One and Done debate

[31andcounting]

Today's bleacher report article talks about the potential for a two-and-done or three-and-done rule, and how there's some support for it both that the NCAA level and the NBA level (particularly among the players). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...othing-to-lose

The problem it identifies is that there is no one to really lead the charge. It seems like Coach K would actually be the best person in basketball to really lead the effort to change things due to his dual role in college and NBA basketball (via Team USA). He's obviously spoken out against the rule quite vocally. Why doesn't he work on changing things? He even said in 2009 that "I think one of the main things that has to happen is college basketball has to have a relationship with the NBA." As the Coach of Team USA he has a pretty direct line to some of the most powerful guys in the NBA Players Union, the group who is largely credited as responsible for the rule. Who knows what conversations he has behind the scenes, but I would love to see him step up and use his unique position to change things - maybe even start some sort of working group.

[Duvall]

I'm not sure I agree with this. Kyrie was a turning point for Coach K. With Kyrie, Coach K signaled to the recruiting world that he was interested in OADs. Before that? Coach K rarely made a push for an OAD (and even more rarely got one).

Well, aside from players like Brandan Wright, Eric Gordon, Greg Monroe (who was widely expected to leave after one year).

Duke has always recruited elite players; it is just enjoying a streak now of *landing* them.

[Des Esseintes]

This is, of course, meaningless given the way college basketball and the NBA Draft have changed since then.

Yeah, we had a host of guys who could have jumped after one year. Elton, Jason, McRoberts. Boozer likely could have gone in the first round had he jumped after his freshman season. Shane, maybe? Of the guys who went on to be very high draft picks, only Dunleavy really lacked the option to have jumped earlier than he did.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Well, aside from players like Brandan Wright, Eric Gordon, Greg Monroe (who was widely expected to leave after one year).

Duke has always recruited elite players; it is just enjoying a streak now of *landing* them.

I have to disagree. Duke has always had elite players, but it rarely targeted true OADs. I see a huge distinction between the two. Kyle Singler = Elite prospect. John Wall = OAD. McBob = Elite prospect. Kevin Durant = OAD. All OADs are elite prospects, but not all elite prospects are OADs. There is a fine line, but I think it exists. Duke always targeted elite players, and would label Brandan Wright, Gordon, and Monroe as elite players rather than true OADs. Elite players can leave early, but that doesn't make them OADs. I hope that makes sense (it makes sense in my mind)

Anywho, Rivers (and to a certain extent Jabari) are true OADs as everyone and their mother are forecasting them to be at school for one year tops. The same goes for half of the Kentucky prospects, Wiggins, Barnes, etc.

Irving, for me, and the #1 jersey coupled with Irving getting the green nod as a freshman over Nolan and Singler, was a huge turning point in Coach K's recruiting mentality. Just my two cents.

[vick]

Today's bleacher report article talks about the potential for a two-and-done or three-and-done rule, and how there's some support for it both that the NCAA level and the NBA level (particularly among the players). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...othing-to-lose

The problem it identifies is that there is no one to really lead the charge. It seems like Coach K would actually be the best person in basketball to really lead the effort to change things due to his dual role in college and NBA basketball (via Team USA). He's obviously spoken out against the rule quite vocally. Why doesn't he work on changing things? He even said in 2009 that "I think one of the main things that has to happen is college basketball has to have a relationship with the NBA." As the Coach of Team USA he has a pretty direct line to some of the most powerful guys in the NBA Players Union, the group who is largely credited as responsible for the rule. Who knows what conversations he has behind the scenes, but I would love to see him step up and use his unique position to change things - maybe even start some sort of working group.

I think the idea of meaningful support from players for a three-and-done rule is wishful thinking, unless it came with a huge shortening of the length of rookie contracts (which the owners are not likely to support). Why would--or should--players agree to a system which basically would mandate that there be a single time in their career where they have significant negotiating power in the prime of their careers (the contract after the rookie one ends)?

At some level, we need to recognize that our interests as college basketball fans are not completely in alignment with player interests. No matter what Charles Barkley says, people who have actually looked at it empirically have generally concluded that players on average develop more quickly in the pros than in college, which makes sense if you look at it objectively--in what other field does it work differently? Spending your time playing basketball rather than studying history is going to make you a better basketball player, on average. Sure, we can point to specific examples where players were worse off going pro, but that's not evidence of a general trend. As a college basketball fan I'd like nothing more than to see the best players in college for four years. But as a fan of basketball overall as a sport--not to mention fundamental fairness--players are right to want to be able to ply their trade freely, professionally, when they are capable of doing it.

