PDA

View Full Version : One and Done going away, what will Duke (and KY) do?



Wahoo2000
07-11-2018, 12:56 PM
Nothing super-new here, but it looks like one-and-done will almost certainly be done by 2021.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/07/10/adam-silver-says-nba-is-ready-to-make-a-change-to-the-leagues-draft-age-limit/?utm_term=.e04f12d85230

And this next bit might deserve it's own thread, but I'll just post here anyway-
It will be interesting to see how Duke and KY prepare for the following seasons. Will they just continue to load up on the one and done guys as much as possible, or will they try to incorporate more top 20-60ish guys over the next couple of seasons so they're not rolling out a roster full of guys who are BOTH inexperienced and not lottery-level-talent for the 21-22 season? I imagine that's especially difficult to forecast in Duke's case as there's probably a good chance K has retired by then.

UrinalCake
07-11-2018, 01:06 PM
We do what we’ve always done - go after the best available players that fit the Duke system as players and as students. This will include some guys that may end up being one year guys, as well as more multi year players. I imagine Kentucky will do the same, though it wouldn’t shock me if this pushes Pitino to accept an NBA position.

If you’re asking just about the 2019 and 2020 classes, we’ve identified several OAD level guys that were recruiting for 2019, but some lower level guys too. So I think we’ll see a shift which may also coincide with K’s eventual exit plan.

Kedsy
07-11-2018, 01:13 PM
I imagine Kentucky will do the same, though it wouldn’t shock me if this pushes Pitino to accept an NBA position.

Rick Pitino is more or less unemployable. You mean Calipari?

JasonEvans
07-11-2018, 01:25 PM
I imagine that's especially difficult to forecast in Duke's case as there's probably a good chance K has retired by then.


So I think we’ll see a shift which may also coincide with K’s eventual exit plan.

Don't want us to get sidetracked by a whole debate about K's future, but he has made it fairly clear in recent interviews that he does not have any idea when he will retire and he doubts it will be any time soon. That said, he is 71 and one has to think he has less than a decade left at Duke.

UrinalCake
07-11-2018, 01:29 PM
Rick Pitino is more or less unemployable. You mean Calipari?

Wow. Apparent I had a recent frontal lobotomy that led me to believe Pitino was still their coach. Sorry for the slip up.

ChillinDuke
07-11-2018, 01:30 PM
Wow. Apparent I had a recent frontal lobotomy that led me to believe Pitino was still their coach. Sorry for the slip up.

Ha! Given the context, that's a pretty big lobotomy you had there!

- Chillin

OldPhiKap
07-11-2018, 01:31 PM
K will continue to excel at recruiting until he decides to hang it up. No worries, and frankly I would applaud the death of the 1-n-done era.

jacone21
07-11-2018, 01:41 PM
I was thinking this morning about this. I think for recruiting powerhouses like Duke, recruiting the one and done era is actually easier. You go after the best guys. Period.

Recruiting in the "maybe one and done, maybe zero and done, maybe more and done" era has to be more difficult and frustrating. Sure... they did it before, but that was when just a handful of guys even considered going straight from high school to the NBA. Now, 47 guys a year will likely attempt to make the jump. Where do you focus your recruiting efforts when most or all of the good players will go zero and done or test the proverbial waters? What if we had 4 Shaun Livingston situations in one year? That would result in a late, mad scramble to field a team, with cascading effects. Yuck.

I'm very happy to see the guys who want to go pro be able to go pro. That's how it should be. But I would hate to be a recruiter in the next version of that environment.

flyingdutchdevil
07-11-2018, 01:44 PM
K will continue to excel at recruiting until he decides to hang it up. No worries, and frankly I would applaud the death of the 1-n-done era.

Moi aussi. I've had fun watching the Irvings, Parkers, Winslows, and Duvals, but it's just sad what's happening now with 2nd round picks/undrafted players leaving after 1 year.

Troublemaker
07-11-2018, 01:46 PM
Nothing super-new here, but it looks like one-and-done will almost certainly be done by 2021.

Not quite. The memo the league sent out to every NBA franchise (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23804458/memo-states-nba-draft-eligibility-shift-21) was that the change will be made "between 2021 and 2024." It's really 2021 at the earliest. While it may very well get done in 2021, people have consistently underestimated all the logistics that have to be hammered out between owners and the NBPA before OAD can go away. (Some Duke fans were actually worried about this incoming freshman class of Barrett, Williamson, etc. and how they might go in the 2018 draft.) Every NBA team needs a G-League affiliate first, and then the owners and players have to agree on whether time spent in the G-league developing will count contractually towards moving closer to free agency or whether the owners will implement a baseball style "service time" (http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time).

flyingdutchdevil
07-11-2018, 01:48 PM
Not quite. The memo the league sent out to every NBA franchise (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23804458/memo-states-nba-draft-eligibility-shift-21) was that the change will be made "between 2021 and 2024." It's really 2021 at the earliest. While it may very well get done in 2021, people have consistently underestimated all the logistics that have to be hammered out between owners and the NBPA before OAD can go away. (Some Duke fans were actually worried about this incoming freshman class of Barrett, Williamson, etc. and how they might go in the 2018 draft.) Every NBA team needs a G-League affiliate first, and then the owners and players have to agree on whether time spent in the G-league developing will count contractually towards moving closer to free agency or whether the owners will implement a baseball style "service time" (http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time).

Callin' it: Coach K will retire sometime between 2021 and 2024. ;)

plimnko
07-11-2018, 01:58 PM
Callin' it: Coach K will retire sometime between 2021 and 2024. ;)


i believe that's a fair estimate. however, i'm sure he won't leave on his own accord until he feels the house is in order.

Acymetric
07-11-2018, 02:10 PM
Not quite. The memo the league sent out to every NBA franchise (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23804458/memo-states-nba-draft-eligibility-shift-21) was that the change will be made "between 2021 and 2024." It's really 2021 at the earliest. While it may very well get done in 2021, people have consistently underestimated all the logistics that have to be hammered out between owners and the NBPA before OAD can go away. (Some Duke fans were actually worried about this incoming freshman class of Barrett, Williamson, etc. and how they might go in the 2018 draft.) Every NBA team needs a G-League affiliate first, and then the owners and players have to agree on whether time spent in the G-league developing will count contractually towards moving closer to free agency or whether the owners will implement a baseball style "service time" (http://m.mlb.com/glossary/transactions/service-time).

I get why every team having a G-League affiliate would seem ideal, but I am not sure it needs to be a requirement in order to move forward with this. Why would it? Teams are still drafting the same number of players per year, so the same number of available slots should be required to accommodate them. There will be a one-year bump in candidates to make the league the year this goes into effect (when you have the last class of OAD and first group of high schoolers declaring the same year). After that things should be the same as they are now, just with a slightly different age distribution.

budwom
07-11-2018, 02:14 PM
Don't want us to get sidetracked by a whole debate about K's future, but he has made it fairly clear in recent interviews that he does not have any idea when he will retire and he doubts it will be any time soon. That said, he is 71 and one has to think he has less than a decade left at Duke.

