Movement on One-and-Done in the Future

[Duke95]

The cheating that takes place at other schools is a separate topic and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, you are conflating educational quality with opportunity.

It will improve the opportunity for a top-50/100 kid with very limited pro prospects to get an education at Duke if the school self-limits on 1&D. That will be true at the majority of upper-echelon non-cheating institutions. Last year's contributing institutions included Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, UWashington, NC State, FSU, Gonzaga, UCLA, Texas, Creighton, and UNC. Most of those are quality educational options.

Unfortunately, without NCAA regulation, no school will cheerfully disarm unilaterally. Hence the trend to basketball teams with a university rather than the reverse.

What the hell does educational "opportunity" mean if it isn't accompanied by any actual quality?

[Ultrarunner]

What the hell does educational "opportunity" mean if it isn't accompanied by any actual quality?

Are you saying that Duke does not offer a quality education?

[Duke95]

Are you saying that Duke does not offer a quality education?

Why are you answering a question with a question? This isn't just about Duke. And I know what education Duke offers, chief, I went there.

[Ultrarunner]

Why are you answering a question with a question? This isn't just about Duke. And I know what education Duke offers, chief, I went there.

I didn't. Go to Duke, that is. However, you're inability to grasp a simple concept concerns me.

[sagegrouse]

I didn't. Go to Duke, that is. However, you're inability to grasp a simple concept concerns me.

Duke95 was extremely cogent as an undergrad at Duke. It's when he wandered off to grad school that dementia began to set in, as it did for most of us.

[sagegrouse]

There is a proposal a-brewing that would allow HS seniors to go directly to the NBA, but require those who enrol in college to stay in college two years (or, in reality, delay their ability to enter the NBA by two years).

What are the pros and cons for Duke, or any program with top recruits?

Is this good or bad for college hoops as a whole? (I care more about the former questios.)

[Ultrarunner]

There is a proposal a-brewing that would allow HS seniors to go directly to the NBA, but require those who enrol in college to stay in college two years (or, in reality, delay their ability to enter the NBA by two years).

What are the pros and cons for Duke, or any program with top recruits?

Is this good or bad for college hoops as a whole? (I care more about the former questios.)

I think it's a pain in the patoot for the coaches recruiting but I think the kids should be able to go straight to the pros and cash in while they can. I'd like to see teams guarantee four years of tuition to players who skip school.

[kmspeaks]

So if you're not talented enough at 18, or ever, to enter the NBA and therefore play 1-4 years of college basketball, tough luck you don't get any of the billions that are being generated by the NCAA? Sorry, but that's not good enough for me.

The system you propose works for ~15 kids per year who are talented enough to go pro out of high school, and fails everyone else.

I think it works for those fifteen kids and the VAST majority for whom "play for tuition" is a really good deal. The handful who have NBA aspirations can continue to work on their craft and get good coaching.

Mtn.Devil nails it. They do get some of those billions, it just doesn't come in the form of a paycheck. They get a free education and since average student loan debt is somewhere around $30,000 I'd say that has some value, especially when we're talking about the kids who will never play professionally. They also get free travel, food, lodging, clothes, shoes, etc. Then there's the hard to quantify benefit of getting to play a sport you love at a competitive level for 4 more years before being limited to the giant tease that is adult rec sports. The vast majority of NCAA athletes are getting a good deal with their scholarship offers, it's those 15 or so who could go pro that could argue they're being shortchanged.

I think it's a pain in the patoot for the coaches recruiting but I think the kids should be able to go straight to the pros and cash in while they can. I'd like to see teams guarantee four years of tuition to players who skip school.

Baseball players often negotiate this into their contracts. I'd love to see it in basketball as well.

[AtlDuke72]

Mtn.Devil nails it. They do get some of those billions, it just doesn't come in the form of a paycheck. They get a free education and since average student loan debt is somewhere around $30,000 I'd say that has some value, especially when we're talking about the kids who will never play professionally. They also get free travel, food, lodging, clothes, shoes, etc. Then there's the hard to quantify benefit of getting to play a sport you love at a competitive level for 4 more years before being limited to the giant tease that is adult rec sports. The vast majority of NCAA athletes are getting a good deal with their scholarship offers, it's those 15 or so who could go pro that could argue they're being shortchanged.



