DBR Podcast Episode 78: Recruiting, Who's Leaving, Who's Staying

[blazindw]

We're baaaaack! Episode 78 is ready for your eardrums. Take a listen!

https://soundcloud.com/dbrpodcast/dbr-podcast-78-comings-and-goings

Timestamps:
0:00 Hello, this may be EpI'm a real wanker for saying this.#78I'm a real wanker for saying this.but Sam and Jason explain “the missing podcast” that happened but got trashed before being posted.
2:05 Donald joins us and explains where he has been… Downunder
2:35 Sam launches the discussion about Duke’s roster, those leaving and coming… this could get a bit haphazard.
4:10 We start with Frank Jackson’s decision to enter the draft… Jason seems to have a bunch of intel on this including some speculation about who might take Frank in the draft.
8:30 On to recruiting, our 6-man recruiting class is mostly comprised of kids from Atlanta, GA
12:00 The Trevon Duval conversion begins and Donald compares him to John Wall and (pre-injury) Derek Rose. Wow!
16:15 The conversation turns to the big men. Will Duke play 2 traditional bigs at one time?
21:10 Time for a debate about minutes/rotation. This was inevitable. Sam thinks the bigs won’t play as much as others have predicted.
27:05 Prediction time… who will be our second leading scorer next season? Sam gets a history lesson.
30:55 Sam wants us to talk about the one-and-done trend at Duke. We understand it, we accept it, but we are not fans of it. You can hear the strain and the angst in this discussion.
41:00 Jason says what we need to look at is not the one-and-done players, it is the players who could be here long term but who leave via transfer.
46:30 Sam time travels 10 years in the future and says we will barely remember Jabari Parker, Brandon Ingram, and other one-and-done guys… and that is a shame.
51:00 Jason dissects why players rush to the NBA and has a suggestion for how to fix the flawed NBA Draft system
58:20 Parting shot – Jason on the Duke teams still competing for a national championship
1:00:50 Parting shot – Donald gives a travel update and shout out to the American Outlaws
1:01:45 Parting shot – Sam on the woes of being a DC sports fan… which Jason says does not compare to getting crushed in the Super Bowl
1:06:50 Bye bye… and Duke band


Links:

iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dbr-podcast/id954964236?mt=2)
Google Play (https://goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ikxgkr6wboxnehrbaoqd47vw4gq?t%3DDuke_Basketball_Re port)
Soundcloud (https://soundcloud.com/dbrpodcast)
Stitcher (http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/58077/details)

[Dukehky]

We're baaaaack! Episode 78 is ready for your eardrums. Take a listen!

https://soundcloud.com/dbrpodcast/dbr-podcast-78-comings-and-goings

Timestamps:
0:00 Hello, this may be EpI'm a real wanker for saying this.#78I'm a real wanker for saying this.but Sam and Jason explain “the missing podcast” that happened but got trashed before being posted.
2:05 Donald joins us and explains where he has been… Downunder
2:35 Sam launches the discussion about Duke’s roster, those leaving and coming… this could get a bit haphazard.
4:10 We start with Frank Jackson’s decision to enter the draft… Jason seems to have a bunch of intel on this including some speculation about who might take Frank in the draft.
8:30 On to recruiting, our 6-man recruiting class is mostly comprised of kids from Atlanta, GA
12:00 The Trevon Duval conversion begins and Donald compares him to John Wall and (pre-injury) Derek Rose. Wow!
16:15 The conversation turns to the big men. Will Duke play 2 traditional bigs at one time?
21:10 Time for a debate about minutes/rotation. This was inevitable. Sam thinks the bigs won’t play as much as others have predicted.
27:05 Prediction time… who will be our second leading scorer next season? Sam gets a history lesson.
30:55 Sam wants us to talk about the one-and-done trend at Duke. We understand it, we accept it, but we are not fans of it. You can hear the strain and the angst in this discussion.
41:00 Jason says what we need to look at is not the one-and-done players, it is the players who could be here long term but who leave via transfer.
46:30 Sam time travels 10 years in the future and says we will barely remember Jabari Parker, Brandon Ingram, and other one-and-done guys… and that is a shame.
51:00 Jason dissects why players rush to the NBA and has a suggestion for how to fix the flawed NBA Draft system
58:20 Parting shot – Jason on the Duke teams still competing for a national championship
1:00:50 Parting shot – Donald gives a travel update and shout out to the American Outlaws
1:01:45 Parting shot – Sam on the woes of being a DC sports fan… which Jason says does not compare to getting crushed in the Super Bowl
1:06:50 Bye bye… and Duke band