Ha, how many 81 year old NCAA coaches can you name? K's on a recruiting hot streak which helps keep him around, but I'm not sure you'll find many who expect him to be Duke's coach five years from now.
Coaches aren't about to screw up recruitment by speaking of imminent departure.

UrinalCake
07-11-2018, 02:22 PM
Recruiting in the "maybe one and done, maybe zero and done, maybe more and done" era has to be more difficult and frustrating... What if we had 4 Shaun Livingston situations in one year?

Will definitely be more difficult for the reason you stated. And moreso if the rule is adopted to allow players to test the waters and then return to school. Then imagine if they allow incoming freshmen to do this (which would make sense). Coaches wouldn’t know until after the draft what their incoming class or returning roster would be. There would be a mad scramble for grad transfers in July. And if the NCAA amends the transfer rules to allow a one time immediate eligibility without sitting out a year, then we’ll essentially have an entire recruitment cycle happening between July and August as coaches try to fill their rosters with transfer students to replace the players that left.

Billy Dat
07-11-2018, 02:30 PM
Just because high school kids will be able to go pro, that doesn't mean the "one and done" era is over. Something tells me that great freshmen will still declare for the NBA draft after one year. You still need pro talent to win NCAA titles.

Acymetric
07-11-2018, 02:37 PM
Will definitely be more difficult for the reason you stated. And moreso if the rule is adopted to allow players to test the waters and then return to school. Then imagine if they allow incoming freshmen to do this (which would make sense). Coaches wouldn’t know until after the draft what their incoming class or returning roster would be. There would be a mad scramble for grad transfers in July. And if the NCAA amends the transfer rules to allow a one time immediate eligibility without sitting out a year, then we’ll essentially have an entire recruitment cycle happening between July and August as coaches try to fill their rosters with transfer students to replace the players that left.

This is why I don't think allowing players who go undrafted (either out of high school or after 1+ years of college) to retain NCAA eligibility is a viable option. The draft just happens way to late to have that much up in the air for so many teams. You declare and don't pull out by whatever deadline (probably in April, May at the latest), you lose NCAA eligibility. I think that is tough, as many major decisions are, but not horribly unreasonable. A middle ground, I suppose, would be that a player who does not withdraw and then goes undrafted could retain eligibility, but would have to sit out a year like a transfer or something (that is not a solid, fully fleshed out solution, just a suggestion of the direction you would need to go to consider allowing undrafted players to return).

UrinalCake
07-11-2018, 02:43 PM
^ BTW, a question I’ve been meaning to ask... how was Lagerald Vick able to return to Kansas after declaring for the draft and going undrafted? I thought you were no longer allowed to do that, which was a rule that the Commission was recommending to rescind.

CDu
07-11-2018, 02:50 PM
^ BTW, a question I’ve been meaning to ask... how was Lagerald Vick able to return to Kansas after declaring for the draft and going undrafted? I thought you were no longer allowed to do that, which was a rule that the Commission was recommending to rescind.

He withdrew from the draft. So then it was a question of whether he'd go pro or not. But by withdrawing from the draft, he was eligible to come back.

jacone21
07-11-2018, 02:55 PM
This is why I don't think allowing players who go undrafted (either out of high school or after 1+ years of college) to retain NCAA eligibility is a viable option. The draft just happens way to late to have that much up in the air for so many teams. You declare and don't pull out by whatever deadline (probably in April, May at the latest), you lose NCAA eligibility. I think that is tough, as many major decisions are, but not horribly unreasonable. A middle ground, I suppose, would be that a player who does not withdraw and then goes undrafted could retain eligibility, but would have to sit out a year like a transfer or something (that is not a solid, fully fleshed out solution, just a suggestion of the direction you would need to go to consider allowing undrafted players to return).

Maybe we let everyone stay eligible and have an NCAA lottery and then a draft the week following the NBA draft. Dispense with recruiting altogether. With the first pick in the 2023 NCAA Draft, the Wofford Terriers select... Bronny James.

We have a trade to announce. The Georgia State Panthers have traded 4th pick, Buckets Williamson to the Tulane Green Wave for 7th pick, Shooter Davis, along
with redshirt freshman quarterback, Ace Gunner, Jr.

Jay Bilas: "Ace Gunner Jr. has a 7' 2" wingspan. That's ridiculous for a quarterback."

Okay. Maybe that's a bad idea.

kmspeaks
07-11-2018, 05:43 PM
This is why I don't think allowing players who go undrafted (either out of high school or after 1+ years of college) to retain NCAA eligibility is a viable option. The draft just happens way to late to have that much up in the air for so many teams. You declare and don't pull out by whatever deadline (probably in April, May at the latest), you lose NCAA eligibility. I think that is tough, as many major decisions are, but not horribly unreasonable. A middle ground, I suppose, would be that a player who does not withdraw and then goes undrafted could retain eligibility, but would have to sit out a year like a transfer or something (that is not a solid, fully fleshed out solution, just a suggestion of the direction you would need to go to consider allowing undrafted players to return).

I don't know, baseball makes it work. I believe the deadline for MLB draft picks to sign was a couple days ago.

azzefkram
07-11-2018, 06:23 PM
I don't know, baseball makes it work. I believe the deadline for MLB draft picks to sign was a couple days ago.

Baseball has a none or 3 rule plus larger roster sizes. You only have to worry about a few of your incoming freshmen.

NSDukeFan
07-11-2018, 06:47 PM
Maybe we let everyone stay eligible and have an NCAA lottery and then a draft the week following the NBA draft. Dispense with recruiting altogether. With the first pick in the 2023 NCAA Draft, the Wofford Terriers select... Bronny James.

We have a trade to announce. The Georgia State Panthers have traded 4th pick, Buckets Williamson to the Tulane Green Wave for 7th pick, Shooter Davis, along
with redshirt freshman quarterback, Ace Gunner, Jr.

Jay Bilas: "Ace Gunner Jr. has a 7' 2" wingspan. That's ridiculous for a quarterback."

Okay. Maybe that's a bad idea.

You’re right. I don’t think Jay should be discussing football. I’m sure he would have strong opinions, but they would likely be less reasonable than his basketball ones.

devildeac
07-11-2018, 10:09 PM
Don't want us to get sidetracked by a whole debate about K's future, but he has made it fairly clear in recent interviews that he does not have any idea when he will retire and he doubts it will be any time soon. That said, he is 71 and one has to think he has less than a decade left at Duke.

Did you mean century? ;)

SoCalDukeFan
07-12-2018, 12:07 AM
I was thinking this morning about this. I think for recruiting powerhouses like Duke, recruiting the one and done era is actually easier. You go after the best guys. Period.

Recruiting in the "maybe one and done, maybe zero and done, maybe more and done" era has to be more difficult and frustrating. Sure... they did it before, but that was when just a handful of guys even considered going straight from high school to the NBA. Now, 47 guys a year will likely attempt to make the jump. Where do you focus your recruiting efforts when most or all of the good players will go zero and done or test the proverbial waters? What if we had 4 Shaun Livingston situations in one year? That would result in a late, mad scramble to field a team, with cascading effects. Yuck.

I'm very happy to see the guys who want to go pro be able to go pro. That's how it should be. But I would hate to be a recruiter in the next version of that environment.

