Top 20 schools and conferences at producing NBA talent.

[JNort]

NBA Path to the Draft: By Eamonn Brennan

He is in short doing a countdown of the best college teams at producing NBA talent (20 to 1). With quality and quantity both taken into affect he also is counting down conferences the same way. He is now down to number 7 (UCLA) and Duke has not come up yet nor the ACC. He is only counting the players drafted since 1989 so unc can not rely on Jordan to boost their status thank God. SO far I am enjoying his little series and while some of his thoughts I disagree with I find his overall assessments and opinions respectable.



http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/85004/path-to-the-draft-ranking-nba-pe

[UrinalCake]

This kind of gets into the larger question of how much a player's NBA success can really be attributed to his time in college. And beyond that, how much of his NBA team's success has to do with his college. UNC fans are proud of how well Danny Green is doing, as they have the right to do, but is his success really attributable to coming off the bench for four years over there, then having like three years where he floundered in the NBA and was hated by his teammates before finally pulling it all together? Is it possible that UNC actually had nothing to do with what he's doing right now? Similarly, UNC fans are bragging about Harrison Barnes and look forward to him becoming a star that they can point to as proof that recruits should come to UNC. Yet his coach (Mark Jackson) said outright that when he was drafted he was completely unprepared for the NBA and couldn't play any defense at all. It was only his own coaching that led to Barnes's breakout performances. So should UNC really take "credit" for him when he was a #1 recruit who spent two years there and yet left unprepared for the next level?

And in fairness, there are also some Duke players who struggled initially in the league before establishing themselves, and it would be fair to say the same thing about them. I kind of feel like with respect to physical development and skills, once a guy has been out of school for two or three seasons, his basketball skills are no longer a product of what college he went to. However, I also think that intangibles such as work ethic, leadership, personal habits, and attitude can be instilled at the college level and affect a player for their entire careers. What do you guys think?

[Billy Dat]

This kind of gets into the larger question of how much a player's NBA success can really be attributed to his time in college. And beyond that, how much of his NBA team's success has to do with his college. UNC fans are proud of how well Danny Green is doing, as they have the right to do, but is his success really attributable to coming off the bench for four years over there, then having like three years where he floundered in the NBA and was hated by his teammates before finally pulling it all together? Is it possible that UNC actually had nothing to do with what he's doing right now? Similarly, UNC fans are bragging about Harrison Barnes and look forward to him becoming a star that they can point to as proof that recruits should come to UNC. Yet his coach (Mark Jackson) said outright that when he was drafted he was completely unprepared for the NBA and couldn't play any defense at all. It was only his own coaching that led to Barnes's breakout performances. So should UNC really take "credit" for him when he was a #1 recruit who spent two years there and yet left unprepared for the next level?

And in fairness, there are also some Duke players who struggled initially in the league before establishing themselves, and it would be fair to say the same thing about them. I kind of feel like with respect to physical development and skills, once a guy has been out of school for two or three seasons, his basketball skills are no longer a product of what college he went to. However, I also think that intangibles such as work ethic, leadership, personal habits, and attitude can be instilled at the college level and affect a player for their entire careers. What do you guys think?

First off, I think Dancin Danny started his entire Senior Year at UNC. I also know nothing about whether or not his teammates hated him.

As to the big question, I think it varies. Obviously, the longer a kid stays at a school, the more, I think, you can attribute the school to influencing their pro career. I think Roy Williams and the UNC staff get a lot of credit for helping Green develop. The same is probably true for the Pigeon. As much as we like to bash UNC, our programs are very similar in that the alumni come back and play with/counsel the youngsters, and when those alumni are NBA players, I think it makes a big difference.

I think the point you make about intangibles is right on, but the basketball skill aspect extends to knowing how to execute team offense and defense schemes which are vital aspects of pro ball. I think Duke guys, and likely UNC guys, are held accountable for a lot in terms of being on time, putting in lots of non official practice time in the weight room, film room, etc. I think that the pro careers of 4 year guys like Lance Thomas and Chris Duhon is proof of a school helping a guy develop pro habits and standards (granted, Chris liked to party too). I also think it helped guys who were stars but had to change their games to stick in the NBA - JJ, Dahntay, Shane etc. Obviously, the school helps shape and mold great talents like Grant, Elton, Boozer, etc.

As for the transcendent one-and-dones like Kyrie and Luol...it's hard to say. Kyrie seems like he's open to the ongoing influence - he keeps coming back to visit and play, take classes, etc. Granted, Hairston is one of his best friends so there is that pull. As far as I know, Luol doesn't come back as much, if at all.