Links:

iTunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/dbr-podcast/id954964236?mt=2)
Google Play (https://goo.gl/app/playmusic?ibi=com.google.PlayMusic&isi=691797987&ius=googleplaymusic&link=https://play.google.com/music/m/Ikxgkr6wboxnehrbaoqd47vw4gq?t%3DDuke_Basketball_Re port)
Soundcloud (https://soundcloud.com/dbrpodcast)
Stitcher (http://app.stitcher.com/browse/feed/58077/details)

D-Dub,

Just a heads up, at some point you said that Jordan Tucker had excellent defensive abilities (coulda been Sam, can't remember). I don't think that's accurate. His lateral quickness is average and he doesn't explode off the court at all. He has an elite skill, and that is shooting the 3.

[Furniture]

Looking forward to listen to this tonight with a glass of wine sitting outside in the wonderful weather we have here in NC at the moment!

[Troublemaker]

D-Dub,

Just a heads up, at some point you said that Jordan Tucker had excellent defensive abilities (coulda been Sam, can't remember). I don't think that's accurate. His lateral quickness is average and he doesn't explode off the court at all. He has an elite skill, and that is shooting the 3.

Well, Coach K did praise Tucker's defense and called him a complete player, although I suppose everything is supposed to be roses in the press releases announcing commitments to Duke and departures from Duke.

Overall, I am taking a cautious approach and leaning towards thinking his scouting reports that say he needs to improve his defense are correct. But I'll also keep an open mind that he could very well turn out to be a good defender, making that press release correct.

[blazindw]

D-Dub,

Just a heads up, at some point you said that Jordan Tucker had excellent defensive abilities (coulda been Sam, can't remember). I don't think that's accurate. His lateral quickness is average and he doesn't explode off the court at all. He has an elite skill, and that is shooting the 3.

That was me, and that was based off a bunch of videos I watched on him when he committed. He doesn't have a lot of quickness, but he has a knack for reading passing lanes and does have quick hands. His elite skill is undoubtedly the 3, but as we all know under Coach K is that defense can keep you in the rotation. I think Tucker could see some extra time based on his defense on the ball and his ability to get steals.

[Dukehky]

That was me, and that was based off a bunch of videos I watched on him when he committed. He doesn't have a lot of quickness, but he has a knack for reading passing lanes and does have quick hands. His elite skill is undoubtedly the 3, but as we all know under Coach K is that defense can keep you in the rotation. I think Tucker could see some extra time based on his defense on the ball and his ability to get steals.

That's fair, but if I were to make a comparison to someone else Duke has had as a freshman, I see him as someone far more akin to Andre Dawkins than Matt Jones (both came in as shooters, but Matt played because of his defense, Dre played to give Nolan and Jon a breather, but would have played for his shooting). If that makes sense.

Also, if someone can find me a video of Tucker dunking, I'd be really thankful. I know that he can, but I haven't seen it in any highlight video.

I know this isn't the thread for this, feel free to move it.

Listened to the pod today during lunch, enjoyed it, thanks fellas.

[JasonEvans]

Any thoughts or comments on my sliding scale NBA Draft solution?


If you come out after your freshman year, your rookie contract goes 5 years (2 years guaranteed, 3 years with team options each year)
After you soph season, team control for 4 years (2 years guaranteed, 2 years with team options each year)
Junior season puts you under team control for only 3 years (2 years guaranteed and a 1 year team option)
Senior season also puts you under team control for 3 years (all 3 years guaranteed)

This system would reward kids who stay in school longer by making them eligible for free agency quicker. I think it is also good for NBA teams because it gives them more control over the really young guys who may take a little longer to develop.

