How About Reason to Discuss the Merits of OAD?

[BD80]

calipari asks NBAPA to eliminate OAD.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/john-calipari-asks-the-nba-players-association-to-help-bring-an-end-to-the-one-and-done-era/


Maybe we can cleanse all other threads of OAD discussion and move it here.

[MCFinARL]

calipari asks NBAPA to eliminate OAD.

https://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/john-calipari-asks-the-nba-players-association-to-help-bring-an-end-to-the-one-and-done-era/


Maybe we can cleanse all other threads of OAD discussion and move it here.

Yes, and then we can take this thread and drop it in the bottom of the ocean.

Seriously, I like the concept, but I doubt we can all exercise the self-restraint to keep from turning every thread into either a discussion of the merits of OAD or a discussion of minutes.

[cruxer]

Nice idea, but OAD is such an overwhelming influence in MBB that almost any off-season thread would have reason to touch on it. There's another thread about the commission report that's due Wednesday. Another good reason to discuss OAD! Recruiting? OAD! Who will win next year? OAD! :cool:

[drummerdevil]

FWIW, the take I got on the Calipari article was that he wants players to have to stick around longer, and I’m pretty sure that it’s because Cal is jealous he isn’t getting the top recruits anymore and doesn’t want anyone to have them if he doesn’t get them. Did I miss anything?

[Troublemaker]

FWIW, the take I got on the Calipari article was that he wants players to have to stick around longer, and I’m pretty sure that it’s because Cal is jealous he isn’t getting the top recruits anymore and doesn’t want anyone to have them if he doesn’t get them. Did I miss anything?

College basketball coaches have to be salesmen. Whether Calipari in his heart wants OAD or doesn't want OAD, the outward image he has to project is of someone who doesn't want OAD and wants players to be able to go straight to the league out of high school. He's on their side, in other words. That's the main driver of his comments, imo, and it'll be hard to find any power conference coach who is on record as supporting forcing players to go to college.

[weezie]

Perhaps an OAD Vigil is in order?

What was really behind the FBI investigations anyway? Tax evasion on the big wigs and connecting influence peddling to the shoe companies? The money paid to college players was peanuts.

Now that the G League is announcing "big" pay bumps for players, it's going to sway middling talent out of college far more so than the top prospects who might still want the chance to get national teevee exposure and up their draft value at the big programs while living in relative comfort. That's a bit different than the college baseball arrangement with MLB.

[elvis14]

I never really liked the OAD rule but I was more or less apathetic about it until we started to lose more and more of our players. Taking the temperature on the board, I don't think I'm in the minority. Losing guys like Tyus, Frank and Harry prior to this year and then losing our entire starting lineup (instead of just GA) this year has really effected how I feel about the OAD. And how I feel about it affects greatly what I think about it. When other teams were losing guys to the NBA, I didn't feel it and I didn't care. Now I feel it, it feels like crap and I don't like it.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I never really liked the OAD rule but I was more or less apathetic about it until we started to lose more and more of our players. Taking the temperature on the board, I don't think I'm in the minority. Losing guys like Tyus, Frank and Harry prior to this year and then losing our entire starting lineup (instead of just GA) this year has really effected how I feel about the OAD. And how I feel about it affects greatly what I think about it. When other teams were losing guys to the NBA, I didn't feel it and I didn't care. Now I feel it, it feels like crap and I don't like it.

In fairness, a lot of us predicted we were going to lose our 5 starters this year and most certainly Tatum and Giles last year. I was expecting Bolden on bounce and Frank to stay. I got the two reversed.

I have no problem with OADs; I even think it's more fun to follow them in the NBA. I mean, look how many alums we have in the playoffs!

However, there is no question that I do not have as much of an emotional attachment to these players, which likely lowers my overall interest in Duke basketball (which is probably a good thing). I loved the Redicks, Scheyers, Nolan Smiths, and Cooks of the world. It was so much more fun when you could see players develop from bench/role players to All-Americans. And for our returning players, I just kinda feel bad (referencing Bolden and DeLaurier). They are recruited over, which does make complete strategic sense because there are better players available (so why wouldn't you recruit better players?).

I'm excited about RJ, Cam, and Zion, but moreso because they are incredible talents rather than watching them develop. It's just a change in priority from focusing so heavily on OADs.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I have no problem with OADs; I even think it's more fun to follow them in the NBA. I mean, look how many alums we have in the playoffs!



I think "former players" is a better description than "alums" as, to my knowledge, none of these former players have graduated. I know Kyrie says that he plans to but one year of classes doesn't get you very far towards a degree, and by being a part of successful teams making deep playoff runs, he hasn't had much opportunity to take summer classes.

I really dislike the idea of OAD and hope it is eliminated as soon as possible. If you want to go to school, go to school. If you don't, don't. But don't force people to go to school when they don't have any desire to be there. I'm not saying this applies to our OADs, just the concept in general.

I admire that Coach K and Duke always want to be the best at everything and there are many players who arrive with every intention to stay for a few years and then get an offer they can't refuse from the NBA, but I am not a fan of OAD and though I love seeing the superstars pass through Durham every year, my love of Duke basketball that started well before I matriculated at the university is not what it once was. And though I greatly enjoy following recruiting, I do not enjoy the annual need to have a perfect class because the cupboard is bare - so far it has worked out really well for us, but that could change very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about whether the plan to replace OAD should require this who matriculate to be required to stay for a few years or not. But either way, I think that after a few years of everything sorting itself out, most players will end up either going straight to the NBA or sticking around for a few years.

Now get off my lawn...

[Sir Stealth]

I think "former players" is a better description than "alums" as, to my knowledge, none of these former players have graduated. I know Kyrie says that he plans to but one year of classes doesn't get you very far towards a degree, and by being a part of successful teams making deep playoff runs, he hasn't had much opportunity to take summer classes.



By technical definition you are an alum from the first day you attend classes. You don't have to graduate to be an alumnus/a, just attend a school, so even current students are alumni. Kyrie would be an alum even if he played even fewer games than he did and never again set foot in North Carolina other than to play the Hornets.

Edit: I acknowledge that the technical definition does not necessarily match the way that the term is generally used/understood, but I think especially in the context of players going on to the NBA that it's correct to call them "alumni" even if they aren't Duke "graduates."

[CrazyNotCrazie]

By technical definition you are an alum from the first day you attend classes. You don't have to graduate to be an alumnus/a, just attend a school, so even current students are alumni. Kyrie would be an alum even if he played even fewer games than he did and never again set foot in North Carolina other than to play the Hornets.

Edit: I acknowledge that the technical definition does not necessarily match the way that the term is generally used/understood, but I think especially in the context of players going on to the NBA that it's correct to call them "alumni" even if they aren't Duke "graduates."

Thanks - I did not know that. My apologies to the original poster for the correction, though the rest of my comments still apply.

[Sir Stealth]

Thanks - I did not know that. My apologies to the original poster for the correction, though the rest of my comments still apply.

I actually went to the DAA bylaws out of curiosity (since I believe that any alumni association can set it's own requirements for membership) and found:

3.1 Qualifications. Members of this Association are all persons who have
completed at least two consecutive semesters of work towards a degree
from Duke University or its predecessor Trinity College.

https://alumni.duke.edu/bylaws

Hopefully even our OAD players are following through enough in their second semesters to qualify.

[NSDukeFan]

By technical definition you are an alum from the first day you attend classes. You don't have to graduate to be an alumnus/a, just attend a school, so even current students are alumni. Kyrie would be an alum even if he played even fewer games than he did and never again set foot in North Carolina other than to play the Hornets.

Edit: I acknowledge that the technical definition does not necessarily match the way that the term is generally used/understood, but I think especially in the context of players going on to the NBA that it's correct to call them "alumni" even if they aren't Duke "graduates."

Do you have to actually attend the classes on that first day, or just be enrolled in courses. Asking for a school.

[Reilly]

Do you have to actually attend the classes on that first day, or just be enrolled in courses. Asking for a school.

Those schools could follow the 'how much vermouth in a martini?' rule advocated by some -- where you just have the person wave in the classroom's general direction, and that's sufficient.

[Troublemaker]

And though I greatly enjoy following recruiting, I do not enjoy the annual need to have a perfect class because the cupboard is bare - so far it has worked out really well for us, but that could change very quickly.

I'm not sure why this would be a negative for you, though. If Duke happens to strike out on OAD recruits, then we would fill out the class with non-OAD players, which theoretically would be viewed as a positive. I mean, we're going to field a roster of 10-13 scholarship players every season regardless; it's just a matter of how many of those players are OADs.

That's why I've always advised not getting too bothered by the OAD era. It's impossible for Duke to continue recruiting at the level we're recruiting, and any slip in recruiting power will cause the "reset" into a more normal program (i.e. one that doesn't have multiple freshmen leave for the draft every year) that people theoretically desire. Now, would that first season after the reset potentially be relatively painful in terms of wins and losses? Maybe. But everyone keeps saying they miss the days when they could watch players develop and improve over more than one season. The proof will be in the pudding. Part of that process is watching the players struggle early in their careers.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I never really liked the OAD rule but I was more or less apathetic about it until we started to lose more and more of our players. Taking the temperature on the board, I don't think I'm in the minority. Losing guys like Tyus, Frank and Harry prior to this year and then losing our entire starting lineup (instead of just GA) this year has really effected how I feel about the OAD. And how I feel about it affects greatly what I think about it. When other teams were losing guys to the NBA, I didn't feel it and I didn't care. Now I feel it, it feels like crap and I don't like it.

I am not sure we have "lost" many to the NBA because of the one and done rule. Many of those who left Duke after one year would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Its really more like we "found" a year of Bagley, Carter etc. because of the rule. I think most, but not all, of those who left Duke recently after a year fit into that category.

I don't like the rule at all but with the rule I don't see what else K can do Obviously some players are ready for the NBA after high school so why force them to wait a year? If you are Coach K are you not going to recruit the Marvin Bagley's of the world because you will only have him for a year? And maybe have to play against him for a year? What would be the outcry here if Coach K had said before the early signing period that he was not going to offer a scholarship to Barrett, Williamson, Reddish and Jones because there was too high a likelihood that each would be here a year?

SoCal

[elvis14]

However, there is no question that I do not have as much of an emotional attachment to these players, which likely lowers my overall interest in Duke basketball (which is probably a good thing). I loved the Redicks, Scheyers, Nolan Smiths, and Cooks of the world. It was so much more fun when you could see players develop from bench/role players to All-Americans. And for our returning players, I just kinda feel bad (referencing Bolden and DeLaurier). They are recruited over, which does make complete strategic sense because there are better players available (so why wouldn't you recruit better players?).

I'm excited about RJ, Cam, and Zion, but moreso because they are incredible talents rather than watching them develop. It's just a change in priority from focusing so heavily on OADs.

That first paragraph above describes me and other people I have talked to quite well. For me, I want that emotional attachment, it's a big part of being a fan. After what happened the last 2 years (7 OAD players), I have to admit, I'm not yet excited about RJ, Cam and Zion. I'm more excited for AOC, Jack, Javin, Goldwire and Bolden.




I really dislike the idea of OAD and hope it is eliminated as soon as possible. If you want to go to school, go to school. If you don't, don't. But don't force people to go to school when they don't have any desire to be there. I'm not saying this applies to our OADs, just the concept in general.

Now get off my lawn...

Another paragraph that I agree with. Fix the G-League and give players a viable option other than pretending to be college students.

[Matches]

Another paragraph that I agree with. Fix the G-League and give players a viable option other than pretending to be college students.

