One and Done debate

[Duke3517]

Since the 2010 championship win Duke has had 3 one and done players walk into there program. Irving (lost all year but once back...out in sweet 16), Rivers (1st round exit), Parker (1st round exit).

My proposal is get back to what Duke did great. Build up players to work into the NBA. Build a team, not collect super high school talent and throw them on the floor. Your thoughts...

And yes the thought of 3 one and done players coming next year makes me very pessimistic

[sagegrouse]

I know you are raising an honest question instead of stirring up trouble, but why do you think Jabari is leaving? He hasn't said so.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Well, Luol Deng was 1 and done in 2004, which resulted in a FF.

Corey Magette was 1 and done in 1999, which resulted in a 2nd place finish.

And UK won a championship with a bunch of 1 and dones in 2012.

So there's more to Duke's recent postseason disappointments than just recruiting.

[Edouble]

Since the 2010 championship win Duke has had 3 one and done players walk into there program. Irving (lost all year but once back...out in sweet 16), Rivers (1st round exit), Parker (1st round exit).

My proposal is get back to what Duke did great. Build up players to work into the NBA. Build a team, not collect super high school talent and throw them on the floor. Your thoughts...

And yes the thought of 3 one and done players coming next year makes me very pessimistic

It's their, not there.

Furthermore, it's our not their.

[cspan37421]

I think you should moderate your adjectives. We're all disappointed, but I'd like to see you say those words to their faces, or better yet, on the basketball court.

You recruit the best players you can get, subject to academic and character standards, of course. End of story.

As I recall we did pretty well with some other one-and-dones like Avery, Maggette, and Deng. I give our post-season experience with Irving a pass due to his injury and the resulting affect on our familiarity with playing with him when he returned (he was not lost all year, btw). Most have done well in the NBA. Obviously Austin has to continue to develop his game to stay in the NBA, and Avery didn't get a second contract, but Maggette and Deng have had long and productive careers, and Kyrie has been a superstar.

So it's not just a one-and-done thing. If you're old enough to remember the 1994-5 and 1995-6 seasons, one and dones had nothing to do with that. The first, Coach K was out after a 9-3 start; they went 3-15 without him. The second season ... ???

Your broader point ... yes, one and done creates chemistry challenges, but they're not a sure road to a disappointing season. In fact we've had nothing but good seasons with one-and-dones. Our post-season success is what has been mixed. But it's not been all bad; I don't see how going for lesser players would change that. Creating the right recipe out of ever-changing ingredients is a challenge to be sure, but it's got to be a greater challenge if you don't get the best players.

[Duke3517]

It's their, not there.

Furthermore, it's our not their.

I apologize, I had no idea this was english class.

Plus I am a fan. I am not apart of the team in anyway so I do not use we or our.

[JPtheGame]

It's their, not there.

Furthermore, it's our not their.

Snarky and adds nothing to the conversation.

[Edouble]

I apologize, I had no idea this was english class.

Plus I am a fan. I am not apart of the team in anyway so I do not use we or our.

The grammarians lurk around here, which is part of why this board is so great, and why it is so much better than say, a Yahoo! chat board where people make comments like "Parker and Hoods defensive abilities are very piss poor".

I am a fan, therefore I use "we". This has been debated before and perhaps to each his own. I will say that Coach K has always included fans and Crazies (6th Man, actually a part of the team) in the collective. The number of hours that most on this board put into watching games, traveling to games, and sticking up for our beloved Blue Devils in the face of moronic, boorish sports fans, in my opinion, has earned us all the right to use "we".

[Edouble]

Snarky and adds nothing to the conversation.

Meh, the calling out of grammar mistakes and the misspelling of player's names have long been a part of the culture of the forums.

[Duke3517]

I apolgize, I didn't realize how much hours and money you put into being a fan of Duke. That is quite impressive.

In regards to Hood and Parker I guess I shouldn't of been so blunt but those are areas of their game that needs improvement the most. Too many times this year they were burned by bigger physical guys. They also need tremendous improvement on their help side defense.

All I meant to propose is that if Duke does recruit those types of players that it is not solely based on offensive production.

[kmspeaks]

I apolgize, I didn't realize how much hours and money you put into being a fan of Duke. That is quite impressive.

In regards to Hood and Parker I guess I shouldn't of been so blunt but those are areas of their game that needs improvement the most. Too many times this year they were burned by bigger physical guys. They also need tremendous improvement on their help side defense.

All I meant to propose is that if Duke does recruit those types of players that it is not solely based on offensive production.

I'm not sure how Hood is relevant to a one and done discussion. He's been in college for 3 years, 2 of which were spent in Durham.

[cspan37421]

I'm not sure how Hood is relevant to a one and done discussion. He's been in college for 3 years, 2 of which were spent in Durham.

Far be it from me to stick up for the OP, but I'm sure you're smart enough to figure out the perception that Hood could be one and done at Duke. Yes, he has been in Durham 2 years, but he's only been eligible to play for Duke this one year, so far. It seems likely that is what was meant.

[Duke3517]

He played one season at Duke but you are right. We can just center are focus on Parker

[JPtheGame]

Meh, the calling out of grammar mistakes and the misspelling of player's names have long been a part of the culture of the forums.

So is grunting, slamming weights, and sweating all over the equipment at the gym. I still don't think I'd want to be the guy doing it.

[JNort]

Since the 2010 championship win Duke has had 3 one and done players walk into there program. Irving (lost all year but once back...out in sweet 16), Rivers (1st round exit), Parker (1st round exit).

My proposal is get back to what Duke did great. Build up players to work into the NBA. Build a team, not collect super high school talent and throw them on the floor. Your thoughts...

And yes the thought of 3 one and done players coming next year makes me very pessimistic

I think you're looking at it the completely wrong way. To me the fault is the seniors. Look at those 3 examples you have (Parker, River, Irving):

Parker's team had Thornton and Hairston who arnt the usual type of talent we have for our seniors. Both were at best role players.

Rivers: No seniors outside of Miles Plumlee who was an average defender at bad offensive player.

Irving: Now in Irving's case he had good upperclass teammates and is also the team that advanced the farthest of those you mentioned. That team was just thrown off due to his injury.

So the problem is getting good 4 year players to mix with good young talent

[bob blue devil]

Since the 2010 championship win Duke has had 3 one and done players walk into there program. Irving (lost all year but once back...out in sweet 16), Rivers (1st round exit), Parker (1st round exit).

My proposal is get back to what Duke did great. Build up players to work into the NBA. Build a team, not collect super high school talent and throw them on the floor. Your thoughts...

And yes the thought of 3 one and done players coming next year makes me very pessimistic

You are extrapolating a small sample size and simultaneously living in the past. Yes, upperclassmen Grant Hill and the like did make Duke great. However, there is no such thing as a 4th year Grant Hill today. There are 4th year Josh Hairston's and 1st year Jabari Parker's, 4th year Quinn Cook's and 1st year Tyus Jones's. In some cases the senior will be a bigger contributor to winning, and in some cases the freshman. This year we didn't have the right mix of talents. Next year we should play an actual center - at the very least that should help some on defense.

Ps, your mischaracterization of Hood's defense hurts the credibility of your post

[wsb3]

I apologize, I had no idea this was english class.

Seems to be a trend lately.

[anon]

I think you're looking at it the completely wrong way. To me the fault is the seniors. Look at those 3 examples you have (Parker, River, Irving):

Parker's team had Thornton and Hairston who arnt the usual type of talent we have for our seniors. Both were at best role players.

Rivers: No seniors outside of Miles Plumlee who was an average defender at bad offensive player.

Irving: Now in Irving's case he had good upperclass teammates and is also the team that advanced the farthest of those you mentioned. That team was just thrown off due to his injury.

So the problem is getting good 4 year players to mix with good young talent

At some level, you're basically agreeing with the OP then — he's saying that recruiting "one-and-dones" reduces success, and you're saying that not having strong upperclassmen reduces success. With a limited number of scholarships, the first begets the second.

[mgtr]

Some good points have been made, but I think the teams who are successful this year have played together for two years or more. Mercer, for example, started five seniors. The implication is that you recruit only four year players, or at least mostly four year players. The problem then is that you face, say, two years of weak play until they are upperclassmen. Better would be to try to build a program with upperclassmen augmented by one and dones. Yet at the beginning of this year Coach K said that (Parker and Hood) were the foundation of the team, and the rest had to compete with them. Parker and Hood were the best individual players, but not the best team players. The problem is, however, if you subtract those two, it is hard to put a team together which will win early on. So, the real answer is, Coach K has tough job!

