Kansas & Houston did to some opponents.

---

I would love for us to experience at least one no sweat conference win...I thought we were maybe going to get one last night when we pushed it out to 12 points.

IvanBear said:

---

This is the exact reason a lot of people don't think it's wise to recruit one and dones. They have loads of talent that will never be realized for your team.

It is frustrating because I believe Walter will get better though this i just don't think it will be for us and his training is going to cost us games

---

For what it's worth, the last team to win a national title with a one-and-done 5-star in the starting lineup was 2015 Duke (Justise Winslow).

Other than that, the list is:
- 2012 Kentucky (Kidd-Gilchrist, Davis)
- 2005 UNC (Williams)
- 2003 Syracuse (Anthony)

And that's it. In other words, it's not impossible, but if you're going to have a frosh getting primetime minutes and you want to run with grown men deep into March, you'd better either have a world-beating roster around you (as Winslow and Williams did) or be generational talents (like Melo and Ant Davis were).

I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer here, but we have neither a 2005 UNC/2015 Duke-level roster, nor is Walter playing at Melo/Davis/Kidd-Gilchrist levels. We will have to buck trend to win it all again.

That would be nice but unlikely in this league. Maybe the OSU game in Stillwater is the closest we will get. The first round of the tournament could provide another opportunity, depending on our seed.

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Every team in college basketball is stuck in the cycle of rebuilding the roster every year.

---

You keep saying this and it's not true. There are a lot of programs that return bigger and more experienced nucleuses than we have the last three years. Our recruiting strategy is a choice.

---

I disagree somewhat with bear2 on this debate but this comment is right. The two teams we are tied in the loss column with, Iowa St and Houston, have very good continuity. Now a large part of this is due to the players not being high projection guys in earlier years so they have time to develop and grow.

Iowa St is a little younger with a 2nd year and 1st year guy among their top 5 players. But their physical defenders are 3rd and 4th year guys. Houston's top 3 contributors are all 22 or 23 years old with years in a D1 program. To put it in some perspective, our last 2 guys to go to the league right now are significantly younger than their top contributors.

Obviously we would blow teams away if our current roster had another year or two to develop together but they don't.

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

EDIT: weird emoji. I dunno what that's about.

It's interesting to look at how our message board talks about Walter and Missi versus how opposing fans talk about them. I've looked around a few different places on the Internet and, almost to a T, Big 12 fans say things like this:

About Walter -

"He looks like an NBA player out there."
"That dude is an insane athlete."
"So smooth."
"His stroke looks so effortless."

About Missi -

"OMG, best player on the floor."
"What an athlete!"
"This guy is killing us on both ends."
"Prototype NBA center"

And on and on. I know we'll always be more critical of our own guys, since we are then game in and game out, but we are incredibly fortunate to have both of these young men.

---

Opposing fans aren't invested in the outcomes of our games. We are. This shouldn't be a surprise.

They can enjoy watching Keyonte George go 2 for 10 with two insane shots. We're never going to if it comes in a loss.

Walter and Missi are far less frustrating than George was IMO. But both are just as inconsistent. That's the nature of leaning heavily on first-year players.

---

And they'll either get better as the season goes on and be an integral part of our squad down the stretch, or they won't, and we won't reach our potential. That's the same case as if we had a veteran team that had never played together before this season. Life in the transfer portal era.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a team with less upside that is likelier to reach their potential, or a team with huge upside that is less likely to get there. I don't really have a clear bias one way or the other, so I'll trust Scott Drew, because he's shown he can build winning teams throughout various NCAA eras.

---

It's not the same thing. It's not a coincidence that our two most consistent players are a fifth-year senior and a junior. Nor is it a coincidence that our two most inconsistent players are freshmen. Experience matters.

We will definitely need Walter and Missi to continue to progress to reach our potential. But outside of Sochan, our freshmen have typically become less effective over the course of a long Big 12 season, not more.

That's a grind these players aren't accustomed to and often aren't ready for.

I suspect Walter and Missi will find ways to contribute to another tournament appearance. But we need both to be special to reach the second weekend.

---

We were always going to go as far as RayJ, Love, and Bridges carry us. Drew's stated philosophy is "get old and stay old." He's begun supplementing that with high-level freshmen, and we'll see if that ends up being the right direction to go. We're not reading out of the Duke/UK playbook on team building with 4-5 freshmen contributors.

---

I think this is revisionist history. You don't recruit five-star freshmen with the expectation that they take backseat roles. Either they rise to their talent levels or we underachieve. And if we do, it's perfectly fair to take a critical look at the way we're building our rosters and the level of responsibility we're putting on freshmen's shoulders.

