Personally I like the new transfer rules. I like that a player who feels under-used or under-appreciated doesn't have to pay a penalty to find a better situation. But . . . .
Are there any intelligent numbers on whether kids who transfer actually do better? Where by "intelligent numbers" I mean taking into account reasonable factors. For example, if Kessler had stayed with us, he certainly would have done a lot better as a soph, so you can't just point to him and say he benefited by leaving. Might be true, but he would have benefited by staying, too. So how much of that, if any, is due to transferring?
I assume most transfers aren't like that.
If you look at their numbers, both Pete Nance and his Northwestern teammate Ryan Young, now at Duke, are doing noticeably better on eFG% and TS%. Both are playing a few more minutes than they did last year. OTOH, both are taking noticeably fewer shots. I'd say the move was good for Young, not so clear for Nance.
Meanwhile, the team they left, Northwestern, seems improved. This time last year they were 8-4 with no bad losses, but no particularly good wins, either. This year they are 11-3 with no bad losses and a couple of decent wins (MSU and Illinois). Addition by subtraction? And while Collins did pick up a big from the portal, he isn't starting and is doing worse than at his previous school. A good addition for Northwestern, but not necessarily for the player.
Meanwhile, Kerwin's move doesn't seem to have helped him.
So anyway . . . even if transfers don't always do better, I still like the freedom the new rules give players. And of course Hubert seems to be pretty good in the portal.
What do you guys think?