-Jason "a win-win... zero percent chance the NBA and the PA agree to it" Evans

[ChillinDuke]

Any thoughts or comments on my sliding scale NBA Draft solution?


If you come out after your freshman year, your rookie contract goes 5 years (2 years guaranteed, 3 years with team options each year)
After you soph season, team control for 4 years (2 years guaranteed, 2 years with team options each year)
Junior season puts you under team control for only 3 years (2 years guaranteed and a 1 year team option)
Senior season also puts you under team control for 3 years (all 3 years guaranteed)

This system would reward kids who stay in school longer by making them eligible for free agency quicker. I think it is also good for NBA teams because it gives them more control over the really young guys who may take a little longer to develop.

-Jason "a win-win... zero percent chance the NBA and the PA agree to it" Evans

Yes, actually. I came to this thread to ask you a question explicitly on this topic (just listened to the podcast, btw - I don't get to listen to every single one but you guys do a good job).

In your sliding scale model, doesn't this incentivize an NBA front office to go after a young guy because they may get them cheap for longer? And if so, doesn't that essentially do the opposite of what NBA teams are trying to accomplish with the OAD rule (i.e. - barring themselves from choosing unproven kids too young and getting burned)?

Haven't thought about it in depth, but that was what struck me when listening to the proposal.

- Chillin

[JasonEvans]

In your sliding scale model, doesn't this incentivize an NBA front office to go after a young guy because they may get them cheap for longer? And if so, doesn't that essentially do the opposite of what NBA teams are trying to accomplish with the OAD rule (i.e. - barring themselves from choosing unproven kids too young and getting burned)?

I suppose that if a club felt a freshman and a junior had equal chances of success, they might draft the freshman because they get him 2 years longer, but I think cases like that would be sorta rare. Teams generally have a real sense of who they feel is the best player on the board at a given moment. I really doubt NBA teams are going to take a lesser player just because they may control him for 1 or 2 more seasons. As a NBA GM, you are rarely more than a couple bad seasons from being fired. So, gambling on a youngster who you think is a lesser player merely because you would control him for an extra couple years is a real good way to get fired.

The longer control is the carrot that gets the NBA teams to buy into this. What I was seeking was a way to reward guys who stay in school a bit longer (quicker free agency) while also designing something that the NBA would accept because it contained something good for them. I'm telling you, one major reasons guys rush to the NBA today is to get their free agency clock ticking. If you remove that incentive from the equation, then I think we would see at least a few more of these kids coming back to school for an extra year or two.

--Jason "Maybe I am wrong... I dunno. I would really love the baseball model, but I don't think the PA will ever go for it" Evans

[ChillinDuke]

I suppose that if a club felt a freshman and a junior had equal chances of success, they might draft the freshman because they get him 2 years longer, but I think cases like that would be sorta rare. Teams generally have a real sense of who they feel is the best player on the board at a given moment. I really doubt NBA teams are going to take a lesser player just because they may control him for 1 or 2 more seasons. As a NBA GM, you are rarely more than a couple bad seasons from being fired. So, gambling on a youngster who you think is a lesser player merely because you would control him for an extra couple years is a real good way to get fired.

The longer control is the carrot that gets the NBA teams to buy into this. What I was seeking was a way to reward guys who stay in school a bit longer (quicker free agency) while also designing something that the NBA would accept because it contained something good for them. I'm telling you, one major reasons guys rush to the NBA today is to get their free agency clock ticking. If you remove that incentive from the equation, then I think we would see at least a few more of these kids coming back to school for an extra year or two.

--Jason "Maybe I am wrong... I dunno. I would really love the baseball model, but I don't think the PA will ever go for it" Evans

I hear you. I don't know either.

My gut says it would be more common than you seem to think. But it's tough to say. Plus the fact that GMs can get canned makes me think there's two sides to that coin as well, some may try to hit singles but some may go for homers.

The one fact we do know is that before the OAD rule was implemented, GMs simply couldn't help themselves from going for the shiny new hotness in it's youngest, most untested, highest theoretical upside form. So from that perspective, why do we think they wouldn't fall into the same trap again and just go for longer controlled youth over shorter controlled quality?