[devilnfla]

I think you're looking at it the completely wrong way. To me the fault is the seniors. Look at those 3 examples you have (Parker, River, Irving):

Parker's team had Thornton and Hairston who arnt the usual type of talent we have for our seniors. Both were at best role players.

Rivers: No seniors outside of Miles Plumlee who was an average defender at bad offensive player.

Irving: Now in Irving's case he had good upperclass teammates and is also the team that advanced the farthest of those you mentioned. That team was just thrown off due to his injury.

So the problem is getting good 4 year players to mix with good young talent

Speaking of Seniors, this group seemed to show very little improvement over 4 years. I can understand Dawkins with the personal issues (and I'm sure he grew a lot personally while at Duke) but Tyler and Josh (who seemed to regress) just never improved to the level we needed out of Seniors.

[johnb]

... So, the real answer is, Coach K has tough job!

Well, if success is going to be defined as, say, winning at least a dozen NCAA games in the next 5 years, I'd say the Mercer coach has a tougher job than K.


I apologize, I had no idea this was english class.

Plus I am a fan. I am not apart of the team in anyway so I do not use we or our.

It's English, not english, "part," not "apart," and "any way," not "anyway." And you could toss in a comma somewhere in there if you'd like.

If you want to review the hostile grammar comments over a multi-year period, you'll see they are almost always directed at posts that hand out wholesale criticisms of our guys or our team. To my mind, if you're going to pop onto a Duke fan web site and make snarky comments about 20 year old Duke players who are laying it on the line twice a week in a very public forum, you should expect to get flack. And if you are going to summarize a season of defense as, say, "piss poor," then the sloppiness of your own behavior (mis-use of language in a forum that includes only letters and punctuation) strikes me as an irony that warrants feedback.

Underlying that response is a broiling tumult of emotions: we're all disappointed and underwhelmed by our NCAA performance. How in the world do we lose to a team that is so much lower than us on the bball totem poll? There's some entitlement involved, since we've been so good so long and our entire program is made up of blue chip players, coaches, facilities, fans, and notoriety, but it's also just bewilderment. And we fans are trying to figure it out. If, in the midst of our grief, we sense an outsider pop in saying stuff that seems either misinformed or too slapdash in its criticism, they need to at least do some research or write well, or they'll get feedback. At the same time, plenty of us have thought long and hard about the season and agree to some extent with the criticisms of our team defense, the reliance on relatively young players, our decision not to recruit and/or play 7 footers, etc.

But many of us avoid blanket criticisms at least partly because they are inevitably criticisms not just of our players (a couple of whom are currently debating, I hope, whether or not they should stay for another year of Duke and for all we know are reading some of our posts about their strengths and weaknesses) but of Coach K and of our coaching staff--a group that is composed almost entirely of a greatest hits list of former duke favorites.

Anyway, off to the drug store to edit greeting cards for mis-use of me and I....

[CameronBornAndBred]

Here our results, dating back to our 2010 championship team.

2010, three seniors (Thomas, Zoubek, Scheyer), won ACC tourney, Natl Champions. No one & dones.
2011 two seniors (Smith, Singler) offense built around Kyrie Irving, won ACC tourney (w.o Irving), lost in third round (w/ Irving)
2012 One senior (Miles Plumlee) offense built around Austin Rivers, lost Saturday ACC tourney, second round NCAA
2013 three seniors (Kelly, Mason Plumlee, Curry), lost Friday ACC tourney, lost in 4th round NCAA. No one & dones
2014 three seniors (Dawkins, Thornton, Hairston) offense built around J. Parker lost Sunday ACC tourney, lost in 1st round NCAA.

Those are the numbers. Obviously we had good years and bad years, but our best years came without any one & dones on the team. (This is assuming that Parker goes, regardless if he does or not, the offense was built around a freshman.)
Our current seniors spent three of their seasons in offenses built around one player that was not part of the equation the following year. I think that is important to note when people mention each of those guys' assumed lack of improvement.
As far as my own opinion, I always feel better when we have a team that has an offense built on guys that have experience playing together. Next year will be very interesting. We'll have only one senior (Cook) and a team that will be playing in an offense once again built around freshmen, although this time it may be more than one person we have the "so and so freshman to the draft" vigil. That leaves the '16 team with once again not much to build on, and that makes me very worried about our future, even though that team will have potentially three seniors on it.

[gurufrisbee]

I don't like one and dones. I feel like they come to use the college and then discard them and waste numerous opportunities in the process. If you look at Kentucky the last couple years you can see the full gamut run of how well that works. One year in a national championship, the next it's a first round NIT exit. The same kind of wide variety in success of one and dones can be seen other places, including Duke, too.

I will say this. I think the best one-and-dones come in A) clearly better than the college game, B) ready to play defense, and C) ready to fit in the role they are most needed for regarding leadership on the team. (I am mostly thinking about those Kentucky teams here, but I do think it generally applies across the board)

What has Duke had - like five one-and-dones? (It's early, no coffee yet, please forgive if I'm wrong) The ones I'm thinking of are Deng, Rivers, Kyrie, Maggette. Maybe just four (maybe I'm already thinking of Jabari as one). Deng came ready to play defense and he didn't have to lead because the team already had great leadership in JJ and Duhon. Kyrie was way ahead of the college game and got badly derailed by the injury. Maggette didn't have to do that much - he was never even a starter. Rivers was probably the one that fit the categories I laid out the least (they needed leadership and he wasn't one and there was no defense from him) and the team had the least success with him (compared to the other three) and he's struggled the most moving too early to the NBA.

How this all applies to Jabari, I'm not sure. Team wise he is clearly most similar to the spot Rivers was in. Individually he's probably more like Maggette or Deng, both positionally and skill wise and developmentally.

[CameronBornAndBred]

One last thought. Even though I don't like the one and done system, and especially don't like it at Duke, I do love the way Kyrie and Jabari both carried themselves at Duke, on the court, in public, and in the classroom. When they were on the bench, they were great cheerleaders, supportive of those on the court. For that, they will always have my respect and support. I never got any "me first feelings" from them. IF K continues down this path, I can only hope those coming in have the same attitudes.
If they have the attitude of Austin Rivers....I don't want to think about that.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think you should moderate your adjectives. We're all disappointed, but I'd like to see you say those words to their faces, or better yet, on the basketball court.

You recruit the best players you can get, subject to academic and character standards, of course. End of story.

As I recall we did pretty well with some other one-and-dones like Avery, Maggette, and Deng. I give our post-season experience with Irving a pass due to his injury and the resulting affect on our familiarity with playing with him when he returned (he was not lost all year, btw). Most have done well in the NBA. Obviously Austin has to continue to develop his game to stay in the NBA, and Avery didn't get a second contract, but Maggette and Deng have had long and productive careers, and Kyrie has been a superstar.

So it's not just a one-and-done thing. If you're old enough to remember the 1994-5 and 1995-6 seasons, one and dones had nothing to do with that. The first, Coach K was out after a 9-3 start; they went 3-15 without him. The second season ... ???

Your broader point ... yes, one and done creates chemistry challenges, but they're not a sure road to a disappointing season. In fact we've had nothing but good seasons with one-and-dones. Our post-season success is what has been mixed. But it's not been all bad; I don't see how going for lesser players would change that. Creating the right recipe out of ever-changing ingredients is a challenge to be sure, but it's got to be a greater challenge if you don't get the best players.

The best TEAM wins championships, not the group of best players. Do you think Mercer had better players than Duke? or that Butler was one of the two most talented teams in 2010 or 2011. Or even that Duke 2010 was the most talented team?

Avery was 2 years so he does not count. Neither Maggette nor Deng were the centerpieces of those teams. Certainly if you have great players like Brand, Langdon, S. Williams, or Riddick on a team then you work in a 1 and done and expect to do very well.

But if you have a system that requires communication and teamwork and is hard for a group to get right in one season, then you are going to have trouble basing the team on one and dones. So if you are going to base the team on one and dones, then you need a system that players can get right in one season. We like to knock Cal at KY but he may have it.

You can have a bad season without one and dones so not sure why you mention 95-96, etc.

I think Duke has no choice but to recruit the best players (and its probably easier to try to recruit the best players to Duke than to try to figure out who is really good but not one and done and also wants to play at Duke.) K says he is going to make adjustments. I hope that means some changes that allow a group whose main players are there for one year to play as a TEAM.

