One and Mostly Done

[Hauerwas]

What's the thought on how k will continue to recruit given the history of mostly fsilure during our all out attempt to recruit like Cal. Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin. High risk low reward in a system that requires years to learn defensive schemes. I'm so frustrated by the early flameouts since we've gone one and done.?

[CDu]

Coach K will continue to recruit the best players. He just needs to figure out how to get said players to play defense better.

[BLPOG]

What's the thought on how k will continue to recruit given the history of mostly fsilure during our all out attempt to recruit like Cal. Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin. High risk low reward in a system that requires years to learn defensive schemes. I'm so frustrated by the early flameouts since we've gone one and done.?

Congratulations, you are the first person I've ever awarded a negative comment.

We won a national championship TWO years ago.

[eddiehaskell]

If Bolden and Giles were half as good as advertised (I know injuries were a factor), this team may have lost 2-3 games and been the overall 1 seed. Thus, I can't really blame the strategy of going for the best players. If we don't get them, some other team will gladly take them.

[duke09hms]

What's the thought on how k will continue to recruit given the history of mostly fsilure during our all out attempt to recruit like Cal. Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin. High risk low reward in a system that requires years to learn defensive schemes. I'm so frustrated by the early flameouts since we've gone one and done.?

This is the only part where I think you have a point. It DOESN'T take years to learn a defensive scheme.
Kentucky gets more OADs than us, and they have a consistently good defense.
We are not optimizing our defensive performance, and that's on the GOAT.

[Ian]

My post from the other thread.

At what point do we revisit the put all our eggs in the OAD recruting strategy? Even counting 2015, we are not winning at any signficantly higher rate than we did before this strategy. We don't have any more ups than we did before and frankly the downs are worse.

Plus what was for me the most rewarding part of following college basketball, that of watching young players comes in and mature and leave as young men, watching them mentor the younger players and pass the torch, have been for the most part removed from the experience. We are now lucky if we have more than one or two seniors on the team in any given year.

We used to play the kind of defense SC played tonight, when we had a team of upperclassmen who's been through the fire with each other for multiple years.

[DangerDevil]

Congratulations, you are the first person I've ever awarded a negative comment.

We won a national championship TWO years ago.

Plus the landscape has changed, Coach K has evolved to keep up with the current state of affairs in college basketball.

[Atlanta Duke]

This presumably will be a topic of discussion when the time comes to discussing recruiting philosophies with candidates for the successor to K.

The current head coach has made it clear if the best pre-NCAA eligibility players (the ship has sailed on the concept of "high school" and "college" players in the worlds of AAU ball and entry ASAP to the NBA) want to consider playing for Duke he thinks you would be unwise to turn them down.

So nothing is changing until the big change occurs at Duke.

[Eternal Outlaw]

'Didn't work out this year' - If working out only can be achieved by Final Fours or National Championship, that's a tough bar. This team won a ton of games, are ACC Champions, and beat UNC 2 of 3. Please take a moment to be proud of what they have accomplished rather than what they didn't.

[Ian]

Plus the landscape has changed, Coach K has evolved to keep up with the current state of affairs in college basketball.

The current landscape is that the teams that are able to have the stability of players staying 4 years, tend to have better success than teams that swap out half their roster every off season.

[BG05]

Coach K will continue to recruit the best players. He just needs to figure out how to get said players to play defense better.

I think you just nailed the problem. it's hard to learn the system and be really effective on defense during an only year, especially when one is already offensively skilled and is supposed to lead the offense. Tatum often looked lost on defense, Giles, too. Jackson not so much. I just want to be clear, I am NOT dumping on any of them. They are incredible athletes who gave everything to Duke. Just saying that if you look at really good defensive teams, they are often veteran teams. It takes time to learn a defensive system. Our best defensive guys were seniors, for example. SC had a lot of experience on the floor, too, I think. Tony Bennett's best defensive guys are seniors.
And, I am absolutely not dumping on coach K, who is the most brilliant coach in all aspects of the game. we can see where he's not perfect or maybe has made some poor calls, but seriously would you trade him for anyone else alive today?
So, if he thinks it is right to recruit the best, lets do that. if they need extra help on D, then give it to them or design defensive systems that work.

Just one more thing, re 1 and dones. Among teams that won the NCAA in any year from 2010 on, there is only one (KY) in this year's round of sixteen. it is just hard, with a lot of 1 and dones, to win consistently.

[ns7]

Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin.

We won the ACC this year. Do you expect a national title every year?

[duke09hms]

I think you just nailed the problem. it's hard to learn the system and be really effective on defense during an only year, especially when one is already offensively skilled and is supposed to lead the offense. Tatum often looked lost on defense, Giles, too. Jackson not so much. I just want to be clear, I am NOT dumping on any of them. They are incredible athletes who gave everything to Duke. Just saying that if you look at really good defensive teams, they are often veteran teams. It takes time to learn a defensive system. Our best defensive guys were seniors, for example. SC had a lot of experience on the floor, too, I think. Tony Bennett's best defensive guys are seniors.
And, I am absolutely not dumping on coach K, who is the most brilliant coach in all aspects of the game. we can see where he's not perfect or maybe has made some poor calls, but seriously would you trade him for anyone else alive today?
So, if he thinks it is right to recruit the best, lets do that. if they need extra help on D, then give it to them or design defensive systems that work.

Just one more thing, re 1 and dones. Among teams that won the NCAA in any year from 2010 on, there is only one (KY) in this year's round of sixteen. it is just hard, with a lot of 1 and dones, to win consistently.

UK manages to have strong defenses with more OADs than Duke ... how are they coaching defense differently? Isn't K always about constant learning?

[eddiehaskell]

The current landscape is that the teams that are able to have the stability of players staying 4 years, tend to have better success than teams that swap out half their roster every off season.Perhaps that's why a team like Wisconsin can play in what 6 of the last 7 Sweet 16s. Granted, I bet they would trade it all for 1 title. UNC has also has success with players staying 4 years.

[Rich]

Perhaps that's why a team like Wisconsin can play in what 6 of the last 7 Sweet 16s. Granted, I bet they would trade it all for 1 title. UNC has also has success with players staying 4 years.

As has been said here over and over and over and over again, Carolina recruits the same guys as we do. Those guys either choose to go to other schools (like Duke, Kansas or Kentucky) or they languish in the Carolina system for 3-4 years.

[DangerDevil]

Perhaps that's why a team like Wisconsin can play in what 6 of the last 7 Sweet 16s. Granted, I bet they would trade it all for 1 title. UNC has also has success with players staying 4 years.

I think that is the crux of the argument that the 2012 UK and 2015 Duke teams make. It is a long shot to win the national championship. You have to be really good and a lot of things have to go your way. Is it a gamble bringing in a lot of freshmen and not knowing how they are going to gel and live up to the hype sure, but if you want to go for it and give yourself the best chance to win it all you bring in the best players that you can recruit and roll the dice.

In 20 years we will all remember that Coach K figured out how to win his 6th National Chanpionship in 2019 in Minneapolis (we do pretty well in the apolises) and no one will be lamenting the sting of the 2017 season that could have been or pining for multiple Seeet 16s without winning the whole thing.

[Ian]

I think that is the crux of the argument that the 2012 UK and 2015 Duke teams make. It is a long shot to win the national championship. You have to be really good and a lot of things have to go your way. Is it a gamble bringing in a lot of freshmen and not knowing how they are going to gel and live up to the hype sure, but if you want to go for it and give yourself the best chance to win it all you bring in the best players that you can recruit and roll the dice.

In 20 years we will all remember that Coach K figured out how to win his 6th National Chanpionship in 2019 in Minneapolis (we do pretty well in the apolises) and no one will be lamenting the sting of the 2017 season that could have been or pining for multiple Seeet 16s without winning the whole thing.

But why should those 2 teams be the only model for success, why not the 2013 Louisvile of 2014 UConn or 2016 Villanova, or heck why not the 2010 Duke? Those teams were just as successful without this all of nothing strategy.

[freshmanjs]

But why should those 2 teams be the only model for success, why not the 2013 Louisvile of 2014 UConn or 2016 Villanova, or heck why not the 2010 Duke? Those teams were just as successful without this all of nothing strategy.

uh...louisville and villanova lost this round also. Uconn is terrible.

[Ian]

uh...louisville and villanova lost this round also. Uconn is terrible.

You're not following the argument. No one expects those teams to win every year, and guess what, Duke doesn't either. The point is that the OAD model has not proven to improve on Duke's success prior to adopting it. So maybe it's time to abandon it.

[freshmanjs]

You're not following the argument. No one expects those teams to win every year, and guess what, Duke doesn't either. The point is that the OAD model has not proven to improve on Duke's success prior to adopting it. So maybe it's time to abandon it.

So, the preferred strategy also doesn't win every year. Got it. Why is it preferred then?

[DukieTiger]

I'd argue that the recruiting philosophy itself isn't to blame for the poor defense- or at least the one-and-done philosophy itself.

There is another aspect of the philosophy that I think has indeed impacted it. If I told you that I think Marty Pocius would have gotten significantly more minutes playing for K if he had played durig the mid-teens than in the mid-aughts, what would you say?

My hunch is based on my memory of the reasoning for why MP didn't get much time. I always read that if you wanted to earn PT under K, you had to start with defense. This was reinforced by guys like Dave McClure and LT- who were, um, not gifted offensively.

How do guys earn PT for K these days?

If we tried to say it was a commitment to defense, we would be lying to ourselves.

[Edouble]

uh...louisville and villanova lost this round also. Uconn is terrible.

Like, in a way that is related to their win/loss record? Interesting. I think of them as just being terrible all of the time, regardless.

[IrishDevil]

Don't ignore the role injuries have played in Duke OAD-era bball. Let's not forget that since the start of our OAD recruiting focus beginning in 2010-11 with Kyrie, we are quite possibly one Kyrie toe and one Ryan Kelly foot from an additional two FF/Natties, and that is before the ridiculousness that was this season. Injuries are part of the game, but we have suffered some particularly inconvenient ones, and they certainly can't be attributed to OAD recruiting.

This season was completely disrupted in most every way imaginable, but I don't see how that is OAD-related. Two fewer injuries since 2010-11, and we could be looking at two NCAAs and serious shots at two more from 2010-2016. I have no problems with that whatsoever.

Perhaps the tendency for fans to succumb to "New Shiny Toy" syndrome regarding each recruiting class (a fact to which anyone who has ever looked at a DBR offseason minutes prediction thread - wait, isn't that all preseason threads? - can attest), multiplied exponentially by the press and hype of top recruits, sometimes multiple OADs per class, and increasing fan and press exposure to high school players results in even higher expectations than those usually borne by a top program like Duke? Maybe the problem lies less with the recruiting strategy, and at least somewhat fans' diminished ability to endure the usual vagaries of a college season due to even higher expectations?

[eddiehaskell]

As has been said here over and over and over and over again, Carolina recruits the same guys as we do. Those guys either choose to go to other schools (like Duke, Kansas or Kentucky) or they languish in the Carolina system for 3-4 years.They recruit them yes, but perhaps they've been as fortunate as possible in not getting as many. I certainly can't remember, but were guys like Jackson, Berry, Britt, Meeks, Hicks and Pinson considered sure-fire 1 and done players out of HS? I know guys like Tatum, Jabari, Jah, Kyrie were definitely expected to play 1 year.

[DangerDevil]

But why should those 2 teams be the only model for success, why not the 2013 Louisvile of 2014 UConn or 2016 Villanova, or heck why not the 2010 Duke? Those teams were just as successful without this all of nothing strategy.

I think the winning formula is what we had this year. You recruit the best players, some of whom will be one and done. Hopefully you have a few players that stay for more than one season, maybe even all four.

I think that is what we have been lucky enough to do the last several recruiting classes and definitely have going forward with the last two recruiting classes. Even following the "winning" formula its still a crapshoot how the season plays out. Do I wish we made it past the second round this year and hadn't lost to Mercer and Lehigh, of course. But I think most observers would say wining the 2017 ACC tournament, making the 2016 Sweet 16, and winning the 2015 NCAA Championship was a pretty good run. With a little luck that run could have been much better but I am happy with how it went and excited for the future!

What is the alternative? I'm not asking a rhetoric question. If I envision not recruiting the top talent Year after year I would guess that looks something like UVA, Gonzaga, or Wisconsin. Quality programs with impressive performances but not National Champions or anything close to what the Duke fan's have come to expect over the last 30 years.

[CoachJ10]

This season, we had two seniors, 1 junior, 1 sophomore and 2 freshmen be our group of starters. Why is everyone acting as if our whole team this year was OADers? To me, on paper to start the season, it was a great mix of new blood and seasoned talent to evolve together.

The variable that threw this off was injuries. From big ones, to little and persistent ones. That was the storyline this year.

[Ian]

So, the preferred strategy also doesn't win every year. Got it. Why is it preferred then?

Because if it's all the same in the sense of on the court success, I'd rather follow a program that I can watch players develop grow over 4 years.

[DangerDevil]

This season, we had two seniors, 1 junior, 1 sophomore and 2 freshmen be our group of starters. Why is everyone acting as if our whole team this year was OADers? To me, on paper to start the season, it was a great mix of new blood and seasoned talent to evolve together.

The variable that threw this off was injuries. From big ones, to little and persistent ones. That was the storyline this year.

Agree 100%, even without the injuries and distractions we still could have had a bad matchup or off night and lost in the second round.

[DukieTiger]

This season, we had two seniors, 1 junior, 1 sophomore and 2 freshmen be our group of starters. Why is everyone acting as if our whole team this year was OADers? To me, on paper to start the season, it was a great mix of new blood and seasoned talent to evolve together.

The variable that threw this off was injuries. From big ones, to little and persistent ones. That was the storyline this year.

Yes, this year was torpedoed by injuries, but I think people are reacting to the overall outlook for the program based on the heavy emphasis on OAD. The coming years won't have the blend that this team had on October 1.

(For example,) when is the next time Duke will have a senior guard?

[DangerDevil]

(For example,) when is the next time Duke will have a senior guard?

Hopefully next year when Grayson comes back!

[CoachJ10]

Yes, this year was torpedoed by injuries, but I think people are reacting to the overall outlook for the program based on the heavy emphasis on OAD. The coming years won't have the blend that this team had on October 1.

(For example,) when is the next time Duke will have a senior guard?

I look forward to seeing who the next Quin Cook will be as well.

But in general, I think we should always try to recruit talented players as well as "Duke" players. A good healthy mix will keep us competing every year.

[KandG]

The variable that threw this off was injuries. From big ones, to little and persistent ones. That was the storyline this year.

There are some fair questions to be asked about what the OAD model means to certain aspects of building teams on a year to year basis, but per the comment above, I don't think this year's team is the one that should raise all the alarm bells. This was a uniquely weird year with the injuries, and the Grayson media attention didn't help matters.

2015 was significant and pointed to a possible way to smooth over the bumps in getting OADs to learn quickly and develop chemistry, because the one-and-dones had experience playing together on youth teams and were (in the case of Jah and Tyus) especially close friends. There was a possibility of replicating that with Jayson and Harry this year, but Harry's injuries destroyed that possibility.

Personally, I think good kids are good kids, whether they stay one year or all four years. There seems to be a massive difference of opinion on that, given how much people agonize over our inability to go far in various years. But I love the way Kyrie, Jabari etc represent the Duke program in the pros, and look forward to seeing Jayson and Harry do the same in succeeding years. They don't feel to me like pieces in a pro assembly line that compromise the success of Duke in the tournament, they feel like quality players and individuals as much as the guys that stay longer.

[eddiehaskell]

Let's say Giles never has the 2nd or 3rd knee injuries and he's 85% of what he was once billed as (a #1 draft pick) - this team could've been on another level.

Landing multiple top 10s every year seems like it results in a monster team every 3-4 years or so. In the off years some players may be overhyped, injured or just mess up chemistry. However, with a decent coach and steady stream top talent it's almost guaranteed that a team will have their year. This seems like the position Duke and Kentucky fans are in - the sky is the limit prior to every season. In some ways it's great to never have the well run dry, but in some ways it can be extremely frustrating (like tonight).

[CharlestonDave]

All I can rationalize is that Tatum will be gone . If the team drafting first does not need a point guard the he should be the first pick.

Will A team take a chance on Giles, maybe, and I can never fault a player leaving 1Million plus on the table but he is just not ready for the grind of the NBA.

Bolden leaving would be a joke . He is no where ready.

Certainly hope that Kennard and Allen stay , although the latter might want to try out playing in Europe or even Israel. Kennard, in my opinion does not yet possess the defensive skills that are necessary to become a decent NBA player.

Hope that this kid Duval, ( not sure if that is his name ) commits because we could certainly use a dynamic PG next year.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Coach K recruits the best players that fit his profile for a Duke basketball player in terms of academics and character.

He has also tried to recruit those players.

His system used to rely heavily on experience and cohesiveness. After 2014 he started to make adjustments to simplify things and to account for having so many key players who were frosh.

Injuries and Thornton transfer set everything back this year. I realize that to play Thornton Duke would have to take minutes from someone else but its tough to think you can go deep in the NCAA tournament with 7 players, 3 of whom are frosh, 2 of them were hurt and missed much of the early season and one of the two seems to be way behind where he should be because of the injuries. In addition one player, Jeter, who could provide quality minutes apparently got injured and was (I guess) unavailable for the last half of the season or so. Duke was playing with no point guard and one experienced inside player.

This year's team did have senior leaders in Jefferson and Jones. Hopefully next year's team will have less than the normal share of injuries but could lack the necessary leadership. Will be interesting to see how he handles it.

SoCal

[OZ]

Coach K will continue to recruit the best players. He just needs to figure out how to get said players to play defense better.

We may not have had the best defense in the world, but I do recall us winning a National Championship with three one and dones. It is really tough to teach kids anything when they can't practice.

[Scorp4me]

What's the thought on how k will continue to recruit given the history of mostly fsilure during our all out attempt to recruit like Cal. Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin. High risk low reward in a system that requires years to learn defensive schemes. I'm so frustrated by the early flameouts since we've gone one and done.?

smh...some people just shouldn't post for like...24 or 48 hours after a loss. That or remember what board to post on. If you want to fix our recent problems find a way to avoid injuries. And getting us a point guard couldn't hurt either.

We're not a team of oad's, it's not sinking us, it's not sinking others...although I like the argument that UNC is "fortunate" they missed out on all the good players haha.

[BigZ]

Only playing 7 or 8 guys is a much bigger issue than recruiting.

[Devilwin]

'Didn't work out this year' - If working out only can be achieved by Final Fours or National Championship, that's a tough bar. This team won a ton of games, are ACC Champions, and beat UNC 2 of 3. Please take a moment to be proud of what they have accomplished rather than what they didn't.

Sometimes teams have issues. The 2015 team was primarily led by one and dones, and we know how that worked out.:)
But this group had injuries by the ton, and the Grayson Allen media circus, and never really gelled into what we expected. They did win the ACCT, and beat UNC two out of three. We should be proud of those accomplishments like EO says.

[Henderson]

What's remarkable to me is that we are learning as the years go by that landing the best recruits in the country year in and year out does not correlate with success in the NCAAT.

Recruiting the very best players means you lose a high proportion of them early to the NBA.

Sometimes that works out, because those players are really good. Sometimes it doesn't because those players don't develop in the system.

That doesn't mean "recruiting OAD's" is a failed strategy. But it's clearly not necessary for success.

It's interesting that most coaches try to recruit the best players, even knowing that those players will be OAD. Roy for example. Most teams just aren't as good at it as Duke has been. But many of them end up with pretty good teams anyway, even failing at their "preferred strategy".

In the end, if you want to succeed in the NCAAT, you can't (a) assume that by getting the best recruits, you will win; or (b) assume that by eschewing the best recruits (or failing to land them) you won't. But the reverse is also true: You don't automatically lose with OAD's, and you don't automatically win by failing to get them.

So why spend so much energy worrying about whether Duke lands the greatest recruits? I'm starting to think that for both coaches and fans, it's just a way of counting coup.

[Devilwin]

Maybe the 2015 team caught lightning in a bottle, who knows. We are going to have a good recruiting class, and I feel most of the players being discussed as possibly leaving will be back. Wendell Carter is an inside beast, and Trent can shoot the lights out. If we get a good point guard like Duval, we could be set again.
So the only real problem we have is defense (again). That's the number one problem we have.

[Saratoga2]

You're not following the argument. No one expects those teams to win every year, and guess what, Duke doesn't either. The point is that the OAD model has not proven to improve on Duke's success prior to adopting it. So maybe it's time to abandon it.

If the team wins big then some of the recruits by definition will be sought after in the NBA draft. If they happen to be freshmen then they are OAD. This year we had Amile, Matt, Grayson and Luke, all multiyear players, on the floor and presumably healthy in the NCAA tourney and still were beaten in the round of 32 and so were 8 of 9 ACC teams. Only UNC squeaked through and they had a 1 seed and very favorable officiating at the end. I think we have to look more deeply into why we were beaten. Clearly defense is at the top of the list, but the why may not be strongly correlated to OAD.

[dukelifer]

What's remarkable to me is that we are learning as the years go by that landing the best recruits in the country year in and year out does not correlate with success in the NCAAT.

Recruiting the very best players means you lose a high proportion of them early to the NBA.

Sometimes that works out, because those players are really good. Sometimes it doesn't because those players don't develop in the system.

That doesn't mean "recruiting OAD's" is a failed strategy. But it's clearly not necessary for success.

It's interesting that most coaches try to recruit the best players, even knowing that those players will be OAD. Roy for example. Most teams just aren't as good at it as Duke has been. But many of them end up with pretty good teams anyway, even failing at their "preferred strategy".

In the end, if you want to succeed in the NCAAT, you can't (a) assume that by getting the best recruits, you will win; or (b) assume that by eschewing the best recruits (or failing to land them) you won't. But the reverse is also true: You don't automatically lose with OAD's, and you don't automatically win by failing to get them.

So why spend so much energy worrying about whether Duke lands the greatest recruits? I'm starting to think that for both coaches and fans, it's just a way of counting coup.

The funny thing is that Duke had two projected OADs that barely played all year. They played one kid who will go pro next year. If Jeter does get injured- he could have played more. Duke recruited a ton of good but not great players with a chance to develop. No one expected Tyus Jones to go pro or Kennard to blow up. Part of the issue is that Duke kids get attention because they are successful. There are a lot of players out there who if they played for Duke might be getting NBA love earlier than they do. Duke has had a bumpy tourney record of late but only compared to their past. I am pretty sure most fans of other teams would trade their programs for Duke's in a heartbeat.

[pfrduke]

Serious question: what is the other model? It's not like in previous years we weren't recruiting the best players - we have consistently had classes filled with McDonalds All Americans who have pro prospects and aspirations. Looking at our past history is somewhat fallacious because it includes a past where one and done was much less prevalent across college basketball as a whole. There's no meaningful difference between this years class and the 1998 class except 20 years ago there wasn't an expectation that so many freshmen would go to the draft.

[Troublemaker]

I was on DBR pre-2011, as were many of you. It is a lie that people enjoyed watching 4-year players grow. Well, I'm sure a few people did, but there was a LOT of kvetching as the Zoubek, Thomas, Scheyer class went through their growing pains. Just as much as there is now when Duke doesn't win a national title. And those guys are remembered fondly only because they eventually did.

People just want to win a title (or at least make the Final Four) every year. There IS no model that's going to produce that. At least not anymore. Duke came close to that from '86 to '94, but it was a time when it was almost a given that a Jayson Tatum or Harry Giles would stay four years.

[dukelifer]

Serious question: what is the other model? It's not like in previous years we weren't recruiting the best players - we have consistently had classes filled with McDonalds All Americans who have pro prospects and aspirations. Looking at our past history is somewhat fallacious because it includes a past where one and done was much less prevalent across college basketball as a whole. There's no meaningful difference between this years class and the 1998 class except 20 years ago there wasn't an expectation that so many freshmen would go to the draft.

You know the model where you recruit players that stay for 4 years and you go to the NC game every year. We want that model- we deserve that model. Oh that was not the serious answer.

[weezie]

A philosophical morning with a headache of sadness. Going to be a challenging, slightly ornery day.

[CDu]

The irony in this thread is that this was one of our most veteran teams in a while. Our six main guys were a fifth-year senior, a senior, a junior a sophomore and two freshmen. Our seventh man, who played sparingly, was a frosh.

If our team had been healthy all year, I doubt anyone is lamenting the one-and-done era today. We just faced too many speed bumps along the way with all the injuries. That cost us on the seed line and it cost us in development too.

[Troublemaker]

UK manages to have strong defenses with more OADs than Duke ... how are they coaching defense differently? Isn't K always about constant learning?

There may be some truth to this, but
(a) How is this season's veteran team a data point in your favor? Did Jackson and Tatum torpedo our defense? (Not that Frank is expected to be OAD).
(b) We need more seasons with both OADs and good health to really make a determination.
(c) The one season when Nerlens Noel went down with injury, Kentucky was ranked #90 on defense

I do think Kentucky tends to recruit better defensive talents.

[NashvilleDevil]

What's the thought on how k will continue to recruit given the history of mostly fsilure during our all out attempt to recruit like Cal. Didn't work this year nor last, didn't work with Habari or Austin. High risk low reward in a system that requires years to learn defensive schemes. I'm so frustrated by the early flameouts since we've gone one and done.?

It appears you're a troll but I'll answer and never get a response from you. Here is the list of OADs recruited by K since Kyrie announced:

2010-11 - Kyrie
2011-12- Austin
2012-13 - None
2013-14 - Jabari
2014-15 - Tyus, Jah, Justise
2015-16 - Brandon
2016-17 - Tatum, Harry, Marques

Jayson is for sure gone. As for Harry he's probably gone too and who knows what Marques does. It seems Duke has more success or the potential for success if they have multiple OADs. To me Duval is the key recruit next year, this year's team had playmakers but they didn't have that PG that could do what Tyus did.

Speaking of Harry, if I'm him I stay, he should look at Blake Griffin. Griffin was a high lottery pick after his freshman year but he stayed and we know what happened. Obviously Harry could get hurt again and that's a huge risk to take but I believe he will be a better pro if he gets a full year of basketball and not what he had this year. I wish him well if he decides to go and will pull for him and I hope we eveutally see the Giles that everyone raved over a couple years ago.

I am going to really miss Tatum, loved watching that kid play and grow into the player he became this year. He will be a great representative for Duke at the next level.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

A philosophical morning with a headache of sadness. Going to be a challenging, slightly ornery day.

I don't have a headache of sadness, just sadness and a headache.

[moonpie23]

Because if it's all the same in the sense of on the court success, I'd rather follow a program that I can watch players develop grow over 4 years.

don't let that door hit you on the way out...

[camion]

You know the model where you recruit players that stay for 4 years and you go to the NC game every year. We want that model- we deserve that model. Oh that was not the serious answer.

Then there is the model where you recruit OAD players and somehow convince them to stay 3 or 4. Also arrange your schedule so all of your most difficult conference games are at home. And finally arrange things so the players don't have to worry about their class schedules and "studies."

Wait, I think there's a school that is already doing that.

Never mind.

[dukelifer]

Then there is the model where you recruit OAD players and somehow convince them to stay 3 or 4. Also arrange your schedule so all of your most difficult conference games are at home. And finally arrange things so the players don't have to worry about their class schedules and "studies."

Wait, I think there's a school that is already doing that.

Never mind.

