In an era where college basketball rosters are treated as disposable inventory, Evan Miyakawa offers a data-driven counter-narrative: the path to tournament success for non-powerhouse programs lies not in chasing the latest transfer portal buzz, but in the stubborn, old-fashioned act of keeping players. This study of the last four seasons challenges the prevailing wisdom that constant churn is the only way to compete, revealing that mid-major teams that make the NCAA tournament are significantly more reliant on returning players and far less dependent on freshmen than their counterparts. For coaches and fans alike, the evidence suggests that in a landscape dominated by Name, Image, and Likeness money, continuity is the ultimate competitive advantage.
The Continuity Imperative
Miyakawa's analysis begins by isolating the roster construction of mid-major teams that reached the NCAA tournament versus those that did not. The data is stark. "Over 64% of the minutes on tourney-teams went to players on the roster the previous season, almost 10% higher than teams that missed the dance," Miyakawa writes. This isn't a marginal difference; it is a structural divide. While power-conference programs can absorb the shock of losing key players or integrating unproven freshmen due to sheer resource depth, mid-majors cannot. The study finds that teams missing the tournament allocated nearly 11% of their minutes to incoming freshmen, whereas successful teams kept that number significantly lower.
The argument here is that experience is a tangible asset that cannot be bought. Miyakawa notes that the average years of Division I experience on a tournament team's roster was 1.99, compared to 1.66 for others. This distinction is crucial because it suggests that the "churn" narrative is a luxury good. For schools outside the ACC, Big Ten, and SEC, the ability to retain a core group of players who understand the system and each other is the primary differentiator between March Madness and an early exit. Critics might argue that this data is circular—good teams keep their players because they are good, not that keeping players makes them good—but the longitudinal nature of the four-year study suggests a causal link where stability breeds performance.
"So many of the best mid-major players were developed the old-fashioned way: staying with the same team and improving year after year."
The Star-Making Machine
Perhaps the most provocative finding in Miyakawa's work concerns the origin of elite talent at the mid-major level. The conventional wisdom suggests that stars are either recruited from high school and immediately dominate or are acquired via the transfer portal from higher-level programs. Miyakawa's data dismantles both assumptions. He finds that 50% of the star players on mid-major tournament teams were recruited out of high school by that specific school and stayed for multiple years. "The big takeaway is that 50% of the star players who made March Madness were recruited by that mid-major school out of high school who stayed for multiple years," he writes.
This reframes the role of the mid-major coach from a talent acquirer to a talent developer. The study highlights a specific trajectory: players who were the second or third option on their roster one year often become the primary star the next. Miyakawa points out that the top 25 mid-major players in 2025, who were returning players, had improved from being ranked around the 396th best player in the country the previous year to the 124th best on average. The strategy, therefore, is to convince the "number two" or "number three" players to stay, trusting that they will naturally ascend to stardom as the team's hierarchy shifts.
This approach requires a different kind of pitch to players than the one used by wealthy programs. Miyakawa suggests the pitch is not about immediate NIL payouts, but about timing the market. "The pitch to keep core players around another year is to convince them not to transfer to a higher level till they are a bona fide star and can truly capitalize on their market value," he argues. While this logic is sound for the program, it places a heavy burden on the player to delay their financial peak. A counterargument worth considering is that in a hyper-competitive NIL environment, the opportunity cost of staying one more year to develop might be too high for a player with a guaranteed offer elsewhere, regardless of the long-term potential.
The Transfer Portal Reality
When mid-majors do turn to the transfer portal, Miyakawa's data indicates a clear preference for specific types of transfers. The study shows that the most reliable transfers are not the high-profile names from other mid-majors, but rather "down-transfers" from high-major programs. "A majority of the best D1 transfers to the mid-major level have come from high-major schools," Miyakawa writes, noting that 13 of the top 25 successful transfers came from power conferences. These are often players who were highly recruited out of high school—3 or 4 stars—who simply failed to crack the rotation at their original schools.
The profile of these successful transfers is distinct: they are players who were "high-major rejects who couldn't crack 20 minutes a game at their first school." Examples like Vlad Goldin (Texas Tech to FAU) and Jaedon LeDee (TCU to San Diego State) illustrate that talent often gets overlooked at the highest level due to depth charts, only to flourish when given consistent minutes at a mid-major. Miyakawa's analysis suggests that the portal is not a lottery for hidden gems from low-level schools, but a marketplace for undervalued assets from high-level ones. "While there are some successful examples of players from low-majors... moving up to a higher level, it's rare for these players to make as big of an impact as transfers from better levels," he cautions.
This finding challenges the narrative that the transfer portal has democratized talent distribution. Instead, it reinforces a hierarchy where the best players still tend to come from the best recruiting classes, even if they are currently sitting on the bench at a powerhouse. The strategy for mid-majors is to identify these specific types of players—those with the pedigree but lacking the opportunity—rather than hoping for a breakout star from a lower tier.
The Freshman Paradox
The final piece of Miyakawa's puzzle addresses the role of freshmen. The data is unequivocal: successful mid-major teams do not rely on them. "In the last 4 seasons, if you take the top 5 players from every mid-major team that won a tournament game, just 6% of those players were freshmen," Miyakawa writes. This does not mean recruiting freshmen is unimportant; rather, it means their impact is deferred. The goal is not immediate contribution, but long-term development.
Miyakawa argues that while freshmen may not be major contributors in their first year, the hope is that they will become the stars of the future. "Many of the best mid-major stars came in as freshmen and improved over multiple years at the same school," he notes. This creates a tension for mid-major coaches: they must recruit high-quality freshmen who can develop, but they cannot expect them to carry the team immediately. This requires a patient approach to roster building that stands in stark contrast to the "win now" mentality often associated with the transfer portal. The most successful programs are those that can balance the immediate need for experienced transfers with the long-term investment in high-school recruits.
"Every mid-major coach wants to retain the team's core players each season, but they often struggle to do so since they usually can't pay as much in NIL as a bigger program might be willing to do."
Bottom Line
Evan Miyakawa's study provides a compelling, data-backed roadmap for mid-major success in a chaotic era, proving that roster continuity and player development remain the most potent strategies for tournament qualification. The argument's greatest strength is its ability to quantify the value of experience in a sport increasingly obsessed with immediate impact, offering a clear alternative to the high-risk, high-cost model of constant roster turnover. However, the strategy's biggest vulnerability lies in its execution; convincing talented players to delay their financial peak in an NIL-driven world requires a level of trust and program stability that many mid-majors simply cannot guarantee. As the landscape continues to evolve, the teams that master the art of retention will likely be the ones that survive the chaos.