Baylor basketball has always had a 5 star problem. For those who have followed for a long time, in the early 2010's it was similar to now. We were getting all kinds of talent but the teams never went the distance because they didn't gel. Once talent started to drop we went back to player development and that ultimately led to a national title. I feel like we are back in that early 2010 mode. Our success has opened us up to better players but ultimately that's not how Drew gets the most success. It's a conundrum for sure. What do you change? Do you turn away all the 5 stars and high value talent that want to come here now for development projects you can keep for 3-4 years? I don't know what the answer is.

Someone please correct me but I'd take a gander that Drew and company were expecting Sochan and Missi to be on campus at least 2 years.

To be people saying player development isn't possible anymore I'd point to Josh O who has flashed two way skills this year. UConn has developed guys and won back to back titles. I think it might lead to some years where you have to play young guys that go through some growing pains but no different than the growing pains of throwing a bunch of transfers and one and done guys on the floor together

jrock42 said:

---

Didn't read all this thread but I'm not sure developing players like they used to will work that well anymore. Players will be more likely to transfer than wait their turn now unless you have money to throw at the developing players also. I think we won the championship at just the right time before the new transfer and NIL rules.

---

Tell that to the many teams still doing it, including the three or four in our own league that we're staring up at in the standings.

ccgutierrez said:

---

Baylor basketball has always had a 5 star problem. For those who have followed for a long time, in the early 2010's it was similar to now. We were getting all kinds of talent but the teams never went the distance because they didn't gel. Once talent started to drop we went back to player development and that ultimately led to a national title. I feel like we are back in that early 2010 mode. Our success has opened us up to better players but ultimately that's not how Drew gets the most success. It's a conundrum for sure. What do you change? Do you turn away all the 5 stars and high value talent that want to come here now for development projects you can keep for 3-4 years? I don't know what the answer is.

---

I've said this before, but I don't think Scott Drew is built to successfully coach one-and-dones because doing so requires a level of on-court structure and discipline we don't have in our program.

To be successful with elite freshmen, you have to be willing to massage their role into the one that best helps your team (Danny Hurley's use of Stephon Castle is the perfect example) and to tell them to "swing the blanking ball" when they start trying to do too much.

We don't do that with any of our players. We have a top-three back-to-the-basket big man spending large chunks of every game playing on the perimeter, and it took more than half a season to tell Roach he's not a point guard. How, in that environment, are you going to successfully break a wild horse freshman who's been told forever how great he is and turn the bad habits he came to college with into good ones?

Have Drew recruit them and Gene Hackman hiding in the basement to come out and coach them?

It's nonsensical winning the National Championship is the worst thing. That's the DREAM every year for every team and only one team gets to experience it per year.

If our freshman were our problems maybe you'd have a point. Not the problem.

bear2be2 said:

---

jrock42 said:

---

Didn't read all this thread but I'm not sure developing players like they used to will work that well anymore. Players will be more likely to transfer than wait their turn now unless you have money to throw at the developing players also. I think we won the championship at just the right time before the new transfer and NIL rules.

---

Tell that to the many teams still doing it, including the three or four in our own league that we're staring up at in the standings.

---

Ok see my response to Ivanbear and the top 2 out of 3 and for a few teams 4 out of 5 scorers for all those teams ahead of us are first or second year transfers. Houston has done the best job of what you are looking for but their top scorer is a transfer. So what are you saying we are doing differently than these other teams? I guess getting 1 one and done guy a year if you don't include Missi and Sochan who weren't expected to be.

Houston and ISu are great examples. Both have done a great job of getting multiple year impact transfers to surround with their core 4 year players. That's the sweet spot imo. I'm in no way saying that easy to do. Because it's not. Auburn is built similarly to both of them as far as how Pearl constructed his team. Wisconsin, Purdue are two more examples that come to mind. Just gotta find a way to keep at least 50% of the roster intact each of season imo

jrock42 said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

jrock42 said:

---

Didn't read all this thread but I'm not sure developing players like they used to will work that well anymore. Players will be more likely to transfer than wait their turn now unless you have money to throw at the developing players also. I think we won the championship at just the right time before the new transfer and NIL rules.

---

Tell that to the many teams still doing it, including the three or four in our own league that we're staring up at in the standings.

---

Ok see my response to Ivanbear and the top 2 out of 3 and for a few teams 4 out of 5 scorers for all those teams ahead of us are first or second year transfers. Houston has done the best job of what you are looking for but their top scorer is a transfer. So what are you saying we are doing differently than these other teams? I guess getting 1 one and done guy a year if you don't include Missi and Sochan who weren't expected to be.

---

Almost all of our most-used players the past three years have been one-and-done freshmen or one-year transfers.

This program has no continuity year-to-year whatsoever. Contrast that to Houston, Iowa State or Kansas the past several years and the difference is night and day.

We're no longer building a program. We're building individual teams. And they're getting worse and more flawed by the year.

I agree Jon, Sochan, and Missi all left huge holes in the roster and program. But Drew has to adjust. Wright is a multi year player (if he stays), Love (unlikely to ever be fully healthy), Celestine. The rest needs to be replaced which just isn't enough to build any continuity.

Even Duke, who is just way more talented than everyone else, has good vets filling out the roster.

IowaBear said:

---

Houston and ISu are great examples. Both have done a great job of getting multiple year impact transfers to surround with their core 4 year players. That's the sweet spot imo. I'm in no way saying that easy to do. Because it's not. Auburn is built similarly to both of them as far as how Pearl constructed his team. Wisconsin, Purdue are two more examples that come to mind. Just gotta find a way to keep at least 50% of the roster intact each of season imo

---

We've also clearly got the money to keep the team in tact. This wouldn't be hard for us to do.