That said Duke has targeted more 4 year guys than UK as well and this is where UK is really off from us.
This was on bleacher report right? I mean that tells you right there. They're all about 'shock factor' and what not.
Kentucky is truly a 1nDone factory; just because Duke has had two in a row in Kyrie and Austin, it doens't make us a factory. Pretty ridiculous of the writer to say this.
Relative to BYU, Duke is most certainly more of a one-and-done program. In fact, relative to anyone but Kentucky, we're on the shortest of lists of one-and-done schools.
The 2 relevant passages are  the aforementioned "famed one-and-done... programs Duke and Kentucky." But then, lo and behold, in the very next paragraph,  the writer wonders whether Parker will choose "a one-and-done factory."
So it may well be that the OP has taken a little more flack than is deserved. It's not actually much of a stretch to infer that the writer either wittingly or unwittingly suggested that UK and Duke are one-done "factories." And if - if - witting, then the OP has even less to apologize for than this follow-up suggests.
I don't actually care whether the writer of the article was being deliberately inflammatory. But I think the OP need not apologize, at all.
Dissed by a sportswriter at the 2nd biggest newspaper in SLC? We're getting a little sensitive.
If we can average an annual K-approved 0ad, I'll be perfectly happy.
Cameron Crazies Do Not Storm The Court
K has said in the past that the 1-&-done rule is bad. Either let the kids go straight to the NBA, or require at least two years. Seems reasonable to me. But we've got to play with the rules we have, and I can't see telling someone that they don't fit our model because they have major league chops. Kyrie is a great example -- wonderful kid, good student, etc. -- that I was proud to have associated with our school and hope he gets his degree when he can.
Eat Mor Jonny.
This title is really melodramatic. It is so much ado about nothing. We get star players... that isn't a bad thing on our program, but rather on THE SPORT. We play by the rules of the sport. So to be competitive and recruit, we have to be willing to take the top talent for however long they intend to participate in the sport.
Also, this article may mention us in the same sentence, but really they are speaking of teams that get the best players and compete for titles. Better they list us next to them than next to someone irrelevant. This is not to mention that we have had 3 one and done players in the past several years. That is not bad (and one was a transfer; I list him because I am going to miss Silent G)...
If we want to recruit good players we're going to have to deal with one and dones. For every guy that goes one-and-done there are probably 5-10 guys who are similarly talented at the time we start recruiting them (i.e. around their sophomore year of high school) but wind up staying in school for 2-4 years. There's so much uncertainty in how guys will develop, so if we were to stop recruiting anyone who has even a remote chance of being a one-and-doner, then we're cutting out a pretty significant percentage of the overall talent pool. Guys like Kyle and Mason were potential one-and-doners as high schoolers. What if we had laid off of them out of the fear of being labeled an NBA factory?
It's also kind of funny how as recently as 2010 the consensus was that Duke could no longer recruit one-and-done talent, that we had turned into a mid-major type team that relied on four-year players.