SoCal

[JNort]

No I'm not agreeing at all with the OP. I'm saying we need to do a better job of recruiting 3 and 4 year players to mix with our one and done type talent. OP wants no one and dones, I do. We just need a better success rate with our long term players.

Look at Irving class, outside of hime we had the 7th best PF and the 24th best pg. 24th best is not a Duke type of talent and while we could live with the 7th best PF in a class considering there is likely a 1 and done or two which makes him the 5 best option. However the PF just never worked out.

Now back to Rivers class, this class is almost exactly what you would want! #3 C, #7 PG, #7 SF, #11 SF we got a pg and a c plus two versatile wings. Well that would have been awesome and they would all be seniors next year but the two SFs transferred, and the C has shown good promise but has been ravaged by a foot injury.

[weezie]

If they have the attitude of Austin Rivers....I don't want to think about that.

I understand your viewpoint CBAB, but why do we have to keep pounding on Rivers? I'm in the minority of folks who loved Austin's, "Give it to me!" attitude and he did come through for Duke few times, didn't he? Maybe he had a touch of the Laettner in him, who knows for sure, we all see things through a special prism. I'd be willing to bet that even Grant Hill was a bit of a jerk at times.
Might as well bring up McRoberts and give him another run through the gamut. He never caught fire in my book. I couldn't stand his mopiness but then again, I never shared a locker room with him

Such a bummer of a thread, especially this weekend....:(

[DrChainsaw]

And wonder if the one-and-dones may have a detrimental effect on chemistry.

Consider the hard-working player on the 4 year plan, who all of a sudden finds his playing time diminished, due to the arrival of a new super freshman. I realize that everyone has to earn their PT, but think what that does to the psyche of the older & hopefully more mature player. I wondered if this is what contributed to the success of the platoons - everyone knew they were going to play, had their own "team" and got a little hungry while on the bench.

I also wonder if having to rebuild teams (and chemistry) every year around the new star just doesn't allow for a team to live up to its full potential.

The position of the one-and-done may also play a role in how the rest of the team responds. We saw only a fraction of what Kyrie could do, but when he was on the court, I think he was better at recognizing the talents of the other players on the court and using them to their full potential, as I think a point guard is supposed to do.

Perhaps a a program either needs to fully embrace the one-and-done philosophy and accept the down years, or just look for the players who will hang around to get a diploma.

Just some thoughts escaping the black hole of my depression.

Finally, we make a big deal about how certain players or coaches exemplify Duke "class". I doubt they go around correcting people's grammar.

[CDu]

No I'm not agreeing at all with the OP. I'm saying we need to do a better job of recruiting 3 and 4 year players to mix with our one and done type talent. OP wants no one and dones, I do. We just need a better success rate with our long term players.

Look at Irving class, outside of hime we had the 7th best PF and the 24th best pg. 24th best is not a Duke type of talent and while we could live with the 7th best PF in a class considering there is likely a 1 and done or two which makes him the 5 best option. However the PF just never worked out.

Now back to Rivers class, this class is almost exactly what you would want! #3 C, #7 PG, #7 SF, #11 SF we got a pg and a c plus two versatile wings. Well that would have been awesome and they would all be seniors next year but the two SFs transferred, and the C has shown good promise but has been ravaged by a foot injury.

The problem is that those "three- and four-year" players are hard to identify. Those two SF transferred because they weren't getting playing time. If you are a top-50 recruit, you could start at like 95% of D-1 programs immediately. But not at Duke. At Duke, you're lucky to play 10mpg as a freshman unless you're a top-15 recruit. It's hard to keep guys around long enough for them to be impact seniors if they aren't seeing the floor early in their careers.

We were fortunate with Jefferson last year, but even he got significant minutes as a freshman (due to the injury to Kelly). Ideally, yes, we'd get a "one-and-done" caliber player or two each year along with 2 or 3 solid four-year guys who are ready to contribute as juniors and seniors. And ideally we'd not lose those 3-4 year guys to transfer. But that's just not the era of basketball in which we live. Good players want to play, and they want to play right away. And if they don't see that playing time, they're likely to consider other options.

[JNort]

The problem is that those "three- and four-year" players are hard to identify. Those two SF transferred because they weren't getting playing time. If you are a top-50 recruit, you could start at like 95% of D-1 programs immediately. But not at Duke. At Duke, you're lucky to play 10mpg as a freshman unless you're a top-15 recruit. It's hard to keep guys around long enough for them to be impact seniors if they aren't seeing the floor early in their careers.

We were fortunate with Jefferson last year, but even he got significant minutes as a freshman (due to the injury to Kelly). Ideally, yes, we'd get a "one-and-done" caliber player or two each year along with 2 or 3 solid four-year guys who are ready to contribute as juniors and seniors. And ideally we'd not lose those 3-4 year guys to transfer. But that's just not the era of basketball in which we live. Good players want to play, and they want to play right away. And if they don't see that playing time, they're likely to consider other options.
O I completely agree! Players today all think they are all stars or at least think they deserve to play right away. It seems to get worse ever year. Think this is partially the reason so many on this board want K to stick with line changes or at least a longer bench so those players do get time.

[MarkD83]

Before contributing to this discussion I need to define success vs expectations. Getting to the NCAA tourney is a measure of success. Getting to the acc championship is a measure of success. Doing well in the regular season is required to get a good seed in the. Acc tourney which makes it easier to get to the championship. A good regular season also is a requirement to getting into the NCAA. Great talent makes it easy to have a good to great regular season and in the regular season one bad game does not matter. On the other hand great defense and consistent offense wins acc and NCAA championships. These two things come with experience and team work. Early this year we all saw the signs that this team had trouble with defense and offensive consistency but clearly they had no issue with getting into the ncaas. The balance of great talent that stays around is difficult to manage. But I will take a program that is always in the mix.

[Atlanta Duke]

The NCAA probably is loving how this tournament is going so far after the Kentucky win in 2012 made it appear loading up with one and done talent was the future road to sucess

[Des Esseintes]

The best TEAM wins championships, not the group of best players. Do you think Mercer had better players than Duke? or that Butler was one of the two most talented teams in 2010 or 2011. Or even that Duke 2010 was the most talented team?

Avery was 2 years so he does not count. Neither Maggette nor Deng were the centerpieces of those teams. Certainly if you have great players like Brand, Langdon, S. Williams, or Riddick on a team then you work in a 1 and done and expect to do very well.

But if you have a system that requires communication and teamwork and is hard for a group to get right in one season, then you are going to have trouble basing the team on one and dones. So if you are going to base the team on one and dones, then you need a system that players can get right in one season. We like to knock Cal at KY but he may have it.

You can have a bad season without one and dones so not sure why you mention 95-96, etc.

I think Duke has no choice but to recruit the best players (and its probably easier to try to recruit the best players to Duke than to try to figure out who is really good but not one and done and also wants to play at Duke.) K says he is going to make adjustments. I hope that means some changes that allow a group whose main players are there for one year to play as a TEAM.

SoCal
Somewhere, a dude is typing on a Wichita State message board right now:

"TALENT wins championships, not chemistry. Do you think Kentucky had better leadership than WSU? or that UK had the most veterans in 2012? Or even that the Duke team that won in 2010 didn't have a ton of NBA players? Until the Shockers start recruiting blue chip talent, we won't really have a chance at...."

Narrativenarrrativenarrativenarrative

[Kjeffrey]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

[dukelifer]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

I guess it depends on what you call a failure. There was a time when K got to the final four every year and because he did not win it all - he was a failure. There was a time that Duke consistently got into a sweet 16 - and because they did not advance - K was a failure. It is championship or bust - such is life when you have coached the most wins and have the most NC of active coaches.

[Des Esseintes]

If only Duke had less talent. Then we'd never get upset.

[31andcounting]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.
I also wonder about the coaching and I don't mean just Coach K. While the bench is full of former Duke players does that automatically make them great coaches? I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.
I am not criticizing anyone. Duke has one of the most successful college basketball programs in the country and Coach K's record speaks for itself. But I don't think that means we as fans shouldn't respectfully question some of the past failures.

It's certainly true that the market for transfers is increasing as is their role - K has been quoted a bit on that. But I think there probably needs to be a lot of care in using them to solve the leadership problem. True, the prior transfers that K has had have provided excellent leadership. And Hood was awesome this year... but his likely departure doesn't solve the leadership problem, it only increases it because it will leave yet another hole to fill. So maybe K needs to go the "solid" route when picking transfers too. It's a tough issue - if you're looking to fill the team with a transfer or two do you pick the best player flat-out or the one most likely to eventually fill the leadership void?