I'm not sure there's really a way to fix the G-League that makes it a viable option for the MBIIIs of the world. No matter how you configure it, the G-League will always be the minor leagues. If guys are ready to play in the NBA, let them play in the NBA.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm not sure why this would be a negative for you, though. If Duke happens to strike out on OAD recruits, then we would fill out the class with non-OAD players, which theoretically would be viewed as a positive. I mean, we're going to field a roster of 10-13 scholarship players every season regardless; it's just a matter of how many of those players are OADs.

That's why I've always advised not getting too bothered by the OAD era. It's impossible for Duke to continue recruiting at the level we're recruiting, and any slip in recruiting power will cause the "reset" into a more normal program (i.e. one that doesn't have multiple freshmen leave for the draft every year) that people theoretically desire. Now, would that first season after the reset potentially be relatively painful in terms of wins and losses? Maybe. But everyone keeps saying they miss the days when they could watch players develop and improve over more than one season. The proof will be in the pudding. Part of that process is watching the players struggle early in their careers.

The 2017-2018 roster is a perfect example of the risks involved. Let me preface my comments by saying that I have no idea what was going on behind the scenes and our confidence level regarding signing different players. And no one can be certain of the cause and effect of one guy leaving influencing another to show up, and vice versa.

Tatum and Giles were guaranteed to leave the prior team. By the end of the season, it was highly certain that Luke was leaving, and that was not influenced at all by who we were signing. Grayson was up in the air. Jackson was the one wild card. Duval signed shortly after Jackson hired an agent, so one could argue that we basically traded Jackson for Duval.

But let's say that this didn't influence Duval to come to Duke. By then it is mid-May and there aren't a lot of players available who we would have felt comfortable playing major minutes. And let's say that Bagley isn't able to reclassify. I don't think any of us would have been very happy with this year's team if it didn't include Duval and Bagley. Those are the chances one takes in the one and done era, and fortunately it has worked out thus far. And this is also why Coach K is paid a lot more than I am - to calculate the risk and probability of different guys signing and hopefully hedging himself as much as possible. But occasionally even the best risk manager or trader has things blow up.

[elvis14]

I'm not sure there's really a way to fix the G-League that makes it a viable option for the MBIIIs of the world. No matter how you configure it, the G-League will always be the minor leagues. If guys are ready to play in the NBA, let them play in the NBA.

I agree about sending the MBIII's of the world directly to the NBA. The very top prospects don't need the G-League. But what about guys like Frank and Tyus or any one of the 100+ guys who have declared early? There are 60 draft spots for those guys (plus seniors and international players). Yes, the G-League will always be the minor leagues and that's exactly that the NBA needs is a proper, well funded minor league.

[Kedsy]

But what about guys like Frank and Tyus or any one of the 100+ guys who have declared early?

I don't understand what you mean here. I doubt either Frank Jackson or (especially) Tyus Jones would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. They left after one year of college and both got drafted and both got guaranteed, multi-year NBA contracts (not two-way or G-League or undrafted free agent).

The fact is, the OAD discussion as it is framed by most people wouldn't really affect guys like Frank or Tyus or Justise or Luke Kennard or Rodney Hood or (probably) Gary Trent. Unless they mandated a MLB-type rule forcing kids who go to college at all to stay multiple years, all those guys still would have played briefly in college and then left exactly when they did.

[Matches]

I agree about sending the MBIII's of the world directly to the NBA. The very top prospects don't need the G-League. But what about guys like Frank and Tyus or any one of the 100+ guys who have declared early? There are 60 draft spots for those guys (plus seniors and international players). Yes, the G-League will always be the minor leagues and that's exactly that the NBA needs is a proper, well funded minor league.

I just don't think that guys like Frank or Tyus will ever choose the minor leagues over college, regardless of how said minor league is configured or how little interest they may have* in being college students. Maybe they would if there was a baseball-style rule forcing guys to stay in college for three years, but I think that's a non-starter in basketball.


* I don't mean to imply that Tyus or Frank or anyone specifically didn't want to be a student. I don't know them and have no idea.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I am not sure we have "lost" many to the NBA because of the one and done rule. Many of those who left Duke after one year would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Its really more like we "found" a year of Bagley, Carter etc. because of the rule. I think most, but not all, of those who left Duke recently after a year fit into that category.
SoCal

The negative I see is the cost of these "found" years being the lost development and experience of Bolden, Alex, Javin, and other longer term players, and subsequent later maturation or transfer of others. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Duke has been an attractive destination for top tier talent for a long time. I do think that some "system" identity gets lost with the quick turnover of the players.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

The negative I see is the cost of these "found" years being the lost development and experience of Bolden, Alex, Javin, and other longer term players, and subsequent later maturation or transfer of others. Nothing happens in a vacuum.

Duke has been an attractive destination for top tier talent for a long time. I do think that some "system" identity gets lost with the quick turnover of the players.

There is no doubt that everything you say above is valid. That said, how do you turn down Jah, Tre, Justice, Marvin, Zion, RJ, Cam etc...if they want to come to Duke for their one year? Especially if you're a 70 year old coach and not looking for a 2-3 year rebuild project.

It's a bit of a true Catch 22. And nothing happens in a vacuum to be sure as well.

I would also say that in our OAD era, we have a Natty - we have another year where we were a spin out from going to the FF...and then who would bet against Duke with a healthy Harry Giles from winning another natty? Again, I defer to your vacuum theory....but one could argue that we're a couple of strokes of pure bad luck from maybe having an entirely different feeling after the last two seasons.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

There is no doubt that everything you say above is valid. That said, how do you turn down Jah, Tre, Justice, Marvin, Zion, RJ, Cam etc...if they want to come to Duke for their one year? Especially if you're a 70 year old coach and not looking for a 2-3 year rebuild project.

It's a bit of a true Catch 22. And nothing happens in a vacuum to be sure as well.

I would also say that in our OAD era, we have a Natty - we have another year where we were a spin out from going to the FF...and then who would bet against Duke with a healthy Harry Giles from winning another natty? Again, I defer to your vacuum theory...but one could argue that we're a couple of strokes of pure bad luck from maybe having an entirely different feeling after the last two seasons.

Good points all. I am still trying to figure out the framework for an off season discussion of what DBR deems a "successful" or "satisfying" season. I sense there will be a lot of variance in the responses.

Stay tuned.

[Kedsy]

Okay, that’s cool. But tell me how you and these “dozens and dozens of posts that provide quantitative analysis of the breakdown between the various models of recruiting and corresponding results” factor in enjoyment for the fans? I can tell you from speaking to dozens of long-time Duke fans that nearly to a person say they don’t like the new model of recruiting excessively from the OAD pool of recruits. They would much prefer Duke recruit PRIMARILY from the pool of recruits who will likely stay four years and actually graduate.

How old are these Duke fans? Did they enjoy rooting for Duke in the mid-1970s? Or how about 2012 to 2014?

From 2008-09 to 2013-14, we didn't recruit more than one top 10 recruit per year. Our recruits were as follows:

Jabari Parker (#3) OAD
Semi Ojeleye (#32) transfer
Matt Jones (#34)
Rasheed Sulaimon (#12) transfer
Amile Jefferson (#21)
Austin Rivers (#2) OAD
Michael Gbinije (#28) transfer
Quinn Cook (#31)
Alex Murphy (#45) transfer
Marshall Plumlee (#61)
Kyrie Irving (#3) OAD
Josh Hairston (#32)
Tyler Thornton (#144)
Ryan Kelly (#14)
Mason Plumlee (#18)
Andre Dawkins (#20 to #25ish)
Elliot Williams (#15) transfer
Olek Czyz (#66) transfer
Miles Plumlee (#81)

So, of the 19 recruits that comprised the 2012 to 2014 teams (along with incoming transfers Seth Curry, Rodney Hood, and Sean Obi; though you can't always count on getting productive transfers (e.g., Obi) and anyway Hood left after only playing one year at Duke), we fans only got to see 10 of them (53%) play four years. Presumably more importantly from a fan enjoyment standpoint, two of the three teams in the 2012 to 2014 timeframe lost in the first round of the NCAA tournament. A small sample, certainly, but a much higher percentage chance of happening the fewer great players you have.

Further, times have changed since that timeframe. From 2009 to 2014, as can be seen from the above list, we got seven recruits ranked in the 10s and 20s; four of those seven stayed 4 years and one stayed 3 years (meaning we got 3 years or more from 71.4% of those recruits). Since then (2014-15 to 2018-19), we've recruited eight players in the 10s and 20s, and only one (Grayson Allen) stayed four years, with Marques Bolden (hopefully) here for at least three years (meaning assuming Marques is here we got 3+ years from only 25% of them).

So, and perhaps most importantly, in today's climate to get four year players we'd have to primarily recruit 30s and up (although some guys in that category tend to transfer, e.g., Semi Ojeleye, Alex Murphy, Olek Czyz). How much fun would it be as a fan if Javin DeLaurier and Alex O'Connell were our best players next season (or 2nd and 3rd best players along with one OAD)? Possibly less than you imagine.


I’m not telling you how to accomplish this. I’m only saying what I have heard repeated over and over again from most of the Duke fans I have talked with on the subject.

Aye, there's the rub (whatever that means). In today's climate, I don't believe there is any way to accomplish this and also have a nationally competitive team year-in and year-out (other than hope your top recruits stay several years as has happened at UNC recently; but obviously that's not a reliable or reproducible system). In other words, if the fan enjoyment of the many Duke fans who you've spoken to about this doesn't involve consistent winning, then good for them and my advice is wait until Coach K retires and they'll probably get their wish. If they do enjoy consistent winning, however, they probably shouldn't complain so much.

[OZ]

How old are these Duke fans? Did they enjoy rooting for Duke in the mid-1970s? Or how about 2012 to 2014?

From 2008-09 to 2013-14, we didn't recruit more than one top 10 recruit per year. Our recruits were as follows:



Not so old that we have forgotten that this was once an important accomplishment for "student-athletes" at DUKE: "who will likely stay four years and actually graduate".

[Kedsy]

Not so old that we have forgotten that this was once an important accomplishment for "student-athletes" at DUKE: "who will likely stay four years and actually graduate".

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.

Stephen43 said that almost all Duke fans with whom he has spoken feel that way, but based on the amount of whining we see around here when the team loses just one or two games to lesser teams or flames out early in the tournament, I believe either his group doesn't represent Duke fans as a whole or those fans haven't owned up to the idea that in today's climate it's essentially impossible to have a roster of four-year players and also have a top 10 team every year.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Another facet of OAD that is more difficult to quantify is what these players do to the locker room and team chemistry. It seems nearly impossible to imagine that there wouldn't be a divide between six month student athletes and four year guys, no matter how pleasant and congenial the short timers are.

To clarify, it seems to me that our OAD players have been great campus citizens and all round nice dudes, but I can't believe that it doesn't do something strange to the team energy to have a handful of players who are making a pit stop on the way to their seven figure contracts.

(I used more smarmy words in this post than I usually do in discussing any Duke players, but I am feeling a little saucy today, and this thread seems the right place to ask these questions... I look forward to watching Bags and Carter in the NBA next year.)

[lotusland]

I bolded the gist of it and how it fits into this definitive OAD thread. Sounds like Pat Forde needed a column for a deadline. I feed like separate housing for athletes is the least of the problems with OADs.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-shows-athletes-exception-rules-housing-snafu-191051138.html

Don’t let the idyllic campus, small enrollment and huge tuition fool you. Duke is taking another step toward Jock School status.