---

I don't think it's revisionist at all. There are hardly any teams that rely on freshmen to be team leaders. Kentucky has done it, to mixed effect. Memphis has done it and had disastrous results. Our team leaders were always going to be veterans.

---

I agree, Mitch. Part of our fan base still believes that one-and-done players should be the stars of the team and dominate college basketball. That is not the case. Walter and Missi have a role-player mentality which is actually quite valuable at the next level. NBA GMs look for players who are self-aware and able to fit into a team concept.

---

These players' value at the next level is quite literally irrelevant to this conversation. If your goal is to build a team that can win in March and make deep tournament runs -- and mine is -- all that matters is how they produce for their one year on campus.

And contrary to the tale you guys are trying to weave, we're not recruiting five-star freshmen to be wallflowers or bit players. They're here to produce at a high level and raise our ceiling as a team/program. Thus far, they have not come close to accomplishing that.

Maybe this year will change the trend. If not, I fully expect a litany of excuses.

---

You're building a nice strawman here. No one is making the argument that we're asking anyone to be a wallflower. Your hate boner for Keyonte George has led to long term side effects, and you seem to now disdain all freshmen, for some reason.

---

I don't hate or disdain anyone. I like Walter and Missi as players. I just don't think teams that rely as heavily as we have on freshmen the last three years are built to win in March.

If/when we get knocked out in the first weekend again, I'll fully expect the usual suspects to tell me why next year with Edgecombe will be different and then make the same excuses when it's not.

---

Ok. That's fair. I didn't realize you were clairvoyant, though.

---

I never claimed to be. But history and precedent are not on our side.

Grown men win in college basketball.

---

Titles are won by talented sophomore and junior guys supplemented by vets for the most part. That is how the vast majority of the last 20 years have won. The only exception I can think of is 12' UK and possibly 22' Ku (2nd best player was a junior early nba entry though)

Duke 15, Villanova 16, UNC 17, Villanova 18, UVa 19, Bu 21, Uconn 23 all fit. I don't think the all senior squads with few pros have ever won a title in the last 20 years.

So more experience needed but not at the total sacrifice of talent. Hard to plan for in this era.

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

EDIT: weird emoji. I dunno what that's about.

It's interesting to look at how our message board talks about Walter and Missi versus how opposing fans talk about them. I've looked around a few different places on the Internet and, almost to a T, Big 12 fans say things like this:

About Walter -

"He looks like an NBA player out there."
"That dude is an insane athlete."
"So smooth."
"His stroke looks so effortless."

About Missi -

"OMG, best player on the floor."
"What an athlete!"
"This guy is killing us on both ends."
"Prototype NBA center"

And on and on. I know we'll always be more critical of our own guys, since we are then game in and game out, but we are incredibly fortunate to have both of these young men.

---

Opposing fans aren't invested in the outcomes of our games. We are. This shouldn't be a surprise.

They can enjoy watching Keyonte George go 2 for 10 with two insane shots. We're never going to if it comes in a loss.

Walter and Missi are far less frustrating than George was IMO. But both are just as inconsistent. That's the nature of leaning heavily on first-year players.

---

And they'll either get better as the season goes on and be an integral part of our squad down the stretch, or they won't, and we won't reach our potential. That's the same case as if we had a veteran team that had never played together before this season. Life in the transfer portal era.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a team with less upside that is likelier to reach their potential, or a team with huge upside that is less likely to get there. I don't really have a clear bias one way or the other, so I'll trust Scott Drew, because he's shown he can build winning teams throughout various NCAA eras.

---

It's not the same thing. It's not a coincidence that our two most consistent players are a fifth-year senior and a junior. Nor is it a coincidence that our two most inconsistent players are freshmen. Experience matters.

We will definitely need Walter and Missi to continue to progress to reach our potential. But outside of Sochan, our freshmen have typically become less effective over the course of a long Big 12 season, not more.

That's a grind these players aren't accustomed to and often aren't ready for.

I suspect Walter and Missi will find ways to contribute to another tournament appearance. But we need both to be special to reach the second weekend.

---

We were always going to go as far as RayJ, Love, and Bridges carry us. Drew's stated philosophy is "get old and stay old." He's begun supplementing that with high-level freshmen, and we'll see if that ends up being the right direction to go. We're not reading out of the Duke/UK playbook on team building with 4-5 freshmen contributors.