And still never be satisfied as fans

[dukelifer]

It appears you're a troll but I'll answer and never get a response from you. Here is the list of OADs recruited by K since Kyrie announced:

2010-11 - Kyrie
2011-12- Austin
2012-13 - None
2013-14 - Jabari
2014-15 - Tyus, Jah, Justise
2015-16 - Brandon
2016-17 - Tatum, Harry, Marques

Jayson is for sure gone. As for Harry he's probably gone too and who knows what Marques does. It seems Duke has more success or the potential for success if they have multiple OADs. To me Duval is the key recruit next year, this year's team had playmakers but they didn't have that PG that could do what Tyus did.

Speaking of Harry, if I'm him I stay, he should look at Blake Griffin. Griffin was a high lottery pick after his freshman year but he stayed and we know what happened. Obviously Harry could get hurt again and that's a huge risk to take but I believe he will be a better pro if he gets a full year of basketball and not what he had this year. I wish him well if he decides to go and will pull for him and I hope we eveutally see the Giles that everyone raved over a couple years ago.

I am going to really miss Tatum, loved watching that kid play and grow into the player he became this year. He will be a great representative for Duke at the next level.

If you look at that list Kyrie, Harry and Marques barely played for various reasons and in 2014-2015 would have only had 2 maybe 1 if Duke did not win it all.

[Devilwin]

Team came up short of lofty expectations heaped on them early on. Injuries and other issues probably slowed the development.
I honestly thought we had turned the corner after winning the ACCT, but it just was not to be. Hard to say what we will look like next year at this point. Great recruits already in the fold, and if we get Duval and big kid ( cannot recall his name) we'll be ok. Jayson is gone for sure. Not certain of the others..
Anyway, heads up gang, we will be good next season, and Coach Cut has a good bunch of football players ready to roll next season..

[wavedukefan70s]

You have to recruit the best players.one and done or not.so you recruit a guy that becomes tatum in 3 to 4 years or do you recruit 4 tatums?we had great talent .we needed a lightining quick 1 guard and really needed a low post presence to develop.im not happy the way it turned out .at one point i was wondering if we would make the tourney.
We could have been a lot worse.
The only thing that really ticked me off this season was unc fans holding gamecock towels.👹

[Matches]

People just want to win a title (or at least make the Final Four) every year. There IS no model that's going to produce that. At least not anymore. Duke came close to that from '86 to '94, but it was a time when it was almost a given that a Jayson Tatum or Harry Giles would stay four years.

This X1000. Really highlights just how amazing that '86-'94 run was - but I'd argue there's even more parity in MBB now than there was then.

We have this phenomenon, not just in college bball but in all sports, where whatever the most recent result is is treated as if it was inevitable. The book was you can't win titles with OADs - then Kentucky did it in 2012 and the hottake was that Cal was now the dominant force in the NCAA. 2013 - Kentucky goes to the NIT and the narrative switches back - can't win with OADs anymore. Duke couldn't win with OADs either - until we did - but now here we are two years later and suddenly it's a failed strategy again. What people seem to miss is that there is a HUGE element of randomness and chance to the NCAAT. There are a lot of good teams and the margin between winning and losing is often razor-thin - and one of the fun yet frustrating things about college bball is that the "best" team doesn't always win on a given night. All you can do is assemble the best team you can and put yourself in a position where you have a chance. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the NCAAT usually it doesn't because that's the nature of the tournament - but we've been in a good position EVERY year. Some teams are better than others but we are always competitive - that's the best we as fans can hope for.

If Laettner misses buzzer beaters in 1990 and 1992 we look at that era VERY differently. Let's not act as if those results were pre-ordained - those games easily could have gone the other way. There's no formula that guarantees success - there are only formulas that keep teams consistently competitive, and clearly we have that.

[Aziggazoomba]

You have to recruit the best players.one and done or not.so you recruit a guy that becomes tatum in 3 to 4 years or do you recruit 4 tatums?we had great talent .we needed a lightining quick 1 guard and really needed a low post presence to develop.im not happy the way it turned out .at one point i was wondering if we would make the tourney.
We could have been a lot worse.
The only thing that really ticked me off this season was unc fans holding gamecock towels.👹

Had I been there, as much as I hate Duke (sorry), I wouldn't have been caught dead with a gamecock towel (or any other SC paraphernalia).

There's a huge degree of bad blood between Carolina and usc, going way back to the 70s. I despise that school (and it figures that a confederate flag was flying next door).

I was good with the result (again, sorry), but I was holding my nose the entire time.

[Devil2]

There may be some truth to this, but
(a) How is this season's veteran team a data point in your favor? Did Jackson and Tatum torpedo our defense? (Not that Frank is expected to be OAD).
(b) We need more seasons with both OADs and good health to really make a determination.
(c) The one season when Nerlens Noel went down with injury, Kentucky was ranked #90 on defense

I do think Kentucky tends to recruit better defensive talents.

Kentucky has been more succesful in recruiting rim protectors. With the freedom of movement rules making it more difficult to stop dribble penetration, you need either a rim protector like UK or a pack line type defense to be a good defensive team. The pack line requires expereince to run successfully just like K's defense

[dukelifer]

This X1000. Really highlights just how amazing that '86-'94 run was - but I'd argue there's even more parity in MBB now than there was then.

We have this phenomenon, not just in college bball but in all sports, where whatever the most recent result is is treated as if it was inevitable. The book was you can't win titles with OADs - then Kentucky did it in 2012 and the hottake was that Cal was now the dominant force in the NCAA. 2013 - Kentucky goes to the NIT and the narrative switches back - can't win with OADs anymore. Duke couldn't win with OADs either - until we did - but now here we are two years later and suddenly it's a failed strategy again. What people seem to miss is that there is a HUGE element of randomness and chance to the NCAAT. There are a lot of good teams and the margin between winning and losing is often razor-thin - and one of the fun yet frustrating things about college bball is that the "best" team doesn't always win on a given night. All you can do is assemble the best team you can and put yourself in a position where you have a chance. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the NCAAT usually it doesn't because that's the nature of the tournament - but we've been in a good position EVERY year. Some teams are better than others but we are always competitive - that's the best we as fans can hope for.

If Laettner misses buzzer beaters in 1990 and 1992 we look at that era VERY differently. Let's not act as if those results were pre-ordained - those games easily could have gone the other way. There's no formula that guarantees success - there are only formulas that keep teams consistently competitive, and clearly we have that.
It also easy to become irrelevant. Much of the angst is because we know we are nearing the end of the K era. When that happens- we have no idea where Duke will be as a program. Without a proven winner at the helm- Duke may find it harder to recruit and harder to be in the mix. We fans have been spoiled for a long time.

[MCFinARL]

They recruit them yes, but perhaps they've been as fortunate as possible in not getting as many. I certainly can't remember, but were guys like Jackson, Berry, Britt, Meeks, Hicks and Pinson considered sure-fire 1 and done players out of HS? I know guys like Tatum, Jabari, Jah, Kyrie were definitely expected to play 1 year.

Haven't researched all of this, but Jackson and Pinson were both top 10 recruits thought at least capable of being one and dones, I believe. And going back a couple of years there is McAdoo--a "sure fire" OAD who ended up going undrafted after 3 years at UNC. Granted, that may be an outlier even for UNC.


Serious question: what is the other model? It's not like in previous years we weren't recruiting the best players - we have consistently had classes filled with McDonalds All Americans who have pro prospects and aspirations. Looking at our past history is somewhat fallacious because it includes a past where one and done was much less prevalent across college basketball as a whole. There's no meaningful difference between this years class and the 1998 class except 20 years ago there wasn't an expectation that so many freshmen would go to the draft.

This is spot on. The level of Duke's recruits hasn't changed so much as the options they have available to them in terms of staying in college or leaving early.



Speaking of Harry, if I'm him I stay, he should look at Blake Griffin. Griffin was a high lottery pick after his freshman year but he stayed and we know what happened. Obviously Harry could get hurt again and that's a huge risk to take but I believe he will be a better pro if he gets a full year of basketball and not what he had this year. I wish him well if he decides to go and will pull for him and I hope we eveutally see the Giles that everyone raved over a couple years ago.

I am going to really miss Tatum, loved watching that kid play and grow into the player he became this year. He will be a great representative for Duke at the next level.

Harry faces a tough choice in terms of risk-reward. With a solid college season under his belt in a year that I believe is expected to have a not-quite-so-amazing draft class as this year, he could go soaring back up the draft board and be much more ready, physically and mentally, to move to the next level. But if that doesn't happen--either because of, God forbid, further injury or because he can't make it all the way back from the injuries he has had already (also God forbid), then he could be much worse off in terms of NBA prospects. I can't fault him for making either choice. And like you, I very much hope we eventually see a fully restored Harry Giles, whether at Duke or in the NBA. He seems like a great kid who has handled his challenges with grace.

I will miss Tatum as well; painful to see him at the post-game presser. The reporters didn't even ask him any questions, presumably because they were kind enough to notice that he could barely keep it together.

[TampaDuke]

I'm curious, for those advocating against recruiting 1-and-done players, what's the alternative? It's not like we can go back to the way things were pre-2006.

Frankly, IMHO, this team seemed to be perfectly balanced between freshman and veterans. We just couldn't put it all together consistently for a variety of reasons, same as every other team. When we hit our potential, we were really good and won a conference championship. When we were inconsistent, we lost to teams that had no business beating us (or nearly lost to teams that we should have blown out).

[Rich]

They recruit them yes, but perhaps they've been as fortunate as possible in not getting as many. I certainly can't remember, but were guys like Jackson, Berry, Britt, Meeks, Hicks and Pinson considered sure-fire 1 and done players out of HS? I know guys like Tatum, Jabari, Jah, Kyrie were definitely expected to play 1 year.

So if you could go back in time you don't think we should have recruited Tatum, Jabari, Jah, or Kyrie?

Marques Bolden, who I'm guessing is likely to stay, was also considered one and done. Should we not have recruited him?

[TampaDuke]

I will miss Tatum as well; painful to see him at the post-game presser. The reporters didn't even ask him any questions, presumably because they were kind enough to notice that he could barely keep it together.

I, too, will miss Tatum in a Duke uniform. Given how much he grew as a player this year, I'm excited to see just how good he can become.

[SkyBrickey]

This season, we had two seniors, 1 junior, 1 sophomore and 2 freshmen be our group of starters. Why is everyone acting as if our whole team this year was OADers? To me, on paper to start the season, it was a great mix of new blood and seasoned talent to evolve together.

The variable that threw this off was injuries. From big ones, to little and persistent ones. That was the storyline this year.

This and the coaching staff was expecting to have Sophomore Thornton at point guard.

[Rich]

I do think Kentucky tends to recruit better defensive talents.

For the most part, we recruit the same kids. Cal just seems to be a better coach of basic defense that can be picked up by freshmen. It's really my only criticism of Coach K over the years -- our defensive schemes tends to be more advanced and take longer to learn. His use of zone and 3/4 court pressure shows he's been willing to adapt though. I think we just have to recognize that Cal excels in this area, but would you rather have Cal or K on our bench?

[budwom]

Maybe someone else has mentioned this, but I don't think I saw it.

To me, recruiting OADs is fine, but to win big, you generally need a blend of OADs and returning kids.
And one problem we have vis a vis returning kids is the short bench K uses (and yes, I know, he's extraordinarily accomplished and doesn't need me or anyone
else to second guess him).

I strongly suspect that Jeter and Bolden will be gone after this year, which would be a shame....but when they get so little playing time, can we really
be surprised if they leave?

So I guess I'm asserting that expanding the bench to eight or nine guys (truly in the rotation) would bear fruit.

[Matches]

Maybe someone else has mentioned this, but I don't think I saw it.

To me, recruiting OADs is fine, but to win big, you generally need a blend of OADs and returning kids.
And one problem we have vis a vis returning kids is the short bench K uses (and yes, I know, he's extraordinarily accomplished and doesn't need me or anyone
else to second guess him).

I strongly suspect that Jeter and Bolden will be gone after this year, which would be a shame...but when they get so little playing time, can we really
be surprised if they leave?

So I guess I'm asserting that expanding the bench to eight or nine guys (truly in the rotation) would bear fruit.

Thing is, we HAD a blend of OADs and returning players. And that blend included a senior captain who barely played as a freshman, a 5th year senior who got spotty minutes as a freshman, and a junior who only got meaningful minutes at the end of his freshman year.

IMO we've had a pretty good blend every year. The most unbalanced we've been, arguably, was 2015, where the rotation only had 1 senior and 2 juniors, one of whom didn't play much.

[dudog84]

Depressing result, mostly because while college basketball is my favorite sport and I love March, my interest falls off a cliff once Duke loses. And losing in the first or second round is the worst because I lose the whole approaching week of anticipation. I've learned that if you're only happy with a national championship then you're going to be unhappy almost every year. And I'm very happy with an ACC Championship. I just hate being out so early.

re OAD, I don't like it because of my antiquated view of what college should be, but acknowledge that I would have been gone like a shot if someone would have offered me a million dollars in my chosen profession (or any other profession for that matter). So I've come around that if they're good kids and they take their studies seriously while they're here, then welcome. The other thing is that if we don't grab them, somebody else will. Can you imagine the garment-rending on this board if we turned down a kid that wanted to come here and then he beat us in the tournament?

The other thing I try to remember is that it's Coach K's team, not mine. He can do what he wants. Even if he wasn't so outrageously successful, that's the bottom line.

[Sir Stealth]

Thing is, we HAD a blend of OADs and returning players. And that blend included a senior captain who barely played as a freshman, a 5th year senior who got spotty minutes as a freshman, and a junior who only got meaningful minutes at the end of his freshman year.

IMO we've had a pretty good blend every year. The most unbalanced we've been, arguably, was 2015, where the rotation only had 1 senior and 2 juniors, one of whom didn't play much.

Thank you to you and all others who have made this point. I don't know what team anyone who thinks we rely too much on OAD thinks that they were watching. Amile, Matt, and Grayson are exactly the type of players it seems like those making this argument would want to have. Kennard too - certainly not a player who came with the expectation to leave early. It's just not reality to say that we haven't given enough spots or playing time to players who could develop and play veteran roles over time. 2015 relied much, much more on OAD than this team did.

There is also the typical problem of overreacting to a single elimination tournament and pretending that the team as currently constructed wouldn't have won as many or more titles as any other team if you played the tournament out 50 times. To me, the ACC championship run absolutely proved that this team had what it takes to win it all. What was so different about that stretch of wins that didn't apply in the NCAA? Even the best constructed team is going to fail to win the tournament most of the time, and will have some chance of being upset early.

Another routine fan blindspot here is taking for granted that Duke will always be a contender. It is incredible that Duke has maintained a spot in the national conversation every year for as long as it has, and this only happens because we bring in top talent every single year. There is no question that fans criticizing OAD now would be screaming bloody murder if we had the kinds of seasons that schools like Wisconsin or Michigan St. (who else are we even thinking about here? fellow-early exiters Villanova and Louisville?) regularly have where they pile up losses and don't have a realistic shot at the title. The four year players that are supposedly key to these non-existant fantasy teams that supposedly do well in the tournament are the Tyler Thorntons and Matt Joneses that are always magnets for the most fan criticism because they are more limited athletically than the players like Tatum, Ingram, Jabari, Rivers who all carried their teams at times and have on many occasions been almost single-handedly responsible for many of the games in the incredible run of success we have had beating UNC over and over. I would love to see how much critics of one and done would love our scrappy tournament-built teams that don't rely on any top NBA prospects but get whupped by UNC as much as we have beaten them over the last 7 years.

[SkyBrickey]

I, for one, am very optimistic about next year's team if we can land Duval, Luke returns and no one transfers. There's also a scenario where Luke leaves and Grayson returns. The "experts" seem to think Duval is coming to Duke, so I think all of this is likely to happen. I'm not counting on Knox coming at this point, although it's still a possibility.

A healthy rotation of Duval, Jackson, Kennard, Trent Jr, DeLaurier, Carter, Bolden and Jeter - with Vrank and White filling in any holes - will be a very fun team to cheer for and watch develop. I have no doubt that it will be a better rebounding team from the start (Carter is a stud on the boards) and a better defensive team after the rotation settles in. If this is our roster, I really hope K experiments with the two big lineup for a change and does revisit his defensive philosophy given our struggles in recent years with the freshman-heavy lineups.

On the topic of OADs, I do miss the good old days of the star players and Duke student/athletes developing over 3-4 years. But there's no turning back the clock. I would not elect to ignore the top 15 recruits each year. I do wish K would play a deeper rotation to get guys like Jeter, Bolden and DeLaurier more minutes so that a) they'll be better next year and b) less likely to transfer. We'll have a good mix of OAD and experienced talent next year. Go Duke!

[kmspeaks]

Thank you to you and all others who have made this point. I don't know what team anyone who thinks we rely too much on OAD thinks that they were watching. Amile, Matt, and Grayson are exactly the type of players it seems like those making this argument would want to have. Kennard too - certainly not a player who came with the expectation to leave early. It's just not reality to say that we haven't given enough spots or playing time to players who could develop and play veteran roles over time. 2015 relied much, much more on OAD than this team did.

There is also the typical problem of overreacting to a single elimination tournament and pretending that the team as currently constructed wouldn't have won as many or more titles as any other team if you played the tournament out 50 times. To me, the ACC championship run absolutely proved that this team had what it takes to win it all. What was so different about that stretch of wins that didn't apply in the NCAA? Even the best constructed team is going to fail to win the tournament most of the time, and will have some chance of being upset early.

Another routine fan blindspot here is taking for granted that Duke will always be a contender. It is incredible that Duke has maintained a spot in the national conversation every year for as long as it has, and this only happens because we bring in top talent every single year. There is no question that fans criticizing OAD now would be screaming bloody murder if we had the kinds of seasons that schools like Wisconsin or Michigan St. (who else are we even thinking about here? fellow-early exiters Villanova and Louisville?) regularly have where they pile up losses and don't have a realistic shot at the title. The four year players that are supposedly key to these non-existant fantasy teams that supposedly do well in the tournament are the Tyler Thorntons and Matt Joneses that are always magnets for the most fan criticism because they are more limited athletically than the players like Tatum, Ingram, Jabari, Rivers who all carried their teams at times and have on many occasions been almost single-handedly responsible for many of the games in the incredible run of success we have had beating UNC over and over. I would love to see how much critics of one and done would love our scrappy tournament-built teams that don't rely on any top NBA prospects but get whupped by UNC as much as we have beaten them over the last 7 years.

This is an excellent point. I don't know who it was announcing but they said something similar several times when discussing the 1st weekend upsets. Basically when you have all those Sweet 16's, Final Fours, National Championships, etc it's inevitable that there will be some early exits sprinkled in there. This isn't the 60's and 70's, nobody's going on a UCLA streak anymore. I'll take Duke over what anybody else has accomplished.

[CDu]

We have to look no further than UConn to see an example of a program that fell off after the exit of their Hall of Fame coach.

Hopefully we'll fare better than UConn has. But it is far from a given that we'll continue to be a national powerhouse after Coach K retires. Hopefully we will. There are signs of hope: Collins and Wojo seem to be doing well at their first jobs. Capel is an excellent recruiter with a coaching pedigree. But it isn't a given.

[Indoor66]

It seems to me that we need to ease up on our expectations for incoming freshmen. They are unproven. Recruiting rankings are just opinions, informed as they may be. Many kids need years to mature and develop to be in a position to compete with the level of talent they meet at the college level.

We fans expect these kids to be the next Battier and we remember Senior Battier, etc. Coach K tells us that each player runs his own race. Some of us expect every kid coming in to be Secretariat. MOST are not.

Temper expectations a little and enjoy the successes we have without being disappointed that they are not greater. I never got everything I wanted in any other area of my life; why would I expect it with Duke Basketball?

[devildeac]

Kentucky has been more succesful in recruiting rim protectors. With the wildly inconsistent enforcement of freedom of movement rules making it more difficult to stop dribble penetration, you need either a rim protector like UK or a pack line type defense to be a good defensive team. The pack line requires expereince to run successfully just like K's defense

Clarification. :mad:

[Reddevil]

I really enjoy being a Duke basketball fan and going on the "journey" each season. Although every team each year is different from the last, the OAD era exacerbates it. What I mean is that Duke routinely has more talented players than the opponent, but not always the best team. The OAD players are not to blame and neither is the recruitment of them. It is difficult to rebuild from scratch each year. Even when there are returning players in the mix, building a team chemistry that includes freshman, no matter how talented, is problematic.

Here is what I wonder. This is in no way a criticism of K or his staff. I wonder if he ever thinks to himself that he might need to retool his defensive philosophy to fit teams that do not have the chemistry of teammates that have played together for a few years have. You hear of NBA, NFL, MLB, NHL, etc. coaches talk about simplifying things defensively when they are having difficulty. I have no answers, and again, this is not a criticism, just a thought. Duke was up 28-23 at halftime and scored 53 second half points. Duke wins right? One game does not require a kneejerk response, and SC played out of their minds (which seems to happen to Duke a lot), but the D has not been a strong part of the team for a couple years now. Is there a simpler way to defend that will work with a team that has no problem scoring?:confused:

[BigZ]

I think Allen and Jackson def come back. The rest I'm unsure about

[CDu]

I think Allen and Jackson def come back. The rest I'm unsure about

I won't pretend to have a clue as to what those two will decide. But their decisions are obviously huge.

[szstark]

Let me give a slightly different perspective on this OAD argument. I think we all love watching players develop over a 3-4 year period of time. The Amiles, Matts, and Marshalls are near and dear to all of our hearts. Blending them with a OAD makes an almost ideal team for a fun ride for our fan base. The 2015 team actually fit within this pattern in that only Jah was recruited as a OAD; Jones and Winslow were both originally thought to be 3-4 players. This year's team was different. Even when we started the season strong with a mostly veteran base, most people were still saying "just wait until the three freshmen (all thought to be OAD) work into the rotation; wow, will we be good then". Tatum came back first and after a fairly short learning curve, actually performed as you would expect a OAD to perform. With Giles and Bolden, it never happened and it doesn't really matter why. We kept hoping it would happen and kept saying "just think how good we will be then". Throw in Grayson's situation (which I really believe had a negative impact on the entire team) and this season was not the fun ride it should have been. Winning 28 games was a great achievement. Winning the ACC Tournament was as unexpected as it was fun and maybe that is the point. Recruiting three OADs and expecting them to be the core of the team even after it became fairly obvious that only one of them would actually produce like you would expect a OAD to perform made for a frustrating season for the fan base rather than the fun ride it should have been. Put the blame on us for unrealistic expectations, but the hype for having three OADs (and even speculation for Frank maybe being a fourth) detracted from our appreciation of who our team on the court actually was rather than who we hoped they would be. I am already seeing this same train of thought starting for next year and we don't have any idea yet who is staying and who is leaving. I blame myself for buying into the hype and not enjoying this past season as much as I should have. Next year I plan to take a different approach: don't buy into the hype for totally unproven high school kids, watch the team develop, and enjoy the ride.

[wk2109]

I think Allen and Jackson def come back. The rest I'm unsure about


I won't pretend to have a clue as to what those two will decide. But their decisions are obviously huge.

One clue as to Frank's decision can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK_OPrSuQaM (at 1:50, Frank says he'll be wearing the Kyrie Duke special edition Nikes "next year").

[CDu]

One clue as to Frank's decision can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK_OPrSuQaM (at 1:50, Frank says he'll be wearing the Kyrie Duke special edition Nikes "next year").

Oh, I misread Jackson as Kennard. Yeah, I feel quite good that Jackson will be back. Allen and Kennard are the two guards for whom I have no idea.

[Troublemaker]

For the most part, we recruit the same kids.

Not really. Duke casts a smaller net in recruiting, which has always been our philosophy. Effectively, what happens is Kentucky recruits most of Duke's kids, but Duke doesn't recruit most of Kentucky's kids.

One example is De'Aaron Fox. As far as I know, we never recruited him. It would've been nice to have a ballhawk at point guard like him if you want to play consistently very good defense.


Cal just seems to be a better coach of basic defense that can be picked up by freshmen. It's really my only criticism of Coach K over the years -- our defensive schemes tends to be more advanced and take longer to learn. His use of zone and 3/4 court pressure shows he's been willing to adapt though. I think we just have to recognize that Cal excels in this area, but would you rather have Cal or K on our bench?

That is possible, but a few things:

(1) At some point, I'm going ask folks who offer this explanation to become more specific.

(2) Poor health is such a confounding factor when you try to make this determination.

For example, this season. I wrote this in another thread but will repeat it here: If I had told you before the season started that Duke would end up using a 6.5 man rotation, and Amile would be the starting center while playing on a bone bruise and eventually also a shoulder injury, and the 6.5th man would be Giles, who barely plays after he returns from a knee scope that keeps him out until mid-December, and Giles has a negative plus-minus on the season (meaning Duke gets outscored on the season when he's on the court)... if I had told you all that, what would've you have predicted?

You probably would've envisioned a team that is very good on offense but struggles defensively sometimes. And that's what you got.

(3) More confounding factor talk:

The season when Duke was the youngest and had generally very good health, Duke won the national championship and played amazing defense down the stretch of the season.

The season when Kentucky had to deal with injury problems (specifically to Nerlens Noel), they had the #90-ranked defense and was an NIT team.

[Rich]

Recruiting three OADs and expecting them to be the core of the team even after it became fairly obvious that only one of them would actually produce like you would expect a OAD to perform made for a frustrating season for the fan base rather than the fun ride it should have been. Put the blame on us for unrealistic expectations, but the hype for having three OADs (and even speculation for Frank maybe being a fourth) detracted from our appreciation of who our team on the court actually was rather than who we hoped they would be. I am already seeing this same train of thought starting for next year and we don't have any idea yet who is staying and who is leaving. I blame myself for buying into the hype and not enjoying this past season as much as I should have. Next year I plan to take a different approach: don't buy into the hype for totally unproven high school kids, watch the team develop, and enjoy the ride.

If you've watched any of Coach K's press conferences lately when asked, he is consistent about chastising the media about all the press given to this year's team's "expectations." He said they and, as a result, we as fans had these high expectations, but that he nor his coaching staff ever put that on the frosh. I for one am not buying into the hype for next year. If our stud frosh develop, all the better. If not, then there will not have been any expectations they're supposed to have met before even playing a game.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

One game does not require a kneejerk response...

You must be new here... after a season-ending loss (or many other losses) it is time for knee-jerks, rumors, hyperbole, and panic. Time to rethink defensive schemes, one-and-done recruiting, team footwear choices, minutes and rotation, etc, etc.

We lost yesterday, so let's retool the entire organization from the ground up.

[budwom]

Thing is, we HAD a blend of OADs and returning players. And that blend included a senior captain who barely played as a freshman, a 5th year senior who got spotty minutes as a freshman, and a junior who only got meaningful minutes at the end of his freshman year.

IMO we've had a pretty good blend every year. The most unbalanced we've been, arguably, was 2015, where the rotation only had 1 senior and 2 juniors, one of whom didn't play much.

My point is more oriented towards going forward. Yes, this year's team had a good blend, but also lots of injuries.
But I think K's ultra short bench is going to rob us of that blend in the next year or two. Be prepared for a mass exodus, one which could
have been mitigated by more playing time for players like Jeter and Bolden, both of whom I expect to be gone.

[BandAlum83]

There may be some truth to this, but
(a) How is this season's veteran team a data point in your favor? Did Jackson and Tatum torpedo our defense? (Not that Frank is expected to be OAD).
(b) We need more seasons with both OADs and good health to really make a determination.
(c) The one season when Nerlens Noel went down with injury, Kentucky was ranked #90 on defense

I do think Kentucky tends to recruit better defensive talents.

Is this true? I was under the impression we recruit, by and large, the same players. If so, do they land better defensive players?

Can you point to specific "defensive" players that they recruited and landed that we didn't offer?

[budwom]

Is this true? I was under the impression we recruit, by and large, the same players. If so, do they land better defensive players?