Bottom line, once a guy goes pro, how much fire he has in the belly is the primary determinant of whether or not he'll be able to stick in the League (and, oh yeah, his natural talent). But, great programs like Duke and UNC have a way of stoking that fire, and teaching kids how to stoke it themselves.

[Li_Duke]

I think Eamonn Brennan's take is how impressed recruits are when looking at a school and their history of draft success since 1989 (when they went to two rounds). He ignores the question of whether a school is responsible for that player's success. He seems to consider 3 criteria: quality of NBA players, depth of NBA players, and consistency in producing pros.

[CDu]

As to the big question, I think it varies. Obviously, the longer a kid stays at a school, the more, I think, you can attribute the school to influencing their pro career. I think Roy Williams and the UNC staff get a lot of credit for helping Green develop. The same is probably true for the Pigeon. As much as we like to bash UNC, our programs are very similar in that the alumni come back and play with/counsel the youngsters, and when those alumni are NBA players, I think it makes a big difference.

I don't know that I agree about Green. I mean, he's a guy who was cut three times (twice by the Spurs) before finally sticking on the roster. Are we to believe that both the Cavs and Spurs were so blind to his abilities that they cut him despite his readiness? Or is it more plausible to believe that he simply figured out what he needed to do to make a team, and subsequently put in the work to make it happen?


As for the transcendent one-and-dones like Kyrie and Luol...it's hard to say. Kyrie seems like he's open to the ongoing influence - he keeps coming back to visit and play, take classes, etc. Granted, Hairston is one of his best friends so there is that pull. As far as I know, Luol doesn't come back as much, if at all.

Bottom line, once a guy goes pro, how much fire he has in the belly is the primary determinant of whether or not he'll be able to stick in the League (and, oh yeah, his natural talent). But, great programs like Duke and UNC have a way of stoking that fire, and teaching kids how to stoke it themselves.[/QUOTE]

I tend to think that the one-and-dones are not likely shaped too much by their college experience, and as such not much credit for development goes to the college. Of course, I also tend to think that (in most cases) players' success in the NBA is individual-driven, not college-driven. I think the biggest thing that the college experience provides a prospect is a platform to showcase his skills. I think much of the development for the NBA happens on the job.

[Billy Dat]

I don't know that I agree about Green. I mean, he's a guy who was cut three times (twice by the Spurs) before finally sticking on the roster. Are we to believe that both the Cavs and Spurs were so blind to his abilities that they cut him despite his readiness? Or is it more plausible to believe that he simply figured out what he needed to do to make a team, and subsequently put in the work to make it happen?

I think my point here is that a school with a long NBA pedigree is an amazing resource for their alumni...they can reach out to other pros, there are pro coaches and front office guys looking out for them, etc. As Green was getting cut again and again, maybe he reached out to guys like George Karl and Jerry Stackhouse to get advice...maybe Mitch Kupchek...that kind of stuff. Maybe there were coaches and strength and conditioning guys he met through the UNC family. Agree that it is individually driven, but the difference in various programs as far as NBA footprint is concerned is vast.

[BigWayne]

I think Eamonn Brennan's take is how impressed recruits are when looking at a school and their history of draft success since 1989 (when they went to two rounds). He ignores the question of whether a school is responsible for that player's success. He seems to consider 3 criteria: quality of NBA players, depth of NBA players, and consistency in producing pros.
The problem with that is that the sportswriter is projecting what he thinks is important to a recruit and that his method of assessing that merit is somehow worth something. The whole equation has too many variables to have any real meaning. This especially so since the era of one and done came upon us.

[Li_Duke]

The problem with that is that the sportswriter is projecting what he thinks is important to a recruit and that his method of assessing that merit is somehow worth something. The whole equation has too many variables to have any real meaning. This especially so since the era of one and done came upon us.

Agreed with all that, but doesn't make the exercise any less entertaining. :)

[luburch]

Duke is number five on the list.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/85706/path-to-the-draft-no-5-duke

[UrinalCake]

Duke is number five on the list.

http://espn.go.com/blog/collegebasketballnation/post/_/id/85706/path-to-the-draft-no-5-duke

I thought the author was pretty fair. Duke has a lot of "depth" in terms of numbers of guys in the league, but our best players are kind of on the decline with the exception of Irving. Injuries have devastated multiple players' careers (the author didnt even mention Jason Williams) but despite that we have plenty of examples of borderline allstar-type players.