Finding players good enough to play for Duke and meet the other tests of character and academics and also not good enough to go straight to the NBA will be a real challenge. And then you gotta outrecruit every other school for these guys.

Still will be very happy when one and done is done.

SoCal

billy
07-12-2018, 12:38 AM
It will be interesting to see how Duke and KY prepare for the following seasons. Will they just continue to load up on the one and done guys as much as possible, or will they try to incorporate more top 20-60ish guys over the next couple of seasons so they're not rolling out a roster full of guys who are BOTH inexperienced and not lottery-level-talent for the 21-22 season?

Flipping the question, how will UVA fare? Since the advent of one-and-dones at Duke (the year Kyrie Irving was at Duke was 2010-11), UVA has finished 1st or 2nd in the ACC the last 5 years and averaged 6 losses overall. Arguably, much better than the pre one-and-done years (except for maybe 2006-2007). Perhaps UVA's "experienced" teams have fared well against the younger, one-and-done teams. And, perhaps Duke (not sure about Kentucky) will be better off for the potential rule changes.

jimsumner
07-12-2018, 09:33 AM
We can only take the MLB/NBA comparison so far.

Major-league baseball teams don't draft high-school players with the expectation that those players will be in the majors in a few months. Heck, they don't even draft college players with that expectation.

And, even with the maturation of the G-League, NBA teams don't have a half-dozen minor-league affiliate, with a hundred plus players under contract.


It's really an apple/oranges comparison.

JasonEvans
07-12-2018, 09:39 AM
Maybe we let everyone stay eligible and have an NCAA lottery and then a draft the week following the NBA draft. Dispense with recruiting altogether. With the first pick in the 2023 NCAA Draft, the Wofford Terriers select... Bronny James.

We have a trade to announce. The Georgia State Panthers have traded 4th pick, Buckets Williamson to the Tulane Green Wave for 7th pick, Shooter Davis, along
with redshirt freshman quarterback, Ace Gunner, Jr.

Jay Bilas: "Ace Gunner Jr. has a 7' 2" wingspan. That's ridiculous for a quarterback."

Okay. Maybe that's a bad idea.

Cute, but I suspect it would be more like this:

"The Wofford Terriers announce they have traded the first pick in the 2023 NCAA Draft to the Kentucky Wildcats for the 232nd pick plus cash considerations... lots of cash considerations."

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 09:45 AM
We can only take the MLB/NBA comparison so far.

Major-league baseball teams don't draft high-school players with the expectation that those players will be in the majors in a few months. Heck, they don't even draft college players with that expectation.

And, even with the maturation of the G-League, NBA teams don't have a half-dozen minor-league affiliate, with a hundred plus players under contract.


It's really an apple/oranges comparison.

It's a real question: Why do even the very best amateur baseball players need (usually) multiple years of seasoning in the minor leagues before showing up with the major league club?

Is baseball a craft that requires years of experience in hitting, pitching, fielding and base running? Why is this different from other sports? It may not be in total -- effective rookie quarterbacks are pretty darned scarce, but other rookie NFL players seem to adjust (of course, everyone wants to pick on rookie cornerbacks). Is there any other sport comparable?

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 09:51 AM
It's a real question: Why do even the very best amateur baseball players need (usually) multiple years of seasoning in the minor leagues before showing up with the major league club?

Is baseball a craft that requires years of experience in hitting, pitching, fielding and base running? Why is this different from other sports? It may not be in total -- effective rookie quarterbacks are pretty darned scarce, but other rookie NFL players seem to adjust (of course, everyone wants to pick on rookie cornerbacks). Is there any other sport comparable?

From the high school level? Yes. Definitely.

From the college level? No, not really. Top-round picks out of college typically don't sit in the minors for more than half a season / one full season. And that's probably more to do with having the ability to let them adjust in one of the half dozen affiliated farm teams as opposed to having the necessity to get them more experience.

- Chillin

Saratoga2
07-12-2018, 09:53 AM
We can only take the MLB/NBA comparison so far.

Major-league baseball teams don't draft high-school players with the expectation that those players will be in the majors in a few months. Heck, they don't even draft college players with that expectation.

And, even with the maturation of the G-League, NBA teams don't have a half-dozen minor-league affiliate, with a hundred plus players under contract.


It's really an apple/oranges comparison.

On the other hand, there are many high school basketball stars, their mothers, fathers, cousins and uncles who think they are NBA material out of high school. The arbitors of this are the NBA staffs who probably think no more than 15 or 20 will be able to make the jump without a stint of a year or two in development. So all the others who want to give it a shot are up in the air as far as college recruiting is concerned. Providing a list of likely Draft kids to colleges early and not going beyond those kids would give colleges the advantage of knowing which kids were definately available for recruiting. If they want to recruit players on the NBA list, that would be a risk they can take. Players on the NBA list not signed to a contract would become available late and might be recruited if college team haven't already completely used up their 13 scholarships. If neither the college team or the NBA team picks up one on the list the NBA should pick them up for one of the G-League teams on a nominal contract.

Troublemaker
07-12-2018, 10:35 AM
I get why every team having a G-League affiliate would seem ideal, but I am not sure it needs to be a requirement in order to move forward with this. Why would it? Teams are still drafting the same number of players per year, so the same number of available slots should be required to accommodate them.

It's not just about the number of players (although I wouldn't be surprised if the NBA added a 3rd round to the draft). If the idea is that NBA teams will draft 18 year olds straight out of high school and develop them in a beefed up G-league (better facilities, more resources generally), then each franchise needs its own minor league (G-league) team. Teams won't be able to share a G-league team because they may have different ideas on how to develop the youngsters, how much playing time to give, what sets to run, etc. But still, that's a minor consideration. The NBA should be able to add 4 G-league teams (they're at 26) pretty easily and soon. The negotiations over whether one year spent in the G-league will count towards the free agency clock will be more of a stickler, imo.

Acymetric
07-12-2018, 10:47 AM
It's not just about the number of players (although I wouldn't be surprised if the NBA added a 3rd round to the draft). If the idea is that NBA teams will draft 18 year olds straight out of high school and develop them in a beefed up G-league (better facilities, more resources generally), then each franchise needs its own minor league (G-league) team. Teams won't be able to share a G-league team because they may have different ideas on how to develop the youngsters, how much playing time to give, what sets to run, etc. But still, that's a minor consideration. The NBA should be able to add 4 G-league teams (they're at 26) pretty easily and soon. The negotiations over whether one year spent in the G-league will count towards the free agency clock will be more of a stickler, imo.
(emphasis mine)

I'm not convinced that is the idea, has Adam explicitly said that this would be part of the plan? My assumption, unless I hear something else from someone of authority (not a writer or someone on a message board giving their take of how things should be) is that the plan would be for things to work the same as they do now.

I do agree that the NBA should and will beef up the G-league soon, with each team having an affiliate. I just disagree that it is a prerequisite for allowing guys to declare straight to high school (or at least, I disagree that the NBA will feel it is a prerequisite).

Kedsy
07-12-2018, 10:59 AM
Top-round picks out of college typically don't sit in the minors for more than half a season / one full season.

FWIW, I don't think any first-round pick (not counting the compensatory picks, so 23 picks total) in the 2016 MLB draft has appeared in a major league game yet.

