If we built our whole team off one-and-dones then yes, it could be crippling. Adding a one-and-done to a team to get it from good to great is a different story. I don't think we will be building the team exclusively on bringing in multiple one-and-done players any time soon.
I know, but that is my point. UK, KU, etc. did not build their programs right away with one and one players either. Of course, back when those programs were first successful, there was no such thing. The poster I was responding to was acting like programs like those were built because of the one and done players, and that is not true. They were built, and now, they are capable of taking in one and done players every year, and then recovering from the turnover because they get more one and done players. The one and done players were not built their program. Being able to handle the yearly turnover now is a result of the program's success.
My point is, those programs were built in a traditional way of recruiting high school athletes, and developing them into good players, and building a winning program through coaching, fan support, etc. One and done players could have been devastating for them early on. The only possible exception is Calipari's Kentucky program......but how he managed to recruit the first class that he did is open to speculation, right?
ISU is in those early stages now. FH has tried to jump start the process a bit with the transfers. But at this point in time, having a one and done player who goes to the pros can be as much of a detriment as it can be a positive.
There is no way that the ISU program will make the progress forward next year that it could have made had Royce stayed. I don't see how that can be argued.