- Chillin

[CDu]

I am not sure I see how this sliding scale creates an incentive for college players to stay in school. They don't gain anything. In fact, it costs them money.

Let's compare two hypothetical scenarios:
1. Leave as a frosh: make $5 mill year 1, $6 million year 2, $7 million year 3, $8 million year 4, $9 million year 5. At age 24, become a free agent, having made $35 million

2. Stay until junior year: no money soph year, no money junior year, $6 million year 1, $7 million year 2, $8 million year 3. At age 24, become a free agent having made $21 million.

Why would a kid decide to stay for that? It is certainly less awful than waiting a year and not getting closer to free agency, but it isn't exactly a huge incentive.

Furthermore, the shorter time to free agency for upperclassmen would make them less appealing than a younger player. Teams are already passing on upperclassmen in favor of freshmen as it is, and that is without any penalty compared to freshmen. Take away two years of cost-controlled rights, and teams are going to be even less likely to take the veteran.

So not only does it not really create an incentive for a kid to stay, it indirectly creates a disincentive for them to stay (by penalizing teams that draft older players). So I would guess anyone remotely likely to go pro early would do so in that model.

[mattman91]

Why should there be an incentive for having these guys stay in school? If they are ready, let them go. If they are not ready and fail, that is their own fault. They should just go back to the old rule.

It's selfish for us to want our most talented players to stay in school when they could be chasing their dreams and being paid generously to do so.

If your son was offered a 7 figure salary to leave college after his freshman year, would you REALLY want him to stay in school? You can always go back, but you don't always have 2nd chances to be a first round pick. Anything can happen.

Sorry to be a downer. I really do enjoy the Podcasts! Keep them coming, always an enjoyable show.

[JasonEvans]

I am not sure I see how this sliding scale creates an incentive for college players to stay in school. They don't gain anything. In fact, it costs them money.

Let's compare two hypothetical scenarios:
1. Leave as a frosh: make $5 mill year 1, $6 million year 2, $7 million year 3, $8 million year 4, $9 million year 5. At age 24, become a free agent, having made $35 million

2. Stay until junior year: no money soph year, no money junior year, $6 million year 1, $7 million year 2, $8 million year 3. At age 24, become a free agent having made $21 million.

Why would a kid decide to stay for that? It is certainly less awful than waiting a year and not getting closer to free agency, but it isn't exactly a huge incentive.

Furthermore, the shorter time to free agency for upperclassmen would make them less appealing than a younger player. Teams are already passing on upperclassmen in favor of freshmen as it is, and that is without any penalty compared to freshmen. Take away two years of cost-controlled rights, and teams are going to be even less likely to take the veteran.

So not only does it not really create an incentive for a kid to stay, it indirectly creates a disincentive for them to stay (by penalizing teams that draft older players). So I would guess anyone remotely likely to go pro early would do so in that model.

You may be right, but the numbers you are talking about are guys who are drafted in the same place and get the same contract, which doesn't fully account for what I am talking about. It is generally accepted that when a top talent -- a guy who was going to go in the lottery or soon after -- returns to school, his draft stock will likely improve (assuming he plays as expected). Miles Bridges is an excellent example of this. Back in mid-April, before he decided to return to school, he was projected as a late lottery pick (Draftexpress had him #11). But, when he announced he would return to MSU and he was shifted to the 2018 mock, everyone moved him up (Draftexpress has him #6 in 2018, here is their mock draft history (http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Miles-Bridges-81785/mock-draft-history/) for him.

Now, the salary difference in #11 and #6 is significant. The first 3 years for this year's #11 pick (http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/rookie_scale/2018) will be $2,420,400 $2,872,900 $3,357,000 for a total of $8.65 million. The first 3 years for the 2018 #6 pick (http://basketball.realgm.com/nba/info/rookie_scale/2019) will be $3,983,100 $4,664,900 $4,887,100 for a total $13.53 million.