A university that U.S. News & World Report ranks among the 10 best in America in 2018 is tweaking its standards again for the sake of athletics. An esteemed academic institution that once at least aspired to keep sports seamlessly interwoven into the overall mission of the university has further frayed that tapestry. The most prestigious member of the Atlantic Coast Conference might not be on a slippery slope to Alabama, but it’s not Stanford, either.

A few years ago, the once-exalted ivory tower of men’s basketball reduced itself to a one-and-done trade school — the University of Kentucky Tobacco Road Campus, basically. Now Duke is making another concession that says a lot about the power athletics has to construct its own reality, separate from that of the university as a whole. It is creating a different set of living conditions for athletes than for the student body at large.

[Ian]

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.

Stephen43 said that almost all Duke fans with whom he has spoken feel that way, but based on the amount of whining we see around here when the team loses just one or two games to lesser teams or flames out early in the tournament, I believe either his group doesn't represent Duke fans as a whole or those fans haven't owned up to the idea that in today's climate it's essentially impossible to have a roster of four-year players and also have a top 10 team every year.

Fans always gripe when their teams lose, that's the nature of sports fandom.

The difference is when it wasn't *all* just about winning we at least had other things to point to as "silver linings" when we lose. We got to watch young men grow up, mature, improve, we got to see true student athletes who love the school as much as we do represent their school, etc, etc. Now we don't have any of those other things, so it's all about winning now, and if now we don't win, the fans literally have nothing to fall back on. I'm okay with winning less if it meant having those other things to feel good about when we do lose.

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

[Kedsy]

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

Obviously it's impossible to prove that, one way or the other. I will note that Coach K has had a player who was consensus-ranked in the top 6 in all but ten seasons at Duke:

1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2013

In those 10 seasons, Duke won a total of 9 NCAA tournament games (and three of those nine came in 2013).


Put another way, in today's climate, the following guys most likely would not have stayed four years:

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Danny Ferry, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Cherokee Parks, Trajan Langdon, Shane Battier, Kyle Singler, Mason Plumlee

And Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy most likely wouldn't have stayed three years. For that matter, who knows if Elton Brand would have stayed two years.

If he hadn't had the above players for as many years as he did, my guess is K wouldn't have near the record that he does, because he would have had to play primarily with more top 50 players and fewer top 10 players.

[JNort]

I am not sure we have "lost" many to the NBA because of the one and done rule. Many of those who left Duke after one year would have gone straight to the NBA out of high school. Its really more like we "found" a year of Bagley, Carter etc. because of the rule. I think most, but not all, of those who left Duke recently after a year fit into that category.

I don't like the rule at all but with the rule I don't see what else K can do Obviously some players are ready for the NBA after high school so why force them to wait a year? If you are Coach K are you not going to recruit the Marvin Bagley's of the world because you will only have him for a year? And maybe have to play against him for a year? What would be the outcry here if Coach K had said before the early signing period that he was not going to offer a scholarship to Barrett, Williamson, Reddish and Jones because there was too high a likelihood that each would be here a year?

SoCal
Idk. I don't think Carter goes pro out of high school. We would never have got Jah, Austin, Bagley and Jabari for certain imo. Only other would have probably been Tatum and Ingram. I don't remeber what they Irving hype was out if high school as far as NBA prospects go. Didn't most scouts prefer Josh Selby and the other top 3 pg that year.

[JNort]

Fans always gripe when their teams lose, that's the nature of sports fandom.

The difference is when it wasn't *all* just about winning we at least had other things to point to as "silver linings" when we lose. We got to watch young men grow up, mature, improve, we got to see true student athletes who love the school as much as we do represent their school, etc, etc. Now we don't have any of those other things, so it's all about winning now, and if now we don't win, the fans literally have nothing to fall back on. I'm okay with winning less if it meant having those other things to feel good about when we do lose.

Plus I am still not persuaded that the current system is best for winning for Coach K. I think at most all your number have shown is that given an average coach, recruiting top talent instead of top 50 talent probably leads to more wins. I think giving Coach K more top 50 players who stay 3-4 years and less top 10 player who leave after 1 year would not lead to him winning less, and quite possibily more.

and I still think you don't necessarily understand what this would mean. If we are contending on a regular basis with that type of talent then that probably means some guys are over achieving. When they do that they will tend to leave early also so they can maximize draft status. So same thing happens but with less talent.

[BD80]

Forde makes some good points, but takes some cheap shots:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-shows-athletes-exception-rules-housing-snafu-191051138.html

[scottdude8]

Forde makes some good points, but takes some cheap shots:

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-shows-athletes-exception-rules-housing-snafu-191051138.html

It sickens me that Yahoo would waste (hypothetical) ink on this story. Time and resources investigating this could’ve been spent holding UNCs feet to the fire about the academic scandal, further investigating the massive coverup of sexual assault at MSU, or investigating a situation where a school provided actually problematic benefits to athletes (cough cough Louisville).

Should Duke be perfect and have no differences in treatment between athletes and non-athletes? Of course. Is that at all realistic? Of course not! Show me a single D1 school that does that and I’ll show you a postdoctoral research position that pays six figures (academia humor! lol).

Luckily no one reads Yahoo so this is a non-issue. But it is making me unrealistically angry. If I brought this article to my editor back in my Chronicle days I’d expect, or at least strongly hope, I’d have been laughed out of the office.

[flyingdutchdevil]

It sickens me that Yahoo would waste (hypothetical) ink on this story. Time and resources investigating this could’ve been spent holding UNCs feet to the fire about the academic scandal, further investigating the massive coverup of sexual assault at MSU, or investigating a situation where a school provided actually problematic benefits to athletes (cough cough Louisville).

Should Duke be perfect and have no differences in treatment between athletes and non-athletes? Of course. Is that at all realistic? Of course not! Show me a single D1 school that does that and I’ll show you a postdoctoral research position that pays six figures (academia humor! lol).

Luckily no one reads Yahoo so this is a non-issue. But it is making me unrealistically angry. If I brought this article to my editor back in my Chronicle days I’d expect, or at least strongly hope, I’d have been laughed out of the office.

Why does this bother you? Because Duke was used as the prime example?

Good for Forde. Of course Duke treats athletes differently. And if all 3xx DI schools do too, then shame on them as well.

I’m not upset by the article or at Forde or at Duke. Sadly, these double standards exist and continue to exist.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I bolded the gist of it and how it fits into this definitive OAD thread. Sounds like Pat Forde needed a column for a deadline. I feed like separate housing for athletes is the least of the problems with OADs.


https://www.yahoo.com/sports/duke-shows-athletes-exception-rules-housing-snafu-191051138.html

Don’t let the idyllic campus, small enrollment and huge tuition fool you. Duke is taking another step toward Jock School status.

A university that U.S. News & World Report ranks among the 10 best in America in 2018 is tweaking its standards again for the sake of athletics. An esteemed academic institution that once at least aspired to keep sports seamlessly interwoven into the overall mission of the university has further frayed that tapestry. The most prestigious member of the Atlantic Coast Conference might not be on a slippery slope to Alabama, but it’s not Stanford, either.

A few years ago, the once-exalted ivory tower of men’s basketball reduced itself to a one-and-done trade school — the University of Kentucky Tobacco Road Campus, basically. Now Duke is making another concession that says a lot about the power athletics has to construct its own reality, separate from that of the university as a whole. It is creating a different set of living conditions for athletes than for the student body at large.

I read it. If you have not, don't waste your time. Freshmen athletes will room with freshmen athletes but freshmen engineers may room with English majors.. Does not seem like a big deal to me. One of the first responders said he was an athlete and at his school after the frosh year athletes chose to room with athletes.

SoCal

[Steven43]

I think "former players" is a better description than "alums" as, to my knowledge, none of these former players have graduated. I know Kyrie says that he plans to but one year of classes doesn't get you very far towards a degree, and by being a part of successful teams making deep playoff runs, he hasn't had much opportunity to take summer classes.

I really dislike the idea of OAD and hope it is eliminated as soon as possible. If you want to go to school, go to school. If you don't, don't. But don't force people to go to school when they don't have any desire to be there. I'm not saying this applies to our OADs, just the concept in general.

I admire that Coach K and Duke always want to be the best at everything and there are many players who arrive with every intention to stay for a few years and then get an offer they can't refuse from the NBA, but I am not a fan of OAD and though I love seeing the superstars pass through Durham every year, my love of Duke basketball that started well before I matriculated at the university is not what it once was. And though I greatly enjoy following recruiting, I do not enjoy the annual need to have a perfect class because the cupboard is bare - so far it has worked out really well for us, but that could change very quickly.

I have mixed feelings about whether the plan to replace OAD should require this who matriculate to be required to stay for a few years or not. But either way, I think that after a few years of everything sorting itself out, most players will end up either going straight to the NBA or sticking around for a few years.

Now get off my lawn...

Well said. You get an A+.

[OZ]

Again, if that's your primary goal, then fine, so long as you recognize that you can't have that and also a national title contender on a regular basis.
"How old are these Duke fans?"

First, it sounds as if you have concluded the only way to have a national contender on a "regular basis" is to load up on OADs. This past final four must have been a head scratcher for you.
Second, call me OLD - I am OLD - but my "primary goal" for athletes at Duke is to get a good education. Wasn't one of the reasons some were so hard on the cheaters was that the athletes were deprived of a quality education. What exactly is the quality of one year at a university?
Third, I am so OLD, I can recall a time when rumors circulated that banners would not be hung until every player graduated. At one time, that was a standard we were proud of. Do you not think we have sacrificed a little of our values and academic integrity with the OADs? Well, I do...I guess that is because I am so old.
Fourth, I attend the basket ball games, but admittedly, not with the same enthusiastic commitment. Now that goes to football and LAX. I find it more to the OLD Duke standard with which I am most comfortable... pulling for players who commit to the University as well as the value of a Duke education.
My primary goal? Well, if it means loading up with a new team of OADs to be a "regular contender;" I guess that's not it for me.
OLD? I am so old, I can remember a man selling apples at basketball games. I can also recall one of my friends getting tossed for tossing an apple core at the refs.

[Wander]

Should Duke be perfect and have no differences in treatment between athletes and non-athletes? Of course. Is that at all realistic? Of course not! Show me a single D1 school that does that and I’ll show you a postdoctoral research position that pays six figures (academia humor! lol).


You're being way too sensitive – and Forde DID provide examples of other schools that have a different policy on this topic.

[UrinalCake]

Kansas built a $12 million palace for their basketball players to live in. Kentucky has something similar. Why doesn’t Forde write about them? Duke is one of the few major programs whose players still live in dorms with “regular” students. Ridiculous but not surprising that Yahoo would find a way to still take shots at us.

Of course, our players could instead go to UNC where they could live rent-free in Roy’s house while selling drugs.

[cspan37421]

Perhaps Forde knows something that isn't explicitly laid out in his column. The only factual stuff he claims is that Duke no longer allows freshmen to choose their roommates - whether they're athletes or not. He's reading into the policy that Duke will use that power to compel roommate assignments to ensure that athletes only get paired with other athletes, perhaps in the same sport, etc. Moneta is quoted as saying that may happen, not necessarily that it will. Perhaps it's a good bet that that is exactly how it'll play out. I'll reserve judgment for now.

On the assumption that his extrapolation will play out as expected, his criticism is largely on the mark. We used to pride ourselves on being different ... like OAD, this is just another example of how we're really not. When I was there, it was exciting and interesting if a high-profile athlete was in your dorm (you almost always had to be on West - for the same reasons that Moneta spelled out why Athletics may match roommates that are compatible with their schedules). But we took pride in the fact that athletes were mixed in the student population, in our dorms, in our classes. To the extent that athletes will experience Duke from the perspective of their own walled garden, it's a loss for everyone in involved, including the University that gives lip service to "engaging with difference and opening their eyes to opportunities, and meeting entirely different people than the ones they grew up with or went to high school with.”