Acymetric
07-12-2018, 11:05 AM
FWIW, I don't think any first-round pick (not counting the compensatory picks, so 23 picks total) in the 2016 MLB draft has appeared in a major league game yet.

Only 10 of those picks were college players, which are the players we are talking about. Maybe 2016 was a down year for college-based draft prospects? I don't follow baseball at all, so I don't know if it would be significantly different in previous years.

Troublemaker
07-12-2018, 11:08 AM
(emphasis mine)

I'm not convinced that is the idea, has Adam explicitly said that this would be part of the plan? My assumption, unless I hear something else from someone of authority (not a writer or someone on a message board giving their take of how things should be) is that the plan would be for things to work the same as they do now.

For a topic that gets discussed a lot in basketball circles, there are actually no well-defined plans and precious few on-the-record quotes from NBA execs. That's one of the reasons why I had (correctly) assumed that lowering the age limit was going to take longer than people originally estimated last summer/fall; the NBA isn't even sure how it's going to go about accomplishing the task.

That said, Zach Lowe, in his news article about the league memo advising teams that the change will come (in 2021 at the earliest) (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23804458/memo-states-nba-draft-eligibility-shift-21) did have the following unsourced paragraph:

The league has long sought a true minor league system via its developmental G League. The G League will have 27 teams next season, with Portland, New Orleans and Denver the last NBA teams without G League affiliates. The NBA in April announced it will raise G League player salaries from a maximum of $26,000 per year to $35,000. The league last season introduced more lucrative two-way contracts for players who shuttle between the G League and the parent club.

In the end, I believe I am right (and will bet you on it if you want): The NBA will have 30 G League affiliates before the age limit is lowered.

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 11:14 AM
From the high school level? Yes. Definitely.

From the college level? No, not really. Top-round picks out of college typically don't sit in the minors for more than half a season / one full season. And that's probably more to do with having the ability to let them adjust in one of the half dozen affiliated farm teams as opposed to having the necessity to get them more experience.

- Chillin


FWIW, I don't think any first-round pick (not counting the compensatory picks, so 23 picks total) in the 2016 MLB draft has appeared in a major league game yet.

Aha! We could actually collect some data on the subject.

Acymetric
07-12-2018, 11:26 AM
For a topic that gets discussed a lot in basketball circles, there are actually no well-defined plans and precious few on-the-record quotes from NBA execs. That's one of the reasons why I had (correctly) assumed that lowering the age limit was going to take longer than people originally estimated last summer/fall; the NBA isn't even sure how it's going to go about accomplishing the task.

That said, Zach Lowe, in his news article about the league memo advising teams that the change will come (in 2021 at the earliest) (http://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/23804458/memo-states-nba-draft-eligibility-shift-21) did have the following unsourced paragraph:

The league has long sought a true minor league system via its developmental G League. The G League will have 27 teams next season, with Portland, New Orleans and Denver the last NBA teams without G League affiliates. The NBA in April announced it will raise G League player salaries from a maximum of $26,000 per year to $35,000. The league last season introduced more lucrative two-way contracts for players who shuttle between the G League and the parent club.

In the end, I believe I am right (and will bet you on it if you want): The NBA will have 30 G League affiliates before the age limit is lowered.

I wouldn't take that bet, because they very well may have 30 G League affiliates by then (I am not disagreeing that the NBA wants to expand the G-League to a true minor league system). I just do not believe the league's position will be that there must be 30 G league affiliates before the age limit is lowered. Given the timeline (minimum 3 years), it is certainly possible that each team will have an affiliate before the draft rule changes, but if they have not finished expanding the G-League I do not think that will delay the changes to draft eligibility for high schoolers.

MCFinARL
07-12-2018, 11:36 AM
Ha, how many 81 year old NCAA coaches can you name? K's on a recruiting hot streak which helps keep him around, but I'm not sure you'll find many who expect him to be Duke's coach five years from now.
Coaches aren't about to screw up recruitment by speaking of imminent departure.

Yes, but--thoughtful recruits and their families will ask, even if nothing is being said publicly. At this point, I think K would tell them--honestly as far as we know--that he has no plans to retire as long as he is feeling excited about the job. But you are right that realistically even a 75 or 76 year old coach is probably substantially less energetic and and more vulnerable to health-related issues than a 71 year old coach, and projecting much beyond 76 seems pretty unlikely. So this could become a significant issue if one-and-done goes in the next couple of years.

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 12:13 PM
FWIW, I don't think any first-round pick (not counting the compensatory picks, so 23 picks total) in the 2016 MLB draft has appeared in a major league game yet.

Yes, Keds, you're right. But that may be insufficient data.


Only 10 of those picks were college players, which are the players we are talking about. Maybe 2016 was a down year for college-based draft prospects? I don't follow baseball at all, so I don't know if it would be significantly different in previous years.

Correct. And 2 of those 10 (Senzel and Puk) have suffered major injuries, or else they may have been up already (Senzel almost assuredly).


Aha! We could actually collect some data on the subject.

My assumption is that it was a down draft.

As a point of comparison, the 2015 MLB Draft occured on 6/10/15 and featured the following players in the first round out of college (parenthesis showing MLB debut):

Dansby Swanson (8/17/16)
Alex Bregman (7/25/16)
Tyler Jay (n/a - injured)
Andrew Benintendi (8/2/16)
Carson Fulmer (7/17/16)
Ian Happ (5/13/17)
James Kaprielian (n/a)
Kevin Newman (n/a)
Richie Martin (n/a)
Walker Buehler (9/7/17)
DJ Stewart (n/a)
Taylor Ward (n/a)

So 4 of those top-end college picks were in the Majors by mid-year of their first pro season, which was essentially what I was trying to say. Two more had to wait 1.5 seasons. Clearly there's variance to when people get called up, but typically the big-name college guys are up pretty quickly and could probably be up immediately (meaning Day 1 of the next season) if it weren't for the extremely robust minor league system that MLB has in place.

- Chillin

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 01:11 PM
Yes, Keds, you're right. But that may be insufficient data.



Correct. And 2 of those 10 (Senzel and Puk) have suffered major injuries, or else they may have been up already (Senzel almost assuredly).



My assumption is that it was a down draft.

As a point of comparison, the 2015 MLB Draft occured on 6/10/15 and featured the following players in the first round out of college (parenthesis showing MLB debut):

Dansby Swanson (8/17/16)
Alex Bregman (7/25/16)
Tyler Jay (n/a - injured)
Andrew Benintendi (8/2/16)
Carson Fulmer (7/17/16)
Ian Happ (5/13/17)
James Kaprielian (n/a)
Kevin Newman (n/a)
Richie Martin (n/a)
Walker Buehler (9/7/17)
DJ Stewart (n/a)
Taylor Ward (n/a)

So 4 of those top-end college picks were in the Majors by mid-year of their first pro season, which was essentially what I was trying to say. Two more had to wait 1.5 seasons. Clearly there's variance to when people get called up, but typically the big-name college guys are up pretty quickly and could probably be up immediately (meaning Day 1 of the next season) if it weren't for the extremely robust minor league system that MLB has in place.