I don't really blame Hood for leaving, but it does present yet another problem that is similar to the one-and-done issue - in some respects its an even worse problem because we had him in practice for a year (and used up a scholarship) before he ever set foot on the court. It would be interesting to compare, on average, how many years Duke players spend in Duke uniform. With the increased amount of one-and-done's, the increased transfers in, and the increased transfers out, I bet recent teams have had even less "Duke" experience than at first blush.

[Duvall]

At the risk of inviting criticism from some DBR members, I do question the effect that one and dones have had on the Duke program over the past few years. If nothing else, they take up a recruiting spot that is used for only one year and then that class is depleted. Sure the spots can be filled with a transfer or another freshman the next year but it still means that there will not be a complete group who played together for multiple years. Wouldn't Kyrie have been a senior this year? I don't expect a player of his caliber to stay for four years. But how different would things have been if we had recruited a solid four year player instead of him? He was a great kid and I do not mean any disrespect to him but I can't help but wonder about the negative impact of the one and done.

You mean another four-year player in addition to Thornton and Cook? Or another frontcourt player to replace Parker aside from the five Duke is likely to have next year? I don't think this is much of a problem, or at least it's been one Duke has been able to work around.

[31andcounting]

You mean another four-year player in addition to Thornton and Cook? Or another frontcourt player to replace Parker aside from the five Duke is likely to have next year? I don't think this is much of a problem, or at least it's been one Duke has been able to work around.

But it's not just about bringing in more good players - if our recent post-season issues have shown anything it's the importance of experienced players who can play at their best even when the pressure is the highest. Replacing a one-and-done with another one-and-done doesn't help that problem.

[Duvall]

But it's not just about bringing in more good players - if our recent post-season issues have shown anything it's the importance of experienced players who can play at their best even when the pressure is the highest. Replacing a one-and-done with another one-and-done doesn't help that problem.

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.

[31andcounting]

You mean another four-year player in addition to Thornton and Cook? Or another frontcourt player to replace Parker aside from the five Duke is likely to have next year? I don't think this is much of a problem, or at least it's been one Duke has been able to work around.


But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.

And one of those three seniors was a transfer. And Coach K obviously felt that he played an important leadership role since he made him a captain in the middle of his senior season. It's not just about planning for the next year - it's about planning for several years out. Something has to offset the one-and-dones - maybe it's carefully selected transfers, maybe it's a matter of putting a bit more effort into developing the younger players who are likely to stay four years (or even three years)

[Des Esseintes]

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.

Yeah, some years we will be caught short on upperclassmen, not because we have failed in recruiting but because some of our classes haven't developed as much as expected. Josh, a good guy and a good player for Duke, developed less than the average recruit with his ranking would have been expected to. Marshall is showing solid growth, but injuries have clearly put him back further than he otherwise would have been as a third-year guy. Silent G and Alex Murphy underperformed their recruiting rankings. Again, all good guys who are good at basketball but not quite as good as they were widely projected to be. Other years, guys overperform, so it balances out, just not every year does it balance out.

[Kedsy]

I heard the other day that another Tobacco Road coach has never lost in the first round. His record is like 24-0. Duke certainly can't say the same, particularly the past three years. I do not believe that Roy is a better coach but facts are facts. He has never lost in the first round and Duke has lost twice in the past three years.

Facts are the facts you choose. Roy has lost twice as a #1 seed to a #8/#9 seed. He's lost as a #2 to a #7 seed. He's lost as a #3 to a #11 seed. All in all, Roy has lost 7 second round tournament games. Roy also missed the tournament altogether once. In the same time span, Coach K has lost in the 1st or 2nd round 7 times (exactly the same) and depending on whether you count 1995 (since K wasn't actually coaching I personally wouldn't count it), Duke has missed the tournament either zero or one times (the same or one season better). I can't imagine #1 Kansas losing to #8 Rhode Island or #9 UTEP felt any better to Kansas fans than Duke's first round losses feel to us. In that light, Roy's disappointments and K's disappointments are pretty much exactly the same -- facts are facts.

Also, the idea that losing an early NCAA game somehow exposes a flaw in a coach is just plain silly. The facts are that 15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games. Since no #1 has lost to a #16 you could argue the #1's game against the #8/#9 is the 1-seed's first real game, and if you look at it that way, top-three seeds have lost 11.5% of their first real NCAAT games. Duke under Coach K has been a top-three seed 26 times and lost 7.7% of its first real games. It's unfortunate that both losses have come in the past three years, but Coach K has still performed better than average among top-three seeds overall.

On a related note, I always find it funny that after many recent losses, UNC fans on IC have complained about how times have passed Roy by and say he should think about retiring. I'm saddened to find similar talk here at DBR. Because it really is ridiculous.

[Kjeffrey]

Facts are the facts you choose. Roy has lost twice as a #1 seed to a #8/#9 seed. He's lost as a #2 to a #7 seed. He's lost as a #3 to a #11 seed. All in all, Roy has lost 7 second round tournament games. Roy also missed the tournament altogether once. In the same time span, Coach K has lost in the 1st or 2nd round 7 times (exactly the same) and depending on whether you count 1995 (since K wasn't actually coaching I personally wouldn't count it), Duke has missed the tournament either zero or one times (the same or one season better). I can't imagine #1 Kansas losing to #8 Rhode Island or #9 UTEP felt any better to Kansas fans than Duke's first round losses feel to us. In that light, Roy's disappointments and K's disappointments are pretty much exactly the same -- facts are facts.

Also, the idea that losing an early NCAA game somehow exposes a flaw in a coach is just plain silly. The facts are that 15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games. Since no #1 has lost to a #16 you could argue the #1's game against the #8/#9 is the 1-seed's first real game, and if you look at it that way, top-three seeds have lost 11.5% of their first real NCAAT games. Duke under Coach K has been a top-three seed 26 times and lost 7.7% of its first real games. It's unfortunate that both losses have come in the past three years, but Coach K has still performed better than average among top-three seeds overall.

On a related note, I always find it funny that after many recent losses, UNC fans on IC have complained about how times have passed Roy by and say he should think about retiring. I'm saddened to find similar talk here at DBR. Because it really is ridiculous.

What I find more ridiculous is that some members of this board cannot hear one negative thing about the Duke program without going on the defensive. My point was about first round exits - period. I clearly stated that Roy was not a better coach. I can't help but wonder why a coach as great as K had experienced these losses. I am NOT blaming him but was shocked to hear that a much lesser coach has experienced more success in the first round. I apologize if my post was offensive to you or anyone else.

[sagegrouse]

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.

Patience, brothers and sisters, I have several points to make, including shifting the emphasis in this thread:

1. I don't know what it means to say, "we won't recruit one-and-dones." There is no such thing as a one-and-done when he's still in HS. Even a top five player may not be a sure lottery pick one-two years later. He also may, for whatever reason, decide to return.

2. We typically don't use all 13 scholarships, so I don't know why we wouldn't recruit the best possible players. After all, there is a scholarship left over for a projected four-year player.

3. I would use the extra scholarships and adjust our recruiting strategy to get some players with size, who may take 3-4 years to be effective forces in the middle. Tall guys often take longer to developer coordination, skills, and bulk; and I agree, it's unpredictable, so we should have a couple in development at all times. In other words, I am sick and tired of hearing that some much-lower-rated team has a "size and strength advantage" over our poor McDonald's All-Americans. We appeared to be helpless against the gawky six-ten guy from Mercer.

[Kjeffrey]

It's certainly true that the market for transfers is increasing as is their role - K has been quoted a bit on that. But I think there probably needs to be a lot of care in using them to solve the leadership problem. True, the prior transfers that K has had have provided excellent leadership. And Hood was awesome this year... but his likely departure doesn't solve the leadership problem, it only increases it because it will leave yet another hole to fill. So maybe K needs to go the "solid" route when picking transfers too. It's a tough issue - if you're looking to fill the team with a transfer or two do you pick the best player flat-out or the one most likely to eventually fill the leadership void?

I don't really blame Hood for leaving, but it does present yet another problem that is similar to the one-and-done issue - in some respects its an even worse problem because we had him in practice for a year (and used up a scholarship) before he ever set foot on the court. It would be interesting to compare, on average, how many years Duke players spend in Duke uniform. With the increased amount of one-and-done's, the increased transfers in, and the increased transfers out, I bet recent teams have had even less "Duke" experience than at first blush.