[Aside: Forde could not resist a shot at Duke by saying "... it's not Stanford, either." What may not be apparent behind this remark is that he has a daughter at Stanford, Brooke, who is a swimmer.]

As for the forced roommate policy, it looks like another well-intentioned but unwise decision on the part of the school. Are they going to force night-owls and early-risers together for the sake of diversity? Heavy drinkers and teetotalers? True believers and skeptics? Neat-nicks and slobs? It strikes me as likely to produce unnecessarily high levels of friction in a circumstance (freshman year) that is already fairly high stress. Moreover, it's short-sighted: there are many ways in which diverse experiences are found on campus, beyond roommate selection, esp. for a school (at least, Trinity A&S) that mandates diversity in class selection (areas of knowledge, modes of inquiry, small group experience). To think that a student won't get a diverse experience without a potentially incompatible roommate is just ... well, I'll put it politely - folly.

There is a middle ground, not sure if Duke will take it. But when I was in school, there was a roommate survey that would try to match people with a compatible person on various measures and interests. [Perhaps we could have picked a specific person too, but I knew no one going.] It's possible that Duke would use such a tool, but there's no indication in the article that they are making any concessions to compatibility.

[Troublemaker]

I don't understand why Forde's article was merged into the OAD collector thread.

Let's move the discussion of this article to the newly started thread by BillyDat dealing with it (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?41905-Yahoo-s-Forde-says-Duke-s-freshmen-housing-policy-is-making-Duke-a-quot-Jock-School-quot).

[Matches]

Third, I am so OLD, I can recall a time when rumors circulated that banners would not be hung until every player graduated. At one time, that was a standard we were proud of. Do you not think we have sacrificed a little of our values and academic integrity with the OADs? Well, I do...I guess that is because I am so old.


IIRC the policy was that no banners would be hung until the seniors on the team in question had all graduated. (Hence the 1990 banner didn't go up right away, but 1988 and 1989 did.)

That remains the policy as far as I am aware. Nothing has changed.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Perhaps an OAD Vigil is in order?


It will be a 2 year vigil. With today's NCAA commission report, and this one about the NBA/NBPA looking to lose the OAD rule by 2020, it looks like it will finally come to an end.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2772448-report-nba-nbpa-targeting-2020-nba-draft-for-end-of-1-and-done-rule?utm_source=cnn.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=editorial

[Ian]

Obviously it's impossible to prove that, one way or the other. I will note that Coach K has had a player who was consensus-ranked in the top 6 in all but ten seasons at Duke:

1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1995, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2013

In those 10 seasons, Duke won a total of 9 NCAA tournament games (and three of those nine came in 2013).


Put another way, in today's climate, the following guys most likely would not have stayed four years:

Johnny Dawkins, Mark Alarie, Danny Ferry, Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, Grant Hill, Cherokee Parks, Trajan Langdon, Shane Battier, Kyle Singler, Mason Plumlee

And Jason Williams, Carlos Boozer, and Mike Dunleavy most likely wouldn't have stayed three years. For that matter, who knows if Elton Brand would have stayed two years.

If he hadn't had the above players for as many years as he did, my guess is K wouldn't have near the record that he does, because he would have had to play primarily with more top 50 players and fewer top 10 players.

82-84 are when he was just starting out, 95-96 he had to restart the program due to health issues, (I could also argue that 85 and 97 belong in that group for the same reason), I would say those years don't really count because of outside factors. And top 6 is not a criteria I stated anywhere so I get the feelings you used that as a cut off arbitrarily to support your point.

[Ian]

and I still think you don't necessarily understand what this would mean. If we are contending on a regular basis with that type of talent then that probably means some guys are over achieving. When they do that they will tend to leave early also so they can maximize draft status. So same thing happens but with less talent.

Who left early after we over-achieved in 2010? There is always a chance that some players on the cusp leaves early, but it's not the sure thing you presume it to be. Besides, if the choice is between players leaving early after the team overachieve or players leaving early when the team underachieve. I know which one I'd prefer.

[Matches]

Who left early after we over-achieved in 2010? There is always a chance that some players on the cusp leaves early, but it's not the sure thing you presume it to be. Besides, if the choice is between players leaving early after the team overachieve or players leaving early when the team underachieve. I know which one I'd prefer.

In today's environment Singler would be gone off that team. It's not out of the question that either Nolan or MP2 would depart as well.

But whatever... 2010 was great. 2007-2009 weren't. And the result in 2010 wasn't pre-ordained - if that team had lost to Baylor (which was very possible), or Heyward's shot had gone in, how would we remember that group of players?

[HereBeforeCoachK]

But whatever... 2010 was great. 2007-2009 weren't. And the result in 2010 wasn't pre-ordained - if that team had lost to Baylor (which was very possible), or Heyward's shot had gone in, how would we remember that group of players?

So true....they played their best 60 minutes at the right time - the second half versus Baylor, in the state of Texas - and the entire game versus WVU in the Final Four....then kind of stumbled around against Butler and were very lucky to win. Nothing pre-ordained about that at all....

[Kedsy]

"How old are these Duke fans?"

OLD - OLD - OLD, OLD OLD? I am so old...

You misinterpreted my comment entirely. In other words, you have chosen to rant against pretty much the opposite of what I meant.

I asked how old the fans were because many Duke fans didn't become Duke fans until we were going to Final Fours and/or were national title contenders on a regular basis. Many of these fans are not old enough to remember Duke's seasons post-Bubas and pre-1978, when Duke went to zero NCAA tournaments and was not a relevant national player. They don't remember Coach K's first few years when we got out-talented on a frequent basis.


First, it sounds as if you have concluded the only way to have a national contender on a "regular basis" is to load up on OADs.

Wrong. I have concluded that the only way to have a national contender on a regular basis is to have top tier players. In the 80s, 90s, and even the 00s, those players didn't all bail the minute they could make an NBA roster. Now they do. If you want to continue to have top tier players on your team, you have to live with that.


This past final four must have been a head scratcher for you.

Again, wrong. Someone in a different thread jokingly said that, "The magic formula is whatever the most recent champion did," and perhaps you subscribe to that theory, but personally I don't view one or two data points as proving anything.

Villanova has won two titles in three years, but they haven't been a legitimate title contender, year-in and year-out like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and a few others. It is possible to catch lightning in a bottle with a core of players (see, e.g., Florida 2006 and 2007), but that's not being a national contender on a regular basis.


my "primary goal" for athletes at Duke is to get a good education.

I'll say it for the third time: if that's your goal, more power to you, but only if you don't complain when a team of educated players doesn't win so much.


I can recall a time when rumors circulated that banners would not be hung until every player graduated. At one time, that was a standard we were proud of. Do you not think we have sacrificed a little of our values and academic integrity with the OADs?

Believe it or not, I was thinking about this just the other day. Obviously Coach K has changed this policy since the 2015 banner is hanging in Cameron. I too was proud of that policy, but I guess I'm not so broken up over it, since I only realized it had changed a few days ago.


I find it more to the OLD Duke standard with which I am most comfortable... pulling for players who commit to the University as well as the value of a Duke education.

I think the fallacy in your position is you believe the "jocks" at Duke in the old days universally valued their education. The truth is, some did and some didn't. Same as now.

Until recently, many of the top players believed the best path to the NBA was to hone their skills in college. So they stayed. They don't believe that anymore, so they don't. And I believe that's the primary difference between "the good old days" and now.

[Kedsy]

82-84 are when he was just starting out, 95-96 he had to restart the program due to health issues, (I could also argue that 85 and 97 belong in that group for the same reason), I would say those years don't really count because of outside factors. And top 6 is not a criteria I stated anywhere so I get the feelings you used that as a cut off arbitrarily to support your point.

Count for what? We didn't have top-top tier talent in those years, and Coach K -- despite being the GOAT -- had problems winning. You may think that Coach K could take a team of guys from the local YMCA, coach 'em up for a few years, and make the Final Four, but I disagree.

Let's play a little imagination game. Assume the following:

1986 team didn't have Johnny Dawkins and Mark Alarie.
1988 and 1989 teams didn't have Danny Ferry.
1991 team didn't have Bobby Hurley and Christian Laettner.
1992 team didn't have Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, and Grant Hill.
1994 team didn't have Grant Hill (and maybe not Cherokee Parks).
1999 team didn't have Elton Brand and Trajan Langdon.
2001 team didn't have Shane Battier, Jason Williams, and Carlos Boozer.
2004 team didn't have at least one (and maybe more) of Chris Duhon, JJ Redick, or Shelden Williams
2010 team didn't have Kyle Singler.

How many Final Fours would Duke have had with Coach K? How many national championships? I don't think very many. And if those teams had been in the past few years, probably all of the above hypotheticals would have been true.

[Ian]

Count for what? We didn't have top-top tier talent in those years, and Coach K -- despite being the GOAT -- had problems winning. You may think that Coach K could take a team of guys from the local YMCA, coach 'em up for a few years, and make the Final Four, but I disagree.

Let's play a little imagination game. Assume the following:

1986 team didn't have Johnny Dawkins and Mark Alarie.
1988 and 1989 teams didn't have Danny Ferry.
1991 team didn't have Bobby Hurley and Christian Laettner.
1992 team didn't have Bobby Hurley, Christian Laettner, and Grant Hill.
1994 team didn't have Grant Hill (and maybe not Cherokee Parks).
1999 team didn't have Elton Brand and Trajan Langdon.
2001 team didn't have Shane Battier, Jason Williams, and Carlos Boozer.
2004 team didn't have at least one (and maybe more) of Chris Duhon, JJ Redick, or Shelden Williams
2010 team didn't have Kyle Singler.

How many Final Fours would Duke have had with Coach K? How many national championships? I don't think very many. And if those teams had been in the past few years, probably all of the above hypotheticals would have been true.

Now you're just being obtuse for the sake of it. The early 80's teams don't count in the analysis of what's best for Coach K in 2018 because 1) He was just starting out and had quite a bit to learn before he reaches the level he eventually reached. 2)The build through upperclassmen method obviously takes a few years to get going because you need to have juniors and seniors who's been with the program all along to make it work. It requires a few years to build the momentum. The early 80s and the mid 90s where times where the program had a reset to needed a few years to get going, so they are largely irrelevant to this analysis.

And your list is completely meaningless. Because times were different as you say. Obviously there was no reason to not recruit players in your list in the 80's and 90's and 00's because they weren't jumping after one year, and they weren't jumping at other schools either, so sure Duke would have played without Hill and Brand, etc, but they also would have played teams without 2nd year Shaq, and 3 years of Jamison and Vince Carter, Junior and Senior Larry Johnson, 3 years of Corliss Williamson, etc, etc,.So any analysis of what Duke "would have done" without those top 10 players in meaningless. There is no way to know.

[Kedsy]

And your list is completely meaningless.

You know what I think is meaningless? Your idea that Coach K could succeed at a similar rate if he recruited players primarily ranked in the 40s and up. Talk about something that's never, ever happened. Coach K's recruiting strategy has always been to go after the top-tier kids. The only thing that's changed is how long those kids have chosen to stay in school.

In other words, the recruiting strategy you appear to be advocating is not a return to anything that's been done in the past. It's not bringing back the good old days. You are advocating a radically different recruiting strategy that Coach K has never tried, one that rarely works for other programs (and to my knowledge has never worked anywhere on a consistent, medium-term or long-term basis). I can't imagine why you think it might work at Duke. There's certainly no evidence that it would.