- Chillin

Mid-year of their first pro season? Don't players go immediately to a rookie league? No one made it to the majors within a year of their draft date.

Best college players -- four in first (or second) season as a pro. Two in the second (or third season) (2017) and five not yet in the majors three years after draft.

Really different outcome from the top twelve picks in the NBA and NFL drafts in any recent year, and the NBAers are mostly 19-20 YOs. How could there be so much more to learn in baseball?

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 01:35 PM
Yes, Keds, you're right. But that may be insufficient data.



Correct. And 2 of those 10 (Senzel and Puk) have suffered major injuries, or else they may have been up already (Senzel almost assuredly).



My assumption is that it was a down draft.

As a point of comparison, the 2015 MLB Draft occured on 6/10/15 and featured the following players in the first round out of college (parenthesis showing MLB debut):

Dansby Swanson (8/17/16)
Alex Bregman (7/25/16)
Tyler Jay (n/a - injured)
Andrew Benintendi (8/2/16)
Carson Fulmer (7/17/16)
Ian Happ (5/13/17)
James Kaprielian (n/a)
Kevin Newman (n/a)
Richie Martin (n/a)
Walker Buehler (9/7/17)
DJ Stewart (n/a)
Taylor Ward (n/a)

So 4 of those top-end college picks were in the Majors by mid-year of their first pro season, which was essentially what I was trying to say. Two more had to wait 1.5 seasons. Clearly there's variance to when people get called up, but typically the big-name college guys are up pretty quickly and could probably be up immediately (meaning Day 1 of the next season) if it weren't for the extremely robust minor league system that MLB has in place.

- Chillin

Since there is a rookie league (and even higher) it may be the second year. Note that four were in the Majors about one year after draft; two were two years after draft; and five have apparently not appeared in an MLB game three years after being drafted out of college (at least three college years, as I understand it).

Contrast that with the NBA and NFL drafts, where all of the top 12 are on the roster. And the NBAers are typically 19 or 20.

One difference, of course, is that there is no MLB equivalent to the NFL's "special teams," which enables a lot of guys to see action. A MLB team may play 12-15 players a game; the NFL team plays -- what -- around 40?

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 03:58 PM
Mid-year of their first pro season? Don't players go immediately to a rookie league? No one made it to the majors within a year of their draft date.

Best college players -- four in first (or second) season as a pro. Two in the second (or third season) (2017) and five not yet in the majors three years after draft.

Really different outcome from the top twelve picks in the NBA and NFL drafts in any recent year, and the NBAers are mostly 19-20 YOs. How could there be so much more to learn in baseball?

Well, it's not quite that simple. The draft occurs while the college season (postseason) is still going on. So some players are still playing in college for another few weeks after they are drafted. Then, once the college season is over, the MLB teams have to integrate them into a season already in full-swing at every level. Then, the AAA season, as an example, is usually over by the end of August. So if you're drafted, by the time your college season is over, you have about 2+ months of prep time in the minors, coming directly off a college season (which includes innings limits on pitching arms), learning to become a pro for the first time, all at once, and then join a Major League roster? That seems like quite an ask. For that reason, I don't think it's reasonable to count that first summer as an opportunity to join the big club. It's a whirlwind for a top college prospect in those first couple months. Then, there's the control aspect of how long a team gets contractual control of a player, and there's a definitive date on that every year. So a lot of teams will hold a call-up until after that definitive date to drag their control out for an extra year. That's another large part of it.

Comparing that to the NBA, the draft is during the basketball offseason, for both college and pros. So it's a much more natural fit for on-boarding a player and not really analogous to the baseball schedule. And, like I said previously, my belief is that it's much more a function of having the luxury of stashing players in the minors in baseball vs not having that luxury to the same extent in basketball.

I'm no expert, but that's how I see it in baseball. I don't look at it as a function of needing to "learn". That's part of it. But it's a much more complicated discussion than that. I think as the NBA continues to build out their "minors" you'll probably see a trend where draft picks increasingly start in the G-League. In fact, they sort of do already via Summer League. They are just different situations in many ways.

- Chillin

ETA: Another difference is the NBA's reliance on physical attributes. If you're 7'0" and mobile, you can immediately help an NBA team just by virtue of your size and speed. Baseball is less reliant on physical attributes. If you're the fastest, or strongest, or biggest guy out there, that doesn't necessarily help a team in baseball.

jimsumner
07-12-2018, 04:32 PM
Imagine the NBA having its draft in mid-March. And go from there.

Kedsy
07-12-2018, 04:45 PM
As a point of comparison, the 2015 MLB Draft occured on 6/10/15 and featured the following players in the first round out of college (parenthesis showing MLB debut):

Dansby Swanson (8/17/16)
Alex Bregman (7/25/16)
Tyler Jay (n/a - injured)
Andrew Benintendi (8/2/16)
Carson Fulmer (7/17/16)
Ian Happ (5/13/17)
James Kaprielian (n/a)
Kevin Newman (n/a)
Richie Martin (n/a)
Walker Buehler (9/7/17)
DJ Stewart (n/a)
Taylor Ward (n/a)

So 4 of those top-end college picks were in the Majors by mid-year of their first pro season, which was essentially what I was trying to say. Two more had to wait 1.5 seasons. Clearly there's variance to when people get called up, but typically the big-name college guys are up pretty quickly and could probably be up immediately (meaning Day 1 of the next season) if it weren't for the extremely robust minor league system that MLB has in place.

- Chillin

I agree that looking at just one season is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. It was just as much data as I was willing to look up.

I do have a small quibble with your analysis, however. All four of the guys you listed who were drafted in 2015 then came up in 2016 played a good portion of the 2015 minor league season and then the majority of the minor league season in 2016. So even the quick-to-the-majors guys played 1.1 to 1.5 seasons before they made the big time (in other words they didn't come up mid-year of their first pro-season; it was during their second), and the others had to wait 2 to 2.5 seasons before they came up (at some point during their third pro season).

It may seem a minor point (pun semi-intended), but to me that makes MLB a lot different than the NBA.

EDIT: I see Sage already brought up this point. Sorry for being late to the response party.

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 04:48 PM
I agree that looking at just one season is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. It was just as much data as I was willing to look up.

I do have a small quibble with your analysis, however. All four of the guys you listed who were drafted in 2015 then came up in 2016 played a good portion of the 2015 minor league season and then the majority of the minor league season in 2016. So even the quick-to-the-majors guys played 1.1 to 1.5 seasons before they made the big time (in other words they didn't come up mid-year of their first pro-season; it was during their second), and the others had to wait 2 to 2.5 seasons before they came up (at some point during their third pro season).

It may seem a minor point (pun semi-intended), but to me that makes MLB a lot different than the NBA.

Yes, I agree. The "bed of Procrustes" and all that about bending the data to fit the hypothesis.

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 05:49 PM
I agree that looking at just one season is insufficient data to draw a conclusion. It was just as much data as I was willing to look up.

I do have a small quibble with your analysis, however. All four of the guys you listed who were drafted in 2015 then came up in 2016 played a good portion of the 2015 minor league season and then the majority of the minor league season in 2016. So even the quick-to-the-majors guys played 1.1 to 1.5 seasons before they made the big time (in other words they didn't come up mid-year of their first pro-season; it was during their second), and the others had to wait 2 to 2.5 seasons before they came up (at some point during their third pro season).