Ordinarily you might look at the $5 mil difference in those two situations and say, "stay another year! No brainer to take $5 million more." But, as I pointed out in the podcast, the guy who comes out this year is going to become a free agent sooner. If Miles Bridges is going to play until he is 35, the $5 mil more he earns in his first 3 years is dwarfed by the fact that he gets to be a free agent (and perhaps make $20 mil or more per season) at age 24 instead of age 25.

But, under my plan Miles Bridges reached free agency at age 24 no matter what. So, while he made $2.42 mil this year (versus playing for free in college), he makes up for that zero dollar year by being drafted higher and by not missing a year of free agency.

Look, guaranteed first round money is a great incentive and it is always going to entice kids to turn pro, but getting that clock started on your big-money free agency is also a major part of the allure of turning pro early. I know some folks who are in this game (sports agents and a few folks in NBA front offices) and they all say the free agent clock is an extremely powerful motivator for the lottery guys. Jayson Tatum knows he is going to be a high lottery pick no matter when he comes out. But, he also knows that if he came back to school he'd be delaying his free agency. I think my plan takes that portion of the math out of the equation.

-Jason "look, nothing is perfect and I'm not entirely sure what we have today is all that awful... but I'd love to find a way to keep some guys in school a tiny bit longer... and it must be a proposal that both the PA and the Owners would accept" Evans

[Saratoga2]

Changing the subject to a question that I have thought about. How would a team comprised of the top McDonald's talent this year fare against one of the expected top 5 teams? I chose Michigan State as that team since they are experienced and are certainly one of the top teams. Here you have inexperienced kids with great talent going up against an experienced team with proven talent. My guess is the McDonalds team gets beaten, even later in the season.

This year if Duke stays with the usual depth of rotation we will be much like a freshmen dominated team with Grayson being the only major player with significant college experience. Bolden has some experience, but is largely like a freshman. Good luck to our kids as they try to learn defenses, get physically stronger and to learn to play cohesively.

[chriso]

Changing the subject to a question that I have thought about. How would a team comprised of the top McDonald's talent this year fare against one of the expected top 5 teams? I chose Michigan State as that team since they are experienced and are certainly one of the top teams. Here you have inexperienced kids with great talent going up against an experienced team with proven talent. My guess is the McDonalds team gets beaten, even later in the season.

This year if Duke stays with the usual depth of rotation we will be much like a freshmen dominated team with Grayson being the only major player with significant college experience. Bolden has some experience, but is largely like a freshman. Good luck to our kids as they try to learn defenses, get physically stronger and to learn to play cohesively.

That is an interesting question and I agree the McDonalds team would probably lose most of the time. But add an All American senior and a sophomore and you've got a good shot. :)

[Saratoga2]

That is an interesting question and I agree the McDonalds team would probably lose most of the time. But add an All American senior and a sophomore and you've got a good shot. :)

That is what may bring us further as i am a proponent of having an experienced leader on the floor. Amile was that guy last year, although we had several others. This year it will be Grayson alone as Bolden can hardly be categoroized as experienced.

[JasonEvans]

Bolden can hardly be categoroized as experienced.

Well... depends on what "experienced" means. If we define it as only having game-time knowledge then you are accurate in stating that Grayson is our only truly experienced player. But I think there are other aspects of college hoops that Bolden and Vrank and other guys who have been in the program understand that they can help the freshmen to understand -- things like the wear and tear of the travel schedule, what practices are like, how to conduct yourself around the media crush of being at Duke, and the expectations of being a part of the Duke program. Those are things you learn at least a little bit about whether you are playing in the games or not.

Still, we come into this coming season with a wildly inexperienced team. I bet they suffer some growing pains early in the year, but by February...

Oh, and I think the Mickie Dee team would destroy Michigan State or any other college team next year -- maybe not the first few weeks of the season while the freshmen learned about playing at the college level, but by the time you got to December, the Mickie Dee team would be killing everyone. The 15th man, the last guy on scholarship, for the Mickie Dee team would be a guy who was a likely starter on just about any team in the country next year. The Mickie Dee team would run like crazy and just wear teams down. It would be blow-out city.