[FerryFor50]

I have to disagree. Duke has always had elite players, but it rarely targeted true OADs. I see a huge distinction between the two. Kyle Singler = Elite prospect. John Wall = OAD. McBob = Elite prospect. Kevin Durant = OAD. All OADs are elite prospects, but not all elite prospects are OADs. There is a fine line, but I think it exists. Duke always targeted elite players, and would label Brandan Wright, Gordon, and Monroe as elite players rather than true OADs. Elite players can leave early, but that doesn't make them OADs. I hope that makes sense (it makes sense in my mind)

Anywho, Rivers (and to a certain extent Jabari) are true OADs as everyone and their mother are forecasting them to be at school for one year tops. The same goes for half of the Kentucky prospects, Wiggins, Barnes, etc.

Irving, for me, and the #1 jersey coupled with Irving getting the green nod as a freshman over Nolan and Singler, was a huge turning point in Coach K's recruiting mentality. Just my two cents.

Duke definitely targeted John Wall and there was a pretty decent chance of landing him, IIRC.

They also targeted Shaun Livingston, Kobe Bryant, etc... guys who skipped college altogether.

[Li_Duke]

If you were to fit a model for early NCAA exit with one-and-done(s) and star senior(s), you'd have the following data points since 1999 (chosen because it was the first year of one-and-done(s) at Duke).
1999 - one-and-done(s): yes; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2000 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2001 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2002 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes (I count early graduate Jay Williams as a senior)
2003 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2004 - one-and-done(s): yes; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2005 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2006 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2007 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): no; sweet 16+: no
2008 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: no
2009 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): no; sweet 16+: yes
2010 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2011 - one-and-done(s): yes; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2012 - one-and-done(s): yes; star senior(s): no; sweet 16+: no
2013 - one-and-done(s): no; star senior(s): yes; sweet 16+: yes
2014 - one-and-done(s): yes; star senior(s): no; sweet 16+: no

Note that I loosely defined star senior(s) as those making any All-ACC team as a senior.

Frequencies:
Among one-and-done(s), 2/5 years resulted in not making the round of 16.
Among no star senior(s), 3/4 years resulted in not making the round of 16.

Univariate logistic models:
Early exit (modeling sweet 16+: no) and one-and-done(s): beta is 1.1 (p-value=0.36)
Early exit (modeling sweet 16+: no) and star senior(s): beta is -3.5 (p-value=0.025)

Multivariate logistic model for early exit:
One-and-done: 0.66 (p=0.68)
star seniors: -3.4 (p=0.03)

So statistically, we find lacking star seniors matter a lot more (statistically significantly so) then one-and-done(s) in whether Duke exits the tourney early.

[Duvall]

I have to disagree. Duke has always had elite players, but it rarely targeted true OADs. I see a huge distinction between the two. Kyle Singler = Elite prospect. John Wall = OAD. McBob = Elite prospect. Kevin Durant = OAD. All OADs are elite prospects, but not all elite prospects are OADs. There is a fine line, but I think it exists. Duke always targeted elite players, and would label Brandan Wright, Gordon, and Monroe as elite players rather than true OADs. Elite players can leave early, but that doesn't make them OADs. I hope that makes sense (it makes sense in my mind)

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.

[gus]

I have to disagree. Duke has always had elite players, but it rarely targeted true OADs. I see a huge distinction between the two. Kyle Singler = Elite prospect. John Wall = OAD. McBob = Elite prospect. Kevin Durant = OAD. All OADs are elite prospects, but not all elite prospects are OADs. There is a fine line, but I think it exists. Duke always targeted elite players, and would label Brandan Wright, Gordon, and Monroe as elite players rather than true OADs. Elite players can leave early, but that doesn't make them OADs. I hope that makes sense (it makes sense in my mind)

Anywho, Rivers (and to a certain extent Jabari) are true OADs as everyone and their mother are forecasting them to be at school for one year tops. The same goes for half of the Kentucky prospects, Wiggins, Barnes, etc.

