Should Duke Recruit One and Done Players?

[rockymtn devil]

Not for nothing, but Casey never gets credit for a nice finish to his career. In a close loss to a really good Kansas team to close his career, Casey went 28 minutes, grabbed seven boards and blocked five shots. Come to think of it, I'd love Casey Sanders with this current group.

Agreed. And he did that against one of the premier big men in the country that season. Although, if I recall correctly, Collison did have a monster game that night.

[Johnboy]

merry said it well above. I want Duke recruiting kids who are serious about being students and getting their degree. I can accept that we will have surprises like Deng, and I certainly don't hold his leaving against him.

[Classof06]

Guys like Deng didn't set the program back, but it certainly helps having some seniors.

While Luol is a good guy and really left Duke out of necessity, I would argue that his departure certainly set Duke back, no doubt about it. Combine that with Livingston going straight to pros and, IMO, you're talking about a situation that Duke only recently recovered from, if at all. Some might argue we still haven't recovered based on the way the last two seasons have gone.

I clearly have no proof of it but I believe Luol's departure cost Duke a national title. When I say "cost," that implies that Luol did something wrong. He didn't. I knew him personally and he was a phenomenal kid, pure class act. But you mean to tell me we wouldn't have gotten by Michigan State in the '05 Elite Eight with Luol? We would've been every bit as good as UNC that year. In fact, Luol's only year at Duke was the last time we swept UNC. Think about it...

[CDu]

While Luol is a good guy and really left Duke out of necessity, I would argue that his departure certainly set Duke back, no doubt about it. Combine that with Livingston going straight to pros and, IMO, you're talking about a situation that Duke only recently recovered from, if at all. Some might argue we still haven't recovered based on the way the last two seasons have gone.

I clearly have no proof of it but I believe Luol's departure cost Duke a national title. When I say "cost," that implies that Luol did something wrong. He didn't. I knew him personally and he was a phenomenal kid, pure class act. But you mean to tell me we wouldn't have gotten by Michigan State in the '05 Elite Eight with Luol? We would've been every bit as good as UNC that year. In fact, Luol's only year at Duke was the last time we swept UNC. Think about it...

I don't know that we would have won the title in 2005 (we did lose our senior PG/leader and UNC added a stellar freshman to a very talented and veteran team), but I agree that the loss of Deng set the team back. How could it not?

I agree as well that the loss of Deng and Livingston really hurt the 2005 team, and maybe the 2006 team. But anything beyond that falls to the following recruiting classes. Livingston was widely considered a one- or two-year commitment, and Deng should have been expected to go the JWill route and graduate in three years. They'd have been gone by 2006, and if Coach K wasn't recruiting as such, then I'd say he wasn't doing his job.

The "struggles" of 2007 and 2008 are founded more on some of our elite recruits not reaching their elite status potential at the college level and maybe some transfers, not on the early departures (or non-arrivals) of Deng, Humphries, and Livingston.

[Lulu]

Are they ever going to get rid of this completely idiotic rule? It truly couldn't be more stupid. What is it technically? that a player must be 19 to enter the NBA? or must be a year out of high school?

It's like the NBA got ticked at college for complaining about all the early departures, so they decided to screw them even more. One-and-done is so utterly pointless, just make it none-and-gone. 1 year doesn't count as a commitment of any sort, it's just a year that they're forced out of the NBA.

[Jumbo]

Are they ever going to get rid of this completely idiotic rule? It truly couldn't be more stupid. What is it technically? that a player must be 19 to enter the NBA? or must be a year out of high school?

It's like the NBA got ticked at college for complaining about all the early departures, so they decided to screw them even more. One-and-done is so utterly pointless, just make it none-and-gone. 1 year doesn't count as a commitment of any sort, it's just a year that they're forced out of the NBA.

No, the NBA decided to help its own game. Despite numerous prep-to-pro success stories (LeBron, Dwight Howard, etc.), there were obviously numerous other flameouts. The NBA's job is to look out for the ... NBA. And everyone figured out that it would be easier to evaluate talent if guys went ot college for at least a year, and that players would (hopefully) come into the league more polished, mature and recognizeable with college experience.