Baseball players often negotiate this into their

contracts. I'd love to see it in basketball as well.

Seems like they could pay their own tuition out of multi million dolllar salaries.

[kmspeaks]

Seems like they could pay their own tuition out of multi million dolllar salaries.

The last pick in the 1st round of the NBA draft gets just over $1 million but you think there would be NCAA players who could command multi million dollar salaries? Remember we're talking about a scenario where kids can be drafted out of high school if they choose and I would have to assume there would be some sort of NCAA imposed limit or salary cap.

If schools wanted to pay kids and then have them pay their own tuition out of that salary then fine. Maybe there's a next tier of 50 players not good enough to get to the NBA out of high school that may be able to earn more than the value of a scholarship but that still leaves over 4000 D1 players worse off than they are under the current system. Not to mention that paying out millions in salaries could mean the end of non-revenue sports. Maybe they would survive at the D2 and D3 level if we're talking about different revenue streams but I don't know.

I couldn't find the total number of D1 athletes with a quick google search but there are around 460,000 across all divisions so we're talking about potentially taking away what is currently a really great opportunity from over 100,000 kids to address the 50 (I don't know if that's an accurate number I totally made it up but either way we're talking about a very small percentage of NCAA athletes) we believe are being underpaid.

That's a legitimate position to take but a) the potential ramifications for everybody else are rarely talked about
b) I'd disagree with it

[CDu]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

[olegreg]

Hopefully it wont affect the 2019 class. Vernon carey is a must if we are going to compete for national championship

[flyingdutchdevil]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

Undergrad transfers and grad transfers are going to see Duke as a really lucrative place to play! Also, the change in rule could signal retirement from our head coach. He's not "starting over" with the rule chance but certainly some "rebuilding" is involved. Would he want to be involved in that process? At 70+ in age, it certainly is a consideration.

[COYS]

One thing I haven't seen discussed about this is the potential short-term impact a change in the NBA's one-and-done policy would Duke. We're now extremely deep into the one-and-done model now, so much so that there is legitimate concern year-to-year about having ANY experienced players returning. This year, we were fortunate that Allen chose to return. Next year, we'll be reliant on DeLaurier (who might have logged less than 500 career minutes by then, and almost certainly will be below 750), MAYBE Bolden (ditto), and Vrankovic (almost certainly sub-300 minutes career) providing the veteran leadership unless one of our freshmen stars decides to come back. The following year could get even dicier.

A switch of policy to allow high schoolers to go pro could be problematic for us in the short-term. Imagine, for example, if said policy went into effect this coming summer. Presumably at least 2 of our recruits (and possibly all 3) would likely go pro. And they would have to grandfather in folks who are already in school, meaning we wouldn't get the benefit of our current freshmen stars being "forced" to come back for another year. So our roster would be - for one year at least, and probably for a few more - quite depleted.

I used this year as an example, but so long as we continue to rely heavily on landing top talent, the issue will apply every year.

That's neither a condemnation nor a recommendation for the proposed change in the system. Just noting that there are real short-term implications for Duke if we see such a switch. If it happens soon, it could really handcuff the some of the last years of Coach K's career.

On the other hand, this change would mean that players who aren't guaranteed to be drafted out of high school would stay at Duke for multiple years. Players would be forced to make their college/draft decision before stepping onto campus. In this scenario, Justise, Tyus, and Frank would likely have been at Duke for two seasons, each, because none of that group was a guaranteed first rounder out of high school. From this year's class, it's possible that Trevon and Gary would elect to come to college, as neither is a surefire top draft pick. So it's also possible that Duke's high level recruiting will simply continue, but with the kids who are more 50/50 on their prospects for being a one and done in the current environment. I would be extremely surprised if anyone agreed to change the rules prior to the 2018 HS class enrolling in college, since so much recruiting has already occurred with the assumption that OAD would be in place. So I would imagine that K and the staff will have time to adjust. Watching Kyrie, Bagley, Jabari, and others has been fun, I would hardly complain if the change in the rules meant that we got to keep talents like Tyus, Justise, and Frank for two seasons instead of one.

[summerwind03]

Also, because the first year will have so many players entering the draft, some of the current freshmen may decide to stay because they will no longer go as high.