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful response. I am glad that someone on this board was able to understand the point I was trying to make. Anyway, I completely agree with you. Who wouldn't make the same decision as Hood? I don't blame him one bit. You raise excellent points about him, or any transfer, for that matter. If a transfer only stays for one year of game play then there is another void. I do not know what the solution us but I am envious of teams still playing. And I can't help but wonder about our lack of experience and leadership. That is not a knock on any Duke player. This team had great players and obviously they all wish they were still playing.

[Kjeffrey]

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.

But if Duke had recruited a solid four year player, instead of Irving, that player would have been on this year's roster. Maybe a forward since I am not sure there ever was one in this class. And if there was I am sure someone will gladly point it out to me. Anyway, as someone previously mentioned, the four year player would need to develop throughout his career to have a consistent, positive impact on games. I also don't think you can put a price on leadership. I am not saying I don't think Duke should have recruited Irving or Parker. I just wonder what impact one and dones have any program's tournament success.

[Kjeffrey]

I understand your viewpoint CBAB, but why do we have to keep pounding on Rivers? I'm in the minority of folks who loved Austin's, "Give it to me!" attitude and he did come through for Duke few times, didn't he? Maybe he had a touch of the Laettner in him, who knows for sure, we all see things through a special prism. I'd be willing to bet that even Grant Hill was a bit of a jerk at times.
Might as well bring up McRoberts and give him another run through the gamut. He never caught fire in my book. I couldn't stand his mopiness but then again, I never shared a locker room with him

Such a bummer of a thread, especially this weekend....:(

I was thinking the same thing about Austin's leadership. Say what you will he was not afraid to take the ball and lead his team. I kind of wish we had a little more of that this year.

[CameronBornAndBred]

But any player recruited in place of a one-and-done will be at most a sophomore the following year, so that doesn't really help with the experience problem.

Despite recruiting a few one-and-done players Duke still managed to field a lineup last year with three seniors, and will likely field a lineup next year with a senior and two juniors with numerous career starts. I don't this is a real problem for Duke.
The problem is that the four year guys have had to work in a different offense each year, built around a guy that is expected to be gone the following season. That is not an atmosphere conducive to steady growth. Similar scenario is when Duke football had to bring in a new offensive coordinator a few years in a row due to the previous guy getting hired away. The seniors, even though they had the years under their belts, were still no more effective as a team since the game plan was once again different.
Next year will be no different for Marshall and Cook, they will once again be working in a new offense built presumably around Okafor. Once again we will brimming with talent, and once again our most experienced guys will be working in a new offense. It might work, but it is just as easy to see it can be a point of frustration.

[Des Esseintes]

The problem is that the four year guys have had to work in a different offense each year, built around a guy that is expected to be gone the following season. That is not an atmosphere conducive to steady growth. Similar scenario is when Duke football had to bring in a new offensive coordinator a few years in a row due to the previous guy getting hired away. The seniors, even though they had the years under their belts, were still no more effective as a team since the game plan was once again different.
Next year will be no different for Marshall and Cook, they will once again be working in a new offense built presumably around Okafor. Once again we will brimming with talent, and once again our most experienced guys will be working in a new offense. It might work, but it is just as easy to see it can be a point of frustration.

This is usually stated as a huge positive of K's: he adapts his offense to his talent every single year. I wouldn't worry about the seniors suffering from a perceived lack of continuity. Jon Scheyer's freshman year, the O was built around McRoberts. His sophomore year, Kyle was the center, and the team played very, very fast. His junior year, the point guard position fluctuated on a weekly basis, and he became the full-time pg for the first time in his career with a month left in that season. His senior year, the team played very, very slow, and Singler was a 3. McRoberts, DeMarcus Nelson, and Gerald Henderson were featured guys in different seasons. Zoubek lost acres of time to injury. All of that upheaval didn't affect the seniors' play much in 2010.

To be sure, a lack of continuity can be a problem. I just don't think it's a problem for seniors, who have four years in the Duke system by that point. A lack of high-performing upperclassmen, that's a continuity problem.

[31andcounting]

Coach K has said he wants to challenge for a national championship every year. It seems like what we're doing right now is a legit national championship push every 3-4 years. While we're ranked in the top 10 pretty much every year I don't think we've really made a legitimate push on a yearly basis.

Wins are definitely important, I'm not disputing that and I don't want us to do things to seriously jeopardize that. HOWEVER, I will say this: I've been a Duke fan since I was born in the early 80s, obsessed with the players, watching every game, etc. For all of those years, the reason I was a Duke fan (ok well other than being born into it) wasn't just the wins. It was the satisfaction of knowing that we did things the "right way." Back in the 80s and 90s other teams had kids going pro early - we didn;t even have one! K wasn't even interested in kids if they wanted to go pro early (e.g. Antawn Jamison, Kobe Bryant). Our first early exit wasn't even until 1999 - years after every other powerhouse, and it was a big deal when it happened.

But here's the thing - even when we made an early exit (i.e. our '93 loss to Cal) there was some smug satisfaction that we were doing things the "right" way -- taking kids who were student-athletes not athlete-students. On the rare instances when things were bad, there was still that to look up to. Now we're looking more and more like all of those schools we said in the 1990s we'd never be like (i.e. UNC, Kentucky). We don't even have the satisfaction of claiming to be uniquely Duke anymore. Maybe it's really not feasible anymore, maybe I'm being too nostalgic. But maybe I'd be willing to sacrifice a tourney run or two if it meant we were still doing things the "right" way. There's a lot of pride in that and to me that was what made it "college" basketball rather than just a prep ground for the NBA.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Coach K has said he wants to challenge for a national championship every year. It seems like what we're doing right now is a legit national championship push every 3-4 years. While we're ranked in the top 10 pretty much every year I don't think we've really made a legitimate push on a yearly basis.

Really enjoying your posts, right or wrong. :p Welcome to the boards, keep it up!
As far as the 3-4 year push, that means that we are overdue now. (Last year was Elite 8, halfway there)
Prior to 2010 in that 3-4 year span, we lost in the Elite 8 in 2006 (halfway there again) and tanked in the first round in 2007.
So what constitutes a "legit national championship push"? (I feel Elite 8 is pretty respectable, not knocking you.)

[DesertDevil]

Concerning the topic of the one & done. I can't say I'm a fan.

I would love to see basketball adopt the baseball model. If you sign out of high school, that's great. If you don't, you are committed to three years at the collegiate level. Many kids have the talent to play in the league, but the maturity, knowlege & wisdom gained in college are invaluable in life.

[Kedsy]

Back in the 80s and 90s other teams had kids going pro early - we didn;t even have one! K wasn't even interested in kids if they wanted to go pro early (e.g. Antawn Jamison, Kobe Bryant).

K definitely recruited Bryant. I'm pretty sure he went after Jamison too. He also made a big push at Chris Webber. He just wasn't successful at recruiting those guys.

In my opinion, Coach K still does things the right way. His only departure was having the misfortune of two first-round losses in three years.

[Duke3517]

Wow I created quite a stir on this topic. My point was to recruit players that have a defensive mindset. I apologize for saying "piss poor" in reference to Parker and Hood. I will just say they need improvement in that area.

Also did anyone catch Charles Barkley talking live on CBS encouraging freshman kids to stay in school? I thought he was spot on.

[31andcounting]

K definitely recruited Bryant. I'm pretty sure he went after Jamison too. He also made a big push at Chris Webber. He just wasn't successful at recruiting those guys.

In my opinion, Coach K still does things the right way. His only departure was having the misfortune of two first-round losses in three years.


Hmmm... it's entirely possible my dad was just lying to me when I was a kid telling me that those guys wanted to go to duke but K didn't them because they had plans to leave early. I totally wouldn't put it past him as his Duke love (and UNC hatred) make him pretty un-subjective. My fault for not checking facts via the power of google. But regardless of specifics, the fact is that K was more reluctant to embrace the early exit and one&done phenomena than his colleagues at other schools.

I don't mean to imply that K does things wrong or unethically - I think he's the best there is in major college basketball. I think he cares about the kids and wants them to get an education. All I'm saying is that it sure was a lot nicer to have that argument in the back pocket when dealing with UNC, Michigan fans, etc. Now we can say that K does things differently than all the rest of the coaches (and at the end of the day that is true) but it's a lot harder to prove (or at least make a convincing argument) than when there was the "Duke doesn't do early exits" or "Duke doesn't do one and done" card to play. Arguments with other teams' fans certainly isn't the end-all-be-all, but it's hard to deny that there wasn't some satisfaction in being so different :)

[SoCalDukeFan]

to read this board if the number 1 recruit said he really wanted to go to Duke and stay 1 year but Coach K said he was no longer recruiting one and dones so that player said he was going to KY or uncch.