Can you point to specific "defensive" players that they recruited and landed that we didn't offer?

I agree with the statement to the extent that K seems to go much more for shooters, e.g. Allen and Kennard, neither of whom is an especially good defender.

[English]

My point is more oriented towards going forward. Yes, this year's team had a good blend, but also lots of injuries.
But I think K's ultra short bench is going to rob us of that blend in the next year or two. Be prepared for a mass exodus, one which could
have been mitigated by more playing time for players like Jeter and Bolden, both of whom I expect to be gone.

You've doubled down on this now, without providing any real justification. Certainly it could happen, and you're a poster here who I've come to consider credible, but I'm curious if there's anything beyond "if I were him/them, I would be unhappy enough to leave" that gives you enough reason toward this line of thinking to repeat it in the immediate aftermath of the season?

I'd imagine that Marques will test the draft waters, as a reasonable prospect would do, but barring an incredible combine and team workouts, he's projecting as a second round pick. Are you suggesting he leaves for the D-League anyway? Transfers?

As for Jeter, you're very clearly suggesting he is going to transfer. Is this one of those Derryck Thornton situations where the writing has been on the wall since winter break? It seems irresponsible to repeat the Jeter-is-gone mantra unless there's more than a simple speculation.

[Billy Dat]

This presumably will be a topic of discussion when the time comes to discussing recruiting philosophies with candidates for the successor to K.
The current head coach has made it clear if the best pre-NCAA eligibility players (the ship has sailed on the concept of "high school" and "college" players in the worlds of AAU ball and entry ASAP to the NBA) want to consider playing for Duke he thinks you would be unwise to turn them down.
So nothing is changing until the big change occurs at Duke.

(nods in agreement)


We have to look no further than UConn to see an example of a program that fell off after the exit of their Hall of Fame coach.
Hopefully we'll fare better than UConn has. But it is far from a given that we'll continue to be a national powerhouse after Coach K retires. Hopefully we will. There are signs of hope: Collins and Wojo seem to be doing well at their first jobs. Capel is an excellent recruiter with a coaching pedigree. But it isn't a given.

(shudders in abject fear)

I am all about the one-and-dones precisely because our beloved K is essentially one-and-done. My man is 70, no one has any idea how long he's going to be able to keep coaching. That is obviously true for any coach - life is tricky - but a 70 year old has a much smaller margin for health error. As such, I want to keep sticking the best possible talent in front of him and let him do his thing. Do I wish we regularly played 8-9 instead of 6-7...yes...but see Atlanta Duke's point above which also refers to the rotation.

Of course, just to show that Duke fans have an entitled need to be greedy, I'd like a top flight PG, too. Come on down Mr Duval!

[RPS]

We have this phenomenon, not just in college bball but in all sports, where whatever the most recent result is is treated as if it was inevitable.
It's not just sports (and it's called recency bias (https://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/13/tomorrows-market-probably-wont-look-anything-like-today/)).

[NashvilleDevil]

If you've watched any of Coach K's press conferences lately when asked, he is consistent about chastising the media about all the press given to this year's team's "expectations." He said they and, as a result, we as fans had these high expectations, but that he nor his coaching staff ever put that on the frosh. I for one am not buying into the hype for next year. If our stud frosh develop, all the better. If not, then there will not have been any expectations they're supposed to have met before even playing a game.

I had high expectations because of the quality of recruits and the quality of the retuning vets. I think this made watching games so tough for me this year, I had built up the team as one that was going to be unstoppable. I will definitely try to tamper expectations next year even if they land Duval and Knox and return a couple of surprise players next year.

[NashvilleDevil]

My point is more oriented towards going forward. Yes, this year's team had a good blend, but also lots of injuries.
But I think K's ultra short bench is going to rob us of that blend in the next year or two. Be prepared for a mass exodus, one which could
have been mitigated by more playing time for players like Jeter and Bolden, both of whom I expect to be gone.

Stop trying to start rumors on who is staying or leaving based on playing time. We will find out soon enough.

[BandAlum83]

It seems to me that we need to ease up on our expectations for incoming freshmen. They are unproven. Recruiting rankings are just opinions, informed as they may be. Many kids need years to mature and develop to be in a position to compete with the level of talent they meet at the college level.

We fans expect these kids to be the next Battier and we remember Senior Battier, etc. Coach K tells us that each player runs his own race. Some of us expect every kid coming in to be Secretariat. MOST are not.

Temper expectations a little and enjoy the successes we have without being disappointed that they are not greater. I never got everything I wanted in any other area of my life; why would I expect it with Duke Basketball?

The posting guidelines say we shouldn't merely post things like "ditto," but his bolded part cannot be over emphasized.

We aren't entitled to participate in the NCAAT every year, we earn it. As fans, we need to remember that. And as a school that has made it to the dance what, like 34 of the last 35 years, we are bound to have more early exits than some schools even have bids. We also have more Nattys.

Look at the joy @NW to even get in.

There are many out here who need to get some perspective. Sure this was a frustrating year, but when did a season with an ACC championship, 2 of 3 against UNC, and a round of 32 appearance become an unsuccessful season?

Exactly where has the line been drawn now? We don't care about ACC championships or anything less than the final 4? Final game? Championship?

Gimme a break!

I am Duke Blue thru and thru and I applaud this team on a fine season against true adversity, not the make believe sports adversity generally referenced.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Exactly where has the line been drawn now? We don't care about ACC championships or anything less than the final 4? Final game? Championship?

Gimme a break!

I am 100% with you, but I am also wary of telling other fans how they should feel about things. I am just on your side, and I find it much easier to enjoy the season when you aren't waiting for something to complain about.

Additionally, the mentality of "only championships are accepted" plays into the narrative of a spoiled fan base.

[rsvman]

I agree with the OP's main idea that recruiting OAD's just doesn't work.

I mean, before we were recruiting OAD's we won the national championship every single year! :rolleyes:

[BandAlum83]

One clue as to Frank's decision can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK_OPrSuQaM (at 1:50, Frank says he'll be wearing the Kyrie Duke special edition Nikes "next year").

This made me smile.

[Steven43]

It is starting to seem likely that Duke will have an inexperienced roster for the next two years. What can and should be done about it going forward? In other words, is this simply Duke's fate until Coach K retires and the new coach (Chris Collins, maybe?) can change the recruiting direction if he chooses? Do you think Coach K is forever wedded to his recruiting style of the last six or seven years?

The nearly constant turnover of so much of the roster and the resultant need to recruit new players to replace those who leave early--which in turn leads to a relative dearth of mature, experienced players who have a thorough understanding of Coach K's system--is starting to seem like a less than ideal way to carry forward the proud tradition Coach K himself established at Duke, a tradition that set Duke Basketball apart from every other program in the nation.

I'm wondering if there is a way to mostly recruit players who are very very good, but not likely to leave early for the NBA. Is it possible to consistently identify players in high school who play the type of game and have the type of body that translates well to high-major college, but not so readily to the NBA? I'm not saying these types of players would not eventually be able to make it to the NBA, just that it would likely take them 3-4 years of working really hard on their game to have a shot.

Wouldn't it be better for the program overall to have mostly players like Quinn Cook, Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, etc. rather than those you know with 90% certainty while recruitng them that they are going to leave after just one year at Duke? Isn't Duke in the unique position to be able to recruit the very best of these 1A players and fill their roster with them? If any school could consistently pull it off I would think it would be Duke. Am I crazy for even suggesting this as a possibility?

[Ichabod Drain]

I agree with the OP's main idea that recruiting OAD's just doesn't work.

I mean, before we were recruiting OAD's we won the national championship every single year! :rolleyes:

Why haven't we recruited another Christian Laettner? Dude stayed four years and went to the final four every single one of them. Major failure by the coaching staff here.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Wouldn't it be better for the program overall to have mostly players like Quinn Cook, Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, etc. rather than those you know with 90% certainty while recruitng them that they are going to leave after just one year at Duke? Isn't Duke in the unique position to be able to recruit the very best of these 1A players and fill their roster with them? If any school could consistently pull it off I would think it would be Duke. Am I crazy for even suggesting this as a possibility?

You aren't crazy for suggesting it at all. In fact, what you are proposing sounds like exactly what we had this year. Mostly veterans with one (or two) recruits that might go pro. Do you think this year's team would have been better without Tatum?

I don't buy this new narrative of being over-reliant on OADs. If you are recruiting top tier talent, some will leave early. If your team excels (2015) then extra guys go pro, thanks to a great performance on a big stage.

We aren't NCSU, rebuilding our program around a Dennis Smith each year (sorry PackMan97).

[BandAlum83]

I am 100% with you, but I am also wary of telling other fans how they should feel about things. I am just on your side, and I find it much easier to enjoy the season when you aren't waiting for something to complain about.

Additionally, the mentality of "only championships are accepted" plays into the narrative of a spoiled fan base.

Thanks for the support :).

To be clear, I'm not necessarily telling people how they should feel. Let's just say, there might be some justification for the Duke haters to throw some shade our way for be arrogant, entitled a#*?#@es.

[COYS]

(3) More confounding factor talk:

The season when Duke was the youngest and had generally very good health, Duke won the national championship and played amazing defense down the stretch of the season.

The season when Kentucky had to deal with injury problems (specifically to Nerlens Noel), they had the #90-ranked defense and was an NIT team.

This is right on. The logic that OAD's can't play defense in Coach K's system just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As you mentioned, the 2015 team figured out how to play tough defense and put together the best six game stretch on D I've ever seen Duke play (ok, 5 game stretch if you don't count the 1v16 game in the first round). But injuries are a much, much, much more obvious place to start when evaluating Duke's defense. From 02-10, Duke was remarkably healthy, especially our top players. There are small exceptions (DeMarcus had ankle trouble his sophomore year and might have made more of a difference against LSU if he'd been fully healthy, Greg struggled with foot issues, Zoubs struggled to stay healthy for a full season prior to his senior year, Shav had mono and a few other issues), but Duke didn't lose key players for extended periods of time.

From 2011-'17, the exact opposite is true.

Ryan missed significant time in both '12 and '13. In both instances, our defensive rating dropped precipitously with him off the court (in fact, the '13 team was teasing top 10 in KenPom D efficiency prior to Ryan's injury). The '12 team also fell off in offense when Ryan left and we no longer had good court spacing. We actually had the number offense in KenPom at one point in January before dropping for the rest of the season.

Obviously, we all know Kyrie was injured in '11. Also, I think it's revisionist history to say that team was undone by bad defense. We clearly had a top 10 defense heading into the tourney. We were undone by an incredible performance by Derrick Williams in the first half (seriously, go back and watch that game, if you dare, and see how well Kyle guarded Williams in that first half. Kyle was excellent, Williams was just otherworldly that day) and then a barrage of three point shooting in the second half that left us with a bad taste in our mouth for what was otherwise an excellent defensive team. And of course, Kyrie's injury may have even had something to do with everything falling apart in the second half.

The injury to Amile hurt the 2016 team. I'm not sure what the ceiling of that team was even with a healthy Amile, but losing Amile hurt. And recall that Matt had a bum ankle for much of the ACC slate, as well.

And 2017 was just nuts in terms of injuries. In fact, injuries forced Duke to rely on experienced players more than our young, talented frosh. The team that played the first eight games of the season featured Frank as the only freshman in the rotation. Eventually, Jayson joined Frank as the only two frosh in the rotation. Harry eventually secured a role as a backup, but was not much of a factor. We'll never know exactly how the season would have gone if Harry, Jayson, and Marques had all been healthy all season long. But we almost certainly would have been better and younger, which flies in the face of the argument against OAD's.

So, to recap, '11, '12, '13, and '16 were all decent to excellent defensive teams when they had a healthy complement of players (or, in the case of '11, it was great for the whole season, the last game notwithstanding). '14 was legitimately bad, but also only featured a single OAD player (Rodney was a transfer who had a full year in the system). The '15 team's close to the season features the best defense any Duke team has played during this stretch and this team had THREE OAD's including the notably poor defender Jahlil Okafor. And the '17 team suffered more injuries and disruptions than any Duke team since the '95 season and was actually forced to rely more on veterans because of the injuries.

If we were to go back in time and take Shelden off of the '05 and '06 teams for extended periods, give Luol a preseason injury that took him 1/3 of the season to recover from, and make Gerald and DeMarcus limp through the '08 season, I can guarantee you that our defensive rankings over that stretch would be much, much lower.

Meanwhile, give Duke a healthy Kyrie for the '11 season and that season is totally different. Give Duke a healthy Ryan Kelly in '12 and that season probably ends differently. Give Duke a healthy Ryan for all of the '13 season and we might have even been a 1 seed, avoiding Louisville until later in the tourney. Keep Amile healthy for all of the '16 season and we are definitely better. Perhaps we hold on against ND in the ACCT, earn a higher seed, and make it a bit farther in the tourney. And finally, give us a healthy Amile, Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Marques and the '17 season looks completely different.

OAD players might have a role in Duke's relative drop in defense over the past seven seasons, but I think injuries have had a much bigger effect. One could argue that our margin for injury error is less with OAD players (a sophomore or junior Jayson and Harry would be able to recover and slot into the team more easily, theoretically), but it still doesn't change the fact that Duke has struggled with major injuries in 5 (!) of the last 7 seasons.

[Ian]

Honestly, I would like this discussion to be an reasonable exchange on the subject, instead of people dismissing those of us who voice concerns about the OAD model with "well you are just upset if we dont' win the NC or make the FF every year."

My issue is not that we don't go to the FF every year, of course I'd like to see it happen but I don't expect it, nor have I ever implied if we just went away from the OAD model we would be.

Again, let me repost what I wrote in the other thread:

Let's look at the Kenpom rankings:

2004 O: 3 D: 3 overall: 1
2005 O:14 D: 2 overall: 2
2006 O:1 D:18 overall: 2
2007 O:49 D:5 overall 10
2008 O:14 D:7 overall 6
2009 O:7 D:31 overall 9
2010 O:1 D:5 overall 1

Notice: Never finished below 10 overall, only twice had Defense ranking below top 7.

2011 O:6 D:11 overall:3
2012 O:8 D:78 overall:19
2013 O:6 D:26 overall:6
2014 O:1 D:87 overall 8
2015 O:3 D:12 overall 3
2016 O:4 D:86 overall 17
2017 O:7 D:48 overall 16

By recruiting the highly touted, offensively gifted OADs, our offensive rankings and become more consistent, but the collapse on the defensive side is apparant. Have not cracked the top 10 defense once in that span, 5 of the seven years finishing out of the top 25 in defense.

I was generous when I said the last seven years were no better than the previous 7, now having looked at the numbers it's actually significantly worse.

I'm using Kenpom ratings because it's more a measure of a team's overall quality for the entire season, not just judging a team solely on March performance. So don't accuse me of knee-jerking because of a tournament loss.

[Troublemaker]

I'm wondering if there is a way to mostly recruit players who are very very good, but not likely to leave early for the NBA. Is it possible to consistently identify players in high school who play the type of game and have the type of body that translates well to high-major college, but not so readily to the NBA? I'm not saying these types of players would not eventually be able to make it to the NBA, just that it would likely take them 3-4 years of working really hard on their game to have a shot.

Wouldn't it be better for the program overall to have mostly players like Quinn Cook, Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, etc. rather than those you know with 90% certainty while recruitng them that they are going to leave after just one year at Duke? Isn't Duke in the unique position to be able to recruit the very best of these 1A players and fill their roster with them? If any school could consistently pull it off I would think it would be Duke. Am I crazy for even suggesting this as a possibility?

It's hard to identify those players. About half the time (at least), they turn out to be Josh Hairston.

Even if we could consistently identify those players (which we can't), Coach is 70. We're not going to waste his Year 70, 71, and 72 waiting for a chance to compete at a title in Year 73. And, even if we did, those seniors would get injured anyway, ruining the shot at the title.

[UNCfan]

My point is more oriented towards going forward. Yes, this year's team had a good blend, but also lots of injuries.
But I think K's ultra short bench is going to rob us of that blend in the next year or two. Be prepared for a mass exodus, one which could
have been mitigated by more playing time for players like Jeter and Bolden, both of whom I expect to be gone.

I think K playing a short bench would hurt recruiting, if he was recruiting multiple guys for the same spot. Giles, Bolden, and Jeter have not panned out, for whatever reason. I think their lack of playing time will be used against Duke in recruiting. At the end of last season, I wondered why Jefferson would come back to sit the bench. Turns out he was the best of the four by a mile.

I think Jeter graduates from Duke. I think Bolden transfers or goes pro (somewhere). Giles will enter the draft and go in the first round. I think Bolden and Jeter have the physical gifts to play at Duke, they just do not seem to have it between the ears.

[Billy Dat]

I'm wondering if there is a way to mostly recruit players who are very very good, but not likely to leave early for the NBA. Is it possible to consistently identify players in high school who play the type of game and have the type of body that translates well to high-major college, but not so readily to the NBA? I'm not saying these types of players would not eventually be able to make it to the NBA, just that it would likely take them 3-4 years of working really hard on their game to have a shot.

Wouldn't it be better for the program overall to have mostly players like Quinn Cook, Nolan Smith, Jon Scheyer, Amile Jefferson, Grayson Allen, etc. rather than those you know with 90% certainty while recruitng them that they are going to leave after just one year at Duke? Isn't Duke in the unique position to be able to recruit the very best of these 1A players and fill their roster with them? If any school could consistently pull it off I would think it would be Duke. Am I crazy for even suggesting this as a possibility?

I saw three recent tweets by player development pro David Thorpe which kind of address your proposition:

@coachthorpe
Some NCAA thoughts: it's becoming insane to me how poorly colleges are evaluating talent. They think there is a vast difference between guys
Fellas, I got news for you. There are blue chippers, and there is everyone else. Blue chippers are a clear cut above everybody else.
Stop being afraid of taking the player "rated" a level below you. If he's tough, works very hard, love's coaching too, you can win w him.
The lack of full court pressing and the increased number of attempted threes narrows the gap between teams even more. Coin flip games result
Great coaches help build great cultures, and that leads to individuals reaching their potential, which then helps teams reach theirs

My takeaway is that there are the truly elite (Tatum, maybe also Grayson and Luke and maybe Frank, jury out on post-injury Harry) and then there isn't a huge difference between the rest. But, we also have to understand that simply by being recruited by Duke and being on Duke, a kid's reputation instantly stars to rise. For example, what if Grayson Allen came to a Duke team where he started from Day 1, would he have left for the NBA after a stellar freshman campaign?

Regardless of the one-and-done, K absolutely covets elite talent. I think the Team USA experience made it a "won't go back to the farm after he's seen the city" cliche.

I think because of K's short window of remaining coaching years, going after the best talent is where we'll reside under his watch. What happens after...we'll see. Obviously, any changes to the one-and-done rule will have the biggest impact.

[COYS]

Honestly, I would like this discussion to be an reasonable exchange on the subject, instead of people dismissing those of us who voice concerns about the OAD model with "well you are just upset if we dont' win the NC or make the FF every year."

My issue is not that we don't go to the FF every year, of course I'd like to see it happen but I don't expect it, nor have I ever implied if we just went away from the OAD model we would be.

Again, let me repost what I wrote in the other thread:

Let's look at the Kenpom rankings:

2004 O: 3 D: 3 overall: 1
2005 O:14 D: 2 overall: 2
2006 O:1 D:18 overall: 2
2007 O:49 D:5 overall 10
2008 O:14 D:7 overall 6
2009 O:7 D:31 overall 9
2010 O:1 D:5 overall 1

Notice: Never finished below 10 overall, only twice had Defense ranking below top 7.

2011 O:6 D:11 overall:3
2012 O:8 D:78 overall:19
2013 O:6 D:26 overall:6
2014 O:1 D:87 overall 8
2015 O:3 D:12 overall 3
2016 O:4 D:86 overall 17
2017 O:7 D:48 overall 16

By recruiting the highly touted, offensively gifted OADs, our offensive rankings and become more consistent, but the collapse on the defensive side is apparant. Have not cracked the top 10 defense once in that span, 5 of the seven years finishing out of the top 25 in defense.

I was generous when I said the last seven years were no better than the previous 7, now having looked at the numbers it's actually significantly worse.

I'm using Kenpom ratings because it's more a measure of a team's overall quality for the entire season, not just judging a team solely on March performance. So don't accuse me of knee-jerking because of a tournament loss.

As I mentioned in my post right above yours, you completely forgot to mention health. Duke was far healthier in the stretch in which we had better D ratings. And injuries this past season actually forced us to play OLDER players rather than younger players who, if healthy and fully integrated, would have had more defensive upside (as an example: Marques against Miami in Cameron, Harry against UNC in the ACCT and in flashes throughout the year with big blocks and rebounds). If OAD's are the problem, we should have been better this year when we were forced to play our older players and leave Harry and Marques with reduced minutes.

[MCFinARL]

I am 100% with you, but I am also wary of telling other fans how they should feel about things. I am just on your side, and I find it much easier to enjoy the season when you aren't waiting for something to complain about.

Additionally, the mentality of "only championships are accepted" plays into the narrative of a spoiled fan base.

Point taken. As fans, we aren't entitled to anything, except maybe a program that follows the rules and works hard to improve skills and maximize effort. For me, though, it's so much easier to accept whatever result comes in the tournament when it happens on the second weekend. So I am disappointed, even though I recognize that I had no right to expect more.

[BandAlum83]

Honestly, I would like this discussion to be an reasonable exchange on the subject, instead of people dismissing those of us who voice concerns about the OAD model with "well you are just upset if we dont' win the NC or make the FF every year."

My issue is not that we don't go to the FF every year, of course I'd like to see it happen but I don't expect it, nor have I ever implied if we just went away from the OAD model we would be.

Again, let me repost what I wrote in the other thread:

Let's look at the Kenpom rankings:

2004 O: 3 D: 3 overall: 1
2005 O:14 D: 2 overall: 2
2006 O:1 D:18 overall: 2
2007 O:49 D:5 overall 10
2008 O:14 D:7 overall 6
2009 O:7 D:31 overall 9
2010 O:1 D:5 overall 1

Notice: Never finished below 10 overall, only twice had Defense ranking below top 7.

2011 O:6 D:11 overall:3
2012 O:8 D:78 overall:19
2013 O:6 D:26 overall:6
2014 O:1 D:87 overall 8
2015 O:3 D:12 overall 3
2016 O:4 D:86 overall 17
2017 O:7 D:48 overall 16

By recruiting the highly touted, offensively gifted OADs, our offensive rankings and become more consistent, but the collapse on the defensive side is apparant. Have not cracked the top 10 defense once in that span, 5 of the seven years finishing out of the top 25 in defense.

I was generous when I said the last seven years were no better than the previous 7, now having looked at the numbers it's actually significantly worse.

I'm using Kenpom ratings because it's more a measure of a team's overall quality for the entire season, not just judging a team solely on March performance. So don't accuse me of knee-jerking because of a tournament loss.

The post-2010 seasons in which we finished outside the top 10 for defensive efficiency all have one thing in common: significant injuries.

COYS explains it really well in his upthread post.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think K playing a short bench would hurt recruiting, if he was recruiting multiple guys for the same spot. Giles, Bolden, and Jeter have not panned out, for whatever reason. I think their lack of playing time will be used against Duke in recruiting. At the end of last season, I wondered why Jefferson would come back to sit the bench. Turns out he was the best of the four by a mile.

I think Jeter graduates from Duke. I think Bolden transfers or goes pro (somewhere). Giles will enter the draft and go in the first round. I think Bolden and Jeter have the physical gifts to play at Duke, they just do not seem to have it between the ears.

As it should. I know there are a lot of posters who disagree and will provide plenty of evidence against the contrary. And they will be correct. But 2016-17 is hard to argue against. We had 4 GUYS capable of playing the 5 who were McAA and high-level recruits. 1.5 played this year. Injuries will be cited as the main reason, but I really think it's more than that. With Tatum at the 4 and Jefferson as the best big and Team Captain, there aren't a lot of minutes for everyone else.

This was supposed to be the year that Duke became a destination for OAD bigmen. I think Duke takes a step back with them group of recruits from here on out.

[Troublemaker]

Honestly, I would like this discussion to be an reasonable exchange on the subject,

Well, then you need to begin to address the many counterpoints people have been raising.

This season's team was a veteran team, for example.

[Troublemaker]

This was supposed to be the year that Duke became a destination for OAD bigmen.

That happened after Okafor actually.



I think Duke takes a step back with them group of recruits from here on out.

Doubtful. Showcasing a healthy (knock on wood) Wendell Carter next year will be very important, though.

[CDu]

It's hard to identify those players. About half the time (at least), they turn out to be Josh Hairston.

Even if we could consistently identify those players (which we can't), Coach is 70. We're not going to waste his Year 70, 71, and 72 waiting for a chance to compete at a title in Year 73. And, even if we did, those seniors would get injured anyway, ruining the shot at the title.

I would agree with that, but would also point out that - even when we do successfully identify those players - it can be hard to keep them. Gbinije and Ojeleye are two examples of this. To a lesser degree, so is Czyz. Recruits not ranked in the top 30 can find it really difficult to crack the rotation early at Duke. And sometimes guys don't want to wait around and risk getting beaten by the next class or classes.

For every Matt Jones and Amile Jefferson, there can be a Semi Ojeleye (who would have looked GREAT as a senior on this team) or a Michael Gbinije. Or there can be guys who just don't turn out to be impact players at the ACC level, like Hairston, Alex Murphy, Michael Thompson, etc.

The ideal is - of course - to mix one-and-done talent with a group of key experienced guys. But that's a difficult balance to achieve. Maybe it is easier to achieve with a deeper rotation, but that ship has sailed. It's just really hard to (a) find those next-tier diamonds in the rough and (b) convince them to wait their turn.

[MaxAMillion]

My post from the other thread.

At what point do we revisit the put all our eggs in the OAD recruting strategy? Even counting 2015, we are not winning at any signficantly higher rate than we did before this strategy. We don't have any more ups than we did before and frankly the downs are worse.

Plus what was for me the most rewarding part of following college basketball, that of watching young players comes in and mature and leave as young men, watching them mentor the younger players and pass the torch, have been for the most part removed from the experience. We are now lucky if we have more than one or two seniors on the team in any given year.

We used to play the kind of defense SC played tonight, when we had a team of upperclassmen who's been through the fire with each other for multiple years.

And guess what...most seasons ended up with a loss then also. I love the revisionist history about how great things were before Duke was getting OAD players. There were just as many complaints about Coach K then as now. When you don't win people complain. Just a week ago people were pleased because they won the ACC title...now the staff has to revisit everything after a loss.

I will never forget the post on this board in 2015 stating how they were envious of the job Bennett was doing at UVA. Coach K should model his teams after UVA because they play good defense. That was before Duke went to UVA and won yet again on their way to the national title.

Coach Pitino just loss in the 2nd round and his team is built on defense and not recruiting OAD...does he need to change? The fans on their board think so. Coaches always have to do better to appease the frustrated fans after a loss. As if losing is unacceptable. I thought this season was great considering everything the team went through (including the coach being gone). You are fooling yourself if you think another coach is going to come in and do better.

I often say that I don't think K's true greatness will be appreciated until he quits. Maybe then people will realize that there is no rule that says Duke has to win all the time. And downplaying performances like we saw last week when the team won the ACC is something that fans will regret when the new coach takes over. You need consistency to be good defensively and injuries have taken that away two years in a row. I would like to see a healthy team again (like in 2015) before I decide that Coach K doesn't know how to teach defense.

[Ian]

The post-2010 seasons in which we finished outside the top 10 for defensive efficiency all have one thing in common: significant injuries.

COYS explains it really well in his upthread post.

Are you sure you're looking at the right numbers, because we never finished once in the top 10 in defense post 2010.