[CDu]

On the other hand, this change would mean that players who aren't guaranteed to be drafted out of high school would stay at Duke for multiple years. Players would be forced to make their college/draft decision before stepping onto campus. In this scenario, Justise, Tyus, and Frank would likely have been at Duke for two seasons, each, because none of that group was a guaranteed first rounder out of high school. From this year's class, it's possible that Trevon and Gary would elect to come to college, as neither is a surefire top draft pick. So it's also possible that Duke's high level recruiting will simply continue, but with the kids who are more 50/50 on their prospects for being a one and done in the current environment. I would be extremely surprised if anyone agreed to change the rules prior to the 2018 HS class enrolling in college, since so much recruiting has already occurred with the assumption that OAD would be in place. So I would imagine that K and the staff will have time to adjust. Watching Kyrie, Bagley, Jabari, and others has been fun, I would hardly complain if the change in the rules meant that we got to keep talents like Tyus, Justise, and Frank for two seasons instead of one.

As I said, the point is not for 2018. The point is that, depending on the timing of the decision relative to implementation, we WON'T have time to adjust. It's doubtful that there will be a huge lag between when the decision is made and when the change is implemented. I would assume less than one year. At that point, it becomes very difficult to change your recruiting strategy mid-stride. While guys in the 20-50 range of the RSCI frequently sign late, there's no guarantee we'd be able to fill an entire class at the last minute in order to compete immediately. And furthermore, it's unlikely that guys in the 20-50 range would be able to carry a Duke team like the one-and-dones have, which is the reason why the model can work. So even if we are able to switch gears in time to get a recruiting class, it's not likely to be a strong enough class to make the first year or two go smoothly.

Again, the issue isn't so much with the incoming class. It's that years of one-and-done talent drains the quality of the returning players. Want to ignore 2018? Sure. How about 2019? Vrank would graduate. Reddish, Barrett, and Jones would likely go early. At that point, we MIGHT still have DeLaurier, MIGHT still have Bolden, and probably O'Connell as a junior. Who knows how good O'Connell will be? Furthermore, let's say Bolden and/or DeLaurier go pro or transfer between now and then. Same issue as if the change happened this summer. Or how about after 2020? Then, O'Connell is the only guy definitely on the squad. Presumably, we'd have a phenomenal 2019 recruiting class (that's been the case for the last three years, after all), and I'd expect the majority of those guys to go pro.

The reality of diving fully into the one-and-done era is that if the plug is pulled at any time, you could wind up with a very rough transition year (or two).

Undergrad transfers and grad transfers are going to see Duke as a really lucrative place to play! Also, the change in rule could signal retirement from our head coach. He's not "starting over" with the rule chance but certainly some "rebuilding" is involved. Would he want to be involved in that process? At 70+ in age, it certainly is a consideration.

Both of these points are on point. The last one of which I didn't want to broach, though I agree it would absolutely seem a possibility. If the change did happen and if Coach K did decide to stay on, he'd likely be forced to go the grad transfer and to a lesser degree undergrad transfer route to rebuild.

[ChillinDuke]

As I said, the point is not for 2018. The point is that, depending on the timing of the decision relative to implementation, we WON'T have time to adjust. It's doubtful that there will be a huge lag between when the decision is made and when the change is implemented. I would assume less than one year. At that point, it becomes very difficult to change your recruiting strategy mid-stride. While guys in the 20-50 range of the RSCI frequently sign late, there's no guarantee we'd be able to fill an entire class at the last minute in order to compete immediately. And furthermore, it's unlikely that guys in the 20-50 range would be able to carry a Duke team like the one-and-dones have, which is the reason why the model can work. So even if we are able to switch gears in time to get a recruiting class, it's not likely to be a strong enough class to make the first year or two go smoothly.

Again, the issue isn't so much with the incoming class. It's that years of one-and-done talent drains the quality of the returning players. Want to ignore 2018? Sure. How about 2019? Vrank would graduate. Reddish, Barrett, and Jones would likely go early. At that point, we MIGHT still have DeLaurier, MIGHT still have Bolden, and probably O'Connell as a junior. Who knows how good O'Connell will be? Furthermore, let's say Bolden and/or DeLaurier go pro or transfer between now and then. Same issue as if the change happened this summer. Or how about after 2020? Then, O'Connell is the only guy definitely on the squad. Presumably, we'd have a phenomenal 2019 recruiting class (that's been the case for the last three years, after all), and I'd expect the majority of those guys to go pro.

