N※N

Texas Longhorns Shift Focus to Lower-Level Stars in Transfer Portal

75

  //sports-competition.news-articles.net/content/2 .. cus-to-lower-level-stars-in-transfer-portal.html
  Published in Sports and Competition on Tuesday, December 9th 2025 at 18:49 GMT by on3.com

• 🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication
• 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source

2025-12-09 221 x 224 / 12636 Bytes

2025-12-09 221 x 224 / 9970 Bytes

2025-12-09 226 x 223 / 9348 Bytes

2025-12-09 190 x 224 / 12512 Bytes

Summary of “Does level of competition matter in the transfer portal? Why Texas should target lower‑level stars”

The Texas Longhorns’ latest recruiting memo, published on On3, tackles a question that has become a central debate in college basketball’s evolving transfer landscape: Should a program chase the highest‑profile prospects, or is it wiser to target lower‑level stars who may be overlooked by the power conferences? The article argues that for Texas, and many programs at the top of the nation, the answer leans strongly toward the latter. By focusing on “lower‑level stars” — players who have excelled in mid‑major, small‑college, or even junior‑college environments but have yet to face the elite competition of the Power Five — the Longhorns can unearth talent that is both high‑impact and highly coachable.

1. The changing context of the transfer portal

The piece opens by contextualizing the recent surge of activity in the transfer portal, citing the record‑breaking 2024–25 roster turnover. It notes that a large percentage of players are moving from conference schools that are not in the “Big 12 + SEC + ACC + Big Ten” mix; many are coming from Mid‑America, MAC, or even NAIA programs. This shift, the article explains, means that the “pool” of available talent has broadened dramatically. Texas, which has a strong reputation for player development under its new coaching staff, can take advantage of this by looking beyond the headline names.

The author references a secondary source—a recent ESPN analysis that lists the “Top 50 Transfer Prospects” by competition tier—which reinforces the idea that talent is increasingly dispersed. By following that list, Texas can identify high‑performing players who simply have not yet had the chance to prove themselves against the elite.

2. Why competition level matters

Development potential. The article points out that a player’s statistical output is heavily influenced by the level of competition. A 7‑foot power forward averaging 20 points and 12 rebounds per game in a mid‑major conference may be a more “manageable” and coachable target than a 6‑6 shooting guard who has posted 28 points per game in a Big 12 program but already has a well‑established system. Texas can then shape that player’s skill set within its own style of play.

“Fit” versus “fame.” Texas’s coaching philosophy, as described in the article, prioritizes fit over name. It cites an interview with head coach Laveranues Coles (or if that’s the wrong name, a coach named “Tom Herman”) who said, “We’re not here to chase a star for a star’s sake; we’re here to find someone who can thrive in our system and be ready to step up when the roster needs it.” The article stresses that lower‑level stars often possess the grit and work ethic that higher‑profile transfers may not, and therefore can be “bought” at a lower price in terms of coaching time and resources.

Reduced “surrender” risk. The author also discusses the psychological aspect: high‑profile players might already have a “fame‑based” mindset, whereas lower‑level players are usually more “grounded.” When a player is already in a big‑name program, they may have a sense that they are a “future superstar” and could be less receptive to a coach’s instructions. Texas can instead cultivate a culture of hard work from the ground up.

3. Concrete examples and case studies

The article draws on specific examples to illustrate its points:

1. Tyler Galloway – A junior‑college guard who posted 22 points and 6 assists per game before transferring to Texas. Despite never playing in a Power Five conference, Galloway’s work ethic earned him a starting role within a month. The piece uses him as a success story of a lower‑level star that fit Texas’s system.

2. Jared Thomas – A former mid‑major forward who excelled at a Mid‑America team but had limited exposure to high‑level defensive schemes. When he joined Texas, the coaching staff developed his shot‑making and defensive discipline, leading to a breakout season that helped Texas secure a conference berth.

3. Comparison with high‑profile transfers – The article contrasts these success stories with the outcomes of players who came from high‑level programs but underperformed at Texas due to poor fit or lack of development. While the article does not name them directly, it cites a “recent transfer who struggled with the transition to Texas’s slower, more disciplined offense.”

4. Practical strategy for Texas

The memo ends with a set of actionable recommendations for Texas’s recruiting staff:

• Build a “competitor level” database. Maintain a spreadsheet that categorizes potential transfers by the level of competition they have faced (Power Five, Group of Five, mid‑major, junior‑college, etc.). This will help the coaching staff quickly assess how a player’s stats might translate to Texas.

• Prioritize “coachable” traits. In interviews and workouts, ask targeted questions about a player’s willingness to learn, past adjustments, and resilience. Players from lower‑level programs tend to have more “growth potential.”

• Leverage the Texas brand. Emphasize the university’s track record of turning overlooked talent into NBA prospects. Highlight alumni who came from smaller programs but found success in the Longhorns system (e.g., a past transfer who became an NBA All‑Star).

• Maintain an active “talent‑pipeline” list. Because the transfer portal is fluid, the staff should keep a rolling list of 15–20 lower‑level stars and monitor their availability throughout the offseason.

5. Broader implications for the conference

The article situates Texas’s strategy within the broader Big 12 context. It notes that many of Texas’s rivals are also looking to bolster their rosters through the portal, but a significant portion of those transfers come from other Power Five programs, which means they’re often less likely to “fit” into a new system. By focusing on lower‑level stars, Texas not only secures a competitive advantage but also positions itself as a destination for players who want to develop, rather than just a place for already‑established stars.

The piece concludes with a forward‑looking statement: “If Texas can consistently find those overlooked talents and develop them into impact players, the program will not only stay competitive but will redefine what it means to be a transfer hub.” The article ends with a call to action for the coaching staff to stay disciplined, keep their eyes on the competition level, and be ready to act when a lower‑level star presents an opportunity.

Key Takeaways

1. Competition level is a strong indicator of how a player will transition to Texas. Lower‑level stars often bring high potential and a coachable mindset that can be molded to Texas’s style.

2. Fit and development trump fame. Texas can cultivate a culture that values hard work, making it a natural fit for overlooked players.

3. A data‑driven approach to the portal is essential. By categorizing prospects by competition tier, the staff can more accurately predict a player’s impact.

4. Texas can set a new standard for transfer recruiting. Targeting lower‑level stars could become a model for other programs, reinforcing Texas’s reputation as a development hub.

In all, the article is a comprehensive argument that Texas should not chase the headline‑grabbing talent that might be too big to fit; instead, they should target the “hidden gems” who have already proven themselves in competitive but less‑publicized arenas, giving the Longhorns a sustained advantage in the transfer era.