We don't know the incoming freshmen all that well yet, so we are discounting their abilities, but imagine if last year you had a team that was:
Lonzo Ball at PG, Markelle Fultz at SG, Josh Jackson at SF, Jason Tatum at PF, and Jarett Allen at Center. After they run hard for 5 minutes, you bring in Dennis Smith Jr and DaArron Fox at the guards, TJ Leaf and Jonathan Issac at forwards, and Zach Collins at center and you run some more. I'd love to see any NCAA team stay within 15 points of those guys.

--Jason "sorry, but the notion that 15 of the 25 members of the McDonald's team would not dominate college hoops is laughable" Evans

[UrinalCake]

Enjoyed the podcast as always. Totally agree with Jason's comment that it's not the elite OAD's that have hurt us, it's the guys ranked just below the OAD's who have left early, either to the NBA or by transfer, that have left us short on experience and having to turn over the entire core of the team every year. Allow me to explain...

When we recruit the elite OAD-level guys, we know from the very beginning that they're only going to be at Duke for a year. We plan on it, we build the team around it, and we recruit their replacement the following season by pitching to them that the previous year's player will be gone. And so Jabari begat Okafor who begat Ingram who begat Tatum and Giles who begat Carter. Call it the book of Duke-erotomy.

But the guys ranked in the 15-50 range we expect to be here for at least 2-3 years. When Tyus and Winslow (who I do not consider OAD's based on their expectations at the time they were recruited) left after one season, it left us very shorthanded. Losing Tyus left us without a PG for the next two seasons. We were okay with it because they brought us a title. But Luke and Frank leaving earlier than expected is not something we planned for, it leaves us painfully short on experience and they failed to bring us any hardware other than this year's ACCT. Having players exceed expectations is a good thing of course, but it feels like we've had it happen a lot lately.

Then there's the issue of transfers. Every top program is going to lose players to transfer. Typically it's when a player arrives and realizes the level of competition is too high and decides to go to a smaller school where he can get more playing time. But in our case, we've lost players to other top-level power 5 schools, which doesn't make any sense. Gbinije went to Syracuse, which at the time was ranked just as high as us and had impending NCAA penalties. There is no conceivable reason why a player should leave Duke to go to Syracuse. Jeter is going to Arizona, which will probably be the #1 team entering next season and has the #1 overall recruit coming in at his position. Derryck Thornton left a team in which he would have been the only point guard on the roster and given the keys to the most talented collection of players we've ever seen. His father apparently thought he was a OAD talent, yet he's willing to sit out a year rather than play for us. So I really do think something is up with all of these transfers.

But getting back to my point, I don't think it would help our cause to simply stop recruiting the top 15 players in each class. If we bring in one or two OAD's each year, we'll know what we're getting. I do think we need to do a better job of retaining the talented players below those guys who we do get. As Jason alluded to, if Javin had decided to transfer after this past season I don't think it would have shocked anyone. Guys like him, Tucker, Vrank, White, etc. need to have a chance to develop. Perhaps there is a connection between the two - that K feels like he needs to play the OAD guys 38 minutes a game in order to keep them happy, at the expense of the bench players. I can't imagine that's the case though, as playing the starters 30 minutes and leaving 10 for the backups would be perfectly reasonable.

[blazindw]

But the guys ranked in the 15-50 range we expect to be here for at least 2-3 years. When Tyus and Winslow (who I do not consider OAD's based on their expectations at the time they were recruited) left after one season, it left us very shorthanded. Losing Tyus left us without a PG for the next two seasons. We were okay with it because they brought us a title. But Luke and Frank leaving earlier than expected is not something we planned for, it leaves us painfully short on experience and they failed to bring us any hardware other than this year's ACCT. Having players exceed expectations is a good thing of course, but it feels like we've had it happen a lot lately.

In Frank's case, he was the #10 recruit on the ESPN100. By that meter, it shouldn't have been a surprise that he was leaving. I think the surprise came because before the season very few thought he was a surefire OAD and after having what many call a good-not-great season, he still left. It's probably also because in our minds, Frank was the player of the class that would stay a few years. There were probably more people before the seasons started that thought Bolden would go before Frank, and Bolden was ranked lower in the ESPN100 (#16). Still, the possibility was always that these guys could go or at least consider it.