Irving, for me, and the #1 jersey coupled with Irving getting the green nod as a freshman over Nolan and Singler, was a huge turning point in Coach K's recruiting mentality. Just my two cents.

Perhaps, but I think you've undermined your point by citing Wall, a player that Duke heavily recruited.

http://www.dukechronicle.com/blogs/b...ffer-john-wall

[flyingdutchdevil]

Duke definitely targeted John Wall and there was a pretty decent chance of landing him, IIRC.

They also targeted Shaun Livingston, Kobe Bryant, etc... guys who skipped college altogether.

Actually, from everything I heard, there wasn't a decent chance of landing Wall. Our courtship was semi-serious; we wanted Wall, but knew he was going to Kentucky. Recruiting Wall may have been a signal to other OADs (and may have helped to land Kyrie, for all we know). Coach K is definitely smart enough to pull this strategy. Or it may have been a last minute effort to sure up a shallow bench.

From Wall's perspective, he was Memphis all the way until Calipari jumped ship to a more attractive destination. Kentucky just made a ton more sense. Also, I heard that Wall wanted Duke to recruit him as it would increase his profile (which it did). Smart kid.


Again, my point in all of this is not that Coach K has never recruited OADs in the past. It's that his recruiting strategy has changed since Kyrie to pull in more true OADs. Elite does not mean OAD. OAD is the NBA-draft cream of the crop: the LBJs, the KDs, the Demarcus Cousins, the John Walls, the Kyrie Irvings, the Greg Odens. I do not consider OADs to be the Kyle Singlers, the Tyus Joneses, and the Luol Dengs of the world. These latter players are elite, and after a great freshman year, some do go pro (like Deng).

I guess my distinction between the two is that elite players are highly ranked and play a ton from day 1. An OAD is highly ranked, plays a ton from day 1, and everyone forecasts them to go pro before the season even begins.

[flyingdutchdevil]

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.

That's fine. But I don't recall scouts or the media calling Brandan Wright a fairly guaranteed OAD. Eric Gordon, if I recall, was more OAD material.

Sidenote: did we actually have a shot with Gordon? I recall that he was down to Illinois and Indiana and completely screwed over Illinois.

[Kedsy]

Yeah, we had a host of guys who could have jumped after one year. Elton, Jason, McRoberts. Boozer likely could have gone in the first round had he jumped after his freshman season. Shane, maybe? Of the guys who went on to be very high draft picks, only Dunleavy really lacked the option to have jumped earlier than he did.

No chance that Shane Battier could have been drafted after his freshman year. He scored 7.6 ppg and had 6.4 rpg and shot 16.7% from three-point range. He couldn't have gone after his sophomore year either, though probably could have after his junior year. I have my doubts about Carlos Boozer's early-year draft prospects as well. He certainly would not have been a likely first round pick after his freshman season.

[Li_Duke]

I have to disagree. Duke has always had elite players, but it rarely targeted true OADs. I see a huge distinction between the two. Kyle Singler = Elite prospect. John Wall = OAD. McBob = Elite prospect. Kevin Durant = OAD. All OADs are elite prospects, but not all elite prospects are OADs. There is a fine line, but I think it exists. Duke always targeted elite players, and would label Brandan Wright, Gordon, and Monroe as elite players rather than true OADs. Elite players can leave early, but that doesn't make them OADs. I hope that makes sense (it makes sense in my mind)

Anywho, Rivers (and to a certain extent Jabari) are true OADs as everyone and their mother are forecasting them to be at school for one year tops. The same goes for half of the Kentucky prospects, Wiggins, Barnes, etc.

Irving, for me, and the #1 jersey coupled with Irving getting the green nod as a freshman over Nolan and Singler, was a huge turning point in Coach K's recruiting mentality. Just my two cents.

I have to disagree (on multiple points). McBob was definitely a possible OAD (he just chose not to go after 1 year). So was Mason Plumlee (he was injured and never as good early as some expected). Irving didn't get the green nod over Nolan and Singler -- he got it along with Nolan and Singler.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Yeah, we had a host of guys who could have jumped after one year. Elton, Jason, McRoberts. Boozer likely could have gone in the first round had he jumped after his freshman season. Shane, maybe? Of the guys who went on to be very high draft picks, only Dunleavy really lacked the option to have jumped earlier than he did.