---

I think this is revisionist history. You don't recruit five-star freshmen with the expectation that they take backseat roles. Either they rise to their talent levels or we underachieve. And if we do, it's perfectly fair to take a critical look at the way we're building our rosters and the level of responsibility we're putting on freshmen's shoulders.

---

I don't think it's revisionist at all. There are hardly any teams that rely on freshmen to be team leaders. Kentucky has done it, to mixed effect. Memphis has done it and had disastrous results. Our team leaders were always going to be veterans.

---

I agree, Mitch. Part of our fan base still believes that one-and-done players should be the stars of the team and dominate college basketball. That is not the case. Walter and Missi have a role-player mentality which is actually quite valuable at the next level. NBA GMs look for players who are self-aware and able to fit into a team concept.

---

These players' value at the next level is quite literally irrelevant to this conversation. If your goal is to build a team that can win in March and make deep tournament runs -- and mine is -- all that matters is how they produce for their one year on campus.

And contrary to the tale you guys are trying to weave, we're not recruiting five-star freshmen to be wallflowers or bit players. They're here to produce at a high level and raise our ceiling as a team/program. Thus far, they have not come close to accomplishing that.

Maybe this year will change the trend. If not, I fully expect a litany of excuses.

---

You're building a nice strawman here. No one is making the argument that we're asking anyone to be a wallflower. Your hate boner for Keyonte George has led to long term side effects, and you seem to now disdain all freshmen, for some reason.

---

I don't hate or disdain anyone. I like Walter and Missi as players. I just don't think teams that rely as heavily as we have on freshmen the last three years are built to win in March.

If/when we get knocked out in the first weekend again, I'll fully expect the usual suspects to tell me why next year with Edgecombe will be different and then make the same excuses when it's not.

---

Ok. That's fair. I didn't realize you were clairvoyant, though.

---

I never claimed to be. But history and precedent are not on our side.

Grown men win in college basketball.

---

Titles are won by talented sophomore and junior guys supplemented by vets for the most part. That is how the vast majority of the last 20 years have won. The only exception I can think of is 12' UK and possibly 22' Ku (2nd best player was a junior early nba entry though)

Duke 15, Villanova 16, UNC 17, Villanova 18, UVa 19, Bu 21, Uconn 23 all fit. I don't think the all senior squads with few pros have ever won a title in the last 20 years.

So more experience needed but not at the total sacrifice of talent. Hard to plan for in this era.

---

Any player with an offseason or two in a college strength and conditioning program is a grown man in my book. I'm not saying you need a team full of seniors. But experience and physical maturity are really good predictors of success in college basketball. Raw talent has not been.

DanaDane said:

---

Anecdotal observations can sometimes lead to misplaced causal analysis. Here are actual statistical measurements from our 3 point shooting at the Ferrell Center and Foster this year, along with the Kenpom defensive efficiency metric of the opponent. You can decide whether the difference is explained by the specific site, defensive quality of opponent, both or other causal factor.

FERRELL CENTER

vs. J Brown...............5-23 (NAIA; not ranked)
vs. Gardner Webb....0-9 (#146)
vs. UMKC...............13-23 (#234)
vs. Nicholls St.........14-23 (#253)
vs. NW State...........10-28 (#337)
vs. Seton Hall..........10-22 (#58)
vs. MV State............19-30 (#355)

= 71-158 or 44.9%


FOSTER PAVILION
vs. Cornell................14-31 (#194)
vs. BYU....................10-23 (#23)
vs. UC........................5-20 (#15)
vs. TCU......................5-22 (#46)

= 34-96 of 35.4%

---

Looking at the stats you provide (thanks!), I am surprised I am surprised that we are not nearly as good a shooting team absent Flagler and LJ--who both averaged 40% or better from 3 last year. More important than the averages was how clutch Adam was for his Baylor career. There have been times this year like against Gardner Webb when absolutely everyone was missing. We got used to Flagler finding a bucket when no one else could.

bear2be2 said:

---

Quinton said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Crawfoso1973 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

Mitch Henessey said:

---

EDIT: weird emoji. I dunno what that's about.

It's interesting to look at how our message board talks about Walter and Missi versus how opposing fans talk about them. I've looked around a few different places on the Internet and, almost to a T, Big 12 fans say things like this:

About Walter -

"He looks like an NBA player out there."
"That dude is an insane athlete."
"So smooth."
"His stroke looks so effortless."

About Missi -

"OMG, best player on the floor."
"What an athlete!"
"This guy is killing us on both ends."
"Prototype NBA center"

And on and on. I know we'll always be more critical of our own guys, since we are then game in and game out, but we are incredibly fortunate to have both of these young men.