[CDu]

As it should. I know there are a lot of posters who disagree and will provide plenty of evidence against the contrary. And they will be correct. But 2016-17 is hard to argue against. We had 4 GUYS capable of playing the 5 who were McAA and high-level recruits. 1.5 played this year. Injuries will be cited as the main reason, but I really think it's more than that. With Tatum at the 4 and Jefferson as the best big and Team Captain, there aren't a lot of minutes for everyone else.

This was supposed to be the year that Duke became a destination for OAD bigmen. I think Duke takes a step back with them group of recruits from here on out.


Doubtful. Showcasing a healthy (knock on wood) Wendell Carter next year will be very important, though.

I agree with Troublemaker that this doesn't necessarily bury us with one-and-done bigs. Did UK's flop and missing the tourney with Noel cost them with one-and-dones? What about the careers of potential one-and-dones Lee and Poythress? No, in part because they followed that down years with another super recruiting class and an NCAA Final appearance.

Now, if we flub Carter's one-and-done year, things might change for us. That would be evidence of a trend. But right now, we have one blip on the radar with injuries playing a partial factor (though I agree with the Dutchman that there was never going to be playing time for all four bigs, and likely only room for two to play). If Carter comes in and excels and goes top-5 or top-10 in the draft, then we'll probably keep trucking right along.

[BandAlum83]

Are you sure you're looking at the right numbers, because we never finished once in the top 10 in defense post 2010.

Sorry, you are correct. I was looking at overall. The formatting gets screwy on my phone.

[Ian]

As I mentioned in my post right above yours, you completely forgot to mention health. Duke was far healthier in the stretch in which we had better D ratings. And injuries this past season actually forced us to play OLDER players rather than younger players who, if healthy and fully integrated, would have had more defensive upside (as an example: Marques against Miami in Cameron, Harry against UNC in the ACCT and in flashes throughout the year with big blocks and rebounds). If OAD's are the problem, we should have been better this year when we were forced to play our older players and leave Harry and Marques with reduced minutes.

And I would argue not having OADs every season means you have a more seasoned roster on the bench that can better protect a team against injuries, they may not be great scorers but they'd have the defensive principles down just by showing up for practice for 3 years.

[UNCfan]

I think kids will wait their turn, if they see a few minutes of playing time. Every game, Roy puts in the second team for some of the first half and it usually causes UNC to get out of their rhythm. But, the kids see the floor during meaningful minutes of the game, which can benefit the subs. It also keeps the starters fresh. I am not saying Roy is a better coach for it, but he does it every game.


In the age of OAD, if these kids wait their turn, they cannot make the jump after one season. I cannot imagine the pressure on these young kids when they have to face the reality of not living up to their rankings or their OAD status. The pressure they put on themselves and the pressure the fanbase and their families put on them has to be suffocating.

[BandAlum83]

Here's a thought for analysis:

By virtue of the exposure for teams that play in the final, some players will end up leaving earlier than anticipated (Tyus Jones, for example).

In the OAD Era, how many championships teams have had players leave early? How many college years had they played prior to the championship, and we're they identified as probable OADs out of high school?

Maybe look at the runner-up team also.

What would this tell us? What percentage of champions have OADs, and how many have early exiters. Maybe we would see if OAD was part of the philosophy to get there, or not.

There must be some data crunchers out here who already have the data at hand. I would think it would take a few hours for me to attempt it from scratch.

Having actual data and facts would certainly be helpful.

[COYS]

And guess what...most seasons ended up with a loss then also. I love the revisionist history about how great things were before Duke was getting OAD players. There were just as many complaints about Coach K then as now. When you don't win people complain. Just a week ago people were pleased because they won the ACC title...now the staff has to revisit everything after a loss.

I will never forget the post on this board in 2015 stating how they were envious of the job Bennett was doing at UVA. Coach K should model his teams after UVA because they play good defense. That was before Duke went to UVA and won yet again on their way to the national title.

Coach Pitino just loss in the 2nd round and his team is built on defense and not recruiting OAD...does he need to change? The fans on their board think so. Coaches always have to do better to appease the frustrated fans after a loss. As if losing is unacceptable. I thought this season was great considering everything the team went through (including the coach being gone). You are fooling yourself if you think another coach is going to come in and do better.

I often say that I don't think K's true greatness will be appreciated until he quits. Maybe then people will realize that there is no rule that says Duke has to win all the time. And downplaying performances like we saw last week when the team won the ACC is something that fans will regret when the new coach takes over. You need consistency to be good defensively and injuries have taken that away two years in a row. I would like to see a healthy team again (like in 2015) before I decide that Coach K doesn't know how to teach defense.

To take this a step further, the pessimistic fan going into the '10 season believed that that K had lost his ability to appeal to elite recruits (Kyrie excepted), Roy had passed K on the recruiting trail and on the court (Henson was supposed to be a monster and then Barnes spurned Duke for UNC), we'd never compete for a title again if we couldn't get multiple top 10 recruits, Duke couldn't land good post players anymore (despite only being three years removed from the Brand, Boozer, Williams era), and K had lost his ability to recruit point guards (Paulus didn't count, Boynton and Wall chose Florida and UK, respectively).

After the '14 season, the pessimistic fan believed that K had lost his way with OAD recruits, no Duke team would be able to play good defense ever again, and the '15 team would inevitably crumble because it was going to rely on three freshman with an undersized Quinn/Tyus backcourt.

It is quite possible that adaptability is Coach K's single most impressive trait. He is remarkably self-reflective. Even as he was leading the veteran 2010 team to a national title, he was already getting ready to hand the keys to Kyrie as Duke's first OAD player since the OAD era began the following season. As the '15 season seemed to be coming apart a little due to defensive issues, K broke with decades of precedent and adopted a zone that bought the team a little more time to learn the man to man defense, which they then executed to perfection in the tournament. And these are just the major adjustments K has made in the past seven years. I am sure that as disappointing as the end to this season is, Coach K will come prepared next year with a few new wrinkles. It is almost a foregone conclusion that we will never see a coach as talented as K at Duke ever again. I can't tell other fans how to feel, but I think it's wise to keep our perspective and enjoy it while we can. That doesn't mean we can't be critical. But perspective is important.

[dukelifer]

Honestly, I would like this discussion to be an reasonable exchange on the subject, instead of people dismissing those of us who voice concerns about the OAD model with "well you are just upset if we dont' win the NC or make the FF every year."

My issue is not that we don't go to the FF every year, of course I'd like to see it happen but I don't expect it, nor have I ever implied if we just went away from the OAD model we would be.

Again, let me repost what I wrote in the other thread:

Let's look at the Kenpom rankings:

2004 O: 3 D: 3 overall: 1
2005 O:14 D: 2 overall: 2
2006 O:1 D:18 overall: 2
2007 O:49 D:5 overall 10
2008 O:14 D:7 overall 6
2009 O:7 D:31 overall 9
2010 O:1 D:5 overall 1

Notice: Never finished below 10 overall, only twice had Defense ranking below top 7.

2011 O:6 D:11 overall:3
2012 O:8 D:78 overall:19
2013 O:6 D:26 overall:6
2014 O:1 D:87 overall 8
2015 O:3 D:12 overall 3
2016 O:4 D:86 overall 17
2017 O:7 D:48 overall 16

By recruiting the highly touted, offensively gifted OADs, our offensive rankings and become more consistent, but the collapse on the defensive side is apparant. Have not cracked the top 10 defense once in that span, 5 of the seven years finishing out of the top 25 in defense.

I was generous when I said the last seven years were no better than the previous 7, now having looked at the numbers it's actually significantly worse.

I'm using Kenpom ratings because it's more a measure of a team's overall quality for the entire season, not just judging a team solely on March performance. So don't accuse me of knee-jerking because of a tournament loss.

How easy is it to achieve top 10-20 in both categories in the Power 5 conferences? Has UNC?

[Ian]

Well, then you need to begin to address the many counterpoints people have been raising.

This season's team was a veteran team, for example.

It actually wasn't, that's part of the problem, even though it looks veteran by recent standards, compared to teams in the pre-2011 period it wasn't at all. The average years of experience on the roster this year was 0.9.

From the same period I looked at earlier from 2004-2010, only one roster was less experienced, 2007 at 0.8, the next lowest from that period was 2008 at 1.2.
So compared to the 2004-2010 era this would have been the 2nd youngest roster.

[duke09hms]

It actually wasn't, that's part of the problem, even though it looks veteran by recent standards, compared to teams in the pre-2011 period it wasn't at all. The average years of experience on the roster this year was 0.9.

From the same period I looked at earlier from 2004-2010, only one roster was less experienced, 2007 at 0.8, the next lowest from that period was 2008 at 1.2.
So compared to the 2004-2010 era this would have been the 2nd youngest roster.

That is an irrelevant analysis. You need to look at who played minutes / game. Out of 200 total, you had the vast majority going to upperclassmen.

[COYS]

And I would argue not having OADs every season means you have a more seasoned roster on the bench that can better protect a team against injuries, they may not be great scorers but they'd have the defensive principles down just by showing up for practice for 3 years.

If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I actually already argued a version of this point when I mentioned that if Jayson and Harry had been sophomores or juniors, returning from injury would probably have been easier. That being said, you're still avoiding the issue that Duke had experienced players to slot in for the injured OAD's this year. Amile played more minutes than expected. And he was excellent on D. He would have been even better without his injury. Chase played admirably before his weird back injury. Even Vrank gave us good minutes on occasion. Matt played more minutes due to Grayson's injury and because with Harry's injury, we wouldn't going to see much of the two big lineup . And Luke became the offensive star for the team as Grayson and Jayson dealt with injuries and other issues. We had experienced guys ready to step up this year.

You and I look at this season and come to very different conclusions. I think Duke would have been better this year if we were able to rely on our OAD talent MORE, not less. If Harry hadn't suffered his second ACL tear or needed the 'scope in the Fall, we would have had an athletic, rebounding and shot-blocking freak that could have been the number 1 pick in the draft playing 28-32 minutes at C. Jayson was very good this season, but he could have been better if he had more of the non-conference slate to get acclimated to college ball. When Harry was put on the shelf after his third knee surgery, it seemed like Marques was ready to slot in. Instead, he got injured, missed lots of time, had to get himself reconditioned, and never fully adapted to life in Div I basketball. Our experience couldn't overcome those injuries.

I mean, there is a strong argument to be made that, if healthy, Duke's best lineup this season would not have included Amile or Matt, the two veterans who play excellent defense. Frank, Luke, Grayson, Jayson, and Harry, all healthy and all playing close to their full potential, would have meant a starting lineup with five NBA-caliber players, including two top 5 picks. This would not be too dissimilar to 2015 when an experienced defender in junior Amile moved to the bench so that Justise could play a small ball PF.

[IrishDevil]

This is right on. The logic that OAD's can't play defense in Coach K's system just doesn't stand up to close scrutiny. As you mentioned, the 2015 team figured out how to play tough defense and put together the best six game stretch on D I've ever seen Duke play (ok, 5 game stretch if you don't count the 1v16 game in the first round). But injuries are a much, much, much more obvious place to start when evaluating Duke's defense. From 02-10, Duke was remarkably healthy, especially our top players. There are small exceptions (DeMarcus had ankle trouble his sophomore year and might have made more of a difference against LSU if he'd been fully healthy, Greg struggled with foot issues, Zoubs struggled to stay healthy for a full season prior to his senior year, Shav had mono and a few other issues), but Duke didn't lose key players for extended periods of time.

From 2011-'17, the exact opposite is true.

Ryan missed significant time in both '12 and '13. In both instances, our defensive rating dropped precipitously with him off the court (in fact, the '13 team was teasing top 10 in KenPom D efficiency prior to Ryan's injury). The '12 team also fell off in offense when Ryan left and we no longer had good court spacing. We actually had the number offense in KenPom at one point in January before dropping for the rest of the season.

Obviously, we all know Kyrie was injured in '11. Also, I think it's revisionist history to say that team was undone by bad defense. We clearly had a top 10 defense heading into the tourney. We were undone by an incredible performance by Derrick Williams in the first half (seriously, go back and watch that game, if you dare, and see how well Kyle guarded Williams in that first half. Kyle was excellent, Williams was just otherworldly that day) and then a barrage of three point shooting in the second half that left us with a bad taste in our mouth for what was otherwise an excellent defensive team. And of course, Kyrie's injury may have even had something to do with everything falling apart in the second half.

The injury to Amile hurt the 2016 team. I'm not sure what the ceiling of that team was even with a healthy Amile, but losing Amile hurt. And recall that Matt had a bum ankle for much of the ACC slate, as well.

And 2017 was just nuts in terms of injuries. In fact, injuries forced Duke to rely on experienced players more than our young, talented frosh. The team that played the first eight games of the season featured Frank as the only freshman in the rotation. Eventually, Jayson joined Frank as the only two frosh in the rotation. Harry eventually secured a role as a backup, but was not much of a factor. We'll never know exactly how the season would have gone if Harry, Jayson, and Marques had all been healthy all season long. But we almost certainly would have been better and younger, which flies in the face of the argument against OAD's.

So, to recap, '11, '12, '13, and '16 were all decent to excellent defensive teams when they had a healthy complement of players (or, in the case of '11, it was great for the whole season, the last game notwithstanding). '14 was legitimately bad, but also only featured a single OAD player (Rodney was a transfer who had a full year in the system). The '15 team's close to the season features the best defense any Duke team has played during this stretch and this team had THREE OAD's including the notably poor defender Jahlil Okafor. And the '17 team suffered more injuries and disruptions than any Duke team since the '95 season and was actually forced to rely more on veterans because of the injuries.

If we were to go back in time and take Shelden off of the '05 and '06 teams for extended periods, give Luol a preseason injury that took him 1/3 of the season to recover from, and make Gerald and DeMarcus limp through the '08 season, I can guarantee you that our defensive rankings over that stretch would be much, much lower.

Meanwhile, give Duke a healthy Kyrie for the '11 season and that season is totally different. Give Duke a healthy Ryan Kelly in '12 and that season probably ends differently. Give Duke a healthy Ryan for all of the '13 season and we might have even been a 1 seed, avoiding Louisville until later in the tourney. Keep Amile healthy for all of the '16 season and we are definitely better. Perhaps we hold on against ND in the ACCT, earn a higher seed, and make it a bit farther in the tourney. And finally, give us a healthy Amile, Grayson, Jayson, Harry, and Marques and the '17 season looks completely different.

OAD players might have a role in Duke's relative drop in defense over the past seven seasons, but I think injuries have had a much bigger effect. One could argue that our margin for injury error is less with OAD players (a sophomore or junior Jayson and Harry would be able to recover and slot into the team more easily, theoretically), but it still doesn't change the fact that Duke has struggled with major injuries in 5 (!) of the last 7 seasons.

This, this, so much this.

Correlation does not equal causation. Ratings indicate that we have played weaker defensively since the 2010 championship. We have also

- suffered significant, season-altering injuries in 5 of the last 7 seasons since the 2010 championship;
- recruited more OADs since the 2010 championship; and
- allowed players to wear numbers 1 and 0, beginning in 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively.

Clearly not all three of these facts have given rise to our lower defensive ratings, and the ratings themselves make OADs no more likely a cause than the change in the player number policy. As I mentioned upthread and COYS explains much more fully here, take away our injuries since 2010 and we may be looking at 2-4 more NCAA banners. Add injuries to 2004-2010, and we could be looking at 2-3 fewer NCAA banners. 2015 is a serious problem for the "OAD recruiting means poor defense" argument, and, going by eye test and common sense, injuries seem like the far more likely culprit.

[flyingdutchdevil]

That is an irrelevant analysis. You need to look at who played minutes / game. Out of 200 total, you had the vast majority going to upperclassmen.

Exactly. Of our 6.5 man rotation, 2 were seniors, 1 was a junior, 1 a sophomore, and 2.5 freshman. That's pretty good.

It's really, really sad that some of us thought a 9 man rotation was achievable at the beginning of the year. Sigh...

[duke09hms]

Maybe we're missing the point by grouping all OADs together. Perhaps we need some defensive stud OADs - Justise Winslow readily comes to mind. And remember, he wasn't even supposed to be OAD until the tournament. I wouldn't say no to some Nerlens Noel-type defensive talents either.

We need to recruit kids who are terrific college athletes, known for getting after it on defense, and a good fit for Duke. These types grow on trees right? ;)

I do think Duke recruiting tends to overvalue the offensive end. When was the last time besides Winslow we brought in someone known to be a defensive stopper.
Lol, think it might have been Derryck, who came in with a ballhawk rep.

[COYS]

It actually wasn't, that's part of the problem, even though it looks veteran by recent standards, compared to teams in the pre-2011 period it wasn't at all. The average years of experience on the roster this year was 0.9.

From the same period I looked at earlier from 2004-2010, only one roster was less experienced, 2007 at 0.8, the next lowest from that period was 2008 at 1.2.
So compared to the 2004-2010 era this would have been the 2nd youngest roster.

Yeah, a better measure is the "minutes continuity" unit that KenPom uses because that takes into account how many minutes go to players who earned minutes in the previous year. For this season, we had about 50% minutes continuity from last year to this year. That put us just slightly below average for a DI team. The championship 2015 team had only 38% continuity from the year before and won the championship. The 2012 team was 88th in the country in minutes continuity despite losing Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie. Yes, it had OAD Austin Rivers, but it also had juniors Andre, Ryan, Seth, and Mason, plus senior Miles, along with sophs Josh and Tyler. That team was not lacking for veterans. It did, however, only have one big (Ryan) who could space the floor and hedge effectively on ball screens. And it showed after he went down. We've had very good defensive teams with lots of minutes continuity. And we've had very good defensive teams without minutes continuity. We've also had the opposite.

And again, I think our defense would have been better this year if we had been able to give more minutes to the freshman because Harry and Marques have a lot of defensive potential that went unfulfilled due to injury.

[COYS]

We need to recruit kids who are terrific college athletes, known for getting after it on defense, and a good fit for Duke. These types grow on trees right? ;)


Harry was a monster rebounder and shot-blocker when he was healthy. I think he could have been this player. We saw flashes, of course, but he never had the bounce or lateral movement that he had in high school and his lack of practice time was obvious when he blew rotations and over-helped on defense.

[utahdevil]

My hope is that we see the team land a few point guards in the upcoming class(es) so we have depth at that position moving forward. Obviously our lack of a true PG this year was due to the unexpected departures of Tyus in 2015 (thanks for the Natty, Tyus) and Thornton's transfer last year as opposed to recruiting malpractice. However, recruiting OAD point guards like Duval (who I pray we land) makes it imperative that we also get a second point guard commitment to provide depth and cover for the possibility of the OAD guy materializing into the kind of player he is projected to be.

For example, in our 2010 and 2011 classes Duke brought in OAD PG talents in Kyrie and Austin Rivers, but also brought in lower rated 4-yr guys in Tyler Thornton and Quinn Cook. I think that's the kind of model we have to employ if we're recruiting and bringing in OAD PG's. Looking at the point guards Duke offered for the 2017 class, Coach K cast a pretty wide net with 24/7 showing offers to Trae Young, Quade Green, Tremont Waters, and Matt Coleman. My understanding is that we offered Duval fairly late in the process, after Green committed to UK, Waters to Georgetown, and after the staff either cooled on Young or he cooled on us. Those of you more knowledgeable about recruiting can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Coleman was the only PG who committed elsewhere (Texas) at the same time Duval held a Duke offer. I was really hoping we would land Coleman as I believed he could be a Quinn Cook type player (and their 24/7 ratings were pretty comparable with Coleman's at 0.9842 while Quinn's was 0.9857) with Duval being a potential OAD guy like Austin Rivers was in 2012. Now, I don't think we can employ a strategy that tries to land multiple 5-star kids at the PG position. It's just highly unlikely that Duke would land both Quade Green and Trevon Duval for example; those 5-star kids are going to commit to different schools because they don't want to sit, and their talent probably justifies that attitude. But I do think you can land a guy like Duval and someone like Coleman in the same class, and that's would I'd love to see us do.

I think we can all agree on the importance of the PG position, not just in basketball generally but especially in situations where you have a younger team or a team where so much of the scoring comes from OAD guys. Having an older, steady PG, even someone offensively deficient ala Tyler Thornton, would have done wonders for this year's team. We wouldn't have needed the PG to score this year given the talents of Tatum, Allen, and Kennard. He would have just needed to distribute the ball (and hopefully be a decent on the ball defender who could keep his man in front of him). Looking at next year's team, let's assume the best case scenario in that: (a) we land Duval; (b) he's as good as advertised; and (c) he leaves after next year. What happens in 2018-2019? We're relying on a true freshman PG again or, if we strike out or unexpected transfers occur, we have a year like this past season where we don't have a PG on the roster at all. In the OAD era that Coach K has embraced (and I have no quibbles with the GOAT's philosophy on this), and in the specific context of OAD PG's, I hope we see Duke offer and land a few more PG's to provide depth and continuity.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Go Duke!

[CDu]

Maybe we're missing the point by grouping all OADs together. Perhaps we need some defensive stud OADs - Justise Winslow readily comes to mind. And remember, he wasn't even supposed to be OAD until the tournament. I wouldn't say no to some Nerlens Noel-type defensive talents either.

We need to recruit kids who are terrific college athletes, known for getting after it on defense, and a good fit for Duke. These types grow on trees right? ;)

I do think Duke recruiting tends to overvalue the offensive end. When was the last time besides Winslow we brought in someone known to be a defensive stopper.
Lol, think it might have been Derryck, who came in with a ballhawk rep.

I think that DeLaurier, Ojeleye, Gbinije, and others fit that description. Giles in theory did too, but he was broken coming in. Dockery as well. We've recruited a few guys who fit that bill, but we tend to value skill over pure athleticism when push comes to shove.

[IFUSTABMEDOINOTBLEEDBLUE]

Our defense flat out stunk this year. Very inconsistent. Big man development was heinous even with the " guys were hurt during early part of season" mantra I am not going to use as an excuse. I feel bad for Jefferson and Jones...maybe the answer is to have these defensive minded seniors and juniors in more abundance along with some one and dones...and no true point guards was a big mistake. We did have an incredible ACC tournament though so that was nice. Will miss Tatum as he was excellent and is a true NBA talent for sure...if anyone else jumps its as a 7th or 8th man ala journeyman who gets paid nicely but is to go down as largely forgettable in the NBA. Giles...some team will Embilid this guy and hope in a few years he might be worth what he takes moneywise initially but he is still largely a big unknown who has no speed in his game at all but drips with possibilities for NBA scouts. Stats are nice and lots of those are used to buttress any position really on this season or player in particular. But this year started with a lot of promise and ended again with Duke losing and losing to a largely weak squad from South Carolina. Its not like we had not seen teams play that way aka Virginia and not win. I miss the days of largely upperclassmen with a one and doner mixed in. This year was largely hype with really only Tatum bringing his game to the next level save for Kennard who I hope stays..he is special. At least Len Elmore will be done with his anti Duke bias so I have that going for me...which is nice. I applaud the team and its effort this year but do get tired to losing in the big dance to teams whose season is made simply by beating us.

[Ian]

If you had read my original post, you would have seen that I actually already argued a version of this point when I mentioned that if Jayson and Harry had been sophomores or juniors, returning from injury would probably have been easier. That being said, you're still avoiding the issue that Duke had experienced players to slot in for the injured OAD's this year. Amile played more minutes than expected. And he was excellent on D. He would have been even better without his injury. Chase played admirably before his weird back injury. Even Vrank gave us good minutes on occasion. Matt played more minutes due to Grayson's injury and because with Harry's injury, we wouldn't going to see much of the two big lineup . And Luke became the offensive star for the team as Grayson and Jayson dealt with injuries and other issues. We had experienced guys ready to step up this year.

You and I look at this season and come to very different conclusions. I think Duke would have been better this year if we were able to rely on our OAD talent MORE, not less. If Harry hadn't suffered his second ACL tear or needed the 'scope in the Fall, we would have had an athletic, rebounding and shot-blocking freak that could have been the number 1 pick in the draft playing 28-32 minutes at C. Jayson was very good this season, but he could have been better if he had more of the non-conference slate to get acclimated to college ball. When Harry was put on the shelf after his third knee surgery, it seemed like Marques was ready to slot in. Instead, he got injured, missed lots of time, had to get himself reconditioned, and never fully adapted to life in Div I basketball. Our experience couldn't overcome those injuries.

I mean, there is a strong argument to be made that, if healthy, Duke's best lineup this season would not have included Amile or Matt, the two veterans who play excellent defense. Frank, Luke, Grayson, Jayson, and Harry, all healthy and all playing close to their full potential, would have meant a starting lineup with five NBA-caliber players, including two top 5 picks. This would not be too dissimilar to 2015 when an experienced defender in junior Amile moved to the bench so that Justise could play a small ball PF.

And my argument is that by having OADs year after year, you get caught in this cycle of always needing to rely on more and more freshmen production, because there are fewer upperclassmen on the roster. And freshmen will always have more variance than upper classmen and offer less reliable production. Higher ceiling and lower floor. With the ceiling tending to be on the offensive end and the floor on the defensive end.

I haven't even brought up the fact that the staff will spend far more energy and time on recruiting than they would other wise, always having to replace half your roster every year, which costs them time and energy away from what they could be doing with the team. This is not to say somehow I don't think they are spending enough time with the players during the season, only that they are human and there are only certain number of hours during each day, if they are spending more of it recruiting they necessarily have to spend less doing other things with the current team.,

[Ian]

Yeah, a better measure is the "minutes continuity" unit that KenPom uses because that takes into account how many minutes go to players who earned minutes in the previous year. For this season, we had about 50% minutes continuity from last year to this year. That put us just slightly below average for a DI team. The championship 2015 team had only 38% continuity from the year before and won the championship. The 2012 team was 88th in the country in minutes continuity despite losing Nolan, Kyle, and Kyrie. Yes, it had OAD Austin Rivers, but it also had juniors Andre, Ryan, Seth, and Mason, plus senior Miles, along with sophs Josh and Tyler. That team was not lacking for veterans. It did, however, only have one big (Ryan) who could space the floor and hedge effectively on ball screens. And it showed after he went down. We've had very good defensive teams with lots of minutes continuity. And we've had very good defensive teams without minutes continuity. We've also had the opposite.

And again, I think our defense would have been better this year if we had been able to give more minutes to the freshman because Harry and Marques have a lot of defensive potential that went unfulfilled due to injury.

I think minutes continuity is flawed, because it overlooks the benefit of spending a year or two on the bench of a major DI program. I guy who didn't play much as a freshmen but who practiced with the team every day for a whole season, who spent a whole year developing his body and his habits witin the program, is much more likely to have something to offer the team than a guy who comes in as a freshmen. Even if what he offers is as difficult to measure as providing better opposition during practice to help the starters improve throughout the season.

This is why I'm not accepting the simplistic "we had 2 seniors and a junior in the starting 5, so we're a veteran team" analysis, we had no one ready to come in and contribute when there were injuries and foul trouble, and if they were as unready to contribute as K deemed them they probably didn't offer the kind of challenge during practice that would have helped the starters improve.

[FerryFor50]

Exactly. Of our 6.5 man rotation, 2 were seniors, 1 was a junior, 1 a sophomore, and 2.5 freshman. That's pretty good.

It's really, really sad that some of us thought a 9 man rotation was achievable at the beginning of the year. Sigh...

Capel showed that a 9 man rotation could be possible. But that fizzled quickly when Duke went into a mini-slump.

I think Duke panicked a bit and went back to what gave immediate results; playing your 6.5 best players, end of season results be damned.