I fully appreciate that Coach K is going to recruit the best players he can that are consistent with his and Duke's standards, etc. My problem is that he needs to figure out how to make his system work with major players who are here for year.

BTW it is probably easier to recruit the best players, given Duke and K's rep, then to identify and recruit and keep the best non one and ones. And lots can happen. They could still blossom and leave early anyway or transfer if they did not get enough playing time. And there is no guarantee that they will develop into top players anyway.

I think Coach K is smart enough to figure out that the Rivers team and Parker team did not go as far as he expected. He says he needs to make adjustments. I look forward to seeing them next year.

BTW due to an injury I can do little so I am watching lots of the tournament. There are a lot of good teams out there and a lot of good players.

SoCal

[COYS]

Sports fans don't like to think about it, but can we pause for a second and think about how much of a factor luck plays in our tournament results over such a short span?

We've set the time frame as the post 2010 championship season (which is somewhat arbitrary as Duke has had one year players prior to that) because it seems that this is when Duke has been successful recruiting one and done caliber players. During that span, we've lost in the Sweet Sixteen, the First Round, the Elite Eight, and the First round. THREE out of those four years the team has suffered a MAJOR injury to an important player on the team.

Kyrie's injury in 2010 completely changed the complexion of the team. However, the team did great from there, even with Kyrie out, ranking in the top 10 in KenPom's offense and defense rankings (pre-tourney). They were even doing a good job handling an Arizona team that was playing it's best game of the season through half time. After half-time, Arizona got white-hot and blew Duke away in the second half. This was, I still believe to this day, a stroke of bad luck. There was no fatal flaw for that Duke team. They were elite on both offense and defense. People have cited 2011 as the first year our defense started to slide, but our final KenPom ranking is only out of the top ten because of the Arizona game. The Duke team was probably not operating at peak efficiency thanks to Kyrie returning at the last second (and it's possible that this is the factor that threw the team off), but if you play that game against Arizona 10 times, Duke probably wins 7 of them. Take away Kyrie's injury, and it might even go up to 8. That was Arizona's equivalent of Laettner's perfect game against UK. It happens, but it shouldn't take away from the fact that the 2011 team was a pretty dang good team.

2012 is interesting because I actually think we had pretty good luck most of the year. Winning that preseason game against Kansas put extremely high expectations on the squad. The first UNC game in Chapel Hill when Austin hit "The Shot" was an amazing win . . . but let's not pretend that there wasn't a lot of good luck involved there (Zeller's own goal). The team was struggling to reach the elite level and, when Ryan got injured, they lost a key component. The first round loss was bad, but Lehigh was a VERY good 15 seed (better KenPom rank than Mercer this season) playing against a Duke team without an important player. I think our luck finally ran out.

To me, last season is nothing but a success minus those glaring losses to Maryland. Duke was clearly an elite team and played like it, even if the defense could never quite get into perfect sync. Give that team Ryan for the whole year and I think we could probably erase at least one more loss from the record. That team finally lost to the eventually national champions Louisville after steam-rolling their way through the first three games of the tourney, including handling a very good and very tough Spartan squad in the Sweet Sixteen.

This season is the only season in the past four that hasn't included a significant injury (although Marshall was still injured during the summer which hindered his development). We had high expectations because, as usual, we had a very talented squad. However, the defense never came together. Of all the years, I think we as fans are right to wonder about the defensive strategy the staff employed because we had a healthy team all season but never seemed to improve on defense. There's a lack of any other explanation. Mercer played well, but they hardly played their best game of the season like Arizona did back in 2011. Also, we didn't get beat by a team that was clearly playing at a championship level like we did last year.

However, I think it is oversimplifying things to look back and say that one and done's and Duke don't mix because the best season of the past few years was last year, when we didn't have any one and dones. Injuries have played a very important role in the outcomes of three of four of the past seasons. There's no doubt this year was a bit of a disappointment if only because of the talent we could all see in the team. I'm sure the staff and the players are not satisfied, and there are lots of things they could have done better. But I still don't think this one season can be used to indict the past four, which has somewhat arbitrarily been defined as Duke's one and done era, when three out of the past four seasons have included major injuries combined with some tough luck in the tourney.

[dukepsy1963]

Let's end "one and done" at Duke now!! To me, the fact that K and Duke bought into it is shameful. As a Duke grad who loves sports but believes that great basketball does not need to sacrifice principles for one or two people, no matter how sports talented they are. Universities should not be in the business of training athletes! We should not be "working" for ESPN, CBS, and all the rest!

Duke could be a model in this by simply backing off the 'one and done' concept. Recruit guys who are talented but who are likely to value a college education as much as possibly playing in the NBA someday.... and not some kid who simply wants to use training facilities and coaches for a year!!! And not just two years either!!

Be a model, Duke!!!

Trinity, 1963


P.S. How does an idea like this get to the people (K and admin) who could change things? How many on this forum agree with this notion?
_______________________________

K DOES NOT MENTION EDUCATION ANYMORE!!!

[CDu]

But if Duke had recruited a solid four year player, instead of Irving, that player would have been on this year's roster. Maybe a forward since I am not sure there ever was one in this class. And if there was I am sure someone will gladly point it out to me. Anyway, as someone previously mentioned, the four year player would need to develop throughout his career to have a consistent, positive impact on games. I also don't think you can put a price on leadership. I am not saying I don't think Duke should have recruited Irving or Parker. I just wonder what impact one and dones have any program's tournament success.

But we did recruit not one but two four-year players in the Irving class: Thornton (a borderline top-100 guy) and Hairston (a top-30 guy). Both players stayed all four years. Thornton exceeded expectations, while Hairston never developed into the player we had hoped he would become.

And the following year, we again recruited several four year guys along with Rivers: Cook (a top-30 guy), Gbinije (a top-35 guy), Murphy (a top-50 guy), and Plumlee (a top-75 guy). Unfortunately, Gbinije and Murphy transferred due to lack of playing time and Plumlee has not developed as quickly as hoped (due in large part to injuries). Cook has developed steadily each year (though with lots of inconsistency during each year).

And in 2012, we again seemed to hit with four-year guys in Sulaimon and Jefferson. Those two seem to be progressing as hoped, and both are threats to become All-ACC players next year.

Same story in 2013: Jones and Ojeleye were recruited as four-year guys. Let's hope that the lack of playing time this year doesn't lead to transfers, but they otherwise absolutely fit the "four-year" guy mold.

And in this recruiting class, we recruited three top-10 guys (all possible one-and-dones) along with a likely four-year guy in Allen.

Duke has not thrown all their eggs into the "one and done" basket. Far from it. We've continually recruited four-year guys. The problem with four-year guys is two-fold:
1. They aren't always going to develop into key contributors (see Hairston)
2. They are more likely to chafe at riding the pine for one or two years and thus decide to transfer (see Gbinije, Murphy, Czyz, etc.).

The best you can do is hope that you get more Jeffersons than Gbinijes or Hairstons*.

* Note: I don't mean to badmouth Hairston. He was a fantastic representative of Duke, was a great teammate, and gave it everything he had. I was just making the point that he never developed into the player that his high school rating would have suggested. So in the "four-year" guy model, he didn't quite get to where we needed him.

[moonpie23]

unfortunately, damned if you do, damned if you don't……take OAD's and lose, something wrong with the coaching, don't take OAD's and lose, can't recruit good talent like calimari….


personally, i think the OAD's have a negative effect on the rest of the team……i would imagine that others on the "team" were pretty sick of hearing/reading about jabari, rivers and even irving……(the debate about irving's late return to the team has been slogged through plenty)


what "star" did we have on the '10 team? all of them, or none of them….take your pick, but is wasn't ONE of them…


we can look at Calimari's model and think we see patterns, but, even they had their problems with "star power"…..

[Kedsy]

Sports fans don't like to think about it, but can we pause for a second and think about how much of a factor luck plays in our tournament results over such a short span?

Great point. Especially in the NCAA tournament, luck is critical if you want to make the Final Four. Also, if you're talking about four or five year stretches (like the poster in another thread who is disappointed because the most recent four years don't resemble 1999 to 2004), such a short time span can be highly affected by one recruiting class or even one player.


