One and Done debate

[Li_Duke]

First of all, way small sample size (2 out of 5? 3 out of 4?). Second, your conclusion depends on whether or not a one-and-done talent decides to stay in school or not. If Jabari stays, what's that do to your table? Or what if McRob had left after his freshman year? Same with "counting" Jason Williams as a senior when he wasn't a senior (the value of seniors is in how many years they've been on the team, not in when they're able to graduate). When the sample is 4 or 5, moving a chip from one side of the ledger to the other changes things significantly, doesn't it?

Also, did you take into account the seasons in which we had both star seniors and a one-and-done? Because it looks like we went to the Sweet 16 in 3 out of 3 of those seasons (and made the Final Four twice, although that's not part of your table). With such a small sample, it seems that would skew your conclusion, or at least change it to we should try to have both.

But putting all that aside, of course teams with star seniors are going to perform better than teams without star seniors. The difficulty lies in finding players capable of being stars who are also willing to stick around until senior year.

Sample size is relative; you can have meaningful results with few samples. It's a question of what risks you're willing to tolerate with a wrong conclusion (very high in this case since I'm using it to make a point on a message board). The point of the analysis was to refute those attributing our early NCAA losses to one-and-dones. The results say that we lack much evidence to make that conclusion, and have much more evidence to say we lost early because we lacked senior stars (switching Jay Williams to the other side of the ledger doesn't change that conclusion). We're also more likely to have one-and-dones in seasons where we lack senior stars (probably because Coach K sees a greater need for the one-and-dones in those seasons and recruits accordingly). I'd imagine we'd have fared even worse without them.

The other argument being made in this thread is not recruiting one-and-dones means less transfers/more scholarships to those who'd develop into star seniors. I haven't thought of a way to statistically refute that argument yet, so I'll just say I respectfully disagree.

[Kedsy]

Well, I don't completely agree here. While we had 3 seniors, two of them combined for about 20 minutes per game (and a lot of DNPs) and the other was a fairly limited (though very smart and efficient) player. There's a substantial difference, for example, between this year's three seniors and last year's three seniors. Having seniors is one thing. Having seniors that play major roles is another.

It's not just that you want to have seniors. You want to have seniors that are able to play major roles. You want to have guys like Scheyer, Zoubek, Singler, Smith, Thomas, Plumlee, Redick, Williams, Duhon, etc. - guys that were okay-to-good early in their careers but continually improved to good-to-great as juniors or seniors.

Dawkins and Hairston could have been those type of guys, but for whatever reason never quite progressed. Thornton was a guy who certainly progressed, but was starting from such a talent deficit that he was just a role player by his senior year. So the argument isn't that guys like Dawkins and Hairston should be avoided; the argument is that we need those guys to successfully develop into major roles by the time they are juniors or seniors.

The question is how to tell the first group from the second group when you're recruiting them in high school? It's easy to say you need seniors who play major roles, but if you're not recruiting any top 10 guys there's no way of knowing whether or not the 20ish (Andre) or 30ish (Josh) guys you recruit will end up playing major roles as seniors or not.

The post of mine to which you responded was itself in response to a post that suggested we shouldn't recruit one-and-dones because "all we got" was one Sweet 16 in three recent years in which we've had OADs (assuming Jabari enters the draft). But the only way to avoid OADs is to not recruit top 10 talent. But if you recruit primarily in the 11 to 19 range, then (a) there aren't that many guys in your talent pool and you're going to miss a lot more; and (b) you run the "risk" of them improving in high school and becoming a one-and-done talent. If you recruit primarily in the 20+ range, you run the risk of guys becoming seniors who don't play major roles. I mentioned that we had three seniors this season to emphasize that last point. My conclusion in the part of my post that you quoted was, "If these seniors aren't good enough (...), then a plan to recruit lesser talent and avoid OADs would net us less overall success than we've had, not more."

[Kedsy]

Sample size is relative; you can have meaningful results with few samples. It's a question of what risks you're willing to tolerate with a wrong conclusion (very high in this case since I'm using it to make a point on a message board). The point of the analysis was to refute those attributing our early NCAA losses to one-and-dones. The results say that we lack much evidence to make that conclusion, and have much more evidence to say we lost early because we lacked senior stars (switching Jay Williams to the other side of the ledger doesn't change that conclusion). We're also more likely to have one-and-dones in seasons where we lack senior stars (probably because Coach K sees a greater need for the one-and-dones in those seasons and recruits accordingly). I'd imagine we'd have fared even worse without them.

The other argument being made in this thread is not recruiting one-and-dones means less transfers/more scholarships to those who'd develop into seniors. I haven't thought of a way to statistically refute that argument yet, so I'll just say I respectfully disagree.