---

Opposing fans aren't invested in the outcomes of our games. We are. This shouldn't be a surprise.

They can enjoy watching Keyonte George go 2 for 10 with two insane shots. We're never going to if it comes in a loss.

Walter and Missi are far less frustrating than George was IMO. But both are just as inconsistent. That's the nature of leaning heavily on first-year players.

---

And they'll either get better as the season goes on and be an integral part of our squad down the stretch, or they won't, and we won't reach our potential. That's the same case as if we had a veteran team that had never played together before this season. Life in the transfer portal era.

I guess it comes down to whether you'd rather have a team with less upside that is likelier to reach their potential, or a team with huge upside that is less likely to get there. I don't really have a clear bias one way or the other, so I'll trust Scott Drew, because he's shown he can build winning teams throughout various NCAA eras.

---

It's not the same thing. It's not a coincidence that our two most consistent players are a fifth-year senior and a junior. Nor is it a coincidence that our two most inconsistent players are freshmen. Experience matters.

We will definitely need Walter and Missi to continue to progress to reach our potential. But outside of Sochan, our freshmen have typically become less effective over the course of a long Big 12 season, not more.

That's a grind these players aren't accustomed to and often aren't ready for.

I suspect Walter and Missi will find ways to contribute to another tournament appearance. But we need both to be special to reach the second weekend.

---

We were always going to go as far as RayJ, Love, and Bridges carry us. Drew's stated philosophy is "get old and stay old." He's begun supplementing that with high-level freshmen, and we'll see if that ends up being the right direction to go. We're not reading out of the Duke/UK playbook on team building with 4-5 freshmen contributors.

---

I think this is revisionist history. You don't recruit five-star freshmen with the expectation that they take backseat roles. Either they rise to their talent levels or we underachieve. And if we do, it's perfectly fair to take a critical look at the way we're building our rosters and the level of responsibility we're putting on freshmen's shoulders.

---

I don't think it's revisionist at all. There are hardly any teams that rely on freshmen to be team leaders. Kentucky has done it, to mixed effect. Memphis has done it and had disastrous results. Our team leaders were always going to be veterans.

---

I agree, Mitch. Part of our fan base still believes that one-and-done players should be the stars of the team and dominate college basketball. That is not the case. Walter and Missi have a role-player mentality which is actually quite valuable at the next level. NBA GMs look for players who are self-aware and able to fit into a team concept.

---

These players' value at the next level is quite literally irrelevant to this conversation. If your goal is to build a team that can win in March and make deep tournament runs -- and mine is -- all that matters is how they produce for their one year on campus.

And contrary to the tale you guys are trying to weave, we're not recruiting five-star freshmen to be wallflowers or bit players. They're here to produce at a high level and raise our ceiling as a team/program. Thus far, they have not come close to accomplishing that.

Maybe this year will change the trend. If not, I fully expect a litany of excuses.

---

You're building a nice strawman here. No one is making the argument that we're asking anyone to be a wallflower. Your hate boner for Keyonte George has led to long term side effects, and you seem to now disdain all freshmen, for some reason.

---

I don't hate or disdain anyone. I like Walter and Missi as players. I just don't think teams that rely as heavily as we have on freshmen the last three years are built to win in March.

If/when we get knocked out in the first weekend again, I'll fully expect the usual suspects to tell me why next year with Edgecombe will be different and then make the same excuses when it's not.

---

Ok. That's fair. I didn't realize you were clairvoyant, though.

---

I never claimed to be. But history and precedent are not on our side.

Grown men win in college basketball.

---

Titles are won by talented sophomore and junior guys supplemented by vets for the most part. That is how the vast majority of the last 20 years have won. The only exception I can think of is 12' UK and possibly 22' Ku (2nd best player was a junior early nba entry though)

Duke 15, Villanova 16, UNC 17, Villanova 18, UVa 19, Bu 21, Uconn 23 all fit. I don't think the all senior squads with few pros have ever won a title in the last 20 years.

So more experience needed but not at the total sacrifice of talent. Hard to plan for in this era.

---

Any player with an offseason or two in a college strength and conditioning program is a grown man in my book. I'm not saying you need a team full of seniors. But experience and physical maturity are really good predictors of success in college basketball. Raw talent has not been.

---

That's fair. No doubt, 1 or 2 years in a true S&C program makes a huge difference. If those special sophomores and juniors are part of that grown men definition, then I agree.