Now, I don't like the rule only in the sense that I don't believe players with no interest in attending college should be there. But I like it from an NBA standpoint, and that's the NBA's concern. The fraud that is the NCAA is to blame -- if they really wanted to crack down on one-and-done, academic-free programs (cough, Kansas State, cough), they could and would.

[pfrduke]

No, the NBA decided to help its own game. Despite numerous prep-to-pro success stories (LeBron, Dwight Howard, etc.), there were obviously numerous other flameouts. The NBA's job is to look out for the ... NBA. And everyone figured out that it would be easier to evaluate talent if guys went ot college for at least a year, and that players would (hopefully) come into the league more polished, mature and recognizeable with college experience.

Now, I don't like the rule only in the sense that I don't believe players with no interest in attending college should be there. But I like it from an NBA standpoint, and that's the NBA's concern. The fraud that is the NCAA is to blame -- if they really wanted to crack down on one-and-done, academic-free programs (cough, Kansas State, cough), they could and would.

Also, even though it may be a stretch to say the two are causally related (given that we've only had two drafts without high schoolers), the level of talent and the quality of play in the NBA is as good as it has been in 15-20 years. At the very least, it certainly hasn't hurt the league.

[Lulu]

Why is it in the back of my head somewhere that th NBA player's union had something to do with this decision? Am I completely wrong?

[Jumbo]

Why is it in the back of my head somewhere that th NBA player's union had something to do with this decision? Am I completely wrong?

The rule change couldn't have happened without the Players' Union's consent. It had to be collectively bargained. So, in the last CBA, the union pretended to make a big deal out of this, so they could get some other concessions in return. In truth, the rule was good for the union, too -- it projected jobs a bit longer.

[geraldsneighbor]

No, you guys are right. If we had Deng for a year or two more we probably would've made 2 more final fours and probably won it all once. That being said I don't blame Luol for looking out for Luol. I don't think it ripped the team apart. If we had Luol we beat Michigan State. Luol did cost us, but I don't hold it against him.

[yancem]

Yep. I sure was. How many true impact freshman would you say there were? 10? And I'm not talking about Singler and Hickson-esque guys who had solid Frosh campaigns, because we've got one of those. I'm talking game changing players who can put a team on thier back. Here's my list:

Beasley, Mayo, Love, Bayless, Blair, Green, Gordon, Ogilvy

That's about it. These guys aren't a dime a dozen, nor does each of these schools have a continual stream of players of this caliber. USC, K-State, Vandy and Pitt have not had these types of talents in a long while. Nor, do I think, they expect to have a once-in-a-decade talent every season. Those types of guys are few and far between, and to think that we can just pluck those guys from the sky is shortsighted and hubristic.

Here's the thing, of the 16 teams left in the NCAA tournament, how many of them have one of these super-stud game changing impact freshman? UCLA has Love, but they've been to the Final Four for 2 years, so the question really is will he put them over the top (and FTR, I don't think he's one and done)? As for the other 15 team, what do they have in common? Oh that's right, upperclassmen who have been there before and are leaders. Guys not worried about thier stats and point totals.

I think you hit on the main point (at least from a purely basketball standpoint). Even though it might seem like it in the nba, basketball is a team sport, no one, not even the greatest of the greatest, can carry a college team to a final four or NC without some decent players around him (just ask Durant). Carmelo is the only true freshman star to lead his team to a NC and he had another star freshman (McNamara) and a stud sophomore (Warrick) helping out. Oden had a lot of help and OSU got to the f4 but couldn't finish the deal. Love may help get UCLA over the hump this year but they have gotten to the f4 the last 2 years with out him and have several key upperclassmen.

In my opinion, this means that one and done (OAD) stud freshman are only worth it if you already have a strong team with upperclassmen and you just need a little push to get to the top. Duke may have a shot at the f4 or NC next year but probably won't be completely dominate so that would be a case where a OAD stud might be a positive.

If you don't have the good core to surround a OAD stud then he ends up being like a sugar high, you win a few extra games, sell a few extra tickets but after the season, you're worse off then when you started (OSU is a perfect example). Also, look at the tournament the last several years. A lot of the teams doing well are the programs with a solid group of upperclassmen that have good team chemistry. With the exception of OSU last year (and they had 3 freshman that declared for the draft although only Oden was supposed to be the only OAD), there aren't a lot of young teams making a loud of noise come tournament time. Plus recruiting players that don't stick around for more than a year or two puts a lot of pressure on your recruiting to be top notch every single year. Look at the way GaTech has yoyod the past couple of years. OSU is doing the same thing. SoCal seems to falling into that trap as well.