Yeah, I agree with both your points -- I don't think having one-and-dones can be be blamed for our NCAAT losses and I don't think it stunts the growth of players who would otherwise become senior stars. I just don't think your table advances the discussion very much, other than to point out how little data we have to support the opposing conclusion, especially since most people around here aren't so happy with Sweet 16s either.

[CDu]

The question is how to tell the first group from the second group when you're recruiting them in high school? It's easy to say you need seniors who play major roles, but if you're not recruiting any top 10 guys there's no way of knowing whether or not the 20ish (Andre) or 30ish (Josh) guys you recruit will end up playing major roles as seniors or not.

The post of mine to which you responded was itself in response to a post that suggested we shouldn't recruit one-and-dones because "all we got" was one Sweet 16 in three recent years in which we've had OADs (assuming Jabari enters the draft). But the only way to avoid OADs is to not recruit top 10 talent. But if you recruit primarily in the 11 to 19 range, then (a) there aren't that many guys in your talent pool and you're going to miss a lot more; and (b) you run the "risk" of them improving in high school and becoming a one-and-done talent. If you recruit primarily in the 20+ range, you run the risk of guys becoming seniors who don't play major roles. I mentioned that we had three seniors this season to emphasize that last point. My conclusion in the part of my post that you quoted was, "If these seniors aren't good enough (...), then a plan to recruit lesser talent and avoid OADs would net us less overall success than we've had, not more."

Completely agree with that. Sorry I misunderstood your point the first time.

[The Gordog]

To be honest, it doesn't make any sense. Any distinction between Brandan Wright and Eric Gordon - top five recruits that left college after one year - and "true one-and-dones" is purely imaginary.

Exactly. And McRoberts was the #1 recuit out of his High School class. We took him over Hanstravel.

[dukepsy1963]

I have designed a "end one and done" design for t-shirts, coffee mugs, etc. If you are so inclined, take a look.

www.cafepress.com/Admin_CP12079084

I will donate 1/2 the profits to the Duke Alumni association.

basketball IIII .jpg

[Reilly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_H...ature=youtu.be

What's in your wallet?

[Atlanta Duke]

N&O beat reporters and columnist Luke DeCock discuss subjects including Duke's success with the one and done model in an end of season roundtable discussion of the UNC, State and Duke seasons in today's N&O - some interesting points

This from Duke beat reporter Laura Keeley

Krzyzewski said before the Mercer game that young teams struggle to play good, solid defense. So if Duke is going to stay young, with the one-and-done model that has only worked for John Calipari, does that mean the defense that the program was built on needs to change?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/...ml?sp=/99/103/

[Duvall]

NThis from Duke beat reporter Laura Keeley

Krzyzewski said before the Mercer game that young teams struggle to play good, solid defense. So if Duke is going to stay young, with the one-and-done model that has only worked for John Calipari, does that mean the defense that the program was built on needs to change?

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/03/...ml?sp=/99/103/

A false premise, I think. Duke gave 33 starts (out of 36) to a freshman last season, and still managed to field a mature team that defended well when healthy.

[CameronBornAndBred]

This from Duke beat reporter Laura Keeley

Krzyzewski said before the Mercer game that young teams struggle to play good, solid defense. So if Duke is going to stay young, with the one-and-done model that has only worked for John Calipari, does that mean the defense that the program was built on needs to change?

Good question, but I do have one complaint. The "one-and-done model that has only worked for John Calipari" is NOT the same model that K has empoyed, at least not yet. Calipari loads his team with one and dones, as many as he can get, K has not done this. He (thankfully) still at least does bring in the guys that will be around for a few years, and has used only 1 OAD guy. If three very talented guys said to Krzyzewski "we're coming, but only for one year", I'm not sure he'd take them all. I have no doubt Cal would, and thankfully that is his problem to deal with, because I do think it would be a problem either during or after the season is over.

[Atlanta Duke]

Some comments on one and done as well as the potential change to "2 and 20"

But what do current high school players who may have the opportunity to leave college for the pros after one year think about the possibility of raising the minimum to 20? One such player, center Jahlil Okafor of Whitney Young Magnet High School in Chicago, said Tuesday that a 20-year old age limit would be unfair.

“I’ll definitely have the option of going to the NBA after my first year,” he said. “[The increased age minimum] is something that could potentially affect me also.”...

And it does not appear his father thinks Jahil coming to Duke next year is the best of all possible worlds

Jahlil’s father, Chuck, said he would have liked for his son to have the option to jump to the NBA straight out of high school, adding that some players are prepared to play in the pros at 18.