It may seem a minor point (pun semi-intended), but to me that makes MLB a lot different than the NBA.

EDIT: I see Sage already brought up this point. Sorry for being late to the response party.


Yes, I agree. The "bed of Procrustes" and all that about bending the data to fit the hypothesis.

It's a bit of semantics at this point. I mostly agree with you guys.

Alex Bregman played 146 games in the minors. Benintendi played 151 games in the minors. Those aren't technically full MLB seasons (162 games), but they're close enough in practicality. I don't really have the time or willingness to research further on other guys or other years.

This discussion was borne out of the question "Is baseball a sport that requires years of [minor league] experience, comparative to other sports that largely don't?" I'm happy to just let the answer be, "Yes."

- Chillin

Kedsy
07-12-2018, 05:59 PM
Those aren't technically full MLB seasons (162 games), but they're close enough in practicality.

Minor league seasons are only 140 games long. Also, as baseball potentially has a lot of the equivalent of DNP-CDs, if a guy plays 80 games during one season and then 80 games during the next, I think most people would say he played two seasons. Just not every game in the two seasons.

Admittedly, these things also might be semantic.


This discussion was borne out of the question "Is baseball a sport that requires years of [minor league] experience, comparative to other sports that largely don't?" I'm happy to just let the answer be, "Yes."

Fine by me.

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 06:21 PM
Minor league seasons are only 140 games long. Also, as baseball potentially has a lot of the equivalent of DNP-CDs, if a guy plays 80 games during one season and then 80 games during the next, I think most people would say he played two seasons. Just not every game in the two seasons.

Admittedly, these things also might be semantic.



Fine by me.

Yeah, semantics. But fair enough.

Again, a lot of it has to do with the "Service Time" definition in MLB which deals with when a player is deemed to have completed his 1st Major League Year for contract reasons. It's not coincidence that most of these players were called up late summer. Benintendi, for example, came straight out of college into Short Season A-ball and batted .290. Then they moved him to Full Season A-ball to extend his season, where he promptly batted .351.

Next season he started at High A and batted .341 before getting the call to AA and batting .295 with 8 homies in half a season. The kid was more than likely major league ready on Day 1. But MLB has a robust system and a method for determining free agency, so the team used the minor league system to ease him in while also pushing out his free agency one year further. David Price was largely the same concept. Guy would have been great from Day 1. Same with Strasburg.

But these guys are more an exception than a rule. The point remains that the vast majority of draftees need seasoning in baseball, as opposed to other sports, like basketball. Sorry, I'll stop now.

- Chillin

Acymetric
07-12-2018, 06:26 PM
Yeah, semantics. But fair enough.

Again, a lot of it has to do with the "Service Time" definition in MLB which deals with when a player is deemed to have completed his 1st Major League Year for contract reasons. It's not coincidence that most of these players were called up late summer. Benintendi, for example, came straight out of college into Short Season A-ball and batted .290. Then they moved him to Full Season A-ball to extend his season, where he promptly batted .351.

Next season he started at High A and batted .341 before getting the call to AA and batting .295 with 8 homies in half a season. The kid was more than likely major league ready on Day 1. But MLB has a robust system and a method for determining free agency, so the team used the minor league system to ease him in while also pushing out his free agency one year further. David Price was largely the same concept. Guy would have been great from Day 1. Same with Strasburg.

But these guys are more an exception than a rule. The point remains that the vast majority of draftees need seasoning in baseball, as opposed to other sports, like basketball. Sorry, I'll stop now.

- Chillin

Well, I would argue that the majority of players in the other sports need the same (or would equally benefit from it), it just isn't available because there isn't a robust farm system in place for those leagues, so they end up going the trial by fire path playing straight away in the top league.

ChillinDuke
07-12-2018, 06:41 PM
Well, I would argue that the majority of players in the other sports need the same (or would equally benefit from it), it just isn't available because there isn't a robust farm system in place for those leagues, so they end up going the trial by fire path playing straight away in the top league.

I already tried arguing that and it didn't go well. So, I'm back to being agreeable for the sake of moving on. :cool:

- Chillin

OldPhiKap
07-12-2018, 06:44 PM
So . . . How ‘bout them Braves?


Oh, and on college basketball — kids who are ready should just go pro.

Duke will be fine. K will be fine. It will not impact his decision of when to retire in the slightest.

MarkD83
07-12-2018, 07:24 PM
It's a bit of semantics at this point. I mostly agree with you guys.

Alex Bregman played 146 games in the minors. Benintendi played 151 games in the minors. Those aren't technically full MLB seasons (162 games), but they're close enough in practicality. I don't really have the time or willingness to research further on other guys or other years.

This discussion was borne out of the question "Is baseball a sport that requires years of [minor league] experience, comparative to other sports that largely don't?" I'm happy to just let the answer be, "Yes."

- Chillin

I will add to that "Yes" answer with something a baseball coach wants told me. "Baseball is the hardest game to learn and play. I know that because if you are successful only 30% of the time you are in the Hall of Fame. That is not true of any other sport."

OldPhiKap
07-12-2018, 08:00 PM
I will add to that "Yes" answer with something a baseball coach wants told me. "Baseball is the hardest game to learn and play. I know that because if you are successful only 30% of the time you are in the Hall of Fame. That is not true of any other sport."

Wayne Gretzky only scored on 17.5% of his shots in an all-star career.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.html

I love baseball. But many things are harder than hitting a baseball I think.

NSDukeFan
07-12-2018, 09:28 PM
Wayne Gretzky only scored on 17.5% of his shots in an all-star career.

https://www.hockey-reference.com/players/g/gretzwa01.html

I love baseball. But many things are harder than hitting a baseball I think.

All-star career might be a bit of an understatement.

Reilly
07-12-2018, 09:50 PM
... he won't leave on his own accord until he feels the house is in order.

I thought order had been restored.

Philadukie
07-12-2018, 10:02 PM
Unless they change the rule to require college players to stay at least two years, we’re still going to see many one and done players. To me, from the perspective of college basketball, this seems to be more form than substance.

The players who aren’t quite good enough to go pro out of high school (mostly players outside the top 10 recruits) but have great freshman seasons will leave. In fact, those players might even be in higher demand than most of the high school players coming out, because they’ve proven something at the college level.

College basketball will then be in much the same situation as it is now, with the added headache of some committed high school players deciding to go pro at the last minute (like Livingston).

Isn’t this, in effect, just shifting the position of players along the supply curve?

OldPhiKap
07-12-2018, 10:10 PM
All-star career might be a bit of an understatement.

I learned on a different thread, it’s a litotes.