People have cited 2011 as the first year our defense started to slide, but our final KenPom ranking is only out of the top ten because of the Arizona game.

Indeed. Duke's pre-tournament defensive rank was #3 in 2011.

However, the reason we slid out of the top ten wasn't entirely the Arizona game. After that game, our D rank slipped to #8. Then when Pomeroy changed his formula, we slipped in retrospect to #21.

Who's to say whether Pomeroy's new formula is a better predictor than his old formula, but some portion of Duke's historical defensive shortcomings seem to be due to the change:

Post-Tournament Pomeroy numbers


Year Old Pom New Pom
2003 15 16
2004 4 4
2005 1 3
2006 13 18
2007 5 7
2008 9 8
2009 20 36
2010 4 8
2011 8 21
2012 70 81
2013 27 31


For some reason I don't really understand, Pomeroy's new formula seemed to devalue our defense more from 2009 to 2013 then it did from 2003 to 2008. Maybe something changed in our scheduling? I think it's impossible for us with the information we have to know if the change is due to some post-2008 deficiency in our defense that Pomeroy's old formula masked or whether it's simply a quirk of Pomeroy's new formula that undervalued our defense.



The first round loss was bad, but Lehigh was a VERY good 15 seed (better KenPom rank than Mercer this season) playing against a Duke team without an important player. I think our luck finally ran out.

I don't think people give enough credit to the loss of Ryan Kelly in that game. Yeah, we probably should have won it anyway, but we didn't look so good in the first two games without him, either. Losing Ryan was huge.


To me, last season is nothing but a success minus those glaring losses to Maryland. Duke was clearly an elite team and played like it, even if the defense could never quite get into perfect sync.

Duke's defense seemed in pretty good synch before Ryan got hurt on January 8, 2013. On January 13, Pomeroy ranked us as the #4 defense in the land.

And Ryan's injury hurt us on the other end, too. In the ACC tournament loss to Maryland, Ryan had a subpar game and the team didn't look like we had entirely integrated him back into the flow of things. If we'd won that game and maybe one more and we're possibly a #1 seed, and even if not a #1 we might not have had to play Louisville to make the Final Four. As you say, luck is a big factor.


This season is the only season in the past four that hasn't included a significant injury (although Marshall was still injured during the summer which hindered his development). We had high expectations because, as usual, we had a very talented squad. However, the defense never came together. Of all the years, I think we as fans are right to wonder about the defensive strategy the staff employed because we had a healthy team all season but never seemed to improve on defense. There's a lack of any other explanation.

Yeah, this season still mystifies me. Not just the Mercer game -- the whole season.

[CameronBornAndBred]

I find it ironic that K asks for a three year commitment from his NBA guys hoping to play on the Olympic team, yet seeks out the one and done talent for his college team.
I suppose that if the Olympics were played each year the tactics might be different, but the point is that he says for team USA to come home with the gold, it requires a long term investment from his players.

[Kfanarmy]

Facts are the facts you choose. Roy has lost twice as a #1 seed to a #8/#9 seed. He's lost as a #2 to a #7 seed. He's lost as a #3 to a #11 seed. All in all, Roy has lost 7 second round tournament games. Roy also missed the tournament altogether once. In the same time span, Coach K has lost in the 1st or 2nd round 7 times (exactly the same) and depending on whether you count 1995 (since K wasn't actually coaching I personally wouldn't count it), Duke has missed the tournament either zero or one times (the same or one season better). I can't imagine #1 Kansas losing to #8 Rhode Island or #9 UTEP felt any better to Kansas fans than Duke's first round losses feel to us. In that light, Roy's disappointments and K's disappointments are pretty much exactly the same -- facts are facts.

Also, the idea that losing an early NCAA game somehow exposes a flaw in a coach is just plain silly. The facts are that 15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games. Since no #1 has lost to a #16 you could argue the #1's game against the #8/#9 is the 1-seed's first real game, and if you look at it that way, top-three seeds have lost 11.5% of their first real NCAAT games. Duke under Coach K has been a top-three seed 26 times and lost 7.7% of its first real games. It's unfortunate that both losses have come in the past three years, but Coach K has still performed better than average among top-three seeds overall.

On a related note, I always find it funny that after many recent losses, UNC fans on IC have complained about how times have passed Roy by and say he should think about retiring. I'm saddened to find similar talk here at DBR. Because it really is ridiculous. When you have a large body of work, you are bound to show up in the record book in both positive and negative ways. Still it should be a little bit uncomfortable finding yourself among the "15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games," given that most of that performance is fairly recent...with a national championship thrown in there somewhere.

[Matches]

When you have a large body of work, you are bound to show up in the record book in both positive and negative ways. Still it should be a little bit uncomfortable finding yourself among the "15% of 3-seeds lose their first round games and 6% of 2-seeds lose their first round games and 14% of 1-seeds lose their second round games," given that most of that performance is fairly recent...with a national championship thrown in there somewhere.

Wait - did K lose a second-round game as a 1-seed? Please tell me there's not ANOTHER horrible loss out there... :)

[gurufrisbee]

Not only is luck a big factor in the tournament, but so is seeding and particularly how poorly the committee does in seeding - especially the non-major conference teams.

Mercer is a classic example. They had the same record in conference as Florida Gulf Coast and met them in the conference title game. If FGC wins that game and the bid, there is no way they come in as a 14 seed after their sweet sixteen run last year. But Mercer is essentially the same team and gets too low of a seed simply because they weren't there the year before.

North Dakota St, Harvard, SFAustin - all of these teams went all season looking WAY better than 12 seeds. But the committee feels like they have to dump them lower than ALL major conference teams so they get 12 seeds. I have yet to find one person ANYWHERE who thought any of those three teams DURING THE SEASON looked worse than BYU or Nebraska or Xavier.

Lehigh was another good example. They clearly should have been a better seed than 15.

And again, luck is a great point. A little remembered item from the Kemba Walker-UConn title run is that EVERY team played one of their best games of the season the game before they played UConn - and then they missed all the same wide open shots they had just been burying.

[Buckeye Devil]

Sorry, I am just not seeing the benefits of the One and Done for Duke. Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it. I realize that there is risk of the accusation of not being able to recruit by not landing alleged elite players. Give me a 3 or 4 year player any time and the maturity, knowledge of system, and often leadership that comes with them.

[Wander]

I think the topic is fair. There are some stark contrasts for us in terms of the one-and-dones who were on successful teams and those that were not. Namely, the good seasons didn't have the freshmen as their best player, and they weren't awful on defense. It might be a small sample size thing though.

I guess what I don't know because I'm not really into following recruiting, and what I think is necessary to answer the question, is: what is the opportunity cost in getting these players? Obviously, having Jabari Parker is much better than not having Jabari Parker. But does taking these guys hurt us in getting, say, a Nolan Smith type of talent for a few years? Honest question. Not so much because of a transfer issue or anything like that, which I don't think is a problem for us, but just because of the finite amount of scholarships and units of time to expend in recruiting.

[sagegrouse]

I find it ironic that K asks for a three year commitment from his NBA guys hoping to play on the Olympic team, yet seeks out the one and done talent for his college team.
I suppose that if the Olympics were played each year the tactics might be different, but the point is that he says for team USA to come home with the gold, it requires a long term investment from his players.

CBB: I said this above, but probably not very well: A one-and-done can only be defined after he declares for the draft. Two or three years earlier, "everyone" may say a 15YO will be a OAD, but it probably isn't true. (a) He may not develop into the kind of player the NBA zealously covets or (b) he may actually decide to stick around more than one year.

If the policy is to avoid OAD's, I dunno how to make it operational. What's the dividing line when you are focused on 15 and 16 YOs?

I think, given that uncertainty, the smartest thing is just to recruit the best players you can find and let the OAD problem take care of itself.

Kindly, Sage
'But given the difficulties in roster planning because of the NBA draft, I would probably arrange to use every one of the 13 scholarships'

[dukelifer]

Sorry, I am just not seeing the benefits of the One and Done for Duke. Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it. I realize that there is risk of the accusation of not being able to recruit by not landing alleged elite players. Give me a 3 or 4 year player any time and the maturity, knowledge of system, and often leadership that comes with them.

Would you be okay with the 3 or 4 year players and a sweet 16 finish every year? It is just not clear what is the line of satisfaction.