“That’s one option that was not available (to Jahlil) and that’s the tough part about it because you can’t even consider it at this point,” he said

http://nba.si.com/2014/03/26/nba-age...ver/?eref=sihp

[Double DD]

Good question, but I do have one complaint. The "one-and-done model that has only worked for John Calipari" is NOT the same model that K has empoyed, at least not yet. Calipari loads his team with one and dones, as many as he can get, K has not done this. He (thankfully) still at least does bring in the guys that will be around for a few years, and has used only 1 OAD guy. If three very talented guys said to Krzyzewski "we're coming, but only for one year", I'm not sure he'd take them all. I have no doubt Cal would, and thankfully that is his problem to deal with, because I do think it would be a problem either during or after the season is over.

If Duke is recruiting Myles Turner still as reported, that would seem to go somewhat against your point. He and Okafor would be the most likely one-and-dones in the 2014 recruiting class as the two best NBA prospects. And Jones and Winslow would certainly be possibilities to leave early as well.

[Dukehky]

This is something that was on si.com today.

http://nba.si.com/2014/03/26/nba-age...ver/?eref=sihp

I always took Jah to be a definite 1 and done guy, and his statements are true. 2 and 20 would hurt players who were ready to go to the pros. I guess I can appreciate him being outspoken and honest.

His dad's comments though. To be honest, Chuck Okafor, since I started following Jahlil's recruitment in the fall, just rubs me the wrong way and makes me kinda feel uneasy. No need to go into it because it's just my opinion, but I took his quote in that piece to pretty much mean that "my son is good enough to go pro and we would have gone if the rule wasn't there, we have to go to college and it's slowing him down." Maybe that's way off Again, it may just be because he is more involved in his son's recruitment and more out there than many of our other recruits' parents, which is certainly justifiable and is his prerogative, but he just comes off as a stage parent a lot of the time.


Edit: Sorry just saw this listed above in the thread, but I thought I'd add my 2 cents on the announcement

Side note: I think 2 and 20 is coming within the next 3 years. I think that will be Silver's first big splash as commish. And with the Unionization of players, maybe stipends for revenue producing sports isn't too far behind that. If the latter happens, then there is no way a player can be hurt by coming to college for two years.

[vick]

Side note: I think 2 and 20 is coming within the next 3 years. I think that will be Silver's first big splash as commish. And with the Unionization of players, maybe stipends for revenue producing sports isn't too far behind that. If the latter happens, then there is no way a player can be hurt by coming to college for two years.

Wait, how is a player not hurt by 2 and 20 even if there are stipends? Unless the rookie wage scale is adjusted to be shorter, it delays the point at which a player can enter the relatively (but certainly not completely) free market for his skills by a year. I would think it is extremely unlikely that a stipend would even approach the wage shortfall he would experience.

[wsb3]

Coach K has a way of helping me view things in a different light. Obviously he reads all the posts here & felt the need to respond to one & done players..

He said, if Kyrie did not get hurt he felt they had a good chance to win it all & if that would have happened would attitudes be different at Duke about one & done players. I say yes. I believe the large majority of us would be saying, "Kyrie was only here one year but it meant the fifth banner hung in Cameron.

[Dukehky]

Wait, how is a player not hurt by 2 and 20 even if there are stipends? Unless the rookie wage scale is adjusted to be shorter, it delays the point at which a player can enter the relatively (but certainly not completely) free market for his skills by a year. I would think it is extremely unlikely that a stipend would even approach the wage shortfall he would experience.

Of course you're right. However, scholarships are still worth a substantial amount of money, not nearly as much as an NBA contract, I'll grant.

I'm still in the camp that college can and will improve a person in multiple facets and can help kids transition to adult-hood, even/especially if they are making massive amounts of money. I'm also in the camp that thinks college athletes should be able to market their person, and should be paid if they play a revenue producing sport. Sorry women's golf and men's tennis, you don't get paid.

I meant that college athletes can still lose money even if they're on scholarship from flights home, extra spending money, etc. If you remove that from the question and they have to stay in college for two years, that would be good for most people. Financially, it may not be the best in the short run, but hopefully it will in the long run.

[AAA1980]

A false premise, I think. Duke gave 33 starts (out of 36) to a freshman last season, and still managed to field a mature team that defended well when healthy.

Yeah thats not an excuse at all there are freshmen who play good d, you can say what you want about Cals UK teams but most of them have been pretty goood defensively..

I hate how the Duke loss has been used by the anti one and done people to push their agenda and act like thats the main reason we lost..

How about the fact that we have no size to the point a mid major team like Mercer BULLIED us in the paint nobody wants to brign up that point theyd rather blame everyhting on the one and done rule and freshmen..