Will be interested to see who the top four programs are. I feel like based on the criteria (players drafted since 1989) we should be ahead of UNC but I guess they have some 90's players like Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Jamison, etc. I can't see the whole list but I believe the schools that haven't appeared yet include UNC, UCONN, and Kentucky. Who else? Maybe the author will do something unexpected and include "straight from high school" as an entry.

I'd also love to see a list of the same schools ranked according to their recruiting classes over this time period, then compare the lists. Which schools did the most with lesser-ranked recruits, and vice versa?

[Duvall]

I thought the author was pretty fair. Duke has a lot of "depth" in terms of numbers of guys in the league, but our best players are kind of on the decline with the exception of Irving. Injuries have devastated multiple players' careers (the author didnt even mention Jason Williams) but despite that we have plenty of examples of borderline allstar-type players.

Will be interested to see who the top four programs are. I feel like based on the criteria (players drafted since 1989) we should be ahead of UNC but I guess they have some 90's players like Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Jamison, etc.

Well, aside from Stackhouse there isn't much of an "etc." for UNC in the 90s.

I'm not sure why the fact that a number of Duke's best players are on decline if you're comparing production. If you're trying to assess who can put together the best alumni team for a game right now sure, but I don't think that was the question.

[Olympic Fan]

I thought the author was pretty fair. Duke has a lot of "depth" in terms of numbers of guys in the league, but our best players are kind of on the decline with the exception of Irving. Injuries have devastated multiple players' careers (the author didnt even mention Jason Williams) but despite that we have plenty of examples of borderline allstar-type players.

Will be interested to see who the top four programs are. I feel like based on the criteria (players drafted since 1989) we should be ahead of UNC but I guess they have some 90's players like Vince Carter, Rasheed Wallace, Jamison, etc. I can't see the whole list but I believe the schools that haven't appeared yet include UNC, UCONN, and Kentucky. Who else? Maybe the author will do something unexpected and include "straight from high school" as an entry.

I'd also love to see a list of the same schools ranked according to their recruiting classes over this time period, then compare the lists. Which schools did the most with lesser-ranked recruits, and vice versa?

Fair?

Well, let's see. Duke had the second most alums in the league in 2013 (Kentucky 20, Duke 18, UNC 16, Kansas 14). Duke has been one or two on that category almost every season in this century. Duke grads have had the highest cumulative salaries in the league in seven of the last nine years, including this season. Of the 18 Duke players who were in the NBA this season, six averaged in double figures, topped by Kyrie Irving at 22.5 ppg. -- five averaged more than 14 ppg.

That works out to fifth?

And which Duke players are in decline? Grant Hill, yes -- he just retired. Elton Brand hasn't been the same player since he blew out his Achilles a few years ago. Battier is getting older -- but he's about to win his second ring.

But is Irving in decline? Boozer (16.2 ppg., 9.8 rpg.) is still going strong. Deng, Redick and GHenderson are in their prime. Singler just made the all-rookie team in his first year.

Just curious ... how many UNC guys averaged at least 14 ppg this past season? The answer -- one Ty Lawson 16.7 ppg.

You want to talk about a school with its stays in decline -- look to Chapel Hill.

[TexHawk]

Well, aside from Stackhouse there isn't much of an "etc." for UNC in the 90s.

This blew me away, but apparently Shammond Williams played 7 years in the NBA (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willish01.html).

[CDu]

Well, aside from Stackhouse there isn't much of an "etc." for UNC in the 90s.

I'm not sure why the fact that a number of Duke's best players are on decline if you're comparing production. If you're trying to assess who can put together the best alumni team for a game right now sure, but I don't think that was the question.


This blew me away, but apparently Shammond Williams played 7 years in the NBA (http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/w/willish01.html).

Along with Stackhouse and Williams, there is Scott Williams, Rick Fox, Hubert Davis, Eric Montross, Jeff McInnis, George Lynch, and (depending on whether the criteria includes the 1989 draft or not) JR Reid. Those guys all played at least 7 years in the league, including quite a bit of time as starters.

If you're looking at post-Dean Smith NBA success, UNC falls well short of Duke. But there is nearly 10 years worth of pretty solid NBA guys that Smith recruited and coached that made an impact. And when compared to Duke, the 1989-1998 era still falls in favor of UNC (though perhaps the injuries to Hill, Laettner, and Hurley helped increase the discrepancy).

[PSurprise]

And how long did that Forte kid play in the league??