[JNort]

Who left early after we over-achieved in 2010? There is always a chance that some players on the cusp leaves early, but it's not the sure thing you presume it to be. Besides, if the choice is between players leaving early after the team overachieve or players leaving early when the team underachieve. I know which one I'd prefer.
Ummm yeah... see this post vvvvv

In today's environment Singler would be gone off that team. It's not out of the question that either Nolan or MP2 would depart as well.

But whatever... 2010 was great. 2007-2009 weren't. And the result in 2010 wasn't pre-ordained - if that team had lost to Baylor (which was very possible), or Heyward's shot had gone in, how would we remember that group of players?





82-84 are when he was just starting out, 95-96 he had to restart the program due to health issues, (I could also argue that 85 and 97 belong in that group for the same reason), I would say those years don't really count because of outside factors. And top 6 is not a criteria I stated anywhere so I get the feelings you used that as a cut off arbitrarily to support your point.

This response is why arguing further with you about this is pointless. You ignore evidence for feelings and dismiss facts that don't seem to fit your ideals.

[OZ]

You misinterpreted my comment entirely. In other words, you have chosen to rant against pretty much the opposite of what I meant.

I asked how old the fans were because many Duke fans didn't become Duke fans until we were going to Final Fours and/or were national title contenders on a regular basis. Many of these fans are not old enough to remember Duke's seasons post-Bubas and pre-1978, when Duke went to zero NCAA tournaments and was not a relevant national player. They don't remember Coach K's first few years when we got out-talented on a frequent basis.



Wrong. I have concluded that the only way to have a national contender on a regular basis is to have top tier players. In the 80s, 90s, and even the 00s, those players didn't all bail the minute they could make an NBA roster. Now they do. If you want to continue to have top tier players on your team, you have to live with that.



Again, wrong. Someone in a different thread jokingly said that, "The magic formula is whatever the most recent champion did," and perhaps you subscribe to that theory, but personally I don't view one or two data points as proving anything.

Villanova has won two titles in three years, but they haven't been a legitimate title contender, year-in and year-out like Duke, Kentucky, Kansas, and a few others. It is possible to catch lightning in a bottle with a core of players (see, e.g., Florida 2006 and 2007), but that's not being a national contender on a regular basis.



I'll say it for the third time: if that's your goal, more power to you, but only if you don't complain when a team of educated players doesn't win so much.



Believe it or not, I was thinking about this just the other day. Obviously Coach K has changed this policy since the 2015 banner is hanging in Cameron. I too was proud of that policy, but I guess I'm not so broken up over it, since I only realized it had changed a few days ago.



I think the fallacy in your position is you believe the "jocks" at Duke in the old days universally valued their education. The truth is, some did and some didn't. Same as now.

Until recently, many of the top players believed the best path to the NBA was to hone their skills in college. So they stayed. They don't believe that anymore, so they don't. And I believe that's the primary difference between "the good old days" and now.


Goodness, I am so old that I misunderstood everything you said. Geez.
But to the point above - in bold - whether they valued their education or not; they at least had to make the attempt to get one... I know, because I tutored a few. As to your point, the same could be said about non-athletes. I was in school with some who couldn't have cared less.

[Ian]

This response is why arguing further with you about this is pointless. You ignore evidence for feelings and dismiss facts that don't seem to fit your ideals.

I reasons why the evidence should be excluded, this happens all the time in scientific inquiries and court cases. Not all evidence is good evidence.

[Ian]

You know what I think is meaningless? Your idea that Coach K could succeed at a similar rate if he recruited players primarily ranked in the 40s and up. Talk about something that's never, ever happened. Coach K's recruiting strategy has always been to go after the top-tier kids. The only thing that's changed is how long those kids have chosen to stay in school.

In other words, the recruiting strategy you appear to be advocating is not a return to anything that's been done in the past. It's not bringing back the good old days. You are advocating a radically different recruiting strategy that Coach K has never tried, one that rarely works for other programs (and to my knowledge has never worked anywhere on a consistent, medium-term or long-term basis). I can't imagine why you think it might work at Duke. There's certainly no evidence that it would.

You have never correctly stated what I would propose. You seems to enjoy arguing against strawmen in your own head.

FWIW I acutally believe Duke has already began making adjustment in the 2019 class toward what I propose.

[JNort]

I reasons why the evidence should be excluded, this happens all the time in scientific inquiries and court cases. Not all evidence is good evidence.


You have never correctly stated what I would propose. You seems to enjoy arguing against strawmen in your own head.

FWIW I acutally believe Duke has already began making adjustment in the 2019 class toward what I propose.

You're of course correct, not all evidence is good evidence. However the evidence presented has not been refuted and is strongly in favor of what you oppose. Nor have you given good examples or definitions of what you think the correct way is. In the few cases you have,it's been pointed out how you're just plain wrong not to mention vague.

I am interested in why you think 2019 is working towards what you aspire to see. It's the same way we have been recruiting for years now... about 30+ years actually

[Troublemaker]

You have never correctly stated what I would propose. You seems to enjoy arguing against strawmen in your own head.

FWIW I acutally believe Duke has already began making adjustment in the 2019 class toward what I propose.

Yes and no.

From what I can tell, Duke is recruiting 5 of the top 8 players in the 247 composite ranking of the 2019 class (https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighScho ol) -- Carey, Hurt, Anthony, Antoine, and Lewis.

It's just that Duke has enough projected roster spots open for the 2019-20 team that Duke is ALSO recruiting several guys who project to be around 2+ seasons -- Baker (committed), Stewart, Girard, and Moore (although he might be an OAD candidate when it's all said and done). This is also smart/necessary because the NBA has the outward appearance of being serious about getting rid of OAD. It probably won't happen all that soon, but the time to be planning for that change and laying the foundation is now, not when the change is enacted.

2019 is going to be a huge class, in other words, that will serve dual purposes: immediate contention in 2019-20, but also laying a foundation for the future.

[Kedsy]

Goodness, I am so old that I misunderstood everything you said. Geez.
But to the point above - in bold - whether they valued their education or not; they at least had to make the attempt to get one... I know, because I tutored a few. As to your point, the same could be said about non-athletes. I was in school with some who couldn't have cared less.

Yeah, I agree that's all true. I was a tutor for several athletes as well (though no men's basketball players).

I guess where we differ is I'm not sure of the virtue of forcing the kids who don't value their education (and don't really need it to get a fun, high-paying job) to go through the motions for three extra years.

[Ian]

Yes and no.

From what I can tell, Duke is recruiting 5 of the top 8 players in the 247 composite ranking of the 2019 class (https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Basketball/CompositeRecruitRankings?InstitutionGroup=HighScho ol) -- Carey, Hurt, Anthony, Antoine, and Lewis.

It's just that Duke has enough projected roster spots open for the 2019-20 team that Duke is ALSO recruiting several guys who project to be around 2+ seasons -- Baker (committed), Stewart, Girard, and Moore (although he might be an OAD candidate when it's all said and done). This is also smart/necessary because the NBA has the outward appearance of being serious about getting rid of OAD. It probably won't happen all that soon, but the time to be planning for that change and laying the foundation is now, not when the change is enacted.

2019 is going to be a huge class, in other words, that will serve dual purposes: immediate contention in 2019-20, but also laying a foundation for the future.

We shall see, but I notice a difference in emphasis. We've never gone this full steam on a barely top 100 player like Girard. Even when we recruit them in the past it's been a backup plan in case someone else turns us done. I think we are now placing priority on them rather than just a passing interest. But yes it's a bit early to discuss this until we see what the final class looks like.

[Troublemaker]

We shall see, but I notice a difference in emphasis. We've never gone this full steam on a barely top 100 player like Girard. Even when we recruit them in the past it's been a backup plan in case someone else turns us done. I think we are now placing priority on them rather than just a passing interest.

But look at the rest of the players that we're recruiting in 2019. They're mostly OADs or top-25-ish guys.

Recruiting ONE top-100 guy in Girard doesn't strike me as some sort of major change in emphasis. I just think that a program that has historically valued shooters is recruiting the best shooter in the 2019 class, and Duke additionally thinks Girard is not ranked properly.


But yes it's a bit early to discuss this until we see what the final class looks like.

I mean, I don't think there's any mystery here. With the NBA looking to do away with OAD, one of our goals with the 2019 class is to land several players who will stay 2+ years in order to lay a foundation for when OAD goes away.

It's just that:
(A) Recruiting Joe Girard is not an indicator that we're going to pursue 3-star recruits from now on. I think Girard is an exception. And
(B) The 2019 class will be big enough to have room for BOTH several multi-year guys and OADs.

If I had to make a "way too early" guess on the class, I think we'll land one of Cole Anthony or RJ Hampton (both top-5), Bryan Antoine (#7 in 247), and one more top-10 player. Additionally, we'll land four players with rankings that project them to be at Duke 2+ years, including the already committed Baker. So, a 7-man class.

[MarkD83]

In a different thread about the NBA draft there is a final tally of 236 players who have left their name in for the draft and ~180 of these are underclassmen. Of course there will only be 60 players drafted and the rest will find a place to play in the G-league or overseas.

We argue the merits of whether these players should stay in school or not but forget that these 236 players believe they have the right skill set to play professional basketball. In addition, we forget that there are no college classes that help players improve the skills they NEED to play professional basketball. We all tend to agree that playing for a great coach will improve the skills needed to play professionally. There are also benefits to the exposure that a player gets playing in college due to TV exposure and the NCAA tournament. These are topics that we have discussed ad nauseam on this board. However, if a player (236 of them this year) believes they have the skills to play professionally they will find a way to move on to their dream of playing basketball professionally.

What does this mean going forward. If the NBA eliminates the OAD rule there will still be players that leave college early or never play in college. Coach K and Duke will still go after the best players and they will still leave before we want them to go (4 years). Just as a thought experiment over the past two years; Bagley, Carter, Tatum and Giles may have never gone to Duke (think Shaun Livingston, who I believe committed to Duke pre-OAD but never enrolled). Jackson, Trent and Duval may have played one year and then seeing that they were going to be drafted in the second round would still leave. Even the second round is an opportunity to play in the NBA.

[Saratoga2]

There have been articles and tweets going around the interwebs this morning that the NBA and NBPA would target the 2020 draft, at the earliest, for eliminating the one-and-done rule. This would remove the restriction for players age 19 and one year removed from high school. It seems like that would result in students going straight to the draft. It might get paired with a two-year requirement to stay in college, but we'll see if that comes up or not.

For Duke recruiting purposes, that timing works well. The 2020 draft would mean that the Class of 2019 would be the last of the one-and-done era, so guys like Vernon Carey, Bryan Antoine, Scottie Lewis, and Cole Anthony would be going to college for a year. It might also mean a couple of 4- and 5-star players like Joey Baker, Wendell Moore, and Isaiah Stewart might stick around for a couple of years at least. The draft of 2020 would feature both the last one-and-done's as well as the top 10 or so players from the high school class of 2020. A borderline draft prospect in college would do well to stay away from that draft with all the talent it might include. Best to wait until the next year. Who knows, maybe even Coach K might see it as an ideal time to pass on the reins of the program on to a new coach during a new era.

I wonder if the NBA can move that quickly with the player CBA running through to 2022/23 with a one year opt out. Getting rid of the OAD rule probably will be accompanied with a rule of how long players must stay in college if they don't elect to go to the NBA draft and wind up on a team or in the G league. Whatever happens, I can't see penalizing a college if a player leaves his college program to go pro. I would imagine the NBA players association will need to agree to any new rules regarding its recruiting of players.