The reality of diving fully into the one-and-done era is that if the plug is pulled at any time, you could wind up with a very rough transition year (or two).



Both of these points are on point. The last one of which I didn't want to broach, though I agree it would absolutely seem a possibility. If the change did happen and if Coach K did decide to stay on, he'd likely be forced to go the grad transfer and to a lesser degree undergrad transfer route to rebuild.

I hear what you're saying. You're probably right to some degree. But for the avoidance of doubt, where are Jordan Goldwire and Jordan Tucker in the above hypotheticals? And what's to stop a similar strategy this coming spring/summer where Duke gets a few more mid-100/late-100/100+ ranked recruits. Couple that with an inevitable recruiting class in the following year (in some degree, maybe watered down if kids go straight to pros) and a grad transfer or two.

We'll have a team. And it won't be a terrible team. But I do agree it won't be Marvin Bagley Redux.

As for K retiring, I think he'll retire when he wants to retire. I don't think any rule changes will be the deciding factor. If there's one thing the guy has proven time and time again it's that he can make adjustments both to his recruiting strategy and his coaching strategy to weather whatever the heck is thrown at him. But agreed, let's not start turning this into a retirement discussion.

ETA - One last thing, I imagine if/when the rule is changed, I expect a lot of recruitments to reopen. I think there will be a total reshuffling of players as top players declare for the pros and the next tier consider leveling up in exposure / branding / coaching. I don't think it's going to be a simple situation if they change the OAD rule. Lot of things will happen. Hard to predict with any level of confidence.

- Chillin

[swood1000]

Presumably, high school players would also have until 10 days after the NBA's draft combine to remove their names from consideration for the draft, meaning that the best high school players would probably not be signing with anybody prior to mid-May. So colleges will have to gamble about whether to wait until then before filling a crucial position, which will work to the benefit of those programs that wouldn't have been in the running for the top players anyway.

12.2.4.2.1.1 Men’s Basketball. In men’s basketball, an enrolled student-athlete may enter a professional league’s draft each year during his collegiate career without jeopardizing eligibility in that sport, provided:
 

(a) The student-athlete requests that his name be removed from the draft list and declares his intent to resume intercollegiate participation not later than 10 days after the conclusion of the professional league’s draft combine. If the professional league does not conduct a draft combine, the student-athlete must request that his name be removed from the draft list not later than the end of the day before the first day of the spring National Letter of Intent signing period for the applicable year;

(b) The student-athlete’s declaration of intent is submitted in writing to the institution’s director of athletics; and

(c) The student-athlete is not drafted.

One wonders to whom the student-athlete’s declaration of intent would be submitted. The rule would be amended to supply this, no doubt.

[CDu]

I hear what you're saying. You're probably right to some degree. But for the avoidance of doubt, where are Jordan Goldwire and Jordan Tucker in the above hypotheticals? And what's to stop a similar strategy this coming spring/summer where Duke gets a few more mid-100/late-100/100+ ranked recruits. Couple that with an inevitable recruiting class in the following year (in some degree, maybe watered down if kids go straight to pros) and a grad transfer or two.

We'll have a team. And it won't be a terrible team. But I do agree it won't be Marvin Bagley Redux.

Yeah, I omitted those guys for a couple of reasons. One, because I don't see Goldwire as a key rotation player on top-tier D-1 team. The other is a frowned-upon topic of conversation at DBR. Still, I probably could have clarified a bit better on that.

Maybe those two guys are surprises over the coming years, but I wouldn't count on it. I think it is more likely that we'd just have a really young team minus the top-end talent. Barring wholesale acquisition of grad transfers/JuCo transfers/undergrad transfers, of course.

I don't think we'd be awful. But I would venture that we'd stand a good chance of being bubblicious, if not worse.

As for K retiring, I think he'll retire when he wants to retire. I don't think any rule changes will be the deciding factor. If there's one thing the guy has proven time and time again it's that he can make adjustments both to his recruiting strategy and his coaching strategy to weather whatever the heck is thrown at him. But agreed, let's not start turning this into a retirement discussion.

- Chillin

Yeah, I'm not expecting Coach K to retire over such a thing. I just wouldn't completely rule it out. On the other hand, it might be the type of challenge to reinvigorate him and keep him on for a few additional years.