[Henderson]

I agree with those of you who are skeptical about this ranking. Part of the problem is linguistic. Colleges don't "produce" NBA players. Mommies and Daddies produce NBA players, who then either run with those genes or don't. Should Bill Self get credit when Wiggins becomes a pro? Was it K who "produced" Kyrie Irving? Is Kevin Durant playing in the NBA because of the coaching wisdom of Rick Barnes? Each would be given credit in this ranking.

This ranking is more an insight into recruiting success than "production" of NBA players. If you wanted to really figure out what programs develop (not "produce") players, a lot more interesting ranking would be based on this question: How many players not ranked in the top 100 of their HS class were coached by a single head coach for 4 years then played in the NBA? A coach who pulls that off consistently has my admiration more than does one who sends top 20 HS recruits to the NBA after a year or two.

Except for K. He's a god from any point of view.

[Li_Duke]

For those wonder, a recap of the teams and players.

5. Duke (Hill, Brand, Boozer, Irving, Deng, Maggette, Battier, Laettner, Dunleavy, Reddick, Henderson, Duhon, Jones, Singler, Rivers)
6. Arizona (Arenas, Terry, Bibby, Elliott, Jefferson, Iguodala, Stoudamire, Dele, Mills, Dickerson, Bayless, Budinger, Fyre, Williams)
7. UCLA (Love, Westbrook, Davis, Affalo, Holiday, Ariza, Barnes, Collison, Mbah a Moute, Farmer, Gadzuric, Foster, Watson, Kapono, Murray)
8. Michigan (Webber, Rice, Howard, Rose, Crawford, Taylor, Vaught, Mills)
9. Wake Forest (Duncan, Paul, Howard, Rogers, Teague, Songalia, Aminu, Johnson)
10. Texas (Durant, Aldridge, Thompson, Ford, Augustin, Bradley, Gibson, Joseph, Mihms, Evans)
11. Florida (Noah, Horford, Lee, Miller, Haslem, Williams, Parson, Bonner, Brewer, Beal, Speights)
12. Georgia Tech (Bosh, Marbury, Anderson, Scott, Young, Harpring, Favors, Jack, Geiger, Berry, Shumpert, Morrow, Hammonds, Best, Bynum)
13. UNLV (Johnson, Marion, Augmon, Rider, Anthony, Clark, Anthony, Banks)
14. Kansas (Pierce, Hinrich, Gooden, Chalmers, LaFrentz, Collison, Aldrich, Rush, Morris, Morris, Ostertag, Pollard, Robinson)
15. Memphis (Hardaway, Rose, Evans, Wright, Perry)
16. Michigan St. (Smith, Richardson, Randolph, Peterson, Snow, Brown, Green)
17. Albama (Sprewell, McDyess, Wallace, Horry, Williams, Caffey)
18. LSU (Shaq, Abdul-Rauf, Davis, Thornton, Bass, Thomas, Swift, Randolph)
19. Ohio St. (Redd, Conley, Jackson, Turner, Sullinger, Cook, Mullens, Koufos, Oden)
20. Syracuse (Carmelo Anthony, Coleman, Douglas, Owens, Harrick, Wallace, Waiters)

Looks like
UNC (Carter, Jamison, Wallace, Stackhouse, Lawson, Felton, Green, Fox, Montross, Davis, Wright, Lynch, Davis, Reid, Hansbrough, Haywood, McGinnis, Williams, Williams, Ellington, Zeller, Henson, Barnes)
Kentucky (Rondo, Walker, Mashburn, Prince, Wall, Cousins, Magloire, Mercer, Chapman, Anderson, Delk, Bledsoe, Patterson, Knight, Davis, Kidd Gilchrist, Mohammed, Hayes, Bogans, Meeks, Azubuike)
Georgetown (Iverson, Mourning, Mutumbo, Monroe, Hibbert, Green, Harrington, Williams, White, Sweetney)
UConn (Allen, Gay, Hamilton, Butler, Robinson, Okafor, Marshall, Villanueava, Gordon, Drummond, Walker, Ollie, Burrell)
will make the top 4 in some order.