Shelden Williams is in the Dunleavy group. No way Shelden is top 10, not to mention top 5, after his freshman or sophomore seasons.

Redick is in the same boat (although not lottery, but neither was Boozer).

[SoCalDukeFan]

Today's bleacher report article talks about the potential for a two-and-done or three-and-done rule, and how there's some support for it both that the NCAA level and the NBA level (particularly among the players). http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...othing-to-lose

The problem it identifies is that there is no one to really lead the charge. It seems like Coach K would actually be the best person in basketball to really lead the effort to change things due to his dual role in college and NBA basketball (via Team USA). He's obviously spoken out against the rule quite vocally. Why doesn't he work on changing things? He even said in 2009 that "I think one of the main things that has to happen is college basketball has to have a relationship with the NBA." As the Coach of Team USA he has a pretty direct line to some of the most powerful guys in the NBA Players Union, the group who is largely credited as responsible for the rule. Who knows what conversations he has behind the scenes, but I would love to see him step up and use his unique position to change things - maybe even start some sort of working group.

I also liked the link to the Mark Cuban piece. I like Cuban and do agree with him on many things but I don't see what the NCAA can do about the 1 and done. To me that is all on the NBA. The NCAA can try to see that college players are actually getting an education which is something they seem to want to avoid, see uncch academic scandal.

One problem with the "baseball rule" for basketball is that there is no place for a kid who wants to develop his basketball skills but has no interest in academics. So the D League would have to be improved, and how do you improve the D League without hurting college basketball in some way.

Most people, including me and I think Coach K, feel that a player who wants to go pro after high school should be able to.

Lastly, I don't see how Coach K can get into the middle of this and still coach Duke. Anything he does will be seen as self serving.

SoCal

[Kedsy]

So statistically, we find lacking star seniors matter a lot more (statistically significantly so) then one-and-done(s) in whether Duke exits the tourney early.

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.

[FerryFor50]

But putting all that aside, of course teams with star seniors are going to perform better than teams without star seniors.

Unless you're Creighton...

[CDu]

A better argument might be that recruiting four-year guys will give you plenty of seniors and senior-laden teams perform better. Except this team had three seniors on it -- how many more did you want? If nobody ever left early and we kept 12 scholarship players, then three would be the average number of seniors you'd expect. If your response to that is the seniors this season weren't good enough players, I think you're arguing against yourself. These three seniors are exactly the sort of players we'd end up with every year if we never went after top ten guys. If these seniors aren't good enough (and that's a big if -- while I would have preferred Josh to have lived up to his recruiting ranking, overall I'm very happy with our seniors), then a plan to recruit lesser talent and avoid OADs would net us less overall success than we've had, not more.

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.

But most of all, I strongly object to the idea that all we're supposed to "get" out of players is NCAA tournament performance. If the rest of the season doesn't matter, we should just have a big 350-team tournament and be done with it.

I also object to the idea that NCAA tournament performance is a reasonable way to evaluate a team's season or how good the team was. For one thing, how far you get in the NCAA tournament involves many factors that are entirely outside the team's control -- as an example, last season Duke played a 15-seed, by far the toughest 7-seed (according to Pomeroy), the 2nd toughest 3-seed, and the toughest 1-seed. Ohio State, by comparison, played a 15-seed, a 10-seed, a 6-seed, and a 9-seed. Florida played a 14-seed, an 11-seed, a 15-seed, and a 4-seed. Both those teams also lost in the Elite Eight, but I'd bet Duke wouldn't have if they'd gotten to play Ohio State's or Florida's path.

This I agree with. I've always felt that the tourney can be a bit of a crapshoot. We've had some great teams go out earlier than they should have. We've had some not-so-great teams last longer than they should have. Quite a bit of it is dependent on luck. And I completely agree on the point that

[Kedsy]

Unless you're Creighton...

That's not what I meant. I meant if you look at one school, its successful teams are more likely to have star seniors than they are not to have star seniors. Think Creighton would have even made the tournament this season without Doug McDermott?

[FerryFor50]

That's not what I meant. I meant if you look at one school, its successful teams are more likely to have star seniors than they are not to have star seniors. Think Creighton would have even made the tournament this season without Doug McDermott?

Oh I agree with your overall point. I just wanted to throw that in there.