(Off-topic board rocks)

(Though not sure how to use the singular form of the word; thought it was a litote but google makes me question that)

Bluedog
07-12-2018, 10:12 PM
Do MLB draftees that get stashed in the minors get large guaranteed contracts like NBA draftees? That could also be a difference (if, in fact, there is one). NBA teams just made huge financial commitments to their draftees while perhaps that's not the same in the MLB until you're more "proven." Just different contracting process.... Although I believe several MLB guys do get guaranteed multi-million dollar contracts but I'm not sure it's the same as the NBA where everybody in certain rounds is GUARANTEED a guaranteed contract.

sagegrouse
07-12-2018, 10:31 PM
Do MLB draftees that get stashed in the minors get large guaranteed contracts like NBA draftees? That could also be a difference (if, in fact, there is one). NBA teams just made huge financial commitments to their draftees while perhaps that's not the same in the MLB until you're more "proven." Just different contracting process... Although I believe several MLB guys do get guaranteed multi-million dollar contracts but I'm not sure it's the same as the NBA where everybody in certain rounds is GUARANTEED a guaranteed contract.

Not sure, but they do get large bonuses -- upfront money (https://www.spotrac.com/mlb/draft/).

Wahoo2000
07-13-2018, 02:51 AM
Flipping the question, how will UVA fare? Since the advent of one-and-dones at Duke (the year Kyrie Irving was at Duke was 2010-11), UVA has finished 1st or 2nd in the ACC the last 5 years and averaged 6 losses overall. Arguably, much better than the pre one-and-done years (except for maybe 2006-2007). Perhaps UVA's "experienced" teams have fared well against the younger, one-and-done teams. And, perhaps Duke (not sure about Kentucky) will be better off for the potential rule changes.

I think UVA's success has had VERY little to do with the one-and-done era, and much more about Bennett getting his guys in place (the first season with a roster of entirely Bennett recruits was 13-14, the first ACC regular season and tournament titles under him). And it's not like UVA has had great success vs Duke anyway. Sure, Virginia beat Duke in the ACC title game in '14, and won at Cameron earlier this season, but I'm pretty sure those are Bennett's only victories over the Blue Devils. So I don't think having one and done players was any kind of detriment to Duke's chances vs Virginia. Inexperience hurts, sure, but probably less so than having lesser talented guys (at least I think this must be Coach K's opinion, as he has stuck with recruiting the one year players over targeting players more likely to be around multiple seasons).

Honestly, UVA could not really be much more successful as a *regular season* team. Heck, I'd even expand that to the ACC tournament, with 2 wins, a finals appearance, and a semifinal in the last 5 years. The NCAA tournament bugaboo is still a jinx that has to be solved, though the silver lining for me and other wahoo fans is that it's keeping Bennett away from taking other jobs...... hopefully long enough that he gets "entrenched" at UVA and sticks there for the remainder of his career. If so, I really think UVA can reach semi-"blueblood" status with another 25ish years under Bennett (assuming the current NCAA tournament issues are MOSTLY bad luck, etc and not representative of some fundamental flaw that for whatever reason isn't exposed in noncon/conference/conference tournament settings)

Troublemaker
07-13-2018, 08:24 AM
I think UVA's success has had VERY little to do with the one-and-done era, and much more about Bennett getting his guys in place (the first season with a roster of entirely Bennett recruits was 13-14, the first ACC regular season and tournament titles under him). And it's not like UVA has had great success vs Duke anyway. Sure, Virginia beat Duke in the ACC title game in '14, and won at Cameron earlier this season, but I'm pretty sure those are Bennett's only victories over the Blue Devils. So I don't think having one and done players was any kind of detriment to Duke's chances vs Virginia. Inexperience hurts, sure, but probably less so than having lesser talented guys (at least I think this must be Coach K's opinion, as he has stuck with recruiting the one year players over targeting players more likely to be around multiple seasons).

Agreed. Duke's really the only OAD school in the ACC, and we have a 9-3 record against UVA in the Bennett era (you guys also had a home win in 2013 (https://virginiasports.com/news/2013/3/1/Harris_Leads_Virginia_Past_No_3_Duke_73_68.aspx), btw), so it can't be OAD that has caused UVA's success. Furthermore, UVA went 16-2 twice and 17-1 once in the ACC. It doesn't matter what your recruiting strategy is; nobody is beating UVA for regular season conference titles when they turn it on like that. Those were amazing seasons.

sagegrouse
07-13-2018, 08:26 AM
The NCAA tournament bugaboo is still a jinx that has to be solved, though the silver lining for me and other wahoo fans is that it's keeping Bennett away from taking other jobs... hopefully long enough that he gets "entrenched" at UVA and sticks there for the remainder of his career. If so, I really think UVA can reach semi-"blueblood" status with another 25ish years under Bennett (assuming the current NCAA tournament issues are MOSTLY bad luck, etc and not representative of some fundamental flaw that for whatever reason isn't exposed in noncon/conference/conference tournament settings)

I think Bennett is a "lifer" at Virginia. He stands ready to inherit the mantle of "top coach" after K and Roy retire, and the ACC should remain the top conference.

OldPhiKap
07-13-2018, 09:08 AM
I think Bennett is a "lifer" at Virginia. He stands ready to inherit the mantle of "top coach" after K and Roy retire, and the ACC should remain the top conference.

Agreed, and he seems like a good fit across the board there.

HereBeforeCoachK
07-13-2018, 10:08 AM
Agreed, and he seems like a good fit across the board there.

And "good fit" is sometimes an underrated dynamic that should always be considered. Coach K and Duke are great fits...and as it turns out, K is a good fit for the one and done recruiting situation as well. I might not have predicted that 7-8 years ago.

Also, Cut and Duke are a good fit at least. Roy is a good fit for the cheats...and as you say, Bennet is for UVa. And so forth...

On the other hand, while Shaka Smart was a great fit at VCU, I don't think he fits at Texas. Neither did Charlie Strong at Texas for that matter, but Strong was a good fit at Louisville. And as speculated on this board in the past few months, perhaps Capel's departure to Pitt has to do with some in positions of authority not thinking he was a good fit at Duke as HC.

Meanwhile, I always thought Brad Stevens would be awesome fit at Duke. Of course, I did not think he would not be a good fit in the NBA, so I and many people were wrong there. Clearly.

Of course, Duke fired one of the best football coaches they ever had because some of the muckety mucks didn't think Red Wilson was a fit. They paid for that mistake for a while.

Sorry to ramble, but this idea of fit, or not a good fit, has always fascinated me. I think I bat around 75% in predicting this.

jimsumner
07-13-2018, 10:53 AM
I think Bennett is a "lifer" at Virginia. He stands ready to inherit the mantle of "top coach" after K and Roy retire, and the ACC should remain the top conference.

Nah. Once K and Williams retire, Jim Boeheim becomes the top coach.

Joking.

Sort of.

flyingdutchdevil
07-13-2018, 11:52 AM
I think Bennett is a "lifer" at Virginia. He stands ready to inherit the mantle of "top coach" after K and Roy retire, and the ACC should remain the top conference.

While I agree, the ACC has a lot of really exciting, young coaches. Bennett is the cream of the crop, but they also have Buzz Williams, Chris Mack, Brad Brownell, and Kevin Keats. I'd add Danny Manning and Josh Pastner, but I'm convinced both will not last until the start of the 2019 -20 season.

cato
07-13-2018, 05:48 PM
While I agree, the ACC has a lot of really exciting, young coaches. Bennett is the cream of the crop, but they also have Buzz Williams, Chris Mack, Brad Brownell, and Kevin Keats. I'd add Danny Manning and Josh Pastner, but I'm convinced both will not last until the start of the 2019 -20 season.