[CDu]

And my argument is that by having OADs year after year, you get caught in this cycle of always needing to rely on more and more freshmen production, because there are fewer upperclassmen on the roster. And freshmen will always have more variance than upper classmen and offer less reliable production. Higher ceiling and lower floor. With the ceiling tending to be on the offensive end and the floor on the defensive end.

I haven't even brought up the fact that the staff will spend far more energy and time on recruiting than they would other wise, always having to replace half your roster every year, which costs them time and energy away from what they could be doing with the team. This is not to say somehow I don't think they are spending enough time with the players during the season, only that they are human and there are only certain number of hours during each day, if they are spending more of it recruiting they necessarily have to spend less doing other things with the current team.,

We have had a one and done every year but one since 2010. In none of those seasons have we been overly reliant on freshmen.

2011: seniors Singler and Smith, junior Plumlee, redshirt sophomore Curry, and sophomores Plumlee, Dawkins, and Kelly were key players on a 32-win team. We were going to rely on just one freshman, but he got hurt and missed 20+ games. We had 32 wins that year.

2012: Senior Plumlee, redshirt junior Curry, juniors Plumlee, Dawkins, and Kelly, and sophomore Thornton. We did rely on one freshman, but that was still a pretty veteran squad. We had 27 wins that year.

2013: Redshirt senior Curry, seniors Plumlee and Kelly, juniors Thornton and Hairston, sophomore Cook. We relied on one freshman (Sulaimon) and used another one (Jefferson) sparingly when Kelly got hurt. We had 30 wins that year.

2014: Redshirt senior Dawkins, seniors Thornton and Hairston, junior Cook, redshirt sophomore Hood, sophomores Sulaimon and Jefferson. We relied on just one freshman (Parker). We won 26 games that year.

2015: Senior Cook, redshirt junior Plumlee, junior Jefferson (and Sulaimon for half a year), sophomore Jones. This was the season in which we were most reliant on freshmen, with Jones, Okafor, Winslow, and eventually Allen (after Sulaimon's dismissal) being key rotation guys. Easily our youngest team this decade. We won 35 games and a national title.

2016: redshirt senior Plumlee, senior Jefferson (until he got hurt), junior Jones, sophomore Allen. We relied on 3.5 freshmen this year in Ingram, Kennard Thornton, and Jeter. We won 25 games.

2017: redshirt senior Jefferson, senior Jones, junior Allen, sophomore Kennard, freshmen Tatum, Jackson, and Giles. We won 28 games and an ACC title in spite of a ton of injuries.

We have had very few teams reliant on freshmen one-and-dones. Yet our best team was the one MOST reliant on freshmen one-and-dones. And this year might well have gone down a similar path had we not suffered so many injuries to so many key players throughout the year. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of discarding the one-and-done recruitment.

The issue isn't recruiting one-and-dones. We arguably should continue to be doing that. The issue is making sure that we don't lose as many transfers from the "not one-and-done" camp. For example, if Ojeleye was on the team the last two years, those seasons might have ended quite differently. And Thornton might have proved really helpful for next year's team (though if we get Duval I won't be too worried about not having Thornton).

But even with the transfers, the team has generally been a pretty veteran club. We might not be so next year (it all depends on Kennard and Allen). But that is only because our 2015 team won the title, so the would-be-rising seniors went pro except for Allen.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Capel showed that a 9 man rotation could be possible. But that fizzled quickly when Duke went into a mini-slump.

I think Duke panicked a bit and went back to what gave immediate results; playing your 6.5 best players, end of season results be damned.

Yes, but Capel isn't K.

Coach K is partially successful because of his short line-ups. If you are in the line-up, you are a damn good player. If you aren't, then you need to work to be a damn good player.

I don't fault Coach K's philosophy; it's worked pretty good in the past. But when you enter the season with arguably the deepest team you've ever had, it's pretty shocking to see a 6.5 line-up at the end of the season.

[DangerDevil]

I think minutes continuity is flawed, because it overlooks the benefit of spending a year or two on the bench of a major DI program. I guy who didn't play much as a freshmen but who practiced with the team every day for a whole season, who spent a whole year developing his body and his habits witin the program, is much more likely to have something to offer the team than a guy who comes in as a freshmen. Even if what he offers is as difficult to measure as providing better opposition during practice to help the starters improve throughout the season.

This is why I'm not accepting the simplistic "we had 2 seniors and a junior in the starting 5, so we're a veteran team" analysis, we had no one ready to come in and contribute when there were injuries and foul trouble, and if they were as unready to contribute as K deemed them they probably didn't offer the kind of challenge during practice that would have helped the starters improve.

Help us naysayers figure out how Coach K is supposed to bring in these four year players?

I think that is part of what he has tried to do, recruit a mix of as many super talented players as he can and get a few role players that moat schools would still consider to be the gems of their recruiting classes.

I think that has particularly been the recruiting philosophy the past two seasons and you could even argue that was the case for the two seasons before that as well.

I don't think that anyone thought there was a chance that Luke would be discussing leaving for the NBA after this season back in the fall and before Grayson's second half explosion in the 2015 championship game people were still questioning how he was a high school All American.

[mkirsh]

Our defense flat out stunk this year. Very inconsistent. Big man development was heinous even with the " guys were hurt during early part of season" mantra I am not going to use as an excuse. I feel bad for Jefferson and Jones...maybe the answer is to have these defensive minded seniors and juniors in more abundance along with some one and dones...and no true point guards was a big mistake. We did have an incredible ACC tournament though so that was nice. Will miss Tatum as he was excellent and is a true NBA talent for sure...if anyone else jumps its as a 7th or 8th man ala journeyman who gets paid nicely but is to go down as largely forgettable in the NBA. Giles...some team will Embilid this guy and hope in a few years he might be worth what he takes moneywise initially but he is still largely a big unknown who has no speed in his game at all but drips with possibilities for NBA scouts. Stats are nice and lots of those are used to buttress any position really on this season or player in particular. But this year started with a lot of promise and ended again with Duke losing and losing to a largely weak squad from South Carolina. Its not like we had not seen teams play that way aka Virginia and not win. I miss the days of largely upperclassmen with a one and doner mixed in. This year was largely hype with really only Tatum bringing his game to the next level save for Kennard who I hope stays..he is special. At least Len Elmore will be done with his anti Duke bias so I have that going for me...which is nice. I applaud the team and its effort this year but do get tired to losing in the big dance to teams whose season is made simply by beating us.

"The days of largely upperclassmen with a one and doner mixed in" best describe 2012 (Austin Rivers - Lehigh) and 2014 (Jabari - Mercer), which most on this board would consider more disappointing seasons than the one just ended

[IFUSTABMEDOINOTBLEEDBLUE]

"The days of largely upperclassmen with a one and doner mixed in" best describe 2012 (Austin Rivers - Lehigh) and 2014 (Jabari - Mercer), which most on this board would consider more disappointing seasons than the one just ended

Good point though Rivers and Parker wouldn't know how to defend a non moving goal post and they did not get any better by the end of the year

[Ian]

Help us naysayers figure out how Coach K is supposed to bring in these four year players?

I think that is part of what he has tried to do, recruit a mix of as many super talented players as he can and get a few role players that moat schools would still consider to be the gems of their recruiting classes.

I think that has particularly been the recruiting philosophy the past two seasons and you could even argue that was the case for the two seasons before that as well.

I don't think that anyone thought there was a chance that Luke would be discussing leaving for the NBA after this season back in the fall and before Grayson's second half explosion in the 2015 championship game people were still questioning how he was a high school All American.

I would definitely target on recruiting more defensively focused athletes who are comparatively less skilled offensively, as the top 10 rankings (and likely OAD candidates) tend to lean heavily on the offensive side. Even lower ranked guys who blow up as offensive players (like Kennard) are much more likely to suddenly be attractive to the NBA and leave early than guys who are superior defensively who suddenly develop a decent offensive game.

As the Kempom rankings have shown, in the OAD era we are much more consistently top 10 in offensive rankings, but have taken a huge tumble in the defensive rankings. Maybe it's not even getting the OADs as much as a recruiting strategy that is unbalanced and focuses too much on offense, and maybe getting OAD is just symptomatic of this imbalance. If so, then focusing more on defensively gifted players would solve the problem of having too many OADs and early attritions without deliberately avoiding OADs.

[CDu]

Maybe it's not even getting the OADs as much as a recruiting strategy that is unbalanced and focuses too much on offense, and maybe getting OAD is just symptomatic of this imbalance. If so, then focusing more on defensively gifted players would solve the problem of having too many OADs and early attritions without deliberately avoiding OADs.

Now this is an argument that I can at least consider. Because your first argument (that we shouldn't recruit one-and-dones) I can't. And because we've actually generally had a pretty balanced recruiting strategy:

2011: Irving (one-and-done), Hairston (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Thornton (program guy)
2012: Rivers (one-and-done), Cook (skilled next-tier guy), Gbinije (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Murphy (athletic next-tier guy), Plumlee (program guy)
2013: Sulaimon (skilled, athletic top-tier guy), Jefferson (skilled next-tier guy)
2014: Parker (one-and-done), Jones (skilled next-tier guy), Ojeleye (rugged, athletic next-tier guy)
2015: Okafor (one-and-done), Jones (skilled, top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Winslow (rugged, athletic top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Allen (skilled, athletic next-tier guy)
2016: Ingram (one-and-done), Kennard (skilled next-tier guy), Thornton (athletic next-tier guy), Jeter (skilled next-tier guy), Vrankovic (rugged program guy)
2017: Giles (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Tatum (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Jackson (athletic, skilled top-tier guy), Bolden (rugged top-tier guy), DeLaurier (athletic next-tier guy), White (rugged program guy)
2018: Carter (rugged, skilled probable one-and-done), Trent (rugged, athletic, skilled probable one-and-done), O'Connell (skilled next-tier/program guy)

We've actually done a really good job of recruiting 1 or 2 top-10 guys and littering in middle-tier guys as well. Sometimes those middle-tier guys have stuck around, like Jones and Jefferson and Allen. Sometimes those guys have transferred (like Ojeleye, Gbinije, and Murphy). And occasionally we've had a class blow up and win a title and a couple of guys jumped to one-and-done status (Jones and Winslow). Now, we did have bad luck with Ojeleye leaving and Sulaimon getting dismissed during the 2015 season. Combined with the great end to the 2015 season which propelled Winslow and Jones to the pros, and it weakened our 2016 team (no Sulaimon, no Ojeleye, neither of Jones or Winslow).

Now, in looking at that list, I think part of the issue is that the rugged, athletic, defensive-minded guys either have transferred (Gbinije, Ojeleye, Thornton), exploded sooner than expected (Winslow), gotten dismissed (Sulaimon), or just not emerged as ACC-starter quality (Hairston and - to this point - Bolden). We've brought in at least one almost every year. It just hasn't always worked out.

Maybe one could argue - as you are doing - that we should emphasize getting more than one of those guys each year. But that is a balancing act. This year's team seemed to "err" too much on the skilled side. We had tons of weapons, but maybe just not quite enough rugged, athletic, physical defensive-minded guys. But that's largely a result of injuries, which couldn't have been anticipated.

[COYS]

I think minutes continuity is flawed, because it overlooks the benefit of spending a year or two on the bench of a major DI program. I guy who didn't play much as a freshmen but who practiced with the team every day for a whole season, who spent a whole year developing his body and his habits witin the program, is much more likely to have something to offer the team than a guy who comes in as a freshmen. Even if what he offers is as difficult to measure as providing better opposition during practice to help the starters improve throughout the season.

This is why I'm not accepting the simplistic "we had 2 seniors and a junior in the starting 5, so we're a veteran team" analysis, we had no one ready to come in and contribute when there were injuries and foul trouble, and if they were as unready to contribute as K deemed them they probably didn't offer the kind of challenge during practice that would have helped the starters improve.

I think I'm just having a hard time understanding your argument, then. You're saying that Grayson, Amile, and Matt played too much early in their careers to qualify as experienced, defensive oriented players? This season, Duke had a collection of guys with many years in the program, some of whom had lots of experience (national championship experience, no less), plus a handful of guys who had at least a year in the program to learn Duke D in Luke, Vrank, and Chase. I mean, is Amile not a guy who didn't play as much as a freshman and sophomore (though he did play a lot as a soph), who practice with the team everyday, who worked on his body and habits within the program? Is Grayson not in a similar boat (he even managed to have a starring role his freshman year despite not playing much)? What about Josh? What about Marshall? And Mason? And Miles? And Seth? And Quinn? And Ryan? Andre? Tyler? We've had lots of guys who fit this description over the past seven years.

Also, to a certain extent we've been a victim of being successful. Both Justise and Tyus were thought to be at least two year players (some thought Tyus lack of typical NBA-level athleticism made him a likely candidate to stay all four years), but they developed so quickly that they left early. Many of us said prior to the 2015 season that if Justise and Tyus left for the draft after one year at Duke, then it means it was a special season. That ended up being true. But it also meant we didn't have them in 2016, which would have provided cover when Amile went down.

Other guys like Semi and Gbinije opted to leave the program early or they, too, would have become those types of experienced players who grew into their roles over a few seasons. So it's not like Duke is trying to avoid them. We added Javin and Jack to the roster this year to join Vrank as guys that we hope will stick with the team and be able to contribute. But there's no guarantee that they'll be around in two years. That's just the way it goes.

I notice that you mention that many of Duke's one and done players have been uniquely focused on offense rather than defense. I think that is much more justified line of criticism . . . although I would add it's also not applicable to every hot shot recruit. Harry, and perhaps to a lesser extent in terms of immediate impact, Marques, were prospects who were supposed to be able to excel on the defensive end. Harry was a rebounding and shot blocking monster in high school. Again, part of the reason we struggled this year on D, in my opinion, is that Harry couldn't contribute on that end like we all hoped. Justise was seen as a defensive Swiss-army knife with a raw offensive game. He turned into an imposing defender with a devastating (at the college level) offensive game. We only had him for one year instead of at least two like many of us thought. But again, it's not like K hasn't recruited guys who were supposed to be strong defenders as freshmen.

So I disagree that Duke doesn't recruit four year guys with the idea that they'll sit and learn for much of their freshman year before contributing more and more as their career goes on. We've had many who have stayed (Amile, Josh, Tyler, Matt, Marshall etc), a few who have transferred out (Semi, Gbinije), and some on the roster now that I hope stay (Javin, Jack, and Vrank). I do agree that most of our surefire OAD recruits have been offensively focused, but I think this is a bad year to bring that up because Harry was supposed to bring a lot to the table on defense.

I think Coach K can get better at figuring out how to adapt Duke's defensive schemes to best suit personnel to better mirror his ability to adapt Duke's offense. We've seen him make adjustments, whether it be the temporary switch to zone in 2015 or the (often) effective 3/4 zone press we used from time to time this year. But again, I think our relative defensive woes this year would have been best cured by a healthy, mobile, and bouncy Harry Giles blocking shots and skying for rebounds along with a full season of health from Amile, Jayson, Grayson, and Marques.

[COYS]

Now this is an argument that I can at least consider. Because your first argument (that we shouldn't recruit one-and-dones) I can't. And because we've actually generally had a pretty balanced recruiting strategy:

2011: Irving (one-and-done), Hairston (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Thornton (program guy)
2012: Rivers (one-and-done), Cook (skilled next-tier guy), Gbinije (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Murphy (athletic next-tier guy), Plumlee (program guy)
2013: Sulaimon (skilled, athletic top-tier guy), Jefferson (skilled next-tier guy)
2014: Parker (one-and-done), Jones (skilled next-tier guy), Ojeleye (rugged, athletic next-tier guy)
2015: Okafor (one-and-done), Jones (skilled, top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Winslow (rugged, athletic top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Allen (skilled, athletic next-tier guy)
2016: Ingram (one-and-done), Kennard (skilled next-tier guy), Thornton (athletic next-tier guy), Jeter (skilled next-tier guy), Vrankovic (rugged program guy)
2017: Giles (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Tatum (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Jackson (athletic, skilled top-tier guy), Bolden (rugged top-tier guy), DeLaurier (athletic next-tier guy), White (rugged program guy)
2018: Carter (rugged, skilled probable one-and-done), Trent (rugged, athletic, skilled probable one-and-done), O'Connell (skilled next-tier/program guy)

We've actually done a really good job of recruiting 1 or 2 top-10 guys and littering in middle-tier guys as well. Sometimes those middle-tier guys have stuck around, like Jones and Jefferson and Allen. Sometimes those guys have transferred (like Ojeleye, Gbinije, and Murphy). And occasionally we've had a class blow up and win a title and a couple of guys jumped to one-and-done status (Jones and Winslow). Now, we did have bad luck with Ojeleye leaving and Sulaimon getting dismissed during the 2015 season. Combined with the great end to the 2015 season which propelled Winslow and Jones to the pros, and it weakened our 2016 team (no Sulaimon, no Ojeleye, neither of Jones or Winslow).

Now, in looking at that list, I think part of the issue is that the rugged, athletic, defensive-minded guys either have transferred (Gbinije, Ojeleye, Thornton), exploded sooner than expected (Winslow), gotten dismissed (Sulaimon), or just not emerged as ACC-starter quality (Hairston and - to this point - Bolden). We've brought in at least one almost every year. It just hasn't always worked out.

Maybe one could argue - as you are doing - that we should emphasize getting more than one of those guys each year. But that is a balancing act. This year's team seemed to "err" too much on the skilled side. We had tons of weapons, but maybe just not quite enough rugged, athletic, physical defensive-minded guys. But that's largely a result of injuries, which couldn't have been anticipated.

I see you beat me to it AND organized your post better, to boot. That's what I get for starting my response, leaving my computer, and then finishing when I got back without rechecking the thread. Anyway, I can't spork, but this is nicely done.

[Ian]

I think I'm just having a hard time understanding your argument, then. You're saying that Grayson, Amile, and Matt played too much early in their careers to qualify as experienced, defensive oriented players?

No, I'm saying having the 3 of them surrounded by a roster of underclassmen do not constitute a "veteran team".

[Ian]

Now this is an argument that I can at least consider. Because your first argument (that we shouldn't recruit one-and-dones) I can't. And because we've actually generally had a pretty balanced recruiting strategy:

2011: Irving (one-and-done), Hairston (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Thornton (program guy)
2012: Rivers (one-and-done), Cook (skilled next-tier guy), Gbinije (rugged, athletic next-tier guy), Murphy (athletic next-tier guy), Plumlee (program guy)
2013: Sulaimon (skilled, athletic top-tier guy), Jefferson (skilled next-tier guy)
2014: Parker (one-and-done), Jones (skilled next-tier guy), Ojeleye (rugged, athletic next-tier guy)
2015: Okafor (one-and-done), Jones (skilled, top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Winslow (rugged, athletic top-tier guy who became one-and-done), Allen (skilled, athletic next-tier guy)
2016: Ingram (one-and-done), Kennard (skilled next-tier guy), Thornton (athletic next-tier guy), Jeter (skilled next-tier guy), Vrankovic (rugged program guy)
2017: Giles (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Tatum (athletic, skilled one-and-done), Jackson (athletic, skilled top-tier guy), Bolden (rugged top-tier guy), DeLaurier (athletic next-tier guy), White (rugged program guy)
2018: Carter (rugged, skilled probable one-and-done), Trent (rugged, athletic, skilled probable one-and-done), O'Connell (skilled next-tier/program guy)

We've actually done a really good job of recruiting 1 or 2 top-10 guys and littering in middle-tier guys as well. Sometimes those middle-tier guys have stuck around, like Jones and Jefferson and Allen. Sometimes those guys have transferred (like Ojeleye, Gbinije, and Murphy). And occasionally we've had a class blow up and win a title and a couple of guys jumped to one-and-done status (Jones and Winslow). Now, we did have bad luck with Ojeleye leaving and Sulaimon getting dismissed during the 2015 season. Combined with the great end to the 2015 season which propelled Winslow and Jones to the pros, and it weakened our 2016 team (no Sulaimon, no Ojeleye, neither of Jones or Winslow).

Now, in looking at that list, I think part of the issue is that the rugged, athletic, defensive-minded guys either have transferred (Gbinije, Ojeleye, Thornton), exploded sooner than expected (Winslow), gotten dismissed (Sulaimon), or just not emerged as ACC-starter quality (Hairston and - to this point - Bolden). We've brought in at least one almost every year. It just hasn't always worked out.

Maybe one could argue - as you are doing - that we should emphasize getting more than one of those guys each year. But that is a balancing act. This year's team seemed to "err" too much on the skilled side. We had tons of weapons, but maybe just not quite enough rugged, athletic, physical defensive-minded guys. But that's largely a result of injuries, which couldn't have been anticipated.

You seemed to get hung up on the specifics of this season, while I am focused on the last 7 years as a pattern. It's not debabteable that our defense has been much worse over the last 7 years. The fact is the effects of consistantly having early attrition takes it toll on a program, and it takes it in many ways, in some years they hurt of the morale of players who waited for their turn see the latest freshmen come in and take all the minutes, and make them want to try somewhere else, in some years it takes the form of the staff getting caught without a player in a position and have to scramble to fill it at the last second, in some year it takes the form of too many freshmen on the team not ready to plug holes in a team beset by injury or foul trouble, In every year it leads to more time spent on recruiting and less time coaching the players.

Next year again, we are going to hope for exceptional freshmen performance just to remain competitive, and if it happens we have to replace all of them all over again in 2019. I'm just asking if this treadmill of running hard to stay in place worth it? Maybe instead of recruiting players with skills the NBA covet, maybe we do the opposite and focus on players whose skills the NBA does not look for, and if that mean we don't get 4 McDAAs every year, so be it.

[COYS]

No, I'm saying having the 3 of them surrounded by a roster of underclassmen do not constitute a "veteran team".

What is a "veteran" team in your eyes and how should Duke go about getting one? I feel as if you've moved the goalpost a few times and I'm not sure what you're even getting at, anymore.

[NashvilleDevil]

No, I'm saying having the 3 of them surrounded by a roster of underclassmen do not constitute a "veteran team".

What I am seeing is someone who has never posted until today trying to start an argument about K's strategy when it comes to building a Duke team. A couple of posters have written extensive responses to your posts and you have not offered anything of substance other than saying they are wrong.

[COYS]

You seemed to get hung up on the specifics of this season, while I am focused on the last 7 years as a pattern. It's not debabteable that our defense has been much worse over the last 7 years. The fact is the effects of consistantly having early attrition takes it toll on a program, and it takes it in many ways, in some years they hurt of the morale of players who waited for their turn see the latest freshmen come in and take all the minutes, and make them want to try somewhere else, in some years it takes the form of the staff getting caught without a player in a position and have to scramble to fill it at the last second, in some year it takes the form of too many freshmen on the team not ready to plug holes in a team beset by injury or foul trouble, In every year it leads to more time spent on recruiting and less time coaching the players.

Next year again, we are going to hope for exceptional freshmen performance just to remain competitive, and if it happens we have to replace all of them all over again in 2019. I'm just asking if this treadmill of running hard to stay in place worth it? Maybe instead of recruiting players with skills the NBA covet, maybe we do the opposite and focus on players whose skills the NBA does not look for, and if that mean we don't get 4 McDAAs every year, so be it.

Even without adding any OAD players to the rosters in '06-'10, Duke STILL had transfers for various reasons (Boateng, Boykins, King, Czyz). Duke STILL came up short in recruiting players at certain positions (if Pattrick Patterson or Greg Monroe had opted for Duke, the '08 and '09 teams could have had VERY different seasons). And the roster was still shorthanded when injuries struck. This period was pretty lucky in terms of injuries, but the '06 team had to rely on Melchioni more than would have been ideal in part because DeMarcus had ankle trouble all year, which limited him. Attrition due to transfer is simply part of the game. According to the NCAA's website (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/tracking-transfer-division-i-men-s-basketball), fully 40% of DI men's players who enter college out of high school will transfer from their first school. Even if we're not recruiting NBA-type players, we'll still have guys who don't pan out and transfer. We'll still have guys who don't develop the way we hope. We'll still have guys get injured and their backups will be forced into action before they're fully ready. And we'll still have misses on the recruiting trail that leave us shorthanded at certain positions. And we'll still have the occasional recruit that exceeds all expectations and bolts for the league.

[Ian]

What is a "veteran" team in your eyes and how should Duke go about getting one? I feel as if you've moved the goalpost a few times and I'm not sure what you're even getting at, anymore.

What goalpost?

Me: defense would be better with a more veteran team.
You: this was a veteran team
Me: (providing stats) no it wasn't
You: What';s your point?

[UNCfan]

I agree. For this day and age, Duke had a "veteran team". Two seniors and a junior that won a NC. Kennard played like the best player in the league and Tatum turned into a big time closer for you. Jackson too. You had a good mix, but the other pieces didn't fit as nicely as they looked on paper. IMHO, Duke looked their best before the injured freshmen played. They played as one unit. After that, I don't think the five fingers ever made a steel fist. At least consistently. They did in the ACCT, but its tough to remember that the day after a tough loss.

[Rich]

Maybe instead of recruiting players with skills the NBA covet, maybe we do the opposite and focus on players whose skills the NBA does not look for, and if that mean we don't get 4 McDAAs every year, so be it.

Then we'd have a team made up of interior designers, car mechanics, bakers, painters, and electrical engineers. I get it, the George Costanza model. I'm on board!

[Edouble]

Don't ignore the role injuries have played in Duke OAD-era bball. Let's not forget that since the start of our OAD recruiting focus beginning in 2010-11 with Kyrie, we are quite possibly one Kyrie toe and one Ryan Kelly foot from an additional two FF/Natties, and that is before the ridiculousness that was this season. Injuries are part of the game, but we have suffered some particularly inconvenient ones, and they certainly can't be attributed to OAD recruiting.

Add in a Kevin Ware injury. Gave Louisville something to really play for and cast a weird shadow over the second half of that game.

[Troublemaker]

What I am seeing is someone who has never posted until today trying to start an argument about K's strategy when it comes to building a Duke team. A couple of posters have written extensive responses to your posts and you have not offered anything of substance other than saying they are wrong.

Ian's been around for awhile, actually, but rarely posts.

For example, here is Ian posting after the loss to Villanova in 2009, one year before the same personnel (minus GHenderson, plus ADawkins) went on to win the national championship:


A good team would have other options, we don't. We are too one dimensional.
It was still a good season given our personnel. But if we want to go deeper we need better personnel.

Here's another example of Ian posting after a blowout loss at Clemson, two years before Nolan would become a very good PG filling in for an injured Kyrie:


I think a lot of people are still holding out hope that Nolan can develop into a PG.

I just don't see it, it's not as if he's showing flashes of great PG play in between less stellar performances. I've never really seen anything out of him that points to a good PG. He's a scorer, he's had many games where he showed flashes of being a very good scorer, but never as a PG.

This is unkind and unfair of me to drag up old posts like this. Ian's a good poster and does not deserve to be judged by these two posts. And, more importantly, almost everyone on DBR would've agreed with him at the time. I just want to (pointedly) remind folks that it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops pre-OAD. Watching 4-year players grow can be a faithless exercise sometimes and maybe not so enjoyable sometimes. What everyone really wants is for Duke to win, but there is no formula to consistently win in a 1-and-done tournament. You need luck -- injury luck, referee luck, matchup luck.

[Troublemaker]

I just want to (pointedly) remind folks that it wasn't all sunshine and lollipops pre-OAD. Watching 4-year players grow can be a faithless exercise sometimes and maybe not so enjoyable sometimes. What everyone really wants is for Duke to win, but there is no formula to consistently win in a 1-and-done tournament. You need luck -- injury luck, referee luck, matchup luck.

I should add "in modern times," of course. Back when the Winslows and Tatums and Okafors stayed 4 years, you could do some real damage year after year. Now there's a lot more parity.