[UrinalCake]

I have heard the 2-or-none and 3-or-none baseball rule options discussed a lot, and I just don’t understand how it would be successful or any better for the players. I get the reasoning - players who choose to go to college need to commit to it, otherwise they should go elsewhere. But in practice I don’t see it working. All of the guys who aren’t immediately draftable out of high school (which is basically everybody except for maybe 5 players) are going to go to college because there is no better option. The ones who are ready after a year, like Trae Young or even Frank Jackson - are then going to be forced to stay. I disagreed with a lot of Condeleeza Rice’s presentation, but one thing I did agree with was her point that having players in college against their will is a recipe for breaking the rules. Why should a Trae Young be forced to stay in college another year or two? And if an agent offers him money, what motivation does he have to not accept it? I think this system would lead to a lot of players being put in bad positions. Some players will avoid college altogether because they think they are a year away from the NBA and don’t want to get locked in, maybe someone like Trevon Duval, when in reality they could have benefitted from a year or two. The ones that do go and get stuck will be looking for a way out, and feeling even more like they deserve to be paid.

[JasonEvans]

I have heard the 2-or-none and 3-or-none baseball rule options discussed a lot, and I just don’t understand how it would be successful or any better for the players. I get the reasoning - players who choose to go to college need to commit to it, otherwise they should go elsewhere. But in practice I don’t see it working. All of the guys who aren’t immediately draftable out of high school (which is basically everybody except for maybe 5 players) are going to go to college because there is no better option. The ones who are ready after a year, like Trae Young or even Frank Jackson - are then going to be forced to stay. I disagreed with a lot of Condeleeza Rice’s presentation, but one thing I did agree with was her point that having players in college against their will is a recipe for breaking the rules. Why should a Trae Young be forced to stay in college another year or two? And if an agent offers him money, what motivation does he have to not accept it? I think this system would lead to a lot of players being put in bad positions. Some players will avoid college altogether because they think they are a year away from the NBA and don’t want to get locked in, maybe someone like Trevon Duval, when in reality they could have benefitted from a year or two. The ones that do go and get stuck will be looking for a way out, and feeling even more like they deserve to be paid.

There's no way only 5 players declare for the draft out of high school if there is a change to the OAD rule. The old rules from the 90s where we saw a few high schoolers a year turn pro are out the window. If you implement a new rule where kids go pro out of high school or stay in school for 2 or 3 years (at a minimum) then I bet you would see 30+ kids turn pro out of high school. I'm not saying every single McDonald's All-American would do it, but the vast majority of them would. That is just the culture these days. And that is why you would need a somewhat more robust D/G-league where every pro team had a minor league affiliate where these players could develop a little bit before joining their NBA club.

Yes, there would be kids who went to school and suddenly blossomed in unexpected ways, but there would not be many kinds like that and we would likely only be asking them to spend maybe 1 or 2 extra years in school. Not that huge a hardship as their game would still be developing.

-Jason "the biggest thing is giving kids who clearly have immediate value an ability to realize that value. I suspect almost all the kids who opt to go to school will not have nearly the same kind of value and giving them at least the foundation of an education will be a good thing for them" Evans

[UrinalCake]

the biggest thing is giving kids who clearly have immediate value an ability to realize that value. I suspect almost all the kids who opt to go to school will not have nearly the same kind of value and giving them at least the foundation of an education will be a good thing for them

100% agree with this, and I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply removing the one year rule and beefing up the G league. There’s no reason to lock kids in for two or three years. Again if we use Trae Young as an example, after one year in college he would have immediate value but not have the ability to realize that value.

[JasonEvans]

100% agree with this, and I think you could accomplish the same thing by simply removing the one year rule and beefing up the G league. There’s no reason to lock kids in for two or three years. Again if we use Trae Young as an example, after one year in college he would have immediate value but not have the ability to realize that value.

But Trae Young would have absolutely immediately turned pro after high school. He was a Mickie Dee who played as well as any of the PGs did in that game. I think there is some kind of revisionist history that happens with him saying that he came out of nowhere or something when the reality is that he was the #20 recruit in the land according to RSCI.

To me, the intent of keeping kids multiple years is to ensure there is some actual educating going on in college and to give these kids at least the beginnings of a solid educational foundation. We are automatically taking the kids who are certain pros out of the equation so the guys we are educating are the ones who are most likely to need a college degree or some kind of foundation down the line. As I said on the podcast, if you are not interested in getting an education, then go to the G-League. But, if you want to use a very valuable university scholarship and take advantage of the opportunities available in our schools then you need to commit to us for at least 2 or 3 years.

I would have no problem at all if 80 or 90% of the top 100 recruits in the land decided to forgo college. That is their choice and I expect the NBA to put a more workable minor league in place to help them (ideally, the minor league would contain some kind of scholarship money as well, in case the player never makes it in the NBA and wants to go back to school in the future). Make the college game about guys who care about both sides of the student-athlete equation, that is what I want to see happen.

-Jason "pipe dream, I know" Evans

[53n206]

There's no way only 5 players declare for the draft out of high school if there is a change to the OAD rule. The old rules from the 90s where we saw a few high schoolers a year turn pro are out the window. If you implement a new rule where kids go pro out of high school or stay in school for 2 or 3 years (at a minimum) then I bet you would see 30+ kids turn pro out of high school. I'm not saying every single McDonald's All-American would do it, but the vast majority of them would. That is just the culture these days. And that is why you would need a somewhat more robust D/G-league where every pro team had a minor league affiliate where these players could develop a little bit before joining their NBA club.

Yes, there would be kids who went to school and suddenly blossomed in unexpected ways, but there would not be many kinds like that and we would likely only be asking them to spend maybe 1 or 2 extra years in school. Not that huge a hardship as their game would still be developing.

-Jason "the biggest thing is giving kids who clearly have immediate value an ability to realize that value. I suspect almost all the kids who opt to go to school will not have nearly the same kind of value and giving them at least the foundation of an education will be a good thing for them" Evans

How many years of the 30+ hi school grad school that immediately turn pro can the system take? In a few years, unless there is a substantial attrition rate, the system will be overburdened. At that point there might be a substantial reduction in the number of players who immediately declare for the draft. Maybe not.

[ChillinDuke]

How many years of the 30+ hi school grad school that immediately turn pro can the system take? In a few years, unless there is a substantial attrition rate, the system will be overburdened. At that point there might be a substantial reduction in the number of players who immediately declare for the draft. Maybe not.

You're probably right. It's tricky.

And I had a longwinded post that I was typing out. But I will forego responding as this is the 2019 recruiting thread, not a discussion on changes to OAD.

- Chillin

[UrinalCake]

I would dispute the notion that Trae Young “absolutely” would have skipped college if there was no OAD rule. Would he have gotten drafted? He was ranked #20 as you said, plus he’d be competing for draft position against older players who did go to college and international players. At best he’d be a late first round pick, but more than likely mid-second round. Now, if a three-or-none rule was in place then he absolutely would have not gone to college. Which is kind of my point - not everybody fits into one of the extremes, there are all of these in-between players who need a better path. If the G league paid, say, $150k per year and he could be drafted to a team that was affiliated with an NBA team who would be invested in his development, and the G-league tournament was on ESPN, then I think Young would have likely gone that route.

[ChillinDuke]

I would dispute the notion that Trae Young “absolutely” would have skipped college if there was no OAD rule. Would he have gotten drafted? He was ranked #20 as you said, plus he’d be competing for draft position against older players who did go to college and international players. At best he’d be a late first round pick, but more than likely mid-second round. Now, if a three-or-none rule was in place then he absolutely would have not gone to college. Which is kind of my point - not everybody fits into one of the extremes, there are all of these in-between players who need a better path. If the G league paid, say, $150k per year and he could be drafted to a team that was affiliated with an NBA team who would be invested in his development, and the G-league tournament was on ESPN, then I think Young would have likely gone that route.

Those are a lot of hypotheticals that remain to be seen. For instance, I can't envision a scenario where the G-League playoffs are live on ESPN. Even my most diehard Knick-fan friends only watch the G-League during the offseason, and even then it's only out of boredom to watch the up-and-comers on the Knicks.

The other issue is one of saturation. Is the NBA at that hypothetical point? It appears not, but it's hard to tell. The NFL has theoretically struggled with saturation (http://awfulannouncing.com/nfl/tv-executives-press-nfl-limit-thursday-games-push-back-london-start-times.html), which has been well documented. If the NBA just keeps bringing in more and more players that are, by definition, less talented and stuffs them on G-League rosters and tries to air G-League games in primetime slots on ESPN/etc, I can say with strong conviction that the product will likely suffer.

Even the biggest institutions have cost/benefit inflection points. Money is never infinite and is never scalable to no end. At the end of the day, players need to make a decision themselves. Chase a dream and face the risk/reward, or go to college.

I like 2-and-None. I'd go farther to 3-and-None, but I expect that will be met with resistance as not giving enough flexibility to the so-called "in-between players" (your term).

- Chillin

[JasonEvans]

How many years of the 30+ hi school grad school that immediately turn pro can the system take? In a few years, unless there is a substantial attrition rate, the system will be overburdened. At that point there might be a substantial reduction in the number of players who immediately declare for the draft. Maybe not.

I think you need some math help.

There are 30 teams in the NBA. If each of them had a G-League affiliate that was essentially a minor league team, then 30+ high schoolers joining the NBA each year would be 1 per team. Some of them would make the NBA team right away and some would play in the G-League. 1 per team isn't even close to unsustainable. In fact, I think it would be more like 1.5-2 per team as I would expect around 50 guys a year to declare for the pro leagues. Still, not at all of an unsustainable number as it would become very obvious within a few years whether the player has a real shot at a NBA future. If so, he sticks around and if not, he moves on with his life (as I said, I hope part of the G-League would be some kind of money put aside for college... perhaps $10,000 per year you play in the G-League up to 4 years). So, we would be adding a couple guys per team a year and dropping a couple guys a year.

It is worth noting that we would have zero freshman and perhaps, in a three and done world, zero sophs in the draft. So, sustaining 50 high schoolers would not be at all difficult. The 120 person draft would likely be something like 30-40 high schoolers, 40-50 sophs or juniors, and 30-40 seniors. I don't see a sustainability problem here at all with 30 NBA and 30 G-League teams.


I would dispute the notion that Trae Young “absolutely” would have skipped college if there was no OAD rule. Would he have gotten drafted? He was ranked #20 as you said, plus he’d be competing for draft position against older players who did go to college and international players. At best he’d be a late first round pick, but more than likely mid-second round. Now, if a three-or-none rule was in place then he absolutely would have not gone to college. Which is kind of my point - not everybody fits into one of the extremes, there are all of these in-between players who need a better path. If the G league paid, say, $150k per year and he could be drafted to a team that was affiliated with an NBA team who would be invested in his development, and the G-league tournament was on ESPN, then I think Young would have likely gone that route.

Your final sentence is almost exactly the world I envision. I doubt the NBA would support an average G-League salary of $150k, but I think having 2 or 3 spots per team at $100k/year and then having the rest of the team making in the $40k/year range would not be unreasonable. For a 12 man roster, we could set the G-League "salary cap" at about $500,000. That's just not going to bankrupt the NBA and it makes the G-League a viable option for guys who do not want to get a college education.