In the end, I think that recruiting has to be balanced. It's impractical to think that you can land bona fide nba all stars every year. What I think that K is trying to do and which I think is smart, is to target a mix of players, a few that can make an impact as freshman but will most likely be at least 3-4 year guys (Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith), some that might take a year or two to develop but will be starters or at least big contributers their junior and senior season (Zoubek, Thomas, King) and the occasional freshman stud that may only stick around a season or two but could pay big dividends (Singler). This should ensure that you always have a few junior and seniors that are strong leaders and contributers (unlike last year) but also allow for going for some truly top end recruits. We haven't seen the fruits of this approach yet but I think that next year things will come together (or at least I hope).

Now on the student athlete/college integrity side, i think that you would be hard pressed to advocate for OAD's.

[CDu]

No, you guys are right. If we had Deng for a year or two more we probably would've made 2 more final fours and probably won it all once. That being said I don't blame Luol for looking out for Luol. I don't think it ripped the team apart. If we had Luol we beat Michigan State. Luol did cost us, but I don't hold it against him.

For the record, I don't think Luol was looking out for Luol by going pro. I thought he was getting pressure from his family to go pro.

[MulletMan]

For the record, I don't think Luol was looking out for Luol by going pro. I thought he was getting pressure from his family to go pro.

Concur. Luol wanted to stay. From what I remember his family wanted him to go for the cash so that they could help out people back home financially.

[MulletMan]

I think you hit on the main point (at least from a purely basketball standpoint). Even though it might seem like it in the nba, basketball is a team sport, no one, not even the greatest of the greatest, can carry a college team to a final four or NC without some decent players around him (just ask Durant). Carmelo is the only true freshman star to lead his team to a NC and he had another star freshman (McNamara) and a stud sophomore (Warrick) helping out. Oden had a lot of help and OSU got to the f4 but couldn't finish the deal. Love may help get UCLA over the hump this year but they have gotten to the f4 the last 2 years with out him and have several key upperclassmen.

In my opinion, this means that one and done (OAD) stud freshman are only worth it if you already have a strong team with upperclassmen and you just need a little push to get to the top. Duke may have a shot at the f4 or NC next year but probably won't be completely dominate so that would be a case where a OAD stud might be a positive.

If you don't have the good core to surround a OAD stud then he ends up being like a sugar high, you win a few extra games, sell a few extra tickets but after the season, you're worse off then when you started (OSU is a perfect example). Also, look at the tournament the last several years. A lot of the teams doing well are the programs with a solid group of upperclassmen that have good team chemistry. With the exception of OSU last year (and they had 3 freshman that declared for the draft although only Oden was supposed to be the only OAD), there aren't a lot of young teams making a loud of noise come tournament time. Plus recruiting players that don't stick around for more than a year or two puts a lot of pressure on your recruiting to be top notch every single year. Look at the way GaTech has yoyod the past couple of years. OSU is doing the same thing. SoCal seems to falling into that trap as well.

In the end, I think that recruiting has to be balanced. It's impractical to think that you can land bona fide nba all stars every year. What I think that K is trying to do and which I think is smart, is to target a mix of players, a few that can make an impact as freshman but will most likely be at least 3-4 year guys (Paulus, Scheyer, Henderson, Smith), some that might take a year or two to develop but will be starters or at least big contributers their junior and senior season (Zoubek, Thomas, King) and the occasional freshman stud that may only stick around a season or two but could pay big dividends (Singler). This should ensure that you always have a few junior and seniors that are strong leaders and contributers (unlike last year) but also allow for going for some truly top end recruits. We haven't seen the fruits of this approach yet but I think that next year things will come together (or at least I hope).

Now on the student athlete/college integrity side, i think that you would be hard pressed to advocate for OAD's.

Well stated on all counts. The core is key. Heck, look at UF's back-to-back guys... none were superstars thier first year.

[Matches]

I agree that it undermines the school academically. It's one thing to have a guy like Luol break out as a freshman and decide to go pro, but recruiting someone who we know in advance has no interest in school and will likely be gone in a year undermines the basketball program's credibility with professors and administrators.