[CDu]

You seemed to get hung up on the specifics of this season, while I am focused on the last 7 years as a pattern. It's not debabteable that our defense has been much worse over the last 7 years. The fact is the effects of consistantly having early attrition takes it toll on a program, and it takes it in many ways, in some years they hurt of the morale of players who waited for their turn see the latest freshmen come in and take all the minutes, and make them want to try somewhere else, in some years it takes the form of the staff getting caught without a player in a position and have to scramble to fill it at the last second, in some year it takes the form of too many freshmen on the team not ready to plug holes in a team beset by injury or foul trouble, In every year it leads to more time spent on recruiting and less time coaching the players.

Next year again, we are going to hope for exceptional freshmen performance just to remain competitive, and if it happens we have to replace all of them all over again in 2019. I'm just asking if this treadmill of running hard to stay in place worth it? Maybe instead of recruiting players with skills the NBA covet, maybe we do the opposite and focus on players whose skills the NBA does not look for, and if that mean we don't get 4 McDAAs every year, so be it.

I am not hung up on anything. I never disagreed with the idea that our defense has been worse this decade. I think there are a combination of factors causing this, one-and-dones being part and the rules changes (minimizing perimeter hand-checking) being part. The two work hand-in-hand. We haven't figured out the formula defensively. We have been a consistently better offensive team and a consistently worse defensive team in this new era.

I was merely discussing the merits of your argument at face value. You said that the team is too reliant on recruiting one-and-dones and need to do better at recruiting four-year types. I pointed out that we have consistently recruited four-year types along with the one-and-dones. You then tweaked your argument to be that we need to recruit more defensive-minded physical athletes rather than pure skill guys. I was merely breaking down the historical recruiting list relative to that argument.

We HAVE been recruiting four-year types pretty much every year. We HAVE been recruiting athletes with the defensive mindset every year. The challenge is that - in this era of instant gratification - you can never be sure if guys are going to stick around. That is the nature of recruiting these days. Guys want to play now. Regardless of whether you are getting a top-10 recruit or a top-50 recruit. Aside from recruiting guys outside the top-100 that are just happy to get to Duke, there is going to be attrition.

As I said: maybe we could go harder after athletic, defense-oriented guys as a greater proportion of our roster. That isn't an ingerently bad argument. We have certainly recruited SOME guys like that. But maybe we could get more of them. But it isn't like we are just this pure one-and-done factory, and it isn't like we aren't recruiting any defensive-minded players at all.

[pfrduke]

And my argument is that by having OADs year after year, you get caught in this cycle of always needing to rely on more and more freshmen production, because there are fewer upperclassmen on the roster. And freshmen will always have more variance than upper classmen and offer less reliable production. Higher ceiling and lower floor. With the ceiling tending to be on the offensive end and the floor on the defensive end.

This really only manifested itself the last 2-3 seasons (and if you say 3, we won a national championship in one of those seasons. Using your dividing line of 2010 and a 5 mpg cutoff for players included:

2011 had two seniors, one junior, four sophomores, and two freshmen (plus another freshman for 11 games)
2012 had one senior, four juniors, two sophomores, and two freshmen
2013 had three seniors, two juniors, one sophomore, and two freshmen
2014 had three seniors (one RS), one junior, three sophomores, and three freshmen
2015 had one senior, two juniors (one for only half the season, two sophomores, and four freshmen
2016 had two seniors (one for only 9 games), a junior, a sophomore, and four freshmen
2017 had two seniors, a junior, two sophomores (one for half the season), and four freshmen (two variously injured)

I'm not sure the defensive woes of 2012 and 2014 can be pinned to inexperience with the system given the players involved.

I do think we've had some pronounced depth issues the last couple of years arising from, variously a) Jones and Winslow leaving earlier than expected (which happened largely because we won a championship); b) Sulaimon transferring; c) Thornton transferring; d) injuries. I also think the last couple classes have attempted to address that - the 2015 HS class had four players who could reasonably have been projected as 3-4 year players, but Thornton transferred and Luke blew up to the point that he might declare, so there's a risk that we might be down to Jeter and Vrank from that class for reasons that have little or nothing to do with recruiting one-and-done talent. The 2016 HS class has 3 players would could reasonably be projected as 3-4 year players and the progress of the season may add an extra year of at least one of the players who might reasonably have been projected to be one-and-done. And I think the 2017 HS class will have several multi-year players in it when all is said and done; certainly O'Connell but I think Trent may be here for at least 2 years.

Maybe 2016 and 2017 will be more of what the future looks like; maybe not. But I think as long as we recruit players who are really, really good at basketball (which seems like a good idea, no?), we will have risk, in this day and age, of more rapid roster turnover than we had previously been used to.

[Wander]

I think some of you guys are being a little hard on the OP. There's a reasonable discussion to be had about how reliant we should be on OADs, although the day after a season ending loss probably isn't the best time to do it.

It's a good counterpoint that we were a veteran team this year, but that wasn't by choice. The reason I didn't believe in Duke as a serious title contender this postseason is because that status was predicated on having an amazing freshman class. Once it was clear that Giles and Bolden were not going to contribute at K's required level this season, I didn't think we had a serious chance.

There's also an opportunity cost. When a OAD gets injured, from a strictly basketball standpoint, you basically lose all your resources you invested in him. When Amile gets injured, you know damn well he's coming back next year if he's allowed and any experience he's picking up on the bench is going to be put to use.

I'm not saying all this to advocate never recruiting OADs, but I do think it's more complicated than "of course we're going to recruit the highest ranked guys, duh."

[Nugget]

I am not hung up on anything. I never disagreed with the idea that our defense has been worse this decade. I think there are a combination of factors causing this, one-and-dones being part and the rules changes (minimizing perimeter hand-checking) being part. The two work hand-in-hand. We haven't figured out the formula defensively. We have been a consistently better offensive team and a consistently worse defensive team in this new era. ...

As I said: maybe we could go harder after athletic, defense-oriented guys as a greater proportion of our roster. That isn't an ingerently bad argument. We have certainly recruited SOME guys like that. But maybe we could get more of them. But it isn't like we are just this pure one-and-done factory, and it isn't like we aren't recruiting any defensive-minded players at all.

This to me seems the real issue Ian is raising -- whether we have opted for too much of a focus on offense over defense in recruiting, especially at the 1-3 spots. It's an interesting dilemma. Would we prefer to have gone hard for someone like Theo Pinson (very athletic, versatile defender, 40% shooter, 27% on 3s; RSCI #15 in 2014) or S. Carolina's Dozier (RSCI #24 in 2015) instead of, say, Grayson Allen (RSCI #25 in 2014) or Luke Kennard (RSCI #21 in 2015) -- extremely good and skilled offensive players, but iffy on D?

Hard to say. You could win or lose both ways.

Ultimately, I think Troublemaker basically has it right that; however you do it, you need luck and health to win regardless, neither of which we got much of this year.

[pfrduke]

I think some of you guys are being a little hard on the OP. There's a reasonable discussion to be had about how reliant we should be on OADs, although the day after a season ending loss probably isn't the best time to do it.

It's a good counterpoint that we were a veteran team this year, but that wasn't by choice. The reason I didn't believe in Duke as a serious title contender this postseason is because that status was predicated on having an amazing freshman class. Once it was clear that Giles and Bolden were not going to contribute at K's required level this season, I didn't think we had a serious chance.

There's also an opportunity cost. When a OAD gets injured, from a strictly basketball standpoint, you basically lose all your resources you invested in him. When Amile gets injured, you know damn well he's coming back next year if he's allowed and any experience he's picking up on the bench is going to be put to use.

I'm not saying all this to advocate never recruiting OADs, but I do think it's more complicated than "of course we're going to recruit the highest ranked guys, duh."

I agree with this, but I also think that, with the possible exception of this coming season, we've never recruited exclusively guys who were projected to be one-and-done. We had 1 in 2011, 1 in 2012, 0 in 2013, 1 in 2014*, 1 in 2015*, 1 in 2016, and 2-3 (out of 6) in 2017. I may be misremembering, but I do not remember it being conventional wisdom at the start of 2014 that Hood would be gone or at the start of 2015 that Winslow and Jones would be gone (we had reasonable belief of Jones returning even at the end of 2015). Next year, depending on what the final tally is and where things shake out, I do think there's a risk of all but 1 being a potential risk for one-and-done, which is concerning.

There's a difference between being concerned about what has been a very recent shift in recruiting focus and attributing it to a 7-year trend in performance, which I think is what a lot of us are reacting to.

And I still don't know the answer for fielding a team that is consistently among the best, year in and year out, which I think is everyone's stated goal, and not recruiting one-and-done caliber talent. You can't even really point to UNC as a counter-example, both because a) they've tried to land many of the same guys we have and b) they've had guys who were projected to have at least as high likelihood of one-and-done as some of our players who left but who ended up hanging around for 3 years. I'm not sure that when they signed their LOIs anyone could have predicted with certainty that Justin Jackson would stay at UNC for at least 3 years and that Justise Winslow would leave Duke after one.

[CoachJ10]

I think some of you guys are being a little hard on the OP. There's a reasonable discussion to be had about how reliant we should be on OADs, although the day after a season ending loss probably isn't the best time to do it.

It's a good counterpoint that we were a veteran team this year, but that wasn't by choice. The reason I didn't believe in Duke as a serious title contender this postseason is because that status was predicated on having an amazing freshman class. Once it was clear that Giles and Bolden were not going to contribute at K's required level this season, I didn't think we had a serious chance.

There's also an opportunity cost. When a OAD gets injured, from a strictly basketball standpoint, you basically lose all your resources you invested in him. When Amile gets injured, you know damn well he's coming back next year if he's allowed and any experience he's picking up on the bench is going to be put to use.

I'm not saying all this to advocate never recruiting OADs, but I do think it's more complicated than "of course we're going to recruit the highest ranked guys, duh."

Would Nova had as good a season if Josh Hart had gotten hurt like Amile or Grayson had? Would Wisco been able to play as consistent as they had if Bronson Koenig had been hurt? Would UNC have won the ACC regular season if Joel Berry had been out for a period of time and come back less than 100%? In the limited rosters that are college basketball, be it a OAD or a veteran upperclassmen...injuries impact the play of the team and the evolution of the team. As many posters have pointed out, we have had a rare rash of them lately. I don't think any other program has had this kind of bad luck around injuries.

We absolutely had a chance this postseason. But like any year...it just takes one loss to derail that.

[AFL]

Congratulations, you are the first person I've ever awarded a negative comment.

We won a national championship TWO years ago.

3 early flameouts in the NCAA Tournament to teams seeded 7th or worse is pretty mediocre by Duke standards. You may call it being negative, but I call it stating facts.

[AFL]

'Didn't work out this year' - If working out only can be achieved by Final Fours or National Championship, that's a tough bar. This team won a ton of games, are ACC Champions, and beat UNC 2 of 3. Please take a moment to be proud of what they have accomplished rather than what they didn't.

Be realistic and face the facts. Duke was the unanimous preseason favorite to win it all. To lose in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to a team who hadn't won a tournament game in over 40 years is unacceptable. The time has come for some serious soul-searching.

[toooskies]

If anything, we need to stop recruiting players who get injured. 2017 turns out differently without injuries (but was still pretty good); 2016 turns out differently if Amile doesn't get hurt; 2013 is different if Seth isn't battling injuries all year and Ryan Kelly doesn't get hurt; 2011 is different if Kyrie doesn't get hurt. Half the down years in the range are already due to injuries, which didn't affect us much in the '00s. The only significant injuries to players expected to contribute on the court in the '00s in the OAD era were to... McClure and Paulus?

To me it's all just life. Sometimes things go your way, sometimes they don't. I don't attribute it to strategy or recruiting.

[AFL]

Only playing 7 or 8 guys is a much bigger issue than recruiting.

I agree, but we all know that won't change as long as the GOAT is still at the helm.

[NashvilleDevil]

3 early flameouts in the NCAA Tournament to teams seeded 7th or worse is pretty mediocre by Duke standards. You may call it being negative, but I call it stating facts.

If you want Duke to win the title every year I suggest you buy a PS3 or XBox 360, buy one of the college basketball games, pick Duke, put to the easiest settings. You do that Duke wins every year. Your posts for the last week have been inflammatory and have added nothing to the discussions.

[SkyBrickey]

On the topic of defensive skills at the 1-3, I think Frank will be a + defender next year. I expect Duval will be a + defender - the raw talent is certainly there. What do we know about Trent Jr.? I feel like I've seen mixed reviews with him being called a good defender but also not an elite athlete. I know he's a tremendous offensive talent. I hope he comes in with the intensity and skill set to play tough perimeter D. If so, he should see a lot of court time next year no matter who comes back.

[pfrduke]

The current landscape is that the teams that are able to have the stability of players staying 4 years, tend to have better success than teams that swap out half their roster every off season.

This point also merits consideration.

Only 8 schools have made the NCAA tournament every year starting with the 2011 tournament (again, using your 2010 dividing line). Those teams are Kansas, Duke, Michigan State, Gonzaga, Wisconsin, VCU, Cincinnati, and UNC. Cincinnati, VCU, and Gonzaga play in lesser conferences so I'm not sure they're relevant comparisons. Wisconsin has a particular system and recruits to that system - maybe you're suggesting that we shift to the Wisconsin recruiting model, but I don't think that's ever been how we've recruited, so I'll set them aside too. So that really leaves Kansas, Duke, UNC, and MSU. All of those schools chase one-and-done talent and have had early departures. Here's their tournament success in that span:

Kansas - 1 final 4, 1 additional elite 8, 3 additional sweet 16s
UNC - 1 final 4, 2 additional elite 8s, 2 additional sweet 16s
Michigan State - 1 final 4, 1 additional elite 8, 2 additional sweet 16s
Duke - 1 NC, 1 additional elite 8, 2 additional sweet 16s

Since 2010, Duke has finished 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 5 in the ACC regular season and won 1 conference tournament. In the ACC, only UNC is better, or even comparable - 1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 1, 1, plus 1 conference tournament.
Kansas has dominated the Big XII - no one has better regular season performance than Kansas.
Michigan State has finished 4, 2, 3, 2, 2, 3, 5 and won 3 conference tournaments.

I could go on. The short version is over the course of the past 7 years, we have been one of the 5 or so consistently best schools. The others have recruited, or attempted to recruit, in a manner similar to ours. So who are the teams with the stability of 4 year players who have had more consistent success than we have?

There may be a point that, in any given season, teams with seniors are better than teams with freshmen (Kentucky's record of performance since 2011 stands in contrast), but it also looks like it's just as hard to have high quality seniors year in and year out to rely on that model for consistent performance over any long period of time, particularly in a world where excellent players will leave for the draft (after any year, not just one-and-done).

[AFL]

If you want Duke to win the title every year I suggest you buy a PS3 or XBox 360, buy one of the college basketball games, pick Duke, put to the easiest settings. You do that Duke wins every year. Your posts for the last week have been inflammatory and have added nothing to the discussions.

I don't appreciate the personal attacks. Any objective opinion on this board is looked upon as inflammatory. That's just ridiculous. I would expect much better from fellow Blue Devil fans.

[eddiehaskell]

Be realistic and face the facts. Duke was the unanimous preseason favorite to win it all. To lose in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to a team who hadn't won a tournament game in over 40 years is unacceptable. The time has come for some serious soul-searching.That was probably assuming Giles, Jackson and Bolden would all be MUCH better. It also assumed the team would be injury free. The team still underachieved, but given all the unforeseen circumstances, we were far from some world beater squad. If Giles is able to play like a top 3 draft pick and Bolden puts up say 8ppg/5rpg, the preseason predictions may have been dead on. Going into the season, a front court of Amile, Giles and Bolden sounded like one of the best in the country. In reality we mostly had an injured Amile doing most of the work.

[NashvilleDevil]

I don't appreciate the personal attacks. Any objective opinion on this board is looked upon as inflammatory. That's just ridiculous. I would expect much better from fellow Blue Devil fans.

Your posts have not been objective and they are the definition of inflammatory. You just spout something about Duke being pathetic and nothing changes until K leaves, etc. You are adding zero to the discussion. Zero.

[Pghdukie]

The season ended earlier than we all had hoped. Frustrating, but fact. Let's not go overboard venting. May cooler heads and sound logic prevail.

[SkyBrickey]

The season ended earlier than we all had hoped. Frustrating, but fact. Let's not go overboard venting. May cooler heads and sound logic prevail.

Here, here. Very disappointing final game but we DID win the ACC tourney in historical fashion and beat the Holes 2 out of 3. And if we can land Duval, we will field a top 10, maybe top 5, team next year. It's still a great time to be a Blue Devil fan.

[eddiehaskell]

Here, here. Very disappointing final game but we DID win the ACC tourney in historical fashion and beat the Holes 2 out of 3. And if we can land Duval, we will field a top 10, maybe top 5, team next year. It's still a great time to be a Blue Devil fan.Coach K has spoiled us. How many seasons have we went into thinking "We have a good shot at being top 25 this year" or "We will probably make the tourney if we play well"? All but a handful of teams have had several seasons like that over the last 30 years. It seems like every season we at least have hope of being one of the 10 best teams - which at least means a shot of doing well in March. Gotta love having the ability to be hopeful for 30+ years.

[weezie]

...unc fans holding gamecock towels...

That needs wankerizing. Sounds pretty dirty to me.

[Utley]

Coach K has spoiled us. How many seasons have we went into thinking "We have a good shot at being top 25 this year" or "We will probably make the tourney if we play well"? All but a handful of teams have had several seasons like that over the last 30 years. It seems like every season we at least have hope of being one of the 10 best teams - which at least means a shot of doing well in March. Gotta love having the ability to be hopeful for 30+ years.

As I believe others have noted, what makes this loss so hard is that we all know that we are nearing the end of this incredible ride and each tourney experience becomes that much more precious.

[eddiehaskell]

I agree that every game, ACC tournament and especially NCAAT is very precious at this point. It sorta inspires me to pour all my "fandom" into every season. Perhaps Coach K will want to go out on top or at least make a final 4 before he hangs it up. He looks very healthy and sharp as ever. Dean Smith went out with a final four and ACC tourney win (not that K owes us fans that or anything else). I want to believe that K's mindset is "just one more time" and that's what keeps him working so hard. It would be hard to see him coming back if we did reach the summit in the next 2-3 years.

[BandAlum83]

Your posts have not been objective and they are the definition of inflammatory. You just spout something about Duke being pathetic and nothing changes until K leaves, etc. You are adding zero to the discussion. Zero.

You're just feeding the trolls. :(

[Steven43]

So, the preferred strategy also doesn't win every year. Got it. Why is it preferred then?
I think you might be misunderstanding the point Ian was trying to make. He is NOT saying that recruiting players who will most likely stay at Duke for 4 years will yield more national championships than a OAD recruitment strategy. No, I think he is saying that it's just a better overall way to run the basketball program at Duke, both for the coaches and the fans, particularly those fans who love the university just as much as they love the basketball team.

I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

Yes, winning is very important, but only if it's done the traditional Duke way. No cheating like UNC has done for three decades; no minor league system for the NBA like that of Kentucky or Kansas--where many of the basketball players are not legitimate students. Duke has over and over again found a way to beat these shameless basketball factories fair and square on the court while using genuine four-year student-athletes. I would like to think that this OAD era at Duke is mostly a result of circumstances related to Coach K being near the end of his coaching career and feeling like he has no other choice.

I hope the next coach sees things just a bit differently recruiting-wise while retaining the basic tenets of what Coach K built into the finest basketball program in the country.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I think you might be misunderstanding the point Ian was trying to make. He is NOT saying that recruiting players who will most likely stay at Duke for 4 years will yield more national championships than a OAD recruitment strategy. No, I think he is saying that it's just a better overall way to run the basketball program at Duke, both for the coaches and the fans, particularly those fans who love the university just as much as they love the basketball team.

I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

Yes, winning is very important, but only if it's done the traditional Duke way. No cheating like UNC has done for three decades; no minor league system for the NBA like that of Kentucky or Kansas--where many of the basketball players are not legitimate students. Duke has over and over again found a way to beat these shameless basketball factories fair and square on the court while using genuine four-year student-athletes. I would like to think that this OAD era at Duke is mostly a result of circumstances related to Coach K being near the end of his coaching career and feeling like he has no other choice.

I hope the next coach sees things just a bit differently recruiting-wise while retaining the basic tenets of what Coach K built into the finest basketball program in the country.

if the best high school player or players want to come to Duke, can handle the academics, and seem like great people then Coach K or the next coach should say 'Sorry, you are too good of a player for Duke."

Is that what you guys want?

SoCal

[Steven43]

if the best high school player or players want to come to Duke, can handle the academics, and seem like great people then Coach K or the next coach should say 'Sorry, you are too good of a player for Duke."

Is that what you guys want?

SoCal
Hmm, I think you are overstating things maybe just a little bit. Nobody is saying Duke shouldn't get great basketball players. I think the main point was wanting to get the best basketball players/students who do NOT want to be OAD. If a player wants to be OAD I would prefer he go elsewhere. I'm sort of confused as to why this idea is rankling certain Duke fans so much. Just because colleges created the OAD rule for basketball does not mean Duke has to play along. Should Duke really be recruiting OAD players just like Kentucky? Seriously, I think something has gone wrong when Duke and Kentucky are fighting each other over players who are not really serious about being college students. Is Kentucky one of the top 10 academic schools in the entire country like Duke is? They probaby are not even in the top 100. So why should Duke be playing the game the same way they do? When high school players were allowed to go straight to the NBA this problem did not really exist. Why does college football mandate a player stay a minimum of three years but college basketball only one? I HATE the OAD rule with a passion and wish it would be smashed to pieces forever. That's just the way I feel. I absolutely hate it.

[Steven43]

As I believe others have noted, what makes this loss so hard is that we all know that we are nearing the end of this incredible ride and each tourney experience becomes that much more precious.

Duke is not nearing the end. Not by a longshot. Coach K is not the only one who knows how to coach college basketball at a high level. Sure, he MIGHT be the best of them all, but there are other great coaches. And Duke will get one of them.

[RPS]

Hmm, I think you are overstating things maybe just a little bit. Nobody is saying Duke shouldn't get great basketball players. I think the main point was wanting to get the best basketball players/students who do NOT want to be OAD. If a player wants to be OAD I would prefer he go elsewhere. I'm sort of confused as to why this idea is rankling certain Duke fans so much. Just because colleges created the OAD rule for basketball does not mean Duke has to play along. Should Duke really be recruiting OAD players just like Kentucky? Seriously, I think something has gone wrong when Duke and Kentucky are fighting each other over players who are not really serious about being college students. Is Kentucky one of the top 10 academic schools in the entire country like Duke is? They probaby are not even in the top 100. So why should Duke be playing the game the same way they do? When high school players were allowed to go straight to the NBA this problem did not really exist. Why does college football mandate a player stay a minimum of three years but college basketball only one? I HATE the OAD rule with a passion and wish it would be smashed to pieces forever. That's just the way I feel. I absolutely hate it.
There's a lot to unpack here, but I'll try to limit my comments.

Firstly, football is different because of labor laws and the NFL and the NFLPA being able to limit access and entry. The NBA and the NBAPA could do the same but do not.

Secondly, the broader issue here is whether colleges ought to be in the sports business, OAD or not. I've been a huge Duke fan since I set foot on campus as a student 40ish years ago. But I'd be lying if I didn't admit a lot of disquiet about the system. Duke is far, far above the norm, but the idea that even four-year players are anything like "real" students at the vast majority of D1 schools is laughable. The NBA loves having a built-in minor league system to develop players, create interest, and build name recognition. It comes absolutely free. They have no desire to change anything. Why would they? But the schools aren't required to play along. As much as I love Duke sports, I can't argue that overall it's a good system that benefits student athletes and serves the true mission of higher education.

[uh_no]

As much as I love Duke sports, I can't argue that overall it's a good system that benefits student athletes and serves the true mission of higher education.

Duke has name brand recognition around the world due in part to it's success in sports and Coach K.

Further, there is mounting evidence that doing well in high profile sports leads to increased interest in applications for normal students: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/03/the-march-madness-application-bump/519846/

The number of people athletics brings to campus is enormous. And not only does that drive money spent on food and merchandise, but also likely helps drive donations (and not just to athletics)! Having alumni want to be involved with the school also likely, as you say, helps serve the true mission. One could also argue that bringing in athletes diversifies the student body in a way that it wouldn't otherwise. Without touching politics, we've accepted as a school and society that diversity of the student body increases the quality of education and is worth pursuing.

Now, whether those benefits outweigh the costs of 16 million dollars a year and allowing students who have no intention of graduating or are less qualified academically to set foot on campus, I think varies school by school and perhaps depends on how much any given individual values all the different factors.

Sports was certainly a factor in my decision to attend Duke, and I'm sure I could find quite a few references who would agree that I've helped serve the true mission both as a student and alumnus.

[arnie]

I think you might be misunderstanding the point Ian was trying to make. He is NOT saying that recruiting players who will most likely stay at Duke for 4 years will yield more national championships than a OAD recruitment strategy. No, I think he is saying that it's just a better overall way to run the basketball program at Duke, both for the coaches and the fans, particularly those fans who love the university just as much as they love the basketball team.

I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

Yes, winning is very important, but only if it's done the traditional Duke way. No cheating like UNC has done for three decades; no minor league system for the NBA like that of Kentucky or Kansas--where many of the basketball players are not legitimate students. Duke has over and over again found a way to beat these shameless basketball factories fair and square on the court while using genuine four-year student-athletes. I would like to think that this OAD era at Duke is mostly a result of circumstances related to Coach K being near the end of his coaching career and feeling like he has no other choice.

I hope the next coach sees things just a bit differently recruiting-wise while retaining the basic tenets of what Coach K built into the finest basketball program in the country.

I also agree with your premise. I don't find fault with K for going after OADs, he's expected to win championships and believes his strategy will help his mission. I just don't think it fits Duke and would prefer to see players like Semi, Javin (and many others in the future) develop into good to great juniors/seniors and enjoy their Duke 4-year career.

[moonpie23]

I think you might be misunderstanding the point Ian was trying to make.

I'm not misunderstanding that he/she would rather pull for someone other than Duke...


I'd rather follow a program that I can watch players develop grow over 4 years.

[Troublemaker]

I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

A few things:

(1) I actually agree with you 100% on this specific paragraph that I quoted.

(2) I wouldn't mind and would actually prefer if Duke's next coach recruits almost entirely projected 4-year players with an OAD sprinkled in every couple of seasons or so to fill in any gaps. Keeping in mind that recruiting is an inexact science the further down the recruiting rankings you go. Sometimes your #40-ranked player will turn out to be much better than that and will be OAD anyway. And, more often, sometimes your #40-ranked player will play like he should've be ranked #150, and it becomes very hard to contend for the things Duke wants to contend for with him. The inexactness of recruiting non-OADs will exact a price.

(3) Regardless, we're not going to go to that model while Coach K is the coach. You understand that right? He has limited years left in his career, and Duke will try to contend every year that he remains as coach. I wrote upthread that Coach K's not going to spend his Years 70 thru 72 slowly developing non-OAD talent to contend in Year 73. The reality is actually worse than that because recruiting has to be done years in advance. All of the non-OAD talent for the 2017 class has already signed elsewhere (http://247sports.com/Season/2017-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighScho ol), for example.

(4) OAD actually helps Coach K. In a hypothetical world where every college player is a 4-year-player, Coach K's age would be used against him in recruiting. It's easier at age 70 to promise recruits that you will definitely be Duke's coach next year rather than the next 4 years.