[AAA1980]

Why blame it on one and dones? Jabari had his flaws but without him this team doesnt make the nit..We didnt lose because of Jabari we lost because of our pathetic lack of size to where MERCER bullied us in the paint..

Ironically the 4 year players we had this year didnt improve at all nor did most of the other upperclassmen..

I think you need a good balance in todays college but to not go after the best players becasue thye might leave is not he way to go imo

Recrutign all mid level guys becasue you think theyll stay 4 years doesnt guarantee anyhting either,alot of those guys end up busts...

[daveyro]

re OAD, this is not a Duke problem. Like or not, Pittino, Calipari, Izzo, Roy et al are succeeding in this new world. Someone mentioned in the coaching thread that are defense is suffering because of the new crackdown hand-checking doesn't allow our guard overplay and the block charge adjustments takes away one of our great defense assets - drawing charges. Again, this applies to all teams. Coach K has to adapt

[flyingdutchdevil]

Why blame it on one and dones? Jabari had his flaws but without him this team doesnt make the nit..We didnt lose because of Jabari we lost because of our pathetic lack of size to where MERCER bullied us in the paint..

Ironically the 4 year players we had this year didnt improve at all nor did most of the other upperclassmen..

I think you need a good balance in todays college but to not go after the best players becasue thye might leave is not he way to go imo

Recrutign all mid level guys becasue you think theyll stay 4 years doesnt guarantee anyhting either,alot of those guys end up busts...

Who are all these amazing new posters bringing in fantastic ideas? Sans Jabari = NIT? Makes about as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle

[AAA1980]

Who are all these amazing new posters bringing in fantastic ideas? Sans Jabari = NIT? Makes about as much sense as a fish riding a bicycle

I was exagerrating my point it Jabari wasnt the main reason for our struggles people here just want to use him to push their agendas on the one and done rules and ignore the fact that most of the upperclassmen on this team just werent any good and more importantly our lack of size..i think coach k whiffing on big men aside from a few has been more problematic the past decade then anything else..

If you want to field a team full of 3 and 4 year players and they end the majority up like Thornton and Hairston we arent winning any titles..

UK just beat WSU so youth/talent can beat experience and vice versa recruting strictly 4 year kids doesnt guarantee anything in fact all it guarantees is a greater chance of more players on your team being a bust in college..

[flyingdutchdevil]

I was exagerrating my point it Jabari wasnt the main reason for our struggles people here just want to use him to push their agendas on the one and done rules and ignore the fact that msot of the upperclassmen on this team just werent any good..

If you want to field a team full of 3 and 4 year players and they end the majroty up like Thornton and Hairston we arent winning any titles..

Yeah, you're right. The 2010 title team included a bunch of one-and-dones:

Starters:
-Scheyer: 4 years
-Singler: 3 years
-Smith: 3 years
-Thomas: 4 years
-Zoubek: 4 years

The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.

[CameronBornAndBred]

CBB: I said this above, but probably not very well: A one-and-done can only be defined after he declares for the draft. Two or three years earlier, "everyone" may say a 15YO will be a OAD, but it probably isn't true. (a) He may not develop into the kind of player the NBA zealously covets or (b) he may actually decide to stick around more than one year.

If the policy is to avoid OAD's, I dunno how to make it operational. What's the dividing line when you are focused on 15 and 16 YOs?

I think, given that uncertainty, the smartest thing is just to recruit the best players you can find and let the OAD problem take care of itself.

Kindly, Sage
'But given the difficulties in roster planning because of the NBA draft, I would probably arrange to use every one of the 13 scholarships'
I agree with your points too, it's a tough call. But there are guys that we've (and presumably the coaching staff) have a feeling are going to be a one and done player. Jabari in a way is a good one for your side of the equation. There is a pretty split feeling from fans and press alike that he actually may stay. IF that turns out to be the case, and we had looked elsewhere, we would have robbed ourselves of having him for two years. It's a tough call. I was merely pointing out what I think is an irony in K's position on the Olympic team guys vs. the presumably one and done guys. (Kyrie was definitely one that we all thought would be here only a year, and to a similar extent, both Parker and Rivers.)

[AAA1980]

Yeah, you're right. The 2010 title team included a bunch of one-and-dones:

Starters:
-Scheyer: 4 years
-Singler: 3 years
-Smith: 3 years
-Thomas: 4 years
-Zoubek: 4 years

The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.

The "glory years" dont exist in todays cbb and there not coming back..its a different game..

Theyre's more then one way to skin a cat in todays game..The idea you can snap your fingers and easily recruit guys you know for a fact will be good but not good enough to leave early and hit their peak and become great in year 3 or 4 is unrealistic..its mostly luck

All you can do is balance your team get a few guys you hope to develop and stay a few years to be part of a veteran core and add a one and done or two to help push you over the top..

You want K to recruit with a crystal ball and know how a players gonna look in a few years and whats in his head as to wheter or not hell want to leave school early..its impossible to gauge any of that..

[flyingdutchdevil]

I agree with your points too, it's a tough call. But there are guys that we've (and presumably the coaching staff) have a feeling are going to be a one and done player. Jabari in a way is a good one for your side of the equation. There is a pretty split feeling from fans and press alike that he actually may stay. IF that turns out to be the case, and we had looked elsewhere, we would have robbed ourselves of having him for two years. It's a tough call. I was merely pointing out what I think is an irony in K's position on the Olympic team guys vs. the presumably one and done guys. (Kyrie was definitely one that we all thought would be here only a year, and to a similar extent, both Parker and Rivers.)

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). However, it took a few months after Kyrie committed for fans to see that Kyrie was going to be an OAD (I think giving Kyrie the #1 jersey was the main signal to me). When we originally got Kyrie, I thought that he was going to be a really good player who would stay maybe 2 years.

After Kyrie, the OAD floodgates opened. Rivers was next, followed by Jabari, followed by Jahlil. Coach K knew, Rivers knew, and fans knew that Rivers was an OAD. Jabari and Jahlil look to be next.

[Kedsy]

Kyrie, Austin, and probably Jabari - what did we get? One Sweet 16? I don't think it's worth it.

What did we get? What did we deserve to get? Kyrie, Austin, and Jabari were arguably the best players on their respective teams. Do you think they somehow deprived us of something we otherwise earned? More importantly, do you think if we recruited lesser players in their place our NCAA tournament performances would have somehow improved in those years?

I can see the argument that recruiting a top 10 talent (who these days are mostly one-and-done) takes resources away from the recruitment of other players and I can sort of see the argument that playing guys who only stay for one year takes playing time away (and corresponding potential opportunities for development) from the 8th and 9th guys on the bench. But I don't consider either argument to be particularly strong. I doubt most people around here would be satisfied if we never tried to recruit top ten talent, and developing the 8th and 9th guys (while a laudable goal) won't turn us from a team that loses in the first round into a team that goes to the Final Four.

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.

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.

For slightly different reasons, early round upsets aren't that reasonable a basis for evaluating teams, either. Based on both history and on Pomeroy's numbers, Duke had approximately an 85% chance to beat Mercer. Meaning in a seven game series, Duke would probably win six of the games. Meaning we would be expected to lose a game. Of course it doesn't always happen that way -- it would certainly be possible for a team like Duke to beat a team like Mercer seven times in a row, but if you played enough times on average Duke would lose one out of seven games. And if that's the case, the fact that we happened to lose the first game in the (admittedly non-existent) series doesn't define how good or bad Duke was this year. And certainly doesn't measure Jabari's worth or value to the team.

So, what did we "get"? We got a chance to watch an amazing player for a season, to root for a top ten basketball team full of good guys, and to enter the tournament with hopes of winning it (even if those hopes were dashed). Your opinion may vary, of course, but that seems like a lot to me.

[Duvall]

The Duke glory years between 1990 to 2006 rarely fielded a one-and-done (Deng and Maggette being the exceptions). We did pretty well then as well.

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

[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/2004976-ncaa-tournament-2014-one-done-stars-have-nothing-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/2004976-ncaa-tournament-2014-one-done-stars-have-nothing-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/bluezone/posts/2009/03/30/duke-makes-formal-offer-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/2004976-ncaa-tournament-2014-one-done-stars-have-nothing-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. ;)

[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.

4031

[Reilly]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_Ho0PBBU0&feature=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/2014/03/25/3732793/news-observer-college-basketball.html?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/2014/03/25/3732793/news-observer-college-basketball.html?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-limit-jahlil-okafor-adam-silver/?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-limit-jahlil-okafor-adam-silver/?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..:rolleyes:

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..