[Li_Duke]

Btw, I would rank them as followed:
1. UNC - I'd love to rank Duke ahead of them. We have the best player (Hill > any one of Carter, Jamison, or Wallace) and the best young star (Irving > any one of Lawson, Barnes). However, they just list more solid NBA players than we do (their 1989-1998 period beats ours by a significant margin). UNC tends to recruit bigger (for the position) players than we do and that translates in the pros.
2. Duke
3. Kentucky (their early 90s period and recent period is very good. Could rank them #2. In a few years, they'll rank above us. They have a lot of promising young players in Wall, Davis, Cousins, Knight, Bledsoe, Kidd-Gilchrist, Patterson - although we have the best of the young players in Irving. Duke's Hill, Brand, Boozer, Battier, Deng edges their Rondo, Walker, Mashburn, Prince in my mind. It depends on how much weight one puts on their young players who haven't accomplished much yet.)
4. Georgetown (not as deep as the top 3, but strong in quality with Iverson, Mourning, Mutumbo all hall of famers and Monroe, Hibbert, Green young players with promise)
5. Wake Forest (Duncan and Paul are hall of famers and they have a handful of solid players, but not much in the pipeline)
6. UCLA (players who are good now in Love, Westbrook, Affalo, Holiday and some depth)
7. UConn (Allen is a hall of famer. Gay, Villanueava, Gordan, Walker all have high point totals, but I don't consider them very good at all.)
8. Arizona (lots of solid pros)
9. Michigan
10. Texas

More or less agree with 11-20. I can definitely see the argument in Duke being #4, but no way can I consider UConn above Duke.

[CDu]

Btw, I would rank them as followed:
1. UNC - I'd love to rank Duke ahead of them. We have the best player (Hill > any one of Carter, Jamison, or Wallace) and the best young star (Irving > any one of Lawson, Barnes). However, they just list more solid NBA players than we do (their 1989-1998 period beats ours by a significant margin). UNC tends to recruit bigger (for the position) players than we do and that translates in the pros.
2. Duke
3. Kentucky (their early 90s period and recent period is very good. Could rank them #2. In a few years, they'll rank above us. They have a lot of promising young players in Wall, Davis, Cousins, Knight, Bledsoe, Kidd-Gilchrist, Patterson - although we have the best of the young players in Irving. Duke's Hill, Brand, Boozer, Battier, Deng edges their Rondo, Walker, Mashburn, Prince in my mind. It depends on how much weight one puts on their young players who haven't accomplished much yet.)
4. Georgetown (not as deep as the top 3, but strong in quality with Iverson, Mourning, Mutumbo all hall of famers and Monroe, Hibbert, Green young players with promise)
5. Wake Forest (Duncan and Paul are hall of famers and they have a handful of solid players, but not much in the pipeline)
Michigan
6. UCLA (players who are good now in Love, Westbrook, Affalo, Holiday and some depth)
7. UConn (Allen is a hall of famer. Gay, Villanueava, Gordan, Walker all have high point totals, but I don't consider them very good at all.)
8. Arizona (lots of solid pros)
9. Michigan
10. Texas

More or less agree with 11-20. I can definitely see the argument in Duke being #4, but no way can I consider UConn above Duke.

I pretty much agree with this. I might swap Georgetown and Duke (not sure), but I'd definitely have Duke ahead of UConn and Kentucky right now.

[jipops]

This kind of gets into the larger question of how much a player's NBA success can really be attributed to his time in college. And beyond that, how much of his NBA team's success has to do with his college.

My opinion is that the attribution is almost zero. Sure it can be attributed to his time in college in terms of what he did or was capable of doing to get better as a player during his time in college, but not where he actually went. It's on the kid, not the program. I think this is an argument fans like to use so they can say - "Hey that's OUR guy! This is because he is OUR guy!". If Harrison Barnes had opted to attend Akron for 2 years I would say it's a safe bet he would be making the same impact he is making right now. Didn't seem to hurt Damian Lillard by attending Weber State or Stephen Curry by attending Davidson. And those are not isolated cases of kids coming out of non-big name programs.

[Li_Duke]

My opinion is that the attribution is almost zero. Sure it can be attributed to his time in college in terms of what he did or was capable of doing to get better as a player during his time in college, but not where he actually went. It's on the kid, not the program. I think this is an argument fans like to use so they can say - "Hey that's OUR guy! This is because he is OUR guy!". If Harrison Barnes had opted to attend Akron for 2 years I would say it's a safe bet he would be making the same impact he is making right now. Didn't seem to hurt Damian Lillard by attending Weber State or Stephen Curry by attending Davidson. And those are not isolated cases of kids coming out of non-big name programs.

I like to liken it to parenting. Bad parents can screw up a kid with promise, but not always. Bad coaches can screw up a kid with promise, but not always. But among solid parents and coaches, there isn't much difference. Success is determined by genes, who they surround themselves with, luck, and their inner drive. Parents and coaches can only influence so much.