[Indoor66]

After reading this thread my head hurts.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I think you might be misunderstanding the point Ian was trying to make. He is NOT saying that recruiting players who will most likely stay at Duke for 4 years will yield more national championships than a OAD recruitment strategy. No, I think he is saying that it's just a better overall way to run the basketball program at Duke, both for the coaches and the fans, particularly those fans who love the university just as much as they love the basketball team.

Actually, the OP has said nothing of the sort. He is making the argument that our defense has suffered in the OAD era and has attempted to prove that with stats. At the risk of trying to put words and motivation in his mouth (I'll leave that to you) it seems he is arguing that abandoning the OAD model OR changing our defensive structure would directly lead to better basketball and more nattys.


I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

I think this is a genie in the bottle scenario. It's not going anywhere, unless the NBA does away with the one and done rule in favor of something that better benefits the college game. That's what people seem to lose sight of about the OAD rule (I'm not suggesting that you are, just something I see frequently on this board) - the OAD rule is an NBA rule that greatly benefits the NBA. The only way it's going anywhere is if it is replaced by a new rule that benefits the NBA even more.

The best example of why the NBA loves the rule is right under our noses this year - our friend Harry Giles. We look at Harry's season and say "rats, I feel for the kid, imagine how much better our team would have been if he were healthy and playing at his top form." An NBA GM looks at Harry's season and says "wow, I could have lost my job if we drafted him in the lottery last summer." Like it or not, the NCAA is a proving ground for the NBA - it allows players to be vetted at a high level and to have miles of tape of their game.


Yes, winning is very important, but only if it's done the traditional Duke way. No cheating like UNC has done for three decades; no minor league system for the NBA like that of Kentucky or Kansas--where many of the basketball players are not legitimate students. Duke has over and over again found a way to beat these shameless basketball factories fair and square on the court while using genuine four-year student-athletes. I would like to think that this OAD era at Duke is mostly a result of circumstances related to Coach K being near the end of his coaching career and feeling like he has no other choice.

I think that what you are missing is that one of the reasons that K has been so successful through his entire career rather than plateauing like Bobby Knight did, is exactly his willingness to adjust to the times. From reconciling with the fact that the Elton Brands and Maggette's of the universe were no longer 4 year players regardless of how strong his program was, to installing a zone defense to keep the opponents off guard, to putting in a system for Jay Williams to fulfill his graduation requirements (thanks mom!) while still going pro a year early... K has kept at the forefront of coaching and kept his team on top for almost 40 years.

I'd ask you at what point we abandoned the "traditional Duke way."



I hope the next coach sees things just a bit differently recruiting-wise while retaining the basic tenets of what Coach K built into the finest basketball program in the country.

All I can say is, be careful what you hope for.

[UNCfan]

All I can say is, be careful what you hope for.

Over the next decade, things will drastically change for both UNC and Duke. I hope the rivalry will not suffer for long.

[RPS]

Sports was certainly a factor in my decision to attend Duke, and I'm sure I could find quite a few references who would agree that I've helped serve the true mission both as a student and alumnus.
I wasn't clear enough. I recognize, for example, that the value of *my* degree has increased since graduation in part due to athletic success (and five NCs). My use of "overall" was to reference the universe of schools playing D1 sports. Duke does it as well as anyone, but across all D1 schools, I don't think there is a good argument that big-time sports is consistent with the mission of a university. We'd be better off hiring teams to play for schools without bothering with the charade that, say, SEC football players (as a whole) have the remotest interest in school. I highly recommend Last Chance U (https://theundefeated.com/features/netflix-documentary-last-chance-u-follows-east-mississippi-junior-college-football-team/) to get a sense of what I mean.

[RPS]

I'd ask you at what point we abandoned the "traditional Duke way."
Duke is a (relative) exception that proves the rule: big-time college sports are inconsistent with the mission of a university.

[MCFinARL]

Duke is a (relative) exception that proves the rule: big-time college sports are inconsistent with the mission of a university.

And there are others, viz., Stanford.

[Steven43]

After reading this thread my head hurts.
Well, it's complicated stuff, man. Lots of moving parts, lots of variables. Don't give up on us just yet. We're going to go after solving world peace next.

[RPS]

And there are others, viz., Stanford.
One of my sons played football at Cal, another of the (relative) exceptions. But your perspective necessarily changes when you see how the sausage is made.

[Ian]

if the best high school player or players want to come to Duke, can handle the academics, and seem like great people then Coach K or the next coach should say 'Sorry, you are too good of a player for Duke."

Is that what you guys want?

SoCal

Is it just the part of turning down a player that bothers you so much? Do you not think there are top basketball players who want to come to Duke every year that gets told "no" every year for a variety of reasons? Why is the particular reason of "detrimental to the long term continuity of the program" not a valid reason to turn somebody down?

[English]

Is it just the part of turning down a player that bothers you so much? Do you not think there are top basketball players who want to come to Duke every year that gets told "no" every year for a variety of reasons? Why is the particular reason of "detrimental to the long term continuity of the program" not a valid reason to turn somebody down?

This thread is diverging into two very loosely-related points lately, and it seems folks are talking past each other now. The general premise to open was that recruiting OADs was counterproductive to winning games, tournaments...essentially, OAD = less success. Specifically, defense suffers, coaches don't have time to coach their players, injuries impact the team more. The alternative (I'm not sure an actual alternative was ever articulated) seems to be to recruit only players that aren't cut out for the NBA, or are guaranteed (?) to stay through their max eligibility.

Now, in the past couple dozen posts, some have used this initial premise to rehash the merits of the OAD rule and those seeking early exit to be accepted at Duke, specifically. I suppose the argument is, fewer wins and less success is worth the recapturing Duke's soul, in some sense. We shouldn't recruit OADs because of the Duke tradition of elite academics. The D-III model, as an oversimplification.

While both of these concepts are loosely tied to an intentional refusal to recruit or accept premier basketball players who have either a stated or implied goal of potentially leaving Duke for riches in professional sport before their four years of eligibility have expired, they're obviously worlds apart in intent. I suggest the "OAD is antithesis to the university system" arguments be appropriately redirected into one of the many threads that address that topic.


ETA: I quoted Ian's latest post, but that was out of convenience...his didn't represent the point I was suggesting.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

This thread is diverging into two very loosely-related points lately, and it seems folks are talking past each other now. The general premise to open was that recruiting OADs was counterproductive to winning games, tournaments...essentially, OAD = less success. Specifically, defense suffers, coaches don't have time to coach their players, injuries impact the team more. The alternative (I'm not sure an actual alternative was ever articulated) seems to be to recruit only players that aren't cut out for the NBA, or are guaranteed (?) to stay through their max eligibility.

Now, in the past couple dozen posts, some have used this initial premise to rehash the merits of the OAD rule and those seeking early exit to be accepted at Duke, specifically. I suppose the argument is, fewer wins and less success is worth the recapturing Duke's soul, in some sense. We shouldn't recruit OADs because of the Duke tradition of elite academics. The D-III model, as an oversimplification.

While both of these concepts are loosely tied to an intentional refusal to recruit or accept premier basketball players who have either a stated or implied goal of potentially leaving Duke for riches in professional sport before their four years of eligibility have expired, they're obviously worlds apart in intent. I suggest the "OAD is antithesis to the university system" arguments be appropriately redirected into one of the many threads that address that topic.


ETA: I quoted Ian's latest post, but that was out of convenience...his didn't represent the point I was suggesting.

While I agree (and stated) that recent posts about the relative legitimacy of OAD players are not in line with OPs post regarding the efficacy of same players, the thread is pretty open-ended and it would seem that any conversation about one and done players would be fair game.

I am curious - those who feel the pursuit of one and done players is bad for Duke for whatever reason - what do you feel was the last year that Duke was unsullied by these players?

In today's game, Laettner and Hill don't stay four years. If you are only going for committed four year student athletes, that's fine, but recognize that our basketball will look a lot more like the Princeton or Harvard teams than the early 1990's Duke teams.

[cato]

I think most of us who are true fans of Duke University in an overall sense want to see its basketball team stocked with players who truly commit to being four-year student-athletes. They want to see Duke players mature and grow as basketball players, as students, and as people from freshman through senior year while becoming more and more immersed over time in all of the great traditions of Duke University, as well as those of its basketball team. I suspect most of these fans do not want their university to be merely a feeder system for professional basketball.

You are way off base to presume what other true fans of Duke University want. I suggest sticking to your own opinions, and leaving other of us true fans of Duke University to have their own.

[Atlanta Duke]

In today's game, Laettner and Hill don't stay four years.

Grant Hill agrees with this statement

This from an ESPN.com oral history on the 25th anniversary of The Shot

Obviously, it was a great play, but I also feel like it was symbolic of an era that is no more. What I mean by that is, that was right before the mass exodus began, with guys leaving early.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/18905808/remembering-christian-laettner-epic-ncaa-tournament-buzzer-beater-25-years-later

[SirIronDuke]

I agree 1000% with what Steven43 said above. The point of pride in Duke basketball has always been in getting good results WHILE DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.

I said the same after the 2015 championship and caught some grief on these boards for it. But it is the brand of winning while doing things right that has benefitted the University so greatly, and why the endowment grows, and the global Duke brand grows and why 30k kids apply to be part of it.

Pursuing OAD will not put more banners in the rafters than what we were doing before. And I remain baffled that the random luck of 2015 has sent the wrong message and is causing Duke to put that brand and reputation at risk.

It is not supposed to be easy to pursue greatness on multiple levels. Leave the shortcuts to the basketball factories. We are shooting for something harder and rarer.

[cato]

I agree 1000% with what Steven43 said above. The point of pride in Duke basketball has always been in getting good results WHILE DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.

I said the same after the 2015 championship and caught some grief on these boards for it. But it is the brand of winning while doing things right that has benefitted the University so greatly, and why the endowment grows, and the global Duke brand grows and why 30k kids apply to be part of it.

Pursuing OAD will not put more banners in the rafters than what we were doing before. And I remain baffled that the random luck of 2015 has sent the wrong message and is causing Duke to put that brand and reputation at risk.

It is not supposed to be easy to pursue greatness on multiple levels. Leave the shortcuts to the basketball factories. We are shooting for something harder and rarer.

Ah, Coach K. Well known for his love of shortcuts, and his overriding belief that great things come easy.

I don't understand how you can listen to the outstanding young men who come through the Duke program year after year, learning about accountability, living up to high standards and putting in work for their team and their University, and come away with the throughts you expressed above. Perhaps you are not listening to the young men themselves, but operating off a set of unfounded presuppositions?

It matters to me who represents Duke University. I have not seen any one trait that defines who is and who is not up to the task. But if there is one, it is certainly not "level of talent."

In my opinion, there is no former player that better represents the University than Grant Hill. Grant would be OAD today. Should Coach K pass on the next Grant Hill?

[Matches]

I agree 1000% with what Steven43 said above. The point of pride in Duke basketball has always been in getting good results WHILE DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY.

It is not supposed to be easy to pursue greatness on multiple levels. Leave the shortcuts to the basketball factories. We are shooting for something harder and rarer.

What is it we're shooting for? What is The Right Way?

I'm not saying that to mock - I'm genuinely curious. Because I think most on this board would eschew the idea that Duke should be a basketball factory. We all presumably love college sports but also care about the academic reputation and integrity of the University. Certainly I'd hope all of us who are alums care deeply about that.

The reality of modern college basketball is that the best players don't stay four years. It's been that way - even at Duke - for 20 years now, and we were really the last of the elite programs to deal with early entry. Nothing prevents the folks who leave early from finishing their degrees, and my understanding is that they've always been encouraged to do so.

Is there a difference between recruiting someone like Tyus Jones, who comes in expecting to be at least a 2-3 year player but ends up leaving after 1, and recruiting Okafor who clearly never intended to be here more than a year? Again, not pointing fingers, I genuinely don't know.

If ultimately the idea is that The Right Way means no early entry, or at least very limited early entry, we need to stop recruiting from the Top 50 HS guys each year. And that absolutely will affect results on the court. Is that a fair tradeoff? What exactly are we protecting?

[FadedTackyShirt]

Grant Hill agrees with this statement

This from an ESPN.com oral history on the 25th anniversary of The Shot

Obviously, it was a great play, but I also feel like it was symbolic of an era that is no more. What I mean by that is, that was right before the mass exodus began, with guys leaving early.

http://www.espn.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/18905808/remembering-christian-laettner-epic-ncaa-tournament-buzzer-beater-25-years-later

To understand how far removed we are from that era, K & the Hills put together a pre-draft panel consisting of a law professor, an economics prof, and a public policy prof to evaluate agents and marketing opportunities for Grant.

25+ years later, Cal's business school put together a 0.5 unit class for Missy Franklin and Jared Goff to perform a similar function.

All three were squeaky clean, exemplary student-athletes, who did things the right way. Only difference is two went pro early.

[RPS]

25+ years later, Cal's business school put together a 0.5 unit class for Missy Franklin and Jared Goff to perform a similar function.
It's not really related, but Cal also provides a personal finance course that is a "lite" version of the above for all athletes who hope to play (or swim or run or...) professionally.

[niveklaen]

What is it we're shooting for? What is The Right Way?

I'm not saying that to mock - I'm genuinely curious. Because I think most on this board would eschew the idea that Duke should be a basketball factory. We all presumably love college sports but also care about the academic reputation and integrity of the University. Certainly I'd hope all of us who are alums care deeply about that.

The reality of modern college basketball is that the best players don't stay four years. It's been that way - even at Duke - for 20 years now, and we were really the last of the elite programs to deal with early entry. Nothing prevents the folks who leave early from finishing their degrees, and my understanding is that they've always been encouraged to do so.

Is there a difference between recruiting someone like Tyus Jones, who comes in expecting to be at least a 2-3 year player but ends up leaving after 1, and recruiting Okafor who clearly never intended to be here more than a year? Again, not pointing fingers, I genuinely don't know.

If ultimately the idea is that The Right Way means no early entry, or at least very limited early entry, we need to stop recruiting from the Top 50 HS guys each year. And that absolutely will affect results on the court. Is that a fair tradeoff? What exactly are we protecting?


IMHO, the right way involves expecting the student athletes to be students for the duration of their time in school. I had basketball and Football players in my classes while I was at Duke. They regularly attended class. They took the same tests and handed in papers just like the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with them going pro early as long as they are real students while they are here. No one thinks that Bill Gates going pro early tarnishes Harvard's reputation. No one who is being honest with themselves thinks that they would blithely leave 7 figures on the table during the prime of a limited window for their chosen profession. Just be a student while you are here.

[Steven43]

You are way off base to presume what other true fans of Duke University want. I suggest sticking to your own opinions, and leaving other of us true fans of Duke University to have their own.
Seriously, dude?

I wrote 'I think most of us', with the key word there being THINK. Hello? That is my opinion of what I THINK. In no way did I state it as fact. Have you taken a poll of true fans of Duke University and not just fans of Duke Basketball? No? Well, I haven't either. I formed my OPINION based on years of conversations with many fans of the University as well as through reading many thousands of posts on DBR.

[Troublemaker]

Ah, Coach K. Well known for his love of shortcuts, and his overriding belief that great things come easy.

I don't understand how you can listen to the outstanding young men who come through the Duke program year after year, learning about accountability, living up to high standards and putting in work for their team and their University, and come away with the throughts you expressed above. Perhaps you are not listening to the young men themselves, but operating off a set of unfounded presuppositions?

It matters to me who represents Duke University. I have not seen any one trait that defines who is and who is not up to the task. But if there is one, it is certainly not "level of talent."

In my opinion, there is no former player that better represents the University than Grant Hill. Grant would be OAD today. Should Coach K pass on the next Grant Hill?

Wow, great job bringing the heat here, cato. I agree with you. While my preference is to, after Coach retires, recruit 4-year players, that preference has nothing to do with morality or "The Right Way," lol. It's funny to me that people actually think in those terms.

Look, as you essentially said in your great post, Coach K should be considered one of Duke University's teachers. Or more precisely, teaching is part of coaching. And yes, a lot of it has to do with teaching basketball -- which for these kids IS a career skill -- but a lot of it has to with teaching brotherhood, leadership, accountability, etc. -- life skills, you could say.

Duke has a one-year Masters program for Biomedical Sciences (https://medschool.duke.edu/education/degree-programs-and-admissions/master-biomedical-sciences). I assume that if those sites and magazines that do university rankings list Duke as one of the best schools in the country to do a one-year Masters in Biomedical Sciences, we would beam with some pride seeing our high ranking, right?

Well, to me, it's the same situation here with OADs. Due to a quirky labor agreement (i.e. the NBA's current collective bargaining agreement), we have high school students who are excellent and sometimes genius in a particular skill who are seeking universities that will provide a 1-year-program for them to hone that skill and additional life skills, and these pre-NBA students love picking Duke University because we employ a great teacher for what they're looking for. Do I also beam with pride for that? Yes, call me a dork, but I do.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

IMHO, the right way involves expecting the student athletes to be students for the duration of their time in school. I had basketball and Football players in my classes while I was at Duke. They regularly attended class. They took the same tests and handed in papers just like the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with them going pro early as long as they are real students while they are here. No one thinks that Bill Gates going pro early tarnishes Harvard's reputation. No one who is being honest with themselves thinks that they would blithely leave 7 figures on the table during the prime of a limited window for their chosen profession. Just be a student while you are here.

Is there any reason to think that our current players are not adhering to such? I'm asking honestly - the only player I've heard much about regarding academics is that Grayson is sharp, a good student, and on the Jason Williams 3 year plan.

[Ian]

Is there a difference between recruiting someone like Tyus Jones, who comes in expecting to be at least a 2-3 year player but ends up leaving after 1, and recruiting Okafor who clearly never intended to be here more than a year? Again, not pointing fingers, I genuinely don't know.


To me, there is a big difference between a player who intended to be here long term but became so good so fast that the NBA came calling early, and players who are basically set in stone that they will not stay past one year, and who frankly if they weren't forced by the NBA draft rules would have just gone straight to the NBA.

The former is completely impossible to predict and therefore unavoidable, the latter is easily avoided if one wishes to.

[Ian]

Well, to me, it's the same situation here with OADs. Due to a quirky labor agreement (i.e. the NBA's current collective bargaining agreement), we have high school students who are excellent and sometimes genius in a particular skill who are seeking universities that will provide a 1-year-program for them to hone that skill and additional life skills, and these pre-NBA students love picking Duke University because we employ a great teacher for what they're looking for. Do I also beam with pride for that? Yes, call me a dork, but I do.

The analogy does not apply, because the program that is offered is a 4 year program, the undergraduate degree is a 4 year program. If Duke is offering some junior college 1 year degree that would be one thing.

What's more for every person you admit for one year there is another person who want to be here for 4 years who are told "no" you can't be here. I don't get why people get on the soap box for having the sympathy with the 1 year guys who would be told no, and don't apparantly have sympathy with the 4 year guys who are NOW being told "no" who could be here. Can you not beam with pride for them too if they were here?

[niveklaen]

To me, there is a big difference between a player who intended to be here long term but became so good so fast that the NBA came calling early, and players who are basically set in stone that they will not stay past one year, and who frankly if they weren't forced by the NBA draft rules would have just gone straight to the NBA.

The former is completely impossible to predict and therefore unavoidable, the latter is easily avoided if one wishes to.

Should we wish to avoid players like Kyrie Irving?

(As a sidebar, I find this Tyus was a 2-3yr player who blew up meme to be odd. He was a top 10 recruit. Most top 10 recruits are OAD. Half the board believed that he would be OAD back in September of his freshman year. Maybe his OADness was not as obviously foreordained as it is with a top 5 recruit, but it could hardly count as surprising.)

[Nugget]

Is there any reason to think that our current players are not adhering to such? I'm asking honestly - the only player I've heard much about regarding academics is that Grayson is sharp, a good student, and on the Jason Williams 3 year plan.

On the whole, it does appear that the high level recruits Duke has been landing are continuing to adhere to the proposed standard summarized by the poster to whom you were responding ("be real students while you are here"). Academic All-ACC lists aren't the be-all, end-all of this, but it is worth noting (in addition to Amile making it every year and the Plumlees regularly doing so) that:

(i) Grayson has been Academic All-ACC in each of 2015, 2016 and 2017;

(ii) Chase Jeter (not an obvious OAD, but he was a Top 15 recruit) has been Academic All-ACC both of his years in school; and

(iii) Tyus Jones, Justice Winslow and Jabari Parker were all Academic All-ACC in their one year at Duke (as was Rodney Hood in 2014).

They may not have made Academic All-ACC, but certainly from news stories and general recollection, my impression was that Jah and Kyrie fully "unpacked their bags" and integrated into Duke student life.

And, from all accounts, this year's freshmen have been fine representatives for Duke and committed to the full experience for as long as they will be here. I don't see how anyone could have read the first-person pieces written by Harry or Jayson and come away with the conclusion that those are not the types of guys we should be proud to have representing Duke.

[Rich]

I don't understand how you can listen to the outstanding young men who come through the Duke program year after year, learning about accountability, living up to high standards and putting in work for their team and their University, and come away with the throughts you expressed above. Perhaps you are not listening to the young men themselves, but operating off a set of unfounded presuppositions?

One of whom believes the world is flat, but that's a whole other thread...:rolleyes:

[Matches]

Should we wish to avoid players like Kyrie Irving?

(As a sidebar, I find this Tyus was a 2-3yr player who blew up meme to be odd. He was a top 10 recruit. Most top 10 recruits are OAD. Half the board believed that he would be OAD back in September of his freshman year. Maybe his OADness was not as obviously foreordained as it is with a top 5 recruit, but it could hardly count as surprising.)

A fair point, and I apologize for perpetuating the meme. I actually wasn't surprised when he was OAD; just didn't see it as totally locked in stone the way it was with Rivers, Okafor or Tatum.

[Ian]

Should we wish to avoid players like Kyrie Irving?



What a disingenuos question. The issue here is not Irving in a vaccuum, it's Irving instead of somebody else. If the question is Irving or another person like Quinn Cook, or another person like Matt Jones, then we're talking about a real choice here.

And yes, I'll take 4 years of Quinn Cook or Matt Jones over 1 year of Kyrie Irving.

[niveklaen]

What's more for every person you admit for one year there is another person who want to be here for 4 years who are told "no" you can't be here. I don't get why people get on the soap box for having the sympathy with the 1 year guys who would be told no, and don't apparantly have sympathy with the 4 year guys who are NOW being told "no" who could be here. Can you not beam with pride for them too if they were here?

No. For every 4 year guy you say yes to you are saying no to 4 OAD players. We all got to watch Singler develop over 4 years and bring in a title. He was awesome. Compare him to 1 year each of Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum - who also gave you 1 title. That is the choice. You can have Singler or you can have Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum.

(I was going to say that you could have Marshall Plumlee or you could have Cousins, Anthony Davis, Noel, and KAT; but that did not seem like a fair comparison... :)

[Troublemaker]

The analogy does not apply, because the program that is offered is a 4 year program, the undergraduate degree is a 4 year program. If Duke is offering some junior college 1 year degree that would be one thing.

Huh?



What's more for every person you admit for one year there is another person who want to be here for 4 years who are told "no" you can't be here. I don't get why people get on the soap box for having the sympathy with the 1 year guys who would be told no, and don't apparantly have sympathy with the 4 year guys who are NOW being told "no" who could be here. Can you not beam with pride for them too if they were here?

Huh? I've already stated that I prefer 4-year student-athletes. I just don't find my preference to be morally superior to the OAD model.

[Matches]

What a disingenuos question. The issue here is not Irving in a vaccuum, it's Irving instead of somebody else. If the question is Irving or another person like Quinn Cook, or another person like Matt Jones, then we're talking about a real choice here.



Well, is it? Kyrie Irving and Tyler Thornton arrived during the same season. So did Austin Rivers and Quinn Cook. Jabari Parker and Matt Jones.

This past season was the first I can recall where we maxed out scholarships. I guess it's possible that signing a hypothetical Austin Rivers makes it less likely that we'd land a hypothetical Quinn Cook, but there's usually room for both.

[DukeandMdFan]

I don't understand how you can listen to the outstanding young men who come through the Duke program year after year, learning about accountability, living up to high standards and putting in work for their team and their University, and come away with the throughts you expressed above. Perhaps you are not listening to the young men themselves, but operating off a set of unfounded presuppositions?

In my opinion, there is no former player that better represents the University than Grant Hill. Grant would be OAD today. Should Coach K pass on the next Grant Hill?

I agree 100% on Grant Hill.

I don't want to be a jerk, but I think it is fair to say that Jahlil Okafor had some off-court problems in late 2015 that might have been avoided if he had stayed at Duke another year.

[CDu]

One clue as to Frank's decision can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZK_OPrSuQaM (at 1:50, Frank says he'll be wearing the Kyrie Duke special edition Nikes "next year").


No. For every 4 year guy you say yes to you are saying no to 4 OAD players. We all got to watch Singler develop over 4 years and bring in a title. He was awesome. Compare him to 1 year each of Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum - who also gave you 1 title. That is the choice. You can have Singler or you can have Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum.

(I was going to say that you could have Marshall Plumlee or you could have Cousins, Anthony Davis, Noel, and KAT; but that did not seem like a fair comparison... :)

And beyond that, Singler is a big exception to the rule. He was a top-10 recruit in a loaded recruiting class. That he stayed 4 years - despite being an impact starter from day one - is an absolute anomaly. It's just as appropriate to say that, for every Hairston or Jefferson you get, you lose a scholarship available for a Parker, a Winslow, an Ingram, and a Tatum. Because very few 4-year guys are going to be as impactful as Singler was. More likely, your best-case scenario is getting guys like Jones and Jefferson: guys who are role players as underclassmen who may eventually become impact players as juniors and seniors. But you could just as easily end up with guys like Dockery or Hairston: guys who never got better than role players.

[CDu]

Well, is it? Kyrie Irving and Tyler Thornton arrived during the same season. So did Austin Rivers and Quinn Cook. Jabari Parker and Matt Jones.

This past season was the first I can recall where we maxed out scholarships. I guess it's possible that signing a hypothetical Austin Rivers makes it less likely that we'd land a hypothetical Quinn Cook, but there's usually room for both.

This is true. In nearly every class, we've complemented a one-and-done with a longer-term guy:

2011: Irving with Thornton and Curry (transfer)
2012: Rivers with Cook and Gbinije
2013: no one and dones. 4-year types Sulaimon, Jefferson, Murphy, and Plumlee
2014: Parker and Hood (transfer) with Jones and Ojeleye
2015: the one exception. Okafor, Jones, and Winslow with just Allen as a long-term guy
2016: Ingram with Kennard, Thornton, Jeter, Vrankovic, and Obi (transfer)
2017: Tatum, Giles, and Bolden with Jackson, DeLaurier, and White

[Steven43]

This is true. In nearly every class, we've complemented a one-and-done with a longer-term guy:

2011: Irving with Thornton and Curry (transfer)
2012: Rivers with Cook and Gbinije
2013: no one and dones. 4-year types Sulaimon, Jefferson, Murphy, and Plumlee
2014: Parker and Hood (transfer) with Jones and Ojeleye
2015: the one exception. Okafor, Jones, and Winslow with just Allen as a long-term guy
2016: Ingram with Kennard, Thornton, Jeter, Vrankovic, and Obi (transfer)
2017: Tatum, Giles, and Bolden with Jackson, DeLaurier, and White

Foid for thought: Did you happen to notice how many of those longer-term guys ended up transferring away from Duke? And I think Jeter and/or DeLaurier could soon join them. If nothing else it is worth thinking about.

[niveklaen]

Foid for thought: Did you happen to notice how many of those longer-term guys ended up transferring away from Duke? And I think Jeter and/or DeLaurier could soon join them. If nothing else it is worth thinking about.