The ACC’s newest head coach may also prove to be pretty good.

budwom
07-15-2018, 11:55 AM
So with ESPN reporting that the NBA is quietly telling teams not to expect OAD to be gone before the 2022 draft, that would give K (should he desire) several more years under the current rules, which
might be a logical time for him to say adios (if not sooner).

gam7
07-15-2018, 01:07 PM
I think Bennett is a "lifer" at Virginia. He stands ready to inherit the mantle of "top coach" after K and Roy retire, and the ACC should remain the top conference.

Except for probably whoever replaces K and Roy.

flyingdutchdevil
07-16-2018, 10:35 AM
The ACC’s newest head coach may also prove to be pretty good.

Lol. Good point. He'll be a great recruiter (OU and Duke proves that). But can he be solid on the X's and O's and intangibles?

HereBeforeCoachK
07-16-2018, 06:52 PM
Except for probably whoever replaces K and Roy.

I do not agree that whoever replaces K and Roy will be considered the top coach automatically....if Bennett keeps winning, he will be until one of those replacements, or both, proves themselves.

Now, if somehow Brad Stevens decided all that money and fame in the NBA is boring....well.....

Steven43
07-16-2018, 09:25 PM
Now, if somehow Brad Stevens decided all that money and fame in the NBA is boring...well....
Pray with me, HBCK. Maybe together we can get it done.

Kedsy
07-16-2018, 09:56 PM
Pray with me, HBCK. Maybe together we can get it done.

Seriously, deep down in your heart of hearts, is there anybody here who truly believes that Brad Stevens will be the next coach at Duke University? If not, can we stop talking about it please?

Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15
07-17-2018, 05:19 AM
Seriously, deep down in your heart of hearts, is there anybody here who truly believes that Brad Stevens will be the next coach at Duke University? If not, can we stop talking about it please?

Don't you understand how the internet works? If you repeat it enough, it becomes true.

I'm holding out for Phil Jackson, myself.

flyingdutchdevil
07-17-2018, 06:52 AM
Seriously, deep down in your heart of hearts, is there anybody here who truly believes that Brad Stevens will be the next coach at Duke University? If not, can we stop talking about it please?

Would you rather we talk about how awesome the Celtics are? You gotta choose the Brad Stevens-is-the-next-Duke-coach narrative or the Celtics-are-the-new-Dubs narrative. ;)

budwom
07-17-2018, 08:10 AM
Seriously, deep down in your heart of hearts, is there anybody here who truly believes that Brad Stevens will be the next coach at Duke University? If not, can we stop talking about it please?

as long as Bill Simmons says his biggest nightmare is Stevens leaving to become Duke's next head coach, it's worth keeping alive, just for sport.

HereBeforeCoachK
07-17-2018, 08:29 AM
Seriously, deep down in your heart of hearts, is there anybody here who truly believes that Brad Stevens will be the next coach at Duke University? If not, can we stop talking about it please?

...well thank God it's a free country and we can still post stuff that is not "down deep in our heart of hearts." In fact, very little of what I post here is from the depths of my heart. Most of it is just fun, whimsical, surface stuff. There's not a single Duke team competing right now. What should we talk about?

Reddevil
07-17-2018, 09:51 AM
Nah. Once K and Williams retire, Jim Boeheim becomes the top coach.

Joking.

Sort of.

Don't you get the feeling that K will not let Boeheim outlast him?

Kedsy
07-17-2018, 09:59 AM
as long as Bill Simmons says his biggest nightmare is Stevens leaving to become Duke's next head coach, it's worth keeping alive, just for sport.

All right, I'll grant you that.

ChillinDuke
07-17-2018, 11:23 AM
Don't you get the feeling that K will not let Boeheim outlast him?

Kinda, yeah. I do.

- Chillin

Steven43
07-17-2018, 06:10 PM
as long as Bill Simmons says his biggest nightmare is Stevens leaving to become Duke's next head coach, it's worth keeping alive, just for sport.

I don’t understand this whole Bill Simmons thing. I have heard him make many negative comments about Duke over the years without ever explaining why he feels that way. What really makes it strange is the fact that he has never been a fan of college basketball and still isn’t, so why would he have strong feelings about Duke one way or the other? I just don’t get it.

cato
07-17-2018, 08:23 PM
Would you rather we talk about how awesome the Celtics are? You gotta choose the Brad Stevens-is-the-next-Duke-coach narrative or the Celtics-are-the-new-Dubs narrative. ;)

Brad-Stevens-to-Duke is more likely than anyone being the new Dubs. This team is one and done. Once it is gone, we will not see another like it for decades.

Billy Dat
07-18-2018, 10:17 AM
I don’t understand this whole Bill Simmons thing. I have heard him make many negative comments about Duke over the years without ever explaining why he feels that way. What really makes it strange is the fact that he has never been a fan of college basketball and still isn’t, so why would he have strong feelings about Duke one way or the other? I just don’t get it.

Here's my take as a Simmons fan who has tried to figure out this very question you pose. I have heard him say that he likes to choose sides in rivalries and that he chose UNC because the majority of his friends were UNC fans. If we assume that as his professional media career grew, many of those friends were professional colleagues, I think we can assume that he interfaced with a ton of the UNC journalism grads littering the sports landscape. One of them, Tate Frazier, is currently a podcast host/producer for The Ringer. One of his primary mentors at ESPN, John Skipper, is a UNC grad and huge fan.

With that as the "foundation", I think he also generally thinks that K is a jerk, in the same way that many others think he's a jerk based on the usual list of grievances (Amex commercials, Chronicle reporters, Dillon Brooks lecture).

Generally, not counting his Boston teams, he roots for the little guy and Duke aint that.

Throw in Duke refusing to provide Duke/Carolina game press passes to Grantland and I think we've covered most of the ground.

gam7
07-18-2018, 10:50 AM
I do not agree that whoever replaces K and Roy will be considered the top coach automatically...if Bennett keeps winning, he will be until one of those replacements, or both, proves themselves.

Now, if somehow Brad Stevens decided all that money and fame in the NBA is boring...well....

I didn't say that those replacements would be considered the top coaches automatically. My point was that those two programs are of a stature that may allow them to hire a coach that is better than Bennett. I think that that will probably be the case.

CameronBornAndBred
11-15-2018, 04:22 PM
Zion is this lady's poster boy for getting rid of OAD yesterday.


Zion Williamson doesn’t belong in college.

With every game he plays, every opponent he dismantles, every did-you-see-THAT highlight he produces, the Duke freshman shows why the NBA needs to scrap its ridiculous “one-and-done” rule. Three games into his college career, it’s clear Williamson is more ready for the NBA than some of the guys already there.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/dukes-zion-williamson-making-a-mockery-of-one-and-done-rule/ar-BBPKnRH?li=BBnbfcL

jimsumner
11-15-2018, 05:38 PM
Zion is this lady's poster boy for getting rid of OAD yesterday.



https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/ncaabk/dukes-zion-williamson-making-a-mockery-of-one-and-done-rule/ar-BBPKnRH?li=BBnbfcL

"Some?"