[ChillinDuke]

In Frank's case, he was the #10 recruit on the ESPN100. By that meter, it shouldn't have been a surprise that he was leaving. I think the surprise came because before the season very few thought he was a surefire OAD and after having what many call a good-not-great season, he still left. It's probably also because in our minds, Frank was the player of the class that would stay a few years. There were probably more people before the seasons started that thought Bolden would go before Frank, and Bolden was ranked lower in the ESPN100 (#16). Still, the possibility was always that these guys could go or at least consider it.

I agree that these guys all had a chance to be OAD. And I also would add Tyus and Justise into this bucket. We know that going in when we recruit them, and I agree we're prepared for that possibility and have it baked into our plans.


Enjoyed the podcast as always. Totally agree with Jason's comment that it's not the elite OAD's that have hurt us, it's the guys ranked just below the OAD's who have left early, either to the NBA or by transfer, that have left us short on experience and having to turn over the entire core of the team every year. Allow me to explain...

When we recruit the elite OAD-level guys, we know from the very beginning that they're only going to be at Duke for a year. We plan on it, we build the team around it, and we recruit their replacement the following season by pitching to them that the previous year's player will be gone. And so Jabari begat Okafor who begat Ingram who begat Tatum and Giles who begat Carter. Call it the book of Duke-erotomy.

But the guys ranked in the 15-50 range we expect to be here for at least 2-3 years. When Tyus and Winslow (who I do not consider OAD's based on their expectations at the time they were recruited) left after one season, it left us very shorthanded. Losing Tyus left us without a PG for the next two seasons. We were okay with it because they brought us a title. But Luke and Frank leaving earlier than expected is not something we planned for, it leaves us painfully short on experience and they failed to bring us any hardware other than this year's ACCT. Having players exceed expectations is a good thing of course, but it feels like we've had it happen a lot lately.

Then there's the issue of transfers. Every top program is going to lose players to transfer. Typically it's when a player arrives and realizes the level of competition is too high and decides to go to a smaller school where he can get more playing time. But in our case, we've lost players to other top-level power 5 schools, which doesn't make any sense. Gbinije went to Syracuse, which at the time was ranked just as high as us and had impending NCAA penalties. There is no conceivable reason why a player should leave Duke to go to Syracuse. Jeter is going to Arizona, which will probably be the #1 team entering next season and has the #1 overall recruit coming in at his position. Derryck Thornton left a team in which he would have been the only point guard on the roster and given the keys to the most talented collection of players we've ever seen. His father apparently thought he was a OAD talent, yet he's willing to sit out a year rather than play for us. So I really do think something is up with all of these transfers.

But getting back to my point, I don't think it would help our cause to simply stop recruiting the top 15 players in each class. If we bring in one or two OAD's each year, we'll know what we're getting. I do think we need to do a better job of retaining the talented players below those guys who we do get. As Jason alluded to, if Javin had decided to transfer after this past season I don't think it would have shocked anyone. Guys like him, Tucker, Vrank, White, etc. need to have a chance to develop. Perhaps there is a connection between the two - that K feels like he needs to play the OAD guys 38 minutes a game in order to keep them happy, at the expense of the bench players. I can't imagine that's the case though, as playing the starters 30 minutes and leaving 10 for the backups would be perfectly reasonable.

I really agree with the bolded point on transfers. Gbinije, Ojeleye, Thornton, and Jeter are the exact type of guys that we can't be losing as a program. They're clearly high D-1 talents that simply weren't ready in Year 1 or Year 2; they just need time and nurturing. The fact that they opt to leave Duke for "greener" pastures in the form of major programs (Syracuse, SMU, USC, Arizona) is, frankly, disturbing. Call it what you want - culture shifts, problematic parents, inflated egos, plain old bad decisions, etc - Duke needs to do a better job, as a program, to retain these sorts of players. They are the real backbone of cohesion and experience that we will lack in certain years (next season, for example).

I won't go so far as to call it a big problem, but it's certainly unsettling.

- Chillin

ETA - And before any rebuts by saying, "kids are gonna transfer, it's the way of the world these days." Well, two can play at that game. And Duke should. Look at Kansas.