While many of them did transfer, that is neither really a new nor a growing phenomenon. From 03-08 we lost Michael Thompson, Andre Buckner, Jamal Boykin, Eric Boateng, and Taylor King all to transfer. Shifting to OADs did not cause an increase in the number of transfers.

[sagegrouse]

No. For every 4 year guy you say yes to you are saying no to 4 OAD players. We all got to watch Singler develop over 4 years and bring in a title. He was awesome. Compare him to 1 year each of Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum - who also gave you 1 title. That is the choice. You can have Singler or you can have Parker, Winslow, Ingram, and Tatum.

(I was going to say that you could have Marshall Plumlee or you could have Cousins, Anthony Davis, Noel, and KAT; but that did not seem like a fair comparison... :)

I think you have to look at the entire roster of scholarship players, not just a one-on-one (or four) comparison. We are rarely utilizing all 13 allowed scholarships for productive or soon-to-be productive players. Therefore, the trade-off for a four (or-five year player) is less.

Here is some musing that no one should take too seriously:

Ah yes, a steady-state solution to a Markov process! (Just kidding!)

Suppose, over time we recruit two one-and-done players every year (actual, not expected), plus one two-and-done player, and two four-year players. That's five recruits every year. In steady-state (do this four years in a row), we have a roster of --

2 OAD's (2 x 1)
2 two-and-dones (1 x 2)
8 four-year players (2 x 4)
12 roster players

The "rotation" is two OAD'S, two 2AD's, and four four-year players. There are four extra players on the bench, who don't get a lot of playing time.

I think you are postulating a situation where we recruit three four-year players every year, and, therefore, we squeeze out the OAD's, because three four-year players a year means that there are already 12 players on the roster and no room for talent.

But, I submit, that's not the way the world works, at Duke or elsewhere. We will take our full complement of top talent and allow for attrition among those who don't develop as fast who will leave in search of playing time. Will we have to kick players out? Hasn't happened yet; people leave. for example, the list of transfers for playing time at Duke is pretty long -- six in the past ten years: King, EWill, Czyz, Gbinije, Murphy, Ojeleye. I didn't include DThornton.

We have not had to turn down a top-ten recruit yet due to roster space. If we get a surfeit of top-ten talent, then there is less playing time for others and the rosters adjusts accordingly.

[FadedTackyShirt]

Liked and admired Duke hoops long before I went to school there, but would not have even applied or still be a fan if it had been a crappy school or I didn't cherish my Duke friends or the academic experience.

The morality play is painful. As a student, roomed with, had classes with, and interacted with Olympic champions, top 5 NBA picks, world record holders, top ten NFL picks, NCAA champions, and future MLB players. Couple are still household names and HOFers. Good luck sorting out which ones went to Duke, Cal, Stanford, UCLA, UVa, or USC. Some became CEOs and some of them should have never been admitted to elite universities.

Not his strongest book, but Tom Wolfe's, "I Am Charlotte Simmons" based on his daugher's experiences at Duke (plus Stanford and Michigan) is mostly over the top, but still not outside the realm of possibility for ambitious athletic/academic powers over the last four decades.

There are 13 hoops and 85 football scholarships. As long as they love the school, meet admissions standards, legitimately try academically, and are great in the community, they aren't dragging down great universities. Far more troubled by moronic classmates who added nothing academically, save for having the same surname as prominent campus buildings. Their presence precluded more deserving applicants. Big fan of four year Wake player Timmy Duncan. One year Wake masters program in sports storytelling, not so much.

[Steven43]

While many of them did transfer, that is neither really a new nor a growing phenomenon. From 03-08 we lost Michael Thompson, Andre Buckner, Jamal Boykin, Eric Boateng, and Taylor King all to transfer. Shifting to OADs did not cause an increase in the number of transfers.
While you are certainly correct from a numbers standpoint, I don't think any conclusions can be drawn in comparing transfers during the '03-08 years to those of the recent OAD years. The reasons for the '03-08 transfers might be considerably different ftom the OAD era transfers.

It could be that we are losing a higher quality of player than we used to and that might be directly related to bringing in high-level OADs seemingly every year now. I don't know and you don't know. It's just something to think about, that's all.

[SoCalDukeFan]

Hmm, I think you are overstating things maybe just a little bit. Nobody is saying Duke shouldn't get great basketball players. I think the main point was wanting to get the best basketball players/students who do NOT want to be OAD. If a player wants to be OAD I would prefer he go elsewhere. I'm sort of confused as to why this idea is rankling certain Duke fans so much. Just because colleges created the OAD rule for basketball does not mean Duke has to play along. Should Duke really be recruiting OAD players just like Kentucky? Seriously, I think something has gone wrong when Duke and Kentucky are fighting each other over players who are not really serious about being college students. Is Kentucky one of the top 10 academic schools in the entire country like Duke is? They probaby are not even in the top 100. So why should Duke be playing the game the same way they do? When high school players were allowed to go straight to the NBA this problem did not really exist. Why does college football mandate a player stay a minimum of three years but college basketball only one? I HATE the OAD rule with a passion and wish it would be smashed to pieces forever. That's just the way I feel. I absolutely hate it.

First of all no one really knows who is one and done and who is not, see Luol Deng. Secondly college football does not mandate that a player stay three years, its the NFL who says a player has to be 3 years past high school or something before playing in the NFL. Colleges did not create the one and one rule, the NBA did.

I also hate the one the done. I wish it was none and done. Then players who think they are good enough for the NBA and prefer that to college can go right after high school. However I do't know how you, me or the NCAA can change the rule.

So we have the one and done. We have a coach who wants to compete and wants to have the best players he can recruit. He backs off from those with perceived character or academic issues. This is exactly what I, and I think most Duke fans, want.

Lets say Duke recruits a player who does not project as one and done., Tyus Jones for example. With the Duke system and coaching he has a fabulous frosh year and goes to the NBA. Would you say Duke should stop doing such a good job of coaching?

At one time Coach K required study hall for freshmen players, I assume that the still does. My understanding is that players go to the same classes as non-athletes. I don't know what goes on at Kentucky but the scandal at unc-heaters tells us what went on there. So I think Duke can recruit one and dones but still be different from other schools recruiting the same players.

Lastly the reason why some schools don't have any one and dones is because they were not able to recruit them. I want to see the coach who would not have recruited Jason Tatum say if Jason said he wanted to go to his school.

SoCal

[Wahoo2000]

Don't ignore the role injuries have played in Duke OAD-era bball. Let's not forget that since the start of our OAD recruiting focus beginning in 2010-11 with Kyrie, we are quite possibly one Kyrie toe and one Ryan Kelly foot from an additional two FF/Natties, and that is before the ridiculousness that was this season. Injuries are part of the game, but we have suffered some particularly inconvenient ones, and they certainly can't be attributed to OAD recruiting.

This season was completely disrupted in most every way imaginable, but I don't see how that is OAD-related. Two fewer injuries since 2010-11, and we could be looking at two NCAAs and serious shots at two more from 2010-2016. I have no problems with that whatsoever.

Perhaps the tendency for fans to succumb to "New Shiny Toy" syndrome regarding each recruiting class (a fact to which anyone who has ever looked at a DBR offseason minutes prediction thread - wait, isn't that all preseason threads? - can attest), multiplied exponentially by the press and hype of top recruits, sometimes multiple OADs per class, and increasing fan and press exposure to high school players results in even higher expectations than those usually borne by a top program like Duke? Maybe the problem lies less with the recruiting strategy, and at least somewhat fans' diminished ability to endure the usual vagaries of a college season due to even higher expectations?

Whew - this post is from waaaaaaay back in the thread, and may have already been responded to similarly by others. If so, apologies for being repetitive.

Without data to back it up, I'll say that it seems logical that freshmen would be IMMENSELY more likely to have injury issues. They're less developed physically and they're having much more physically demanded OF them. Especially in your system, where these guys are going to be asked to compete at the highest level, often for 35+ mpg. I can't say it with the certainty I'd have if there was data to back it up, but it seems almost TOO obvious that a OAD-laden team would be more likely to have injury issues than a team stocked with Jrs and Srs who have multiple years of top-level S&C, physical growth and development, and experience.

[RPS]

At one time Coach K required study hall for freshmen players, I assume that the still does.
I believe that virtually every school provides something like this as well as tutors and academic counselors of various kinds. Kids who prove they can handle the academics can quickly be excused. My son got out within a couple of weeks (at Berkeley) when it became clear that he was being pressured to spend the time helping his classmates/teammates.

[niveklaen]

I think you have to look at the entire roster of scholarship players, not just a one-on-one (or four) comparison. We are rarely utilizing all 13 allowed scholarships for productive or soon-to-be productive players. Therefore, the trade-off for a four (or-five year player) is less.

Here is some musing that no one should take too seriously:

Ah yes, a steady-state solution to a Markov process! (Just kidding!)

Suppose, over time we recruit two one-and-done players every year (actual, not expected), plus one two-and-done player, and two four-year players. That's five recruits every year. In steady-state (do this four years in a row), we have a roster of --

2 OAD's (2 x 1)
2 two-and-dones (1 x 2)
8 four-year players (2 x 4)
12 roster players

The "rotation" is two OAD'S, two 2AD's, and four four-year players. There are four extra players on the bench, who don't get a lot of playing time.

I think you are postulating a situation where we recruit three four-year players every year, and, therefore, we squeeze out the OAD's, because three four-year players a year means that there are already 12 players on the roster and no room for talent.

But, I submit, that's not the way the world works, at Duke or elsewhere. We will take our full complement of top talent and allow for attrition among those who don't develop as fast who will leave in search of playing time. Will we have to kick players out? Hasn't happened yet; people leave. for example, the list of transfers for playing time at Duke is pretty long -- six in the past ten years: King, EWill, Czyz, Gbinije, Murphy, Ojeleye. I didn't include DThornton.

We have not had to turn down a top-ten recruit yet due to roster space. If we get a surfeit of top-ten talent, then there is less playing time for others and the rosters adjusts accordingly.

I can agree with this. There is definitely room for both OADs and 4 year players. That steady state you described sounds awesome - can we make that a reality? ;)

[English]

Whew - this post is from waaaaaaay back in the thread, and may have already been responded to similarly by others. If so, apologies for being repetitive.

Without data to back it up, I'll say that it seems logical that freshmen would be IMMENSELY more likely to have injury issues. They're less developed physically and they're having much more physically demanded OF them. Especially in your system, where these guys are going to be asked to compete at the highest level, often for 35+ mpg. I can't say it with the certainty I'd have if there was data to back it up, but it seems almost TOO obvious that a OAD-laden team would be more likely to have injury issues than a team stocked with Jrs and Srs who have multiple years of top-level S&C, physical growth and development, and experience.

This is an interesting point--I think the primary injury considerations in the thread so far have involved: 1) the decline in results, including defensive efficiency numbers, could be explained as much by Duke's injuries as the introduction of more OADs; 2) the Duke team may be less prepared to absorb injuries to key players because the team is younger with OADs. Of course, there has been argument of either side throughout the thread.

The data you reference would certainly be of interest to me, but like you, I don't have it. As an athlete that has experienced chronic foot issues (stress fractures to the 5th metatarsal, predominantly), I can sympathize that overuse is a total bummer, and I'm not even flirting with 6'10. I'd guess that the injuries to young college players, if supported by data, would be trending down as the proliferation of year-round, high-level AAU circuit ball trends up. Kids are more conditioned to intense competition full-time and their bodies aren't "shocked" by the uptick entering college. Or, perhaps they're even more worn down by the time they get to the first offseason pre-college S&C programs. Of course, that is all a layman's speculation without data, and probably best left to the orthos and internists.

Either way, interesting point, and something worthwhile to consider.

[arnie]

While I agree (and stated) that recent posts about the relative legitimacy of OAD players are not in line with OPs post regarding the efficacy of same players, the thread is pretty open-ended and it would seem that any conversation about one and done players would be fair game.

I am curious - those who feel the pursuit of one and done players is bad for Duke for whatever reason - what do you feel was the last year that Duke was unsullied by these players?

In today's game, Laettner and Hill don't stay four years. If you are only going for committed four year student athletes, that's fine, but recognize that our basketball will look a lot more like the Princeton or Harvard teams than the early 1990's Duke teams.

I think the more appropriate comparison would be UVA teams. They've done very well with no OADs that I recall.

[Wahoo2000]

I think the more appropriate comparison would be UVA teams. They've done very well with no OADs that I recall.

Yeah - I think the model most likely to compete with the one-and-done model is one that would recruit guys in the 20-50 range that are ok with playing a lesser role and learning the system their first 2 years, then blossoming into all-league/all-american types in their 3rd and/or 4th years.

We hadn't had that much recruiting success with those guys until this season, and it was obvious that while guys like Jerome, Guy, and Diakite are very talented, they aren't game-changers as freshmen. Give them a couple years in the system and some good S&C, and I think they'll be excellent - probably have us right back to where we were a couple of seasons ago with a few more additions of the like.

[FadedTackyShirt]

Really like Tony Bennett, but his time in Wisconsin/system artificially depresses UVa's ceiling (same applied to Bo Ryan).

Entire state of WI has a million people less than the SF Bay Area. Bennetts and Ryan may not have had recruiting access to great talent in the UW system or Washington State, but has a lot more possibilities at UVa. Lost 4 consecutive ACC games this season and the Florida game was painful.

Posters underestimate Amile's and Matt's contributions, but they also underestimate attracting and nuturing talent and the burden of being the hunted rather than the hunter.

Bennett had to unleash Man Bun and Jerome on offense to salvage this season and he'll need better talent and looser reins on offense to inherit the next generation of the ACC.

[Troublemaker]

Either way, interesting point, and something worthwhile to consider.

Definitely something to keep in mind. At the same time, some of the season-affecting injuries have been to upperclassmen. Amile broke his foot as a senior and suffered a bone bruise as a graduate student. Ryan Kelly had foot injuries as a junior and senior. Grayson suffered various ailments this season as a junior. Seth Curry was a redshirt senior. Regardless, it's something to keep in mind. Good post Wahoos!

[CDu]

Definitely something to keep in mind. At the same time, some of the season-affecting injuries have been to upperclassmen. Amile broke his foot as a senior and suffered a bone bruise as a graduate student. Ryan Kelly had foot injuries as a junior and senior. Grayson suffered various ailments this season as a junior. Seth Curry was a redshirt senior. Regardless, it's something to keep in mind. Good post Wahoos!

Yeah, we'd actually been fairly injury-free among our freshman until this year. We had the Irving injury, obviously, but that was the only significant injury to a freshman that we've had in a long time. The majority of the major injuries have been - as Troublemaker said - to some of our oldest players.

[AFL]

Your posts have not been objective and they are the definition of inflammatory. You just spout something about Duke being pathetic and nothing changes until K leaves, etc. You are adding zero to the discussion. Zero.

You continuing with the personal attacks are just making you look silly. Are you simply starved for attention? If you can't handle an open and honest discussion, then maybe this board isn't the place for you.

[homebre]

You are way off base to presume what other true fans of Duke University want. I suggest sticking to your own opinions, and leaving other of us true fans of Duke University to have their own.
My wife and I are Duke Alums (1971 for myself, she was a grad student), but we love Duke basketball. I have to say, I am torn--I love for Duke to win, but I do not enjoy the OAD except for the fun of seeing their skills. To us, seeing players like Plumlee(s), Matt Jones, and Jefferson develop, lead, and give their heart and soul to Duke means much more. I hope Grayson and Luke stay 4 years. Look at Williams and Hurley whose pro careers evaporated due to accidents. They still have their 4 years at Duke forever. Who will really remember Okafor, Ingram, Parker, Jones, Winslow, etc. in 10 years? Who will remember Kyle Singler, Seth Curry, Jeff Capel, Bobby Hurley, Christian, Grant, Shelton Williams, etc. I know we will.

Andy class of 1971

[chriso]

Coach K will continue to recruit the best players. He just needs to figure out how to get said players to play defense better.

I think balancing one and done players and 4 year players is much harder than it appears. Like many have said, it is hard to know who will be one and done and high school rankings, like tournament seeding, is based on a moment in time and reputation to an extent. Players at that age are still developing and it is impossible to tell who has peaked and how much people will improve, not to mention the nature of someone's work ethic. And keeping players is tough as well, as top players rarely will stay at a school if they do not crack the rotation by the second year. And some just want to be closer to home. And I agree that a healthy Giles and Bolden would have made us a much better team and hidden most of our weaknesses. I'm hoping that Jackson Kennard and Bolden come back, and Jeter and Delaurier and Vrank and White develop into solid role players. If Grayson comes back great but I think we need one of Grayson or Luke to return or we'll be super young. Stating the obvious here I know. If that happens we'll be fine. :cool:

[sagegrouse]

Be realistic and face the facts. Duke was the unanimous preseason favorite to win it all. To lose in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to a team who hadn't won a tournament game in over 40 years is unacceptable. The time has come for some serious soul-searching.

OK, OK. I mean this kindly, but you need to pay some dues before stomping your foot -- you've been on DBR barely two months and have only 50+ posts. Many others here have been discussing Duke and basketball for years and years on DBR. I look forward to your observations now and in the future, but -- please -- more light and less heat. (Of course, 'cuz we're the Devils not the angels, some extra heat is to be expected.)

Duke was preseason #1 on the basis of four returning players -- only one a star -- and the top recruiting class. This is a pretty shaky endorsement -- not that our credentials weren't better than others, but that there was so much built-in uncertainty given the nature of the team.

Then there were the injuries. Grayson was crippled for much of the season, as was Amile. Three of our four star freshmen were sidelined for a large part of the season. Moreover, we were very thin inside (in more than one sense), despite the intense play of Amile and the development of a rail-thin Jayson.

Man, did we ever struggle on the road in the ACC! Although there two signature wins at Notre Dame and Virginia, teams with little inside strength, we had a 3-6 road record in the ACC. This was our worst ACC road record since 1995 (yikes!).

Our NCAA tournament result was not inconsistent with a team that was 11-7 in the ACC (if we count the ACCT, 15-7!). The fact that Duke lost to a school not known for basketball is a curiosity, but the Gamecocks sported the SEC POY and a bunch of other good players, especially at guard. Frank Martin is a proven coach, and he got away with having his team play very physically against the Devils. And, of course, it was a road game for Duke -- not this team's strength.

[RPS]

And, of course, it was a road game for Duke -- not this team's strength.
Be careful. Mom-conference road games are a major point of contention. :)

[brevity]

Be careful. Mom-conference road games are a major point of contention. :)

I realize this isn't your father's ACC anymore, but...

[ChillinDuke]

Be realistic and face the facts. Duke was the unanimous preseason favorite to win it all. To lose in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to a team who hadn't won a tournament game in over 40 years is unacceptable. The time has come for some serious soul-searching.

I'll face a bunch of facts:

1) Duke was the unanimous preseason favorite to win it all. Agreed, that's a fact. But in hindsight, it was not a fair fact. Three of our four impact freshmen (which were a very significant part of that prediction) were injured to start the season.

2) To lose in the second round of the NCAA Tournament to a team who hadn't won a tournament game in over 40 years is unacceptable. This is not a fact; it's your opinion. But I'll "face" it anyway... Why in the world is this unacceptable? It's unfortunate and a bit surprising, but I would never characterize this loss as unacceptable. First off, we got past Troy with more or less zero resistance. To lose that game would have potentially been unacceptable. To lose a game against a ~Top 30 team with a conference POY in front of a pretty raucous anti-Duke crowd was not at all shocking. Once I heard the dynamic inside the arena, this game struck me as completely loseable. If it didn't strike you as that, then you can do your own soul-searching, I'll save my own, thanks. Further, what does 40 years have to do with anything. South Carolina 40 years ago has nothing to do with South Carolina today. Frank Martin wasn't there 40 years ago. Neither were any of these players, nor potentially some of their fathers. Zero bearing on anything. They are still a major conference team. Heck, they were a 7-seed. 7 seeds beat 2 seeds almost every year in the NCAAT.


OK, OK. I mean this kindly, but you need to pay some dues before stomping your foot -- you've been on DBR barely two months and have only 50+ posts. Many others here have been discussing Duke and basketball for years and years on DBR. I look forward to your observations now and in the future, but -- please -- more light and less heat. (Of course, 'cuz we're the Devils not the angels, some extra heat is to be expected.)

Duke was preseason #1 on the basis of four returning players -- only one a star -- and the top recruiting class. This is a pretty shaky endorsement -- not that our credentials weren't better than others, but that there was so much built-in uncertainty given the nature of the team.

Then there were the injuries. Grayson was crippled for much of the season, as was Amile. Three of our four star freshmen were sidelined for a large part of the season. Moreover, we were very thin inside (in more than one sense), despite the intense play of Amile and the development of a rail-thin Jayson.

Man, did we ever struggle on the road in the ACC! Although there two signature wins at Notre Dame and Virginia, teams with little inside strength, we had a 3-6 road record in the ACC. This was our worst ACC road record since 1995 (yikes!).

Our NCAA tournament result was not inconsistent with a team that was 11-7 in the ACC (if we count the ACCT, 15-7!). The fact that Duke lost to a school not known for basketball is a curiosity, but the Gamecocks sported the SEC POY and a bunch of other good players, especially at guard. Frank Martin is a proven coach, and he got away with having his team play very physically against the Devils. And, of course, it was a road game for Duke -- not this team's strength.

Well said, Sage. Just wanted to offer some added support.

- Chillin

[rsvman]

Others have stated this really well upthread, but I don't think it's necessarily always so obvious who is going to be OAD, and I don't think turning down a good player who is also a good kid and would be a good representative of the university makes much sense.

For the most part, I have really liked our OAD players. Although I don't know them personally, many of them seem to be young men of character, discipline, and thoughtfulness. Jabari Parker is committed to helping the kids of inner city Chicago; trying to make the world a better place. He fought back from injury, showing great resolve and became a very good player again through his hard work. Harry Giles has displayed nothing but teamwork and good sportsmanship throughout a very tough year; his essay about why he wanted to play instead of rest up for the NBA was a really good read. Jayson Tatum also seems like a grounded kid; although his play was in the stratosphere, every single time I heard him interviewed he was gracious and deferred most of the praise to his teammates and coaches.

Why, exactly, do people not like these guys?


As long as Coach K continues to attempt to get kids who will buy into the concept of a team and who are young men of character, I will continue to not concern myself as to whether they represent Duke for one year or four.

[Steven43]

Others have stated this really well upthread, but I don't think it's necessarily always so obvious who is going to be OAD, and I don't think turning down a good player who is also a good kid and would be a good representative of the university makes much sense.

For the most part, I have really liked our OAD players. Although I don't know them personally, many of them seem to be young men of character, discipline, and thoughtfulness. Jabari Parker is committed to helping the kids of inner city Chicago; trying to make the world a better place. He fought back from injury, showing great resolve and became a very good player again through his hard work. Harry Giles has displayed nothing but teamwork and good sportsmanship throughout a very tough year; his essay about why he wanted to play instead of rest up for the NBA was a really good read. Jayson Tatum also seems like a grounded kid; although his play was in the stratosphere, every single time I heard him interviewed he was gracious and deferred most of the praise to his teammates and coaches.

Why, exactly, do people not like these guys?


As long as Coach K continues to attempt to get kids who will buy into the concept of a team and who are young men of character, I will continue to not concern myself as to whether they represent Duke for one year or four.

I appreciate your thoughts and understand where you're coming from except for your comment of 'Why exactly do people not like these guys'. That is quite confusing. I don't recall even one poster saying they don't like these guys.

Not wanting Duke to be a OAD program--Duke is getting as many recruits that are thought of to be OADs as any program in the country save maybe Kentucky, which makes Duke ablout as much of a OAD program as they could possibly be--has nothing to do with the personal character of the OAD-type recruits who end up choosing Duke. They're more than likely really great guys. That's not the point.

[CDu]

OK, OK. I mean this kindly, but you need to pay some dues before stomping your foot -- you've been on DBR barely two months and have only 50+ posts. Many others here have been discussing Duke and basketball for years and years on DBR. I look forward to your observations now and in the future, but -- please -- more light and less heat. (Of course, 'cuz we're the Devils not the angels, some extra heat is to be expected.)

Duke was preseason #1 on the basis of four returning players -- only one a star -- and the top recruiting class. This is a pretty shaky endorsement -- not that our credentials weren't better than others, but that there was so much built-in uncertainty given the nature of the team.

Then there were the injuries. Grayson was crippled for much of the season, as was Amile. Three of our four star freshmen were sidelined for a large part of the season. Moreover, we were very thin inside (in more than one sense), despite the intense play of Amile and the development of a rail-thin Jayson.

Man, did we ever struggle on the road in the ACC! Although there two signature wins at Notre Dame and Virginia, teams with little inside strength, we had a 3-6 road record in the ACC. This was our worst ACC road record since 1995 (yikes!).

Our NCAA tournament result was not inconsistent with a team that was 11-7 in the ACC (if we count the ACCT, 15-7!). The fact that Duke lost to a school not known for basketball is a curiosity, but the Gamecocks sported the SEC POY and a bunch of other good players, especially at guard. Frank Martin is a proven coach, and he got away with having his team play very physically against the Devils. And, of course, it was a road game for Duke -- not this team's strength.

I agree with everything in this post. I think some folks coming in need to do a better job of "reading the room" before they start firing away with posts. This site is - intentionally - not like other message boards. It's not intended to be a place to just sound off frustration and blast the program after a frustrating loss. If that's what one is looking for, there are other sites to go to.

One can certainly voice frustration after a loss. But doing it constructively is required. Nobody is happy that we lost in the 2nd round. But we lost a road game to a top-30 team. It's basically the rough equivalent of losing at Miami, only South Carolina is better. It happens. It stinks, but it happens. I share the frustration the poster has (as do we all, I'm sure). But the reality is these things can happen. We have had a #2 seed lose before the sweet 16 in just about every season for years and years. It stinks that it was us, but it happens. And it is especially possible for it to happen when you essentially play a road game against a tough 7-seed.

Saying that the loss is "unacceptable" is ridiculous. Saying that we failed to meet unrealistic expectations is ridiculous. Those expectations assumed a team that never existed (Giles simply hasn't gotten back to where he was when he earned a top-5 recruit label; Allen got hurt; Jefferson got hurt; Coach K had surgery). Had we been a healthy team all season, I think this season would have gone much differently. But nothing that happened this year that should be considered "unacceptable." Frustrating? Yes. Disappointing? Absolutely. Unacceptable. Not even close.

[Hauerwas]

Since K and Duke have gone head long into the one and done era, the last five years have experienced unique NCAA tournament results. 3 out of the last 5 years Duke has failed to make it out of the first weekend. That has only happened ONE other time in the K era and that was between 95-99. ONE other time.

Of course, nobody can discount the National Championship in 2015 and nobody should realistically assume Duke can/should compete for titles every year, but the failure to make it out of the first weekend this many times should at least cause anyone with any sort of realistic opinion of the program to question whether or not the one and done strategy is sustainable and built for tournament success.

On top of that. Duke has failed to win the ACC regular season title at all in the one and done era.

On the flip side, Kentucky (sans '13) has only failed to make it out of the first weekend once since 2010, and has in fact made it to the elite 8 or farther every year since 2010.

For UNC, you have to go all the way back to 2006 to find 3 years during this span that they did not make it out of the first weekend.

All in all, if anyone believes the one and done era has been an overwhelming success for Duke and K I'm just not sure you are paying attention to the correct data points.

Nobody expects championships every year. You have to honor the process, but with the one and done era there really doesn't seem to be a process. It's just hoping to catch lightning in a bottle.

[RPS]

I realize this isn't your father's ACC anymore, but...
I resemble that remark...