For someone like Trae Young, a McDonald's All-American but not someone who seems ready to be a NBA player from day one, he likely would get one of those coveted $100k/year contracts as a second round high schooler and would start the year in the G-League. It would become obvious after a month or so that he had the skills to handle the NBA and he would get called up and converted to a full NBA rookie contract. Maybe I am oversimplifying something and missing some important wrinkle, but this just isn't that hard to figure out.

-Jason "if only I had been on the Commission instead of Grant Hill or David Robinson ;) " Evans

[JasonEvans]

Those are a lot of hypotheticals that remain to be seen. For instance, I can't envision a scenario where the G-League playoffs are live on ESPN. Even my most diehard Knick-fan friends only watch the G-League during the offseason, and even then it's only out of boredom to watch the up-and-comers on the Knicks.

I dunno... if the G-League teams had a closer tie to the NBA teams, I could see some degree of rooting interest filtering down from the NBA team to the guys who are up-and-comers waiting to take a role with the big club. Right now, most of the guys on the G-League rosters are just random dudes and a Lakers or Celtics or Bulls fan has no reason to care about the rest of the team at all. But, if it was more connected to your team then you might care enough to make televising the games (maybe not on ESPN, but on ESPN2 or ESPNU) worthwhile.

[ChillinDuke]

<snip>

Your final sentence is almost exactly the world I envision. I doubt the NBA would support an average G-League salary of $150k, but I think having 2 or 3 spots per team at $100k/year and then having the rest of the team making in the $40k/year range would not be unreasonable. For a 12 man roster, we could set the G-League "salary cap" at about $500,000. That's just not going to bankrupt the NBA and it makes the G-League a viable option for guys who do not want to get a college education.

For someone like Trae Young, a McDonald's All-American but not someone who seems ready to be a NBA player from day one, he likely would get one of those coveted $100k/year contracts as a second round high schooler and would start the year in the G-League. It would become obvious after a month or so that he had the skills to handle the NBA and he would get called up and converted to a full NBA rookie contract. Maybe I am oversimplifying something and missing some important wrinkle, but this just isn't that hard to figure out.

-Jason "if only I had been on the Commission instead of Grant Hill or David Robinson ;) " Evans

Here's an important wrinkle: It may not bankrupt the NBA, but it's not like all of the NBA teams are rolling in the dough. This article is slightly dated, but it proves the point that money isn't infinite. Some NBA teams actually lose money (http://www.businessinsider.com/nba-teams-losing-money-revenue-sharing-2017-9), believe it or not, and that's after revenue sharing. I know the same is true in baseball (hello, Marlins). I assume it's true in basically every sport. So where does the money come from for these increases in salary cap, roster sizes, travel expenses, etc?

Look, I think a 30-team G-League is doable and likely. It just makes sense on a 1-for-1 basis with NBA teams. Salaries, however, I'm not as convinced that your numbers are attainable and/or likely. And further, a lot of these high schoolers would absolutely get contracts in the $40k/year range (your number). At which point, they may opt for college. And the G-League live on ESPN? No way, Jose. ESPN is already moving to a streaming model. The world is very quickly moving to a la carte TV services. So unless you envision millions of folks subscribing to the G-League app to tune in to games, I'm not counting on any big G-League TV contracts providing big-time revenues.

- Chillin

ETA: The more important consideration in all of this is the negative publicity the NBA gets time and time again by dragging their name into the OAD debate. I actually think Silver cares about that negative PR. Enough to make a change to the rule? Yeah, it looks like it...

[Kedsy]

To me, the intent of keeping kids multiple years is to ensure there is some actual educating going on in college and to give these kids at least the beginnings of a solid educational foundation.

It's an NBA rule, right? What motivation would team owners and the player union have for caring about "the beginning of a solid educational foundation" for individuals who aren't under contract with any team and aren't in the union?

[Kedsy]

But, if it was more connected to your team then you might care enough to make televising the games (maybe not on ESPN, but on ESPN2 or ESPNU) worthwhile.

I think MLB fans do feel this way about minor leaguers for their team, but I still don't think most fans any watch minor league baseball games.

[ChillinDuke]

I dunno... if the G-League teams had a closer tie to the NBA teams, I could see some degree of rooting interest filtering down from the NBA team to the guys who are up-and-comers waiting to take a role with the big club. Right now, most of the guys on the G-League rosters are just random dudes and a Lakers or Celtics or Bulls fan has no reason to care about the rest of the team at all. But, if it was more connected to your team then you might care enough to make televising the games (maybe not on ESPN, but on ESPN2 or ESPNU) worthwhile.

Sorry to keep going back and forth with you in particular, Jason.

I dunno. I don't think so. The baseball minor leagues don't get that sort of attention. Remember, in a few years, the guys on your Lakers or Celtics or Bulls affiliate will be literally unknown to the world. High schoolers who went direct to the pros with no college affiliation and practically no national exposure. My friends tune into the Westchester Knicks to see how the draft picks are playing or how some big-name college guy is shaking out. I think when you remove the name recognition and only have one or two draft picks that you're watching that you've even heard of, I think people are going to actually lose interest. ETA - Even the NBA draft will suffer as name recognition goes away.

I could be wrong.

- Chillin

[MarkD83]

The cynic in me tells me the NBA will try to do as little as possible to remedy what is an issue for the NCAA or more specifically for NCAA basketball fans.

1) The NBA has a minor league system in the NCAA for which they do not have to pay.
2) Their scouts get to sit at home and evaluate talent by watching games on TV or being invited to college games that any NCAA fan would pay lots of money to attend.
3) The talent that the players are being evaluated against is an upgrade from high school so there is less uncertainty when evaluations are performed.
4) The minor league (NCAA) provides great marketing for the NBA's future stars.
5) The NBA gets more players thinking they can play in the NBA (236 signed up for the draft) then can be drafted (60) so the best GMs can take advantage of the fact that the worst GMs will make mistakes in the draft.
6) The NBA can justify the current system by saying this only is detrimental to < 176 players each year and some of those 176 do play in other professional leagues so the number is insignificant.

(Big cynical finish)....and the NBA and NBA players are making a lot of money with the current system so why fix it.

[JasonEvans]

Sigh... y'all win. I was trying to come up with a system that would benefit the kids and benefit the college game. It is sorta tough to do so. Oh well...

[ChillinDuke]

Sigh... y'all win. I was trying to come up with a system that would benefit the kids and benefit the college game. It is sorta tough to do so. Oh well...

Wait.

Wait, what?

What do we do now?

- Chillin :D

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Sorry to keep going back and forth with you in particular, Jason.

I dunno. I don't think so. The baseball minor leagues don't get that sort of attention.

- Chillin

All I know is that when I was in college in Asheville, I shared an apartment complex with several minor league players. That tells you it wasn't glamorous.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

Here's an important wrinkle: It may not bankrupt the NBA, but it's not like all of the NBA teams are rolling in the dough.

This article is slightly dated, but it proves the point that money isn't infinite. Some NBA teams actually lose money (http://www.businessinsider.com/nba-teams-losing-money-revenue-sharing-2017-9), believe it or not, and that's after revenue sharing. I know the same is true in baseball (hello, Marlins). I assume it's true in basically every sport. So where does the money come from for these increases in salary cap, roster sizes, travel expenses, etc?

- Chillin.

True, and you can substitute the term (college athletic department) for (NBA Teams) in the not rolling in the dough category. This speaks to the actual reality based market value of 99.99% of all players - who do not transcend the name on the front of their jerseys.

[Indoor66]

All I know is that when I was in college in Asheville, I shared an apartment complex with several minor league players. That tells you it wasn't glamorous.

I knew Greg Lewzinski when he played for the Durham Bulls. The life of a minor leaguer was never glamorous - even for the best of them.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I knew Greg Lewzinski when he played for the Durham Bulls. The life of a minor leaguer was never glamorous - even for the best of them.

The top prospect had a nice car. They also seemed to all have lots of attractive visitors.

Certainly not glamorous. But at my same age, they didn't seem to be too unhappy either.

[JNort]

My take on this and what to do:

1. All athletes should get paid a minimum wage (whatever is set by that state).

Most will say "o but they get a scholarship" it's not even close to the same thing. As someone who didn't have to pay for my college either due to scholarship I still had to work 30+ hours a week to pay for vehicle insurance, gas, and of course to have extra spending money for fun or dates or heck even for better food that's not on campus. If for example you're on the football team, between practice/workouts/games/travel/ film study you will put in close to 30 hours a week for your sport leaving little to no time for a job. Let's pay them by the hour for the time they out into their craft.



2. Place the G league salary cap at about (I'm flexible on this) 1 million dollars.

In fact make that 1 million apart of the regular team cap. So take the NBA cap from 94.14 million to 93.14 million. This should allow guys to average around ~80k plus whatever they make when they get called up. The main reason however is to make it more enticing to the high school seniors.



3. Keep the OAD rule.

I know it sounds bad and I'm still not a fan but we shouldn't restrict what these guys can do with their careers to the extent of keeping them out of the league for 3 or 4 years. The hope is that if you raise the G league salary enough you can get the top 20 high school recruits to jump away from college and towards the G league. More people should in theory watch and it should also get more ESPN coverage if guys like Zion and Reddish are battling it out.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

My take on this and what to do:

1. All athletes should get paid a minimum wage (whatever is set by that state).

Most will say "o but they get a scholarship" it's not even close to the same thing. As someone who didn't have to pay for my college either due to scholarship I still had to work 30+ hours a week to pay for vehicle insurance, gas, and of course to have extra spending money for fun or dates or heck even for better food that's not on campus. If for example you're on the football team, between practice/workouts/games/travel/ film study you will put in close to 30 hours a week for your sport leaving little to no time for a job. Let's pay them by the hour for the time they out into their craft.



[.

Few problems with this...
A: does this include the field hockey team? The swim team? Baseball? All the non revs...
B: since they are paid, can they get fired?
C: superstars and scrubs treated alike?
D: this would fall short of satisfying the vast majority of the PTP crowd.

[JNort]

Few problems with this...
A: does this include the field hockey team? The swim team? Baseball? All the non revs...
B: since they are paid, can they get fired?
C: superstars and scrubs treated alike?
D: this would fall short of satisfying the vast majority of the PTP crowd.

A: Yes, any time put into your sport and paid by the hour if it's an official NCAA sport.

B: Of course they could just like they can lose their scholarships now or get kicked off the team or suspended.

C: Yes.

D: It's not meant to satisfy them. It's meant as an in between solution between to vastly different sides. A call to sit at the same table if you will.


What I said isn't meant to be a fix all but a solution to sate some issues both sides have. Meet in the middle.

[MarkD83]

Sigh... y'all win. I was trying to come up with a system that would benefit the kids and benefit the college game. It is sorta tough to do so. Oh well...

Perhaps we need to start by asking what a basketball player would consider to be beneficial.

Like any profession opening up more jobs would be good so a robust G-league with more roster spots would be very helpful. Even though minor leagues may not be glamorous, a minor league player is being paid for what they love.

Not restricting the player from being paid based on age. If they are good enough on their merits than let them play and pay them (I don't mean in college but in a professional league). Anyone that has had an internship in their chosen profession will probably have stories of how they did the jobs no one else wanted to do but it help them with their career.

If the players do go to school let them make money from their skills. This is not a way to pay the players for being on the team. Instead, if they want to be a coach at a summer camp or work at a YMCA teaching basketball or play in the NBA summer league let them. Back to the paid internships...other college students do not get paid for taking classes (they pay tuition) but they are free to get paid for what they have learned even if they do not have their degree.

The "paid internship" system may actually not be an issue with Title IX. Any athlete can try to get an internship. This may be a system where cheating could be rampant, but perhaps thinking of ways of enforcing "NCAA" rules would be a better way to protect the student-athlete.

In terms of benefiting the college game, keeping the best players in school for 2-3 years would appear to improve the game because the skill level of players would remain high. However, a paid internship will not have much appeal if you can get paid multiple times as much for doing the same thing in a professional league. IF the NBA wanted to help the college game (big if) they would do the same thing as other professions...you get paid more for different levels of "education". The starting pay and potential pay is higher for someone with a PhD then for a MS then for a BS. Right now it is hard to see what college offers that would raise the value of a player to the NBA. They either have the skills or they do not. Now colleges could start to offer degrees in "sports" and give credit for various classes (weight lifting etc.) that would improve the skills of the player. Before we laugh at that comment, other countries have sports academies and UVA just landed a 6'11'' recruit who went to an "NBA Academy" in Argentina. That means the NBA is willing to do this.

If by benefiting the college game we mean that the NCAA tournament is entertaining and we are excited by the tournament and also enjoy great regular season games...it may not be broken. We are still going to enjoy the Maui classic no matter what players are on the various teams because the top teams will play each other. There are still league rivalries we will enjoy seeing. Finally their will still be stunning upsets in the first two rounds of the NCAAs followed by an underdog and several top teams competing in the Final Four.

If by benefiting the college game we mean that Duke continues to compete for championships and continues to win a few...the college game may also still be in good shape.

If by benefiting the college game we mean clean up all the cheating...the NCAA needs to be restructured and enforcement of rules need to be taken away from them and given to an independent party. This may start a whole new debate but the point is this will have nothing to do with the student athletes and more about controlling rogue institutions.

So...benefiting the college game may have to focus on this last comment and not OADs or anything related to restrictions or benefits for the players.

[HereBeforeCoachK]

A: Yes, any time put into your sport and paid by the hour if it's an official NCAA sport.

B: Of course they could just like they can lose their scholarships now or get kicked off the team or suspended.

C: Yes.

D: It's not meant to satisfy them. It's meant as an in between solution between to vastly different sides. A call to sit at the same table if you will.

What I said isn't meant to be a fix all but a solution to sate some issues both sides have. Meet in the middle.

On your points A and D combined:
Your idea seems to miss the point that the Pay The Players movement (the most aggressive of them) pin their entire case on the massive revenues generated by college FB and basketball, and their only concern is to pay those players, and they are not talking about minimum wage either. The idea is to enrich those players. What Jay Bilas and many others are talking about has nothing to do with the soccer or crew teams, etc.

But here's where I think you swerved into the crux of the matter: The ultimate and undeniable reality of any pay the players provision will be the elimination of some non revenue sports. It will also be law suits demanding that all athletes, in all sports, get paid. Those two problems work together.

You also will inevitably, once you start handing out identical pay checks, create jealousies and resentments as the star basketball player gets paid what the third string tackle does on the FB team, etc. Of course, if it's not equal pay: see legal problems above.

You will also see further stratification of college programs...there are only 25-30 programs who could possibly budget any meaningful amount for player salaries while still operating anywhere close to the way they do. Duke, by the way, is not among them. Probably only FSU and Clemson are from the ACC. Meanwhile, the MEAC programs and the Sun Belt and American conferences and so on would slink away slowly into a third class program status. Economics demands it.

Things will change, but here is where we are today: we've all kind of accepted the bargain that FB and BB will pay for itself and all other sports. Rightly or wrongly, that's where we are. With massive revs to FB and BB, many other non rev sports now enjoy coaching, travel, uniforms and facilities beyond their wildest imagination just 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the stars of BB and FB are showcased in amazing stadiums with all kinds of exposure and they enjoy world class coaching, medical care, meals and nutrition, and etc etc etc. (the jocks also get the girls, which is human nature, but part of this deal, even if unofficially).

If we open the pandora's box of paying the players officially and above board, that whole house of cards comes down. Now some people say it should, and that the non rev sports should be only club level teams, self funding, etc. The problem is, no one seems to ever mention this part of the equation in the main PTP debate.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

On your points A and D combined:
Your idea seems to miss the point that the Pay The Players movement (the most aggressive of them) pin their entire case on the massive revenues generated by college FB and basketball, and their only concern is to pay those players, and they are not talking about minimum wage either. The idea is to enrich those players. What Jay Bilas and many others are talking about has nothing to do with the soccer or crew teams, etc.

But here's where I think you swerved into the crux of the matter: The ultimate and undeniable reality of any pay the players provision will be the elimination of some non revenue sports. It will also be law suits demanding that all athletes, in all sports, get paid. Those two problems work together.

You also will inevitably, once you start handing out identical pay checks, create jealousies and resentments as the star basketball player gets paid what the third string tackle does on the FB team, etc. Of course, if it's not equal pay: see legal problems above.

You will also see further stratification of college programs...there are only 25-30 programs who could possibly budget any meaningful amount for player salaries while still operating anywhere close to the way they do. Duke, by the way, is not among them. Probably only FSU and Clemson are from the ACC. Meanwhile, the MEAC programs and the Sun Belt and American conferences and so on would slink away slowly into a third class program status. Economics demands it.

Things will change, but here is where we are today: we've all kind of accepted the bargain that FB and BB will pay for itself and all other sports. Rightly or wrongly, that's where we are. With massive revs to FB and BB, many other non rev sports now enjoy coaching, travel, uniforms and facilities beyond their wildest imagination just 10 years ago. Meanwhile, the stars of BB and FB are showcased in amazing stadiums with all kinds of exposure and they enjoy world class coaching, medical care, meals and nutrition, and etc etc etc. (the jocks also get the girls, which is human nature, but part of this deal, even if unofficially).

If we open the pandora's box of paying the players officially and above board, that whole house of cards comes down. Now some people say it should, and that the non rev sports should be only club level teams, self funding, etc. The problem is, no one seems to ever mention this part of the equation in the main PTP debate.

Good post. I am a proponent of players' rights and would like to see a payment system of some sort. But, if we pay the players, we are acknowledging the employer/athlete relationship, and minimum wage will be laughable. Once that cat is out of the bag, you will have to pay "market value."

I personally have no idea what that is, but I imagine any worthwhile lbor attorney would easily argue it is far about $7/hr, or whatever minimum wage is. And the moment you pay the players you open yourself up to labor laws, antitrust issues, player strikes, etc.

[sagegrouse]

Perhaps we need to start by asking what a basketball player would consider to be beneficial.

Like any profession opening up more jobs would be good so a robust G-league with more roster spots would be very helpful. Even though minor leagues may not be glamorous, a minor league player is being paid for what they love.

Not restricting the player from being paid based on age. If they are good enough on their merits than let them play and pay them (I don't mean in college but in a professional league). Anyone that has had an internship in their chosen profession will probably have stories of how they did the jobs no one else wanted to do but it help them with their career.

If the players do go to school let them make money from their skills. This is not a way to pay the players for being on the team. Instead, if they want to be a coach at a summer camp or work at a YMCA teaching basketball or play in the NBA summer league let them. Back to the paid internships...other college students do not get paid for taking classes (they pay tuition) but they are free to get paid for what they have learned even if they do not have their degree.

The "paid internship" system may actually not be an issue with Title IX. Any athlete can try to get an internship. This may be a system where cheating could be rampant, but perhaps thinking of ways of enforcing "NCAA" rules would be a better way to protect the student-athlete.

In terms of benefiting the college game, keeping the best players in school for 2-3 years would appear to improve the game because the skill level of players would remain high. However, a paid internship will not have much appeal if you can get paid multiple times as much for doing the same thing in a professional league. IF the NBA wanted to help the college game (big if) they would do the same thing as other professions...you get paid more for different levels of "education". The starting pay and potential pay is higher for someone with a PhD then for a MS then for a BS. Right now it is hard to see what college offers that would raise the value of a player to the NBA. They either have the skills or they do not. Now colleges could start to offer degrees in "sports" and give credit for various classes (weight lifting etc.) that would improve the skills of the player. Before we laugh at that comment, other countries have sports academies and UVA just landed a 6'11'' recruit who went to an "NBA Academy" in Argentina. That means the NBA is willing to do this.

If by benefiting the college game we mean that the NCAA tournament is entertaining and we are excited by the tournament and also enjoy great regular season games...it may not be broken. We are still going to enjoy the Maui classic no matter what players are on the various teams because the top teams will play each other. There are still league rivalries we will enjoy seeing. Finally their will still be stunning upsets in the first two rounds of the NCAAs followed by an underdog and several top teams competing in the Final Four.

If by benefiting the college game we mean that Duke continues to compete for championships and continues to win a few...the college game may also still be in good shape.

If by benefiting the college game we mean clean up all the cheating...the NCAA needs to be restructured and enforcement of rules need to be taken away from them and given to an independent party. This may start a whole new debate but the point is this will have nothing to do with the student athletes and more about controlling rogue institutions.

So...benefiting the college game may have to focus on this last comment and not OADs or anything related to restrictions or benefits for the players.

Let me say what no one else has mentioned recently: most of the jobs in basketball in the US require a college degree. There are about 500 thousand HS boys playing hoops -- maybe 50 thousand coaches -- part-time jobs mostly and often teachers otherwise. There are 351 division I schools and at least 1,000 other colleges and jucos playing hoops (150+ leagues). That's another few thousand coaching positions. Almost all require a college degree.

Players that go from HS to the G League, I would speculate, are very unlikely to get a college degree or acquire any useful professional, liberal arts, or technical education. Why, as a society, do we want to create a path to nowhere by promoting the G league as an alternative to college? Those who start on the bench of a G league team seem unlikely ever to reach the NBA for any meaningful career.

Anyway, just one point of view.

[Indoor66]

Let me say what no one else has mentioned recently: most of the jobs in basketball in the US require a college degree. There are about 500 thousand HS boys playing hoops -- maybe 50 thousand coaches -- part-time jobs mostly and often teachers otherwise. There are 351 division I schools and at least 1,000 other colleges and jucos playing hoops (150+ leagues). That's another few thousand coaching positions. Almost all require a college degree.

Players that go from HS to the G League, I would speculate, are very unlikely to get a college degree or acquire any useful professional, liberal arts, or technical education. Why, as a society, do we want to create a path to nowhere by promoting the G league as an alternative to college? Those who start on the bench of a G league team seem unlikely ever to reach the NBA for any meaningful career.

Anyway, just one point of view.

But Sage one, you miss the point. It is all about two things and two things only: The Now and The Benjamins. They don't need to waste time in classes; they don't need no college. They only need The Now and The Benjamins.

[MarkD83]

Let me say what no one else has mentioned recently: most of the jobs in basketball in the US require a college degree. There are about 500 thousand HS boys playing hoops -- maybe 50 thousand coaches -- part-time jobs mostly and often teachers otherwise. There are 351 division I schools and at least 1,000 other colleges and jucos playing hoops (150+ leagues). That's another few thousand coaching positions. Almost all require a college degree.

Players that go from HS to the G League, I would speculate, are very unlikely to get a college degree or acquire any useful professional, liberal arts, or technical education. Why, as a society, do we want to create a path to nowhere by promoting the G league as an alternative to college? Those who start on the bench of a G league team seem unlikely ever to reach the NBA for any meaningful career.

Anyway, just one point of view.

This is a great point that I totally missed. However, to try to salvage my position...perhaps schools should offer a degree that helps emphasize "coaching sports". I could even see this degree recommending that students have an internship at a summer sports camp...where the interns get paid....

(This may be